Negotiating difference, and thereby also unavoidably gauging similarity, is at the core of sociation. Its intrinsic element of referring to others as well as to the self or to selves is often accompanied by reflections on belonging and non-belonging, on being inside and outside of collectives and on respective borders. This forms the second central aspect and point of reference here, which is to view society as a flexible point of reference, as horizon.
In this book, the focus on difference, its negotiation and partly reflection in practice translates the conflict-focused theorisation I have developed in my previous book, Theorizing Society in a Global Context (Krossa 2013; see also 2009), into the area of empirical studies and their methodologies. A more concept-oriented book on the subject has been published in the meantime, primarily for teaching purposes and in German (Krossa 2018). From their varying angles, all three books are based on the assumption that it is worthwhile readdressing the concept of societyâin a non-essentialist way, of courseâand developing it further for todayâs world with the instruments of conflict theory. Consequently, the three books discuss the concept of society in a global context, i.e. with direct reference to globalisation, and more precisely, to glocalisation, defined as a process, âthrough which ideas and practices spread all over the world, by adapting to local or particular conditions and âfind a placeâ thereâ (Robertson 2003, 583; see also 1992, 173f.). Glocalisation has two main consequences: âthe compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a wholeâ (Robertson 1992, 8).
Since the main idea I developed in Theorizing Society is the key theoretical point of reference of the current book, I will briefly recapitulate the main thesis here.
How is social life possible based on difference that changes its manifestations but is, in principle, permanent? I looked at extreme forms of social contact, namely those forms at the margins that raise the question whether they still represent a form of socially connectable communication that enables some kind of exchange. That suggested question originated in the writings of Georg Simmel (1992), who opened the discussion by assuming that a combination of accordance and dissent is the condition of any exchange with a potential for social connectivity. He speaks of interplays [Wechselwirkungen]. Simmel discusses particularly trenchantly the question of whether war in the sense of extreme dissent still entails a potential for social connectivity. He has doubts at first, but later confirms it, making it conditional on some kind of existing explicit or implicit agreement though, for instance, that members of the army and civilians are to be treated differently. On this basis, he develops his groundbreaking hypothesis that, except for the absolute, extreme form of extinction, an element of conflict is required for any sociation. I have systematised this further by looking at the opposite pole in more detail, namely the one of âextreme harmonyâ, where total agreement is as great an obstacle for sociation as is total dissent. This has resulted in a continuum between total dissent and total accordance. In both extreme cases, the combination of consent and dissent necessary for sociation is absent: no consent at the âextreme dissentâ pole, and no dissent at the âextreme consentâ pole. In contrast to this, all manifestations within the broad space in between these extreme poles have the potential for social connectivity. This continuum not only opens up possibilities for allocating communications along a type of line, but actually opens up a three-dimensional space, as it allows for ambivalent combinations, e.g. combinations of the two extreme poles occurring simultaneously. This is giving a hugely abbreviated summary here, merely in order to convey the most general idea; however, you can find this theoretical approach and a number of closely related concepts discussed at length and in a variety of ways in Theorizing Society in a Global Context.
This is, fundamentally, the starting point for the present book, a theoretically informed and inspired springboard used to see if I can substantiate my theoretical findings with a closely related empirical analysis and thereby demonstrate the practical viability of my theoretical suggestions. To this end I now pose the following question: how is difference and similarity negotiated in practice? Are particular integrative and disintegrative potentials or even effects systematically linked with specific forms and strategies of conflict communication? What role do ambivalent forms play that combine different elements? And ultimately how do the results of my empirical work reflect on and further my theoretical work when discussing society in a global context?
Practically speaking, my first task was to decide where to look for interesting, potentially informative and empirically examinable fields and data material. Personally speaking, after so many years of theoretical research, I was not sure if anyone would actually enjoy me carrying out empirical research, which notoriously includes speaking with real people! As it turned out most of my âobjects of studyâ evidently liked speaking with me, and I surprised myself by how happy (and comfortable) I actually am with it. So please feel encouraged if you are in a similar situation!
All empirical forms and their researching are necessarily framed in specific time and space and, in January 2015, it was admittedly not very difficult to decide what and whom to turn to if one was interested in globalisation/glocalisation and society in a conflict-theoretical perspective. A so-called ârefugee waveâ was ârollingâ (note the semantics!), though had not yet reached its peak, that was based on two main and complementary facts. On one side of the coin, in several countries, especially Syria, there was war and/or serious destabilisation that forced many to flee. Several millions had only left Syria up to that point. Most of them stayed in neighbouring countries, but several hundred thousands had applied for asylum in Europe. Exact numbers do not exist. However, for 2015, it was estimated that Germany took in about a million people. On the other side of the coin, the historic experience of the Second World War in Germany and the widespread acknowledgement there of the perpetration of terrible misdeeds were, and still are thoroughly reflected in public consciousness, largely due to all-embracing state education practices.1 Also, flight and (re-)integration had been experienced by a substantial number of its inhabitants, and different individual experiences are often still actively remembered in families.2 Obviously, this is a radical abbreviation of a complex matter, but as is well known, this resulted for Germans in an ambiguous national identity which led to a tendency across large parts of society to adopt (their own interpretations of) transnational or cosmopolitan values, accompanied by the fact that the number of nationalists increased. For legal, economic or political reasons, each applicant for asylum in Germany has the right to have their application looked into individually,3 and when Germans applauded newly arriving refugees at train stations, Angela Merkelâs policy gave the impression of her society being a relatively welcoming and safe placeâGermany seemed to be an attractive destination for a new beginning for many individuals.
Against this background, in the acute situation of comparatively large groups of migrants arriving in Germany, many individuals wanted to âhelpâ4 and action groups sprang up everywhere, in villages and cities alike. Their characteristic structure was, in a nutshell, the following. Of the volunteers, the largest proportion was typically women in their fifties and upwards but also others transcending age/gender/belief differences. These were meeting refugees of whom the largest group were young Arabic men but also others right across the age/gender/country of origin divide mainly in order to help and foster integration (volunteers) and receiving information and various kinds of support (refugees).
Although I am not a sociologist of migration I nevertheless decided to analyse and thereby make use of this subject, its issues, actors, materials, and practices, and it is no coincidence that they form the empirical point of reference of this book. Firstly, migration is a sign of our times, both quantitatively and regarding its conscious perception. It would be difficult to write about any idea of society today without taking that into account. This forms the background, secondly, for the fact that migration simply makes difference (and any related attempts to deal with it) particularly visible. This is an advantage for research. Difference in fact is everywhere, but here we can see it quite clearly, in a specific, socially concentrated form, and at the same time immediately referring to matters beyond itself. A welcome side effect is of course that my elaborations are so connectable to, or even compatible with the vast literature that is currently being produced in the field of ârealâ migration studies. Importantly for me, then, migration is (interpreted as) a direct impulse necessitating integration. Ignoring, for the time being, that in much everyday life integration is construed less as some kind of mutual responsiveness and rather as assimilationâof âthe othersâ to âourâ ways, whatever that may beâ, in principle, integration as a more processual concept combines difference and similarity generically.
In this sense, migration functions as a magnifier that makes it possible to see what the characteristic processes of sociation and non-sociation are everywhere and what the communicative forms are they are based on. These can be even more intensely and consciously observed in our own times and especially in phases of enhanced mobility, intensified human movement across borders, subsequent contacts with âdifferenceâ and various forms of exchange. By now it should be clear that it is the principle of integration, and more precisely sociation, that is the real focus of my interest in society, and that migration lends itself for illustration, though especially with respect to empirical research it is a hugely interesting and informative field in itself.
In concrete terms, I can now draw on mi...