S A Hamed Hosseini

The University of Newcastle, Australia · Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Earlier perceptions of causality seem to assume causality as a one-off trajectory of change rather than a recurring process. This is rooted in a substantial ontology that gives primacy to substance over relations and becoming (Renault, 2016, pp. 20-21), despite the fact that Aristotle did not seem to consider substances as static or devoid of internal becoming (Eslick, 1958).

One problematic use of terminology happens when the human purpose is confused or conflated with the final cause. A final cause (or purpose) for Aristotle is a teleological one that would only make sense when this kind of causality is seen as a recurring (evolutionary) process. The final cause of a house is ‘for which’ it is made/does exist, i.e., the function that it practically plays as a shelter or protection.

To be a cause, the final cause of something cannot be reduced to the reason for that thing. It should not then be equated with the purpose as is in the intentions of those who build the house. Surely those who purpose the house aim to achieve the expected end result, that is, all the major functionalities of the house qua house; they may not, or may partly, achieve the goals. The purpose of building a house is the subjective aspect of the final cause that drives agency and thus directs the efficient cause. The plan of the house as it moves from mere thoughts to the full realization of its structure (formal cause) as well as the selection of the most appropriate matters with suitable qualities (material cause) all convey the final cause from the onset to the end. But building a house is not an isolated line of action/causation.

For the final cause to have causal power, it needs to be retroactively present through the other three types of causes and to be present from the onset, and itself must be the product of earlier cycles of house-building activities. Houses can be seen as ‘actual occasions of experience’ (using a rather Whiteheadian terminology) that through the process of concrescence inherit (‘prehend’, ‘feel’) the data from the past objectified occasions, mediated by human agency, and the potentialities for alterity from the eternal objects (pure potentials), necessary for their reorganization.

Processual ontology (which does not need to be based on a substance-less cosmology since substances can be seen as emergent properties or moments ontologically present and eternally evolving – via substantial motions and/or motus) can be helpful here since, as per this approach, full reality should be given to becoming and to relations, and thus causation should be seen as a process in which substantial and relational properties are (Hegelian) moments in the process (Renault, 2016).

Renault, E. (2016) Critical Theory and Processual Social Ontology, Journal of Social Ontology, 2(1), 17-32. https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2015-0013.

Eslick, L. J. (1958) Substance, Change, and Causality in Whitehead, Philosophy and phenomenological research, 18(4), 503-13.

Submit a Manuscript to the Journal Globalizations For a Special Issue Edited by Hosseini and Gills: The Prospects of a Pluriversal Transition to a Post-Capitalist, ^Post-Carbon Future https://think.taylorandfrancis.com/special_issues/globalizations-prospects-pluriversal/?_ga=2.230345308.1303881948.1665620569-1333741824.1665620569&_gl=1*8m7ymf*_ga*MTMzMzc0MTgyNC4xNjY1NjIwNTY5*_ga_0HYE8YG0M6*MTY2NTYyMDU2OS4xLjEuMTY2NTYyMDU5Mi4wLjAuMA..

One important thing to bear in mind, as per some bitter experiences, is that some software programs 'slightly' alter the data if the data is fed to them via excel sheets with formulas in them; the solution is just to simply copy and paste the data values only (excluding formulas) before uploading the file. I was puzzled when I saw that an organization (that is not very active) kept coming up with high centrality measures; that made me very confused for a while and suspicious of something going wrong. Only a close look at the differences made me believe it must be the excel sheet formulas; after removing them, it then worked well.

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is one of the most useful tools we have to determine the mediators and moderates in the integrated models. However, when (or in fact especially since in many cases) the relationships between a good number of variables are mutual (due to ambiguity in direction), the determination of the two roles (moderation vs mediation) becomes complex. As shown here in this simplified model (see the attached picture)- originally developed out of an SEM analysis, we may be able to overcome the confusion by seeking help from SNA (social network analysis).

 The nodes will surely be the variables and the beta coefficients can be used to adjust the connection weights. The nodes with the highest “betweenness” centrality appear to play a stronger role as "mediators" (having more control over the flow of causality) whereas the ones with higher “eigenvector” centrality can be argued to play a more genuine moderating role (even if their influence is low). Closeness may indicate a greater integration between the two roles in the case of those variables with higher centrality.   Mediation and Moderation are then treated as interrelated continuums rather than categories. The interpretation of the model then can be further advanced through the discussion of the centrality of each variable in playing such roles and thus the most effective ways of intervention can be speculated.

In the current mainstream macro- and even meso- sociology, intervention is a rather meaningless concept and this perhaps rather explains the lack of interest among sociologists in such arguments. However, with the growing intensification of social upheavals and the return of conscientious social sciences to the scene, it would be a misconception to think that the lack of adequate socio-historical agency exercised by social scientists (as social scientists) should reduce our arguments to almost mere descriptions of sad realities depicted in the relationships between social factors and phenomena. In a transformative scholarship, a research project is a political one and thus is meant to influence change by empowering the progressive agents of change and any knowledge about the centrality of the factors that can be transferred to the agents of collective action would serve the purpose.

Since I was given the privilege of playing the lead editor role, I felt obliged to share my reflections on the project.

The editorial and authorship teams made great efforts to create a truly interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, and ‘pluriversal’ piece of work. Surely there are many areas in need of further betterment in its next editions. I hope the volume will instigate critical reviews/feedback. This is what I am really longing for, as what primarily mattered to me (and the co-editors) was to create a platform for reshaping the field, rather than simply improve my/our metrics; so overcoming my/our pragmatist instinct was not a big deal!

Promoting transformative scholarship is the key feature of the volume which is arguably worth pursuing further through our research projects and teaching programs, especially in these highly troubled times. If interested in what this means, please see the introduction and the first chapters.

The project turned out to be more than creating a conventional handbook. Many chapters contribute to the advancement of their fields in addition to updating their readers about the most recent advancements. Authors were asked to critically engage with the theory/literature, present their critical views while drawing on sensible examples and/or their research findings, and finally discuss the implications for progressive change/forces.

We did not start from a general call for participation. The aim was not to create a loosely assembled collection (like what normally comes out of conferences). We had to start with carefully studying potential contributors before inviting them to make sure that maximum consistency would be secured.

We also aimed to benefit from both established and emerging authors. A very time-consuming process in the beginning but was absolutely worth it: Initially, more than 60 people were invited to submit their proposals after consulting our concept note. We had to go through two more rounds of invitations to finally find the right number of suitable contributors. Having well-known scholars in the editorial team surely made a great difference in this regard, increasing the rate of positive responses and sustained commitments to the end.

Even in this case, there is still a risk that some inputs may diverge from the original goals. To stay committed to the objectives of the project (i.e. the transformative agenda), the editorial team had to work closely with the authors; in some cases, the chapters were tirelessly revised and reviewed many times. We proudly spent our little finances to lessen language barriers, making sure that our great non-English speaking minds would remain included.

Part I chapters revisit the theory and call for profound shifts in our conceptual systems to reflect the recent global transitions.

Among other key features are the handbooks' commitment to giving more space to experiences and insights from the global south, to push for feminization, decoloniality, and radicalization of our scholarships, to publicize progressive alternatives to the current lethal dependency on capital, carbon, consumerism, commodification, compulsive growth, and populist politics.

With the current Thirdworldization of the majorities in the so-called First World going on (under the authoritarian (post)neoliberal economic regime), the global North can learn a lot from the global South!

While the South chronologically follows the North as a role model of economic development, it is ahead of the North in experiencing the repercussions of maldevelopment, mostly due to the lack of effective indigenization of change under truly democratic institutions. With the recent demise of democracy in the North, one can envisage the foreseeable future, simply by reflecting on the Southern experiences. Who could believe the richest country in the world would record the highest pandemic death toll?

It will be unfair not to acknowledge the impact of our classrooms and our bright students in shaping our research outcomes; something that once upon a time we used to do more often in our publications! Maintaining our teaching-research nexus viable plays a decisive role in poromoting the originality of our research outcomes. How we can continue doing this under the current harsh conditions is a great question!

The book’s concept note/proposal that I had the privilege of first drafting it was inspired by my earlier experience of restructuring SOCA2400_Future Societies beyond Capitalist Globalisation. Students’ engagement and reception of the course was significantly improved when greater weight was given to the discussions of progressive alternatives, visions of the future, and transformative initiatives (vis-à-vis the routine radial criticisms of neoliberalism that are now oversaturated in many textbooks). The handbook’s structure replicates the course structure: first foundational arguments, then myth-busting and criticisms of what is sold to masses as reality, and then critically engaging with alternatives/movements as the ultimate future-making forces.

Perhaps making our courses more future-oriented, more imaginative, more radically liberating, more inclusive of underheard voices, and thus more appealing, can be a meaningful way to genuinely optimize them for future change? I suppose we agree that our imminent societies do not need passive occupiers of the so-called future jobs (mostly predicted to be even more precarious in the post-COVID world); rather we will need proactive, creative, and open-minded social transformers? This book is hopefully one step in that direction.

The edited collection has so far received support and endorsements from several leading global scholars in the field, such as Vandana Shiva, Susan George, Manfred B. Steger, Henry Veltmeyer, Brigitte Aulenbacher, and Adam David Morton.

"We live through a violent transformation of economy and society, as billionaires try to turn our bodies and minds into the latest colony to be mined for "data". But this handbook is a guide to shaping a future beyond the violence of colonialism, slavery, and witch hunts. Through its various theoretical lenses, we can begin to imagine a common future rooted in our diversities." -- Vanda Shiva, Ph.D., “One of the most powerful feminists in the globe” (Forbes' 2010); Founder of Research Foundation for Science, Technology, and Ecology in Dehra Dun; Weissberg Chair in Human Rights and Social Justice (2013-14)

"This impressive handbook sheds light on a period of globalization characterized by far-reaching transformations of capitalism and society. It fascinates by bridging the gap between ecology, economy, and politics; profound theoretical approaches help us understand the present interregnum; innovative empirical research and alternative visions let us imagine future ways of life." -- Brigitte Aulenbacher, Head, Theory of Society and Social Analyses, Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria

“It’s full of original thinking and new takes on a changing, elastic, often scary world and how we try to understand it." - Susan George, President of the Transnational Institute.

“Erudite and wide-ranging in its topics, this comprehensive volume combines insightful assessments of the deepening global crises of our time with the innovative construction of counter-hegemonic strategies for a variety of emancipatory struggles in both global and local arenas." - Manfred B. Steger, Professor of Sociology, the University of Hawai'i at Manoa and Global Professorial Fellow, Western Sydney University

“…this stunning handbook…will take you on a mind-stretching voyage you do not want to miss. Highly recommended" -- Adam David Morton, Professor in the Department of Political Economy, University of Sydney

The first paragraph of the introduction chapter reflects the timeliness of its publication:

We finalize this introduction in mid-March 2020; a time marked by a global pandemic that is already having devastating consequences for diverse communities across political, social, and economic terrains. Embedded within this are emergent and potentially immense shifts in the current fragile economic and political global order. The new decade will perhaps be remembered as a pivotal moment in which trends towards increasing state and market authoritarianisms and multiple forms of progressive alternatives come head to head. Our hope is that this Handbook can contribute to the latter and to a radical transformative praxis which will enable us to come out of the ashes of breakdown into a new dawn of possibility.

10 chapters in Part I (Theory in Transition) provide new analyses and theories of 21st Century global changes, creating the longer perspective needed to proactively conceptualize historical events as they unfold.

19 chapters in Part II (Transformation in the interregnum) discuss a wide range of socio-economic, socio-political, and socio-ecological challenges the world is facing today. These include the crises of democracy, global governance, inequality, insecurity, precarity, public health, education, displacement, social uprisings, war and violence, ecological catastrophes and climate change.

And finally, 9 chapters in Part III (Alternative futures) discuss progressive responses including ‘alternative modes of livelihood’ and communal solidarity beyond dependence on carbon, capital, commodity, constant growth, and corporate-led politics.

Researchers and students from around the world and across the fields of sociology, politics, anthropology, gender studies, international development, international relations, geography, political economy, ecological studies, and philosophy will find this an invaluable and fresh guide in the 21st century.

The book is featured on the Routledge website at https://www.routledge.com

Here are some thoughts to stimulate the discussion (initially presented in my weblog - Global Alternatives - in 2015)

David Harvey in his short criticism of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in 21 Century, rightfully questions Piketty’s definition of ‘capital’ as one of his central difficulties:

However, David Harvey’s definition of capital remains very much influenced by its 19th century Marxian understanding of industrial capitalism. In the 21st century, capital deserves a more comprehensive and more representative definition than just a process in which money makes more money through production relations. I, therefore, propose the following definition:

Capital is a social process and not just an economic one since it involves specific sociocultural and political modes of sociability as well as particular modes of livelihood. It is based on exploitation rather than ‘self-sustaining use’ of human and natural resources. Here, ‘exploitation’ is distinguished from ‘use’, since the former makes (1) the resources to lose their capacity to be sustainability reproduced over generations, and (2) the communities to lose their capacity to ‘determine’ the levels and ways of use democratically and autonomously.

Thus, a comprehensive analysis of capital and capitalist systems requires not only the theorization of the exploitation of labor, land, and nature through the processes of production (the first dimension of exploitation) but also of financial speculations, enclosures, and hoardings, that are determined undemocratically through the chaotic interplay between the uncertainty of market mechanisms and the plutocratic influences of financial monopolies or corporate powerhouses. The latter includes what David Harvey calls ‘capital strike’ used by monopolies to cause “artificial scarcity” and thereby increase the “rate of return” or what I would like to call in more general terms, ‘spurious surplus’, which has real impacts on real production processes. Despite acknowledging this fact, Harvey (unlike Piketty) unjustifiably excludes the latter process of producing spurious surplus from his definition of capital!:

The withdrawal of capital from productive circulation is part of (and has become increasingly a significant component of) today’s capital. This is because, according to our new definition of capital, even ‘capital strikes’ are about extracting and controlling surplus (no matter how spurious it is) and it prevents democratic determination and sustainable use of resources associated with the withdrawn capital.

Accordingly, ‘alternatives to capital’, from this point of view, consist of a broad range of approaches from reformist orientations to democratic social regulations of ‘capital’ (like post/Keynesian visions), to antipodal alternatives to the existence of capital (like anti-market, anti-trade initiatives).

——————————————

Citation: Hosseini, S. A. H. (2015). “Capital and Its Alternatives: Why capital in the 21st century needs a better definition.” GlobalAlternativesWordpress.com, Retrieved 22 Feb 2015, from https://globalalternatives.wordpress.com/2015/02/22/capital-and-its-alternatives/

In our post-globalist/post-cosmopolitanism era, how useful the concepts of transversality and transversalism are in helping us understand the dynamisms of socio-political and ideological convergences and divergences in the pluriverse of progressive transformative forces and movements?

I am very pleased to see that the notion of Transversal Cosmopolitanism/Transversalism which was initially introduced for the first time to the literature in 2013 through a journal article on the Occupy Movements (and then later extended through several publications single-authored and co-authored with Barry K Gills, James Goodman, and Ariel Salleh) is gaining some attraction to the extent of being used as a new framework for case studies. (see the attachment here or https://globalalternatives.wordpress.com/2021/10/27/transversal-cosmopolitanism-transversalism-in-the-emerging-literature/)

The conversation around the new approach, its strengths, and limitations, is thus worth pursuing through multiple mediums.

For those interested:

Researching DoM is about exploring how a group of people is socially marginalized and what are the main social mechanisms of such a process. In this section, I attempt to develop a preliminary definition of ‘social marginalization’ as a socio-anthropological concept as well as a general research and debate framework that needs to be adapted and contextualized depending on the social context of the study.

Marginalization is usually associated with the lack of: 1.    representation in decision-making processes 2.    recognition of rights and responsibilities 3.    equal redistribution of resources and services

Studies of social inequality mostly provide us with rather static pictures of society in terms of the distribution of income, wealth, social opportunities. They pay less attention to the dynamics of social inequality

In contrast, studies of social marginalization open up a new angle in understanding how social inequalities and exclusions happen and evolve. These studies are expected to be theoretically integrative, multi-method, and cross-disciplinary regarding the multidimensionality of social marginalization.

(c) S A Hamed Hosseini, 2009

In a linear bivariate status, the coefficient and the slope are not actually divorced, and thus we can NOT claim, with certainty, that the higher r does never mean higher correspondence in change.

It all depends on the SDs (standard deviations) in a linear bivariate regression. In a linear regression when we have only two variables (Y and X), b is simply a factor of r (by the ratio of SDs). This means a 1 SD change in X is associated with a (r. SD) change in Y. Use the regression line equation, change your X by one SDx and you will see Y changes by r times SDy.

So instead of saying that a higher coefficient of determination should never be interpreted to mean that (say) older people are more strongly conservative than younger people (compared to when the coefficient is lower), I would say, “it may not always necessarily mean that …”

If we think about it, it sounds meaningless to say that r squared shows how much variation in Y can be explained by X and then say this is “merely” a sign of tightness of fit to the line, and has nothing to do with the association/prediction of change in them.

The “percentage of variation in Y” for 100 per cent change in X can surely be accurately measured by using b; that would then be (b . (X1/(a+bX1)) * 100%; X1 just any point on the regression line (rather than an observed case).

In the absence of doing regression, r can still give us (though not accurately and not always) an estimation of prediction.

Let’s keep the relation between b (in the above equation) and r in mind; b can be replaced by r times SDy/SDx (standardized or not). So, the higher b, the higher r!

Surely we cannot extract a “certain” and “accurate” prediction of Y by merely using r unless we use the SDs as the units of change. This would of course depend on the ratio of the SDs. When the SD of X is much higher than the SD of Y, this means that the cases are closer to a rather horizontal line (thus a smaller slope with a higher correlation coefficient) preventing us to conclude that the higher age is strongly associated with higher conservatism. But that is only when such a condition is the case.

In an opposite scenario, if the SDx is much smaller than SDy and even if the correlation is small, then the slope goes up sharply, meaning many cases are more scattered vertically than horizontally but let’s say still away from the regression line, and we can, despite having a smaller correlation, see that in a range of ages, the older people are much more conservative (as displayed by the higher slope) even if r is not that high.

As a challenge, let’s think that that in a strange scenario, we are only given the r to teach our students about predictability (and we do not want to bring SDs into conversation). What would be the best bet for predictability?

We can perhaps see if the “ratio of the standard deviations” (as an indicator of tightness) multiplied by X1/(a+bX1) in the above equation would produce a rough estimation of r!? if the answer is kind of positive, this rough estimation of r is being multiplied by r itself would take us somewhere not too remotely far from a prediction [r. (SDy/SDx) . (X1/(a+bX1)] ≈ r . r ≈ r2

S A Hamed Hosseini

For those interested, here is an interesting article on different functions and features of the Correlation Coefficient, partly addressing the interesting relation between r and regression slope; or r as a factor of slope

– a highly tight fitness around a rather horizontal regression line in many cases has both the r and the slope closer to zero.

Surely correlation is widely misused but also has some interesting faculties beyond a simple sense of association or tightness. Surely all alone is far from “confirming” causation but can be indicative of it if other conditions are met; a lot of more sophisticated modeling methods to get as close as possible to a sense of causation are correlation-based etc. So some non-definitive reflections on causality/predictability should be tolerated if especially the reflections on correlation are backed up with some more sophisticated literature.

How far should the Left take the burden of responsibility for the global rise of right wing populism? For what failures should the Left  be kept responsible? For not being political enough? or not being able to produce a universal alternative? for being so fragmented? or not being nationalist enough? for being contaminated with cosmopolitanist optimism or globalist vision? for becoming too committed to social divisions and discrimination? or for nothing at all as the Left has been too weakened to overcome its failures?  (certainly what we just simply call the Left covers a broad range of views from center left to far left but the same thing can be said about the right and that populist right has gained momentum whereas populist left is left behind).