We are pleased to annouce the workshop, ”Anomie in Asia Workshop 16-17 November 2013”.

Date: 9:30-17:30 November 29 – 10:00- 17:30 December 1, 2013
Organized by Moving Matters, University of Amsterdam, and CSEAS, Kyoto University
Venue: Medium Seminar Room, Inamori Memorial Foundation Building (third floor), Kyoto University

The concept of ‘anomie’ is clearly among the grounding concepts in the social sciences; together with socialization, deviance, boundaries and many others, these basic notions have a long history of being defined, redefined and contested across and within different disciplines. This is precisely the reason why anomie can, on the one hand, be critically revisited in its analytical capacity to highlight and clarify contemporary social phenomena, and, on the other hand, serve as an interesting common denominator for bringing together seemingly unrelated research projects from across Asia.
Coined by Durkheim in his study on suicide (1897), and fleshed out in a more elaborate and user-friendly fashion by Merton’s (1938) scheme of five responses to anomie (conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, rebellion), anomie can basically be seen as a litmus test for detecting the degree of social cohesion in society and as an explanation for all sorts of malfunctions that result from a lack of a shared and integrative normative order. The challenge for social cohesion and the outbreak of the always-lurking-around-the-corner anomie is posed to societies already by the early structural shift from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft. In recent decades, the strong liberal ideological currents that form and inform the individualization of societies, have exacerbated the need for society to define and stress the cultural, social and economic stuff that binds them together and gives unity to their communal claim, be that in the form of nations, peoples, ethnic/religious groups, professional communities, localities, and so forth. More often than not, the finger is pointed at, or claimed by, the state for being in charge of the unity of society and for attending to alarming signs of disorder and breakdown of normative behavior among individuals as well as collectives. This view of the role of the state, in this regard, might be outdated by the development of transnational societies, human rights movements, global cities, and many more social, legal and economic restructuring of contemporary social formations. In modern societies, characterized by hyper-diversity (Vertovec 2010), multiple authorities (political, religious, regional, etc.) are competing for, firstly, the power to define a state of anomie and, secondly, the mandate to restore order according to its view of it.
By focusing on anomie in this context, interesting questions may arise, for example: At what scale is it analytically useful to define anomie (ethnic/religious group, city, nation, region, network)? What is the ideological ground for defining anomie by different actors in societies? How is anomie being linked to criminalization? Which institutions/organizations see themselves responsible for rectifying a perceived state of anomie? What are the legitimate measures for fighting anomie or for increasing social cohesion in societies (active citizenship, policing, direct democracy, harsh legislation, etc.)? What are the coping mechanism of different people/groups in facing anomie and/or the measures taken by states for fighting alleged anomic conditions? What are the factors and processes that heighten/mitigate a sense of anomie (liquid modernity, virtual reality, terrorism, etc.)?
We identify two main levels in which anomie can be empirically researched and analytically addressed:
1. The group level – examining groups that either claim to be in a state of anomie or are seen by others in societies as suffering from a severe breakdown of a normative order. These can be religious/ethnic groups, middle classes, professional circles, migrant groups, and so forth. Such groups may engage in, or be sanctioned by, all sorts of rituals, corrective practices, discursive strategies and material patterns in an attempt to reinforce social cohesion and to avoid the ills associated with a state of anomie.
2. The political level – examining groups that hold power position in society, from which they can define a state of anomie that, in turn, legitimizes their (violent) intervention in restoring order and preventing the further spread or deterioration of social disintegration. Here we think mostly about states, but also other (economic, religious, regional) elite groups that may, or may not, be aligned with the interests of the state. Such elite groups may draw on all sorts of social and cultural understandings in order to substantiate their diagnosis of anomie and use it as a political discourse for taking actions.

Program Overview

click here to open a larger map