Abstract
Because globalization and its direct effects – intensified migration and mobility (influencing intercultural contacts) – have determined social phenomena, scientists of different disciplines propose new ways of understanding fundamental notions or formulate completely new notions (p. 9). In his work, Ulrich Beck develops his social theory by distinguishing ‘the age of the “first modernity,” built around the logic that draws sharp distinctions between people and things’ and ‘the age of the “second modernity,” where this simple logic gives way to one that emphasises complexity, ambiguity and reflexivity’ (Beck, 2007: 29).
In his newest book, Distant Love, Ulrich Beck and Elisabeth Beck-Gernsheim diagnose ‘world-families’ by applying ‘reflexive cosmopolitanism’ and turning down other methods such as ‘methodological nationalism’ (where the concept of society is only applicable to nation state; see Beck, 2000: 80; 2007), ‘simple globalization’ (interconnectedness), ‘universalist approach’ (according to the universal route; see Beck, 2007). The authors assume that a new category of core sociological interest that evolved under the process of ‘(enforced) cosmopolitization’ (Beck, 2007) will gain attention among researches. They understand the term ‘world families’ (‘families at a distance,’ ‘global families’) as, first, ‘couples or families that remain together despite living in different countries or continents’ (multi-local world families sharing the same culture of origin as a consequence of being geographically distant), and, second, ‘couples or families who live in the same place but whose members come from different countries or continents and whose conception of love and family is essentially determined by their country of origin’ (p. 15). The notion might also relate to different types of encounters (that do not have to evolve into ‘close relationships’) between people of different contexts of belonging (e.g., social, geographical, ethnic, national) (p. 21), which is not mentioned explicitly in the definition.
One must remember that single-context families living in the country of origin and mixed-context families are only two ends of a continuum (p. 17). A good example of such ‘in-between’ processes is the debate within the Jewish community in the United States between defenders of the traditional family and innovators (Bayme, 1994). According to the authors, a basic tendency of the ‘second age of modernity’ (p. 67) – global processes of political, social, and economic developments such as the ‘international division of labour, cross-border expansion of industry, mass tourism’ (p. 21), transformed the micro-level of family into worldwide one. What the authors mean is that intimate family life produces new models of relationships among people, in which tensions of belonging to diverse contexts – social stratifications, cultural, religious, ethnic groups, and nations – are reflected (p. 7).
The social diagnosis presented here does not seek to sketch the utopian vision of ‘world families.’ By paying attention to the positive and negative shades of this phenomenon, the book provocatively tries to capture the changes in social relationships; focusing primarily on different sociological categories: family, couples, gender relations (with particular attention to the status of women), emotions, global migration, and bioethics. Mixed-context families and couples undoubtedly experience many obstacles: hostility and prejudices from the host society; changing social status; cultural shocks; adaptation difficulties; ‘discovering own forms of intimacy’ (p. 56); difficult compromises; and legal barriers that affect emotional life.
Readers will find the chapters devoted to gender issues interesting, and the authors devote considerable attention to factors improving global-social status of women in private and public spheres with comparisons of different countries, the changing gender hierarchy, long-distance adoptions, global domestic workers, and motherhood issues. The authors do not neglect the problems of women who marry for a better life and their image as presented in the media and literature.
The book also discusses reproductive health issues for heterosexual and homosexual individuals and couples. The authors define some fundamental questions about the legal and ethical limits to medical involvement in biopolitics such as controversies over genetics (p. 145). The authors’ approach is praiseworthy because it provides a meta-theory for social sciences where such fundamental notions as family, couples, and relationships can be ‘grasped within contemporary changes, dynamics and dangers’ (Beck, 2007). By showing the diversity of forms it introduces readers to the contemporary world where ‘limited choices for lovers have been transformed into different possibilities of choices and values,’ albeit with the risk that nothing can be taken for granted in the global sphere (p. 45).
The idea behind the approach is not new although it is much more pragmatic than that presented, for example, by German writer Christoph Martin Wieland in his essay published in Der Teutsche Merkur in 1788: Cosmopolitans . . . regard all the peoples of the earth as so many branches of a single family, and the universe as a state, of which they, with innumerable other rational beings, are citizens, promoting together under the general laws of nature the perfection of the whole, while each in his own fashion is busy about his own well-being. (in Appiah, 2006: xv)
On the other hand, the authors raise a question: Are ‘world families’ the winners of globalization? As the authors write, ‘there is no meta-language [a single legitimate universal path] capable of addressing the differences in the heterogeneous and tension-filled sphere of “world families.” It is rather the case that the meaning of “world families” changes depending on the cultural contexts in which it is found’ (p. 183). The authors describe ‘cosmopolitanization’ by understanding the situation when ‘the days of autonomy, self-sufficiency and isolation are gone forever.’ When the tactlessly-called ‘ “global other” in the cross-border community is a part of everyday life’ (p. 68), ‘a state of interdependence between individuals, groups and countries, not only economic and political but also ethical’ (p. 68), needs to be maintained in the forms of freedom of social, political, and economic choice that respects the transparent idea of essential freedoms which are guaranteed according to common shared value in human dignity and causing no harm to each other.
What deserves criticism is the book’s structure, and the fact that some parts of the book are chaotic. Moreover, the authors’ provocative language could be replaced by a more balanced approach, especially when dealing with difficult and sensitive issues. Some readers will like the provocative language; some will find it offensive.
Analyzing each inappropriate sentence would be insane. However, I must express one particular complaint. The following formulation seems questionable and controversial: ‘A historic example, of course, is the way in which German citizens were turned into Jews in Nazi Germany.’ The context of the sentence is clear when the authors refer to the basic rights Jews were denied as well as the stereotyping and hostile view propagated by the host society. However, the reality of modernity in German history, including the status of Jews, both secular and religious, is too complex to address in this fashion.
Furthermore, the authors present some examples about cultural characteristics in an overly simplistic way. These characteristics are employed to support the main idea of the book, but they give the impression of a trivial understanding concerning certain micro-level dimensions of cultural patterns. In sum, Distant Love is a valuable book, even if its analysis of contemporary global society will be controversial. The book encourages readers to reach their own opinion about social theory via the use of reflexivity through which the book should be read.