World Society Theory

World society theories are concerned with the study of world society and are in dispute over what world society means. Societies generally include some people and exclude others. We can define American society because non-American societies exist. Yet the definition of world society is problematic, as we cannot (yet) detect a non-world society. Thus, theories of world society differ in the ways in which they find an equivalent to the “other.” As world society is nonexclusive, the idea of external enmity generally associated with national societies takes within world society the form of an internal enmity. Human society is the most inclusive term for talking about the sum of human social relations, leaving open the number, size, and shape of its component societies. World society suggests something organized as one of those components, for instance, a national society, but including all people. Equally, whereas societies are generally characterized by a distinctive culture, world society is unique in its absence of a clear contrasting culture. World society theories differ in the way they perceive of all-inclusivity, internal enmity, and indistinctiveness of culture within world society and thus contribute different insight to global studies. It is regrettable that sociology has paid little attention to the theoretical implications of the concept of world society, contrasted with traditional definitions of society, as it offers broad possibilities for further global studies.

World society theory developed during the interbellum and the course of World War II as an ideological answer to prevalent nationalistic tendencies. In the field of political science and international relations, theorists sought to define prospects for world order and a peaceful community of states. This followed Kant's idea of a league of nations, as described in Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795). As such, it was the awareness of an acute internal enmity within the world that was the impetus for first theories on world society, as an ideological answer to national societies.

After the founding of the United Nations in 1945, the concept seemed to fade from discussion, gaining new momentum in the 1970s. With the expansion of international relations, the need for an ideal of international legitimacy had grown. World society, initially the idea that sought to foster international society, now became its antidote. Within the English school of international relations, world society, referring to the set of common interests and values on which common institutions are built, became the more philosophical ideal, in contrast to international society, the society of states, its common practice.

A second set of theories highlights the aspect of all-inclusivity of world society. John Burton's book World Society, published in 1972, views world society as the sum of all human interactions, a non-state social world. Whereas the English school makes a distinction between world society and international society, as practice and ideal, Burton's world society is nonnormative and essentially shaped by communication.

A more refined elaboration of the notion of all-inclusivity comes from the German sociologist Niklas Luhmann. Luhmann views social systems as systems of communication, with society being the most encompassing social system. As modern society is laid out such that people, in principle, everywhere in the world can connect and communicate, world society is a reality. To Luhmann, world society is auto-poietic, self-creating: a meaning processing system, reminiscent of Hegel's Weltgeist (world spirit) but lacking its subjective idealistic connotation. Luhmann's world society, as reality, produces differentiation and can be studied as an independent variable, without reference to regional particularities.

...