The construction of sociological theories for social research is currently presented as an essential and highly challenging mission for addressing the major problems of Latin America. This challenge is situated within a discouraging socio-scientific context. Since the beginning of the neoliberal cycle in the late 70s, we have been affected by profound socio-historical processes in the region. Among the most significant aspects, we can highlight the collapse of the horizon of collective understanding in the social sciences, the reductionist processing of the crisis of Marxism, the gradual removal of the regional macro-sociological research agenda, the overemphasis on relativist logics and the linguistic turn, the rise of scientific skepticism (not disconnected from a certain political skepticism), as well as the breakdown of the links and normative contracts between theoretical and political practices. In turn, these processes are part of a worrying institutional-academic trend that increasingly accentuates disciplinary autonomization, thematic fragmentation, as well as hyper-specialization and the commodification of the social sciences. Currently, we inhabit a social science field in Latin America where theoretical fragmentation prevails. This atomization is often reinforced by the uncritical appropriation of other theories, with a preeminence of theoretical objects constructed from exclusively individual interests, disconnected from the major social problems of the region. However, as is evident, the mere recognition of the existence of a pathos The geopolitical context that threatens the very constitution of theoretical-social practice is insufficient to attempt to imagine satisfactory solutions to a set of current social phenomena that are highly complex and therefore difficult to conceptualize.

Based on this general diagnosis, the present Working Group has been consolidating within CLACSO since 2016 as an ambitious space for encounter and experimentation whose overall objective is to contribute to the autonomous theoretical reconstruction of Latin American sociology and social sciences. To this end, we adopt as a common starting point a series of updating premises, among which we wish to highlight: a) the prioritization of the global, b) the recognition of the framework objects of modern social theory, c) the questioning of Latin American specificity within the world system, and d) the problematization of disciplinary demarcation logics.

Regarding the first point, the group shares the methodological premise that, currently, the more pronounced the need to understand the evolution of political, cultural, and economic processes in Latin America becomes, the more necessary it is to adopt a global framework of observation. Thus, we embrace a certain tendency toward the spatial re-scaling of objects of social research, toward the relative de-nationalization of theoretical practice, which entails abandoning methodological nationalism.

Regarding the second aspect, it involves consolidating a strategy for recovering and re-stabilizing the framework objects of modern social theory, and alongside this, promoting the recovery of its inherent historical and epochal horizon. These objects are basically the form of the State, the form of the economy (primarily embodied as capitalism), and the form of science. Thus, we begin with the assumption that there would be no possibility of advancing in a process of theoretical reconstruction without considering a framework that integrates these objects. Unlike other conjunctures in Latin America, the approach to these frameworks is carried out assuming a pluralistic theoretical reality that emerges from the recognition of the fertility of a diversity of socio-theoretical approaches, among which certain systemic, neo-institutionalist, Marxist, and neo-Marxist perspectives stand out. In the case of the form of the State, the recovery of its centrality includes, on a practical and operational level, the interest in contributing to the creation and strengthening of progressive public policies, as well as to the expansion of democracy.

The third aspect mentioned is what most distinguishes this work plan from others similarly dedicated to the production of sociological theory. It involves reaffirming a commitment to elucidating the specificities of Latin American reality within the global historical context. To this end, it argues for the need to deconstruct the universalist component of North-centric social theory as a necessary step toward creating new concepts and theories attentive to a global dynamic that recognizes the existence of a process of Latin American regionalization.

Finally, while we consider the sociological tradition to be the privileged field for theoretical construction within the aforementioned coordinates, we recognize that disciplinary demarcations in the social sciences often operate as epistemological obstacles that are difficult to overcome.

Taking into account the aspects mentioned, the group's research agenda for this new period is structured around four major, closely interconnected thematic lines. Each of these combines theoretical-empirical studies with purely theoretical endeavors. Let's examine each one:

1. Modernity / critique of modernity: This axis contains four sub-lines of action: i) the development of new general perspectives on global modernity from Latin America and attentive to the specificity of the region; ii) the review of the universalist projections of contemporary German critical theory; iii) the examination of the link between the moral development of modernity and the situation of dependency in Latin America; and iv) the identification of convergences and divergences between the processes of globalization and regionalization of world society.

2. Science-form: This second line is structured around three axes: i) The analysis of the division of academic-intellectual labor that prevails globally in the field of social sciences; ii) the observation of the ways in which sociology affects public forms of communication and generates social and political effects; iii) the exploration of the ways in which sociological and techno-social knowledge is appropriated by new generations within and outside academic institutions.  

3. Form-state: Here we will develop six analytical sub-lines. These involve: i) the development of new perspectives on state formation in Latin America, as well as the elaboration of new systematic theories of Latin American states; ii) the analysis of the ways in which authority and regional authoritarianism are conceptualized in Latin American social and political theory; iii) the revision of the concept of state sovereignty in light of the growing denationalizing effect of economic globalization; iv) the exploration of the paradigmatic forms that the link between state bureaucracy and political practice takes in the field of global/regional social theory; v) the analysis of how the concepts of decision and decision-making are used in contemporary politics; vi) research on how taxation shapes the multiple relationships between the state and society in Latin America, with particular emphasis on the modalities of state intervention in the economy; and vii) the analysis of the ways in which states and social movements relate to each other on the continent.

4. Form-capitalism: Finally, regarding the object of capitalism, we propose developing the following lines of theoretical production: i) the exploration of new explanations about the relationships and contradictions existing between capitalisms and democracies in the region and at a global level; ii) the development of new general perspectives on capitalism attentive to Latin American specificity; iii) the offering of a new model of interpretation on the multiple dynamics of entanglement existing between the diffusion of human rights and the expansion of capitalism; iv) the exploration of how the intertwined dynamics of economic development and human development are linked to techno-informational and cultural transformations in Latin America; v) the renewed characterization of economic and political models alternative to neoliberalism in the region; vi) the development of a new theory of social classes willing to transcend Marxist productivism and pluralist sociological ideologies.

The construction of social theories attentive to Latin American social reality is a response to the aforementioned blurring of regional social theory, as well as to the scarcity of research projects based on an intellectual framework. By intellectual framework, we understand a mode of scientific-political engagement with the major problems of our time and place. Defined in this way, this mode of engagement invokes a sense of responsibility regarding two mutually regulating aspects: the scale of the problem at hand and a historically situated record of collective appropriation. The “scale” of the problem becomes the quintessential scientific vector of this engagement, insofar as it projects a relational episteme for the analytical understanding of socio-historical processes, in this case, those of our continent. It is within this framework that we situate the shared frame objects: global modernity, the institution of science, nation-states, and capitalisms. To further clarify the scope of this group proposal, we will now specify the references related to the defined thematic lines.

1. Modernity / critique of modernity: The four sub-lines of action mentioned for this point are specified in the following terms: i) the theoretical development of the notions of “third phase of global modernity” and of “double ambivalence of modernity”; ii) the interpellation of German critical theory, in particular the productions of Habermas and Honneth, based on the global center-periphery equation; and iii) the analysis of the tensions and contradictions between the claim of global realization of the moral values ​​of modern society and the growing inequality of power between regions and countries.  

2. Science-form: Here, the axes are made concrete from the concrete analysis of: i) the modes of reproduction of the international division of academic-intellectual labor in the global field of social sciences; ii) the establishment of patterns of circulation of sociological knowledge in Brazil and in other countries of the region, including different communication circuits chromo the press and the “social media” (among them Twitter and YouTube); iii) the use of sociological frameworks by the new generations inside and outside of academic institutions, as well as the appropriation of the “codes of informationalism”.

3. Form-state: The analytical sub-lines of this axis are specified as follows: i) the development of three perspectives of the Latin American State: a) a notion of the State as dynamic institutional orders; b) the concept of “inter-state system”, associated with an idea of ​​the double structuring of the State and a typology that distinguishes in the first instance between vassal and autonomist states; and c) the notion of the plurinational State; ii) The testing of the specificity of a type of exercise of state authority based on justification by efficiency rather than by processes of legitimation (mainly an analysis of the Chilean case); iii) the identification of new theoretical coordinates for the analysis of counter-democratic political practice; iv) the revision of the concept of sovereignty in relation to the new state modalities of territorial operation (mainly in dialogue with Saskia Sassen); v) the development of a systematic critique of those theories of the State that establish a relationship of externality between state bureaucracy and political practice; vi) the analysis of how States influence the construction of individuals as decision-makers; vii) the preliminary development of a new critical theory of taxation that allows understanding its central role in the constitution of the processes of formation and transformation of States in Latin America; and vii) the construction of a new perspective on regional political dynamics, taking into account the interaction between States and social movements.

 4. Form-capitalism: The lines of theoretical production contemplated in this axis are specified in the following points: i) the exploration of new links and contradictions in the relationship between capitalisms and democracies in the central countries of Latin America; ii) the development of the concept of “inter-capital system” and the principle of double structuring of capitalism; iii) the critical review of the ECLAC concept of “development styles”, within the framework of the inquiry regarding the possibility of transcending the maquiladora model that is being constituted in Mexico; iv) the updating of the concept of primitive accumulation of capital, based on a critical dialogue with Rosa Luxemburg, David Harvey and Klaus Dorre; v) the development and review of the concepts of informational capitalism and informational human development, and from this, the analysis of the expansion of Google in Latin America; v) the development of a new perspective on social classes, emphasizing the concepts of organic classes and molecular classes, as well as their modes of intertwining.

However, in any case, what is truly promising about this group proposal is that each of the lines of inquiry, in some way, considers the others. Thus, the set of lines addresses, in some sense, the relationship between states and capitalism, between politics and economics, and is also situated within the epochal horizon of modernity. Alongside this, a significant portion of the work deals, directly or indirectly, with the question of the general socio-causal equation, with a mode of coupling between time and space, with the general socio-historical development and that of the continent—Latin America—that is, with the central enigmas that have accompanied social thought since its earliest times.

Taking into consideration the elements presented thus far, we understand that the central aim of the Working Group in this second edition is to consolidate the dynamic of discussion and collective theoretical production initiated in 2016. Based on this work plan, we will seek to advance collective production and achieve substantive synergies among our individual contributions. In this context, we would explore the possibility of defining a space for the development of new theoretical objects and new debates, in which the theoretical, political, and ideological similarities and differences that coexist in any pluralistic community are placed at the service of an intellectual-scientific project with shared agreements.