چکیده:
This article analyzes one of the discussions related to the discourse of micro and macro collective identities and its relationship with globalization. By examining the perspectives of classical sociology, postmodern discourse, and the theories of contemporary thinkers, we point out the theoretical and methodological shortcomings of their work. The aim is to understand how to arrive at a prescriptive view in this analysis. In this investigation, contrary to the aforementioned approaches, we believe that, on the one hand, globalization is a real and inevitable process, and human society is moving towards some universal cultural and political patterns as a common identity. On the other hand, alongside it, micro and local identities are being revived and reconstructed. The main idea of this article is to confirm this claim.
خلاصه ماشینی:
In this investigation, contrary to the aforementioned approaches, we believe that, on the one hand, globalization is a real and inevitable process, and human society is moving towards certain universal cultural and political patterns as a common identity.
Classical sociologists such as Tönnies, Durkheim, Marx, and Parsons, and in recent years Giddens, Habermas, Castells, Anthony Cohen, and postmodernists have each expressed their opinions on the type of dealing with local, national, and global collective identities.
(1)- We (2)- Nation (3)- Affective neuterality (4)- Civil indifferential (5)-Alienation In Marx's sociology, the relations of production and, to some extent, the social structure, are considered the dominant culture of society, which internalizes social expectations and cultural norms in individuals and, with complete control over people's lives, aligns them in a specific framework with similar personality orientations.
" Considering that Durkheim's views are influenced by evolutionary perspectives, he believes that when mechanical cohesion gives way to organic cohesion, collective identity also transforms from micro and local to macro.
Therefore, in the views of sociologists of the modern period, one cannot encounter two or more types of identity at a time, but rather in each period (generally) a large and dominant economic, social, and cultural paradigm is seen, of which collective identity is a manifestation.
On the other hand, postmodernism, by denying globalization, considers the formation of any large collective identity (contrary to the theory of Appadurai and Giddens) impossible, but believes in the parallelism and coexistence of small, local, and specific identities and considers this phenomenon inevitable in the contemporary world.
(
, 
, 
)
