The Global Social Sciences E-Book
22,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: ibidem
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: Beyond the Social Sciences
- Sprache: Englisch
The European social sciences tend to absorb criticism that has been passed on the European approach and re-label it as a part of what the critique opposes; criticism of European social sciences by “subaltern” social sciences, their “talking back”, has become a frequent line of reflection in European social sciences. The re-labelling of the critique of the European approach to social sciences towards a critique from “Southern” social sciences of “Western” social sciences has somehow turned “Southern” as well as “Western” social sciences into competing contributors to the same “globalizing” social sciences. Both are no longer arguing about the European approach to social sciences but about which social thought from which part of the globe prevails. If the critique becomes a part of what it opposes, one might conclude that the European social sciences are very adaptable and capable of learning. One might, however, also raise the question whether there is anything wrong with the criticism of the European social sciences; or, for that matter, whether there is anything wrong with the European social sciences themselves. The contributions in this book discuss these questions from different angles: They revisit the mainstream critique of the European social sciences, and they suggest new arguments criticizing social science theories that may be found as often in the “Western” as in the “Southern” discourse.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Seitenzahl: 471
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
ibidem Press, Stuttgart
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
This book presents social thought about"The global social science world—under and beyond European universalism"with contributions from socialscientistsacross the world reflecting on the contemporary social sciences, social thought initiated by discourses on three WorldSSHNet events:
·The thinkshopabout "Multiple Epistemologies - Science and Time - Science and Space - Science and Culture - Science and Society", held at Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City, Mexico, 22–23 February 2013, funded by the Wenner Gren Foundation,
·The thinkshop about"The global social science world—beyond the 'Western' universalism",held at and funded by the University for Applied Sciences, Zwickau, Germany, 27–29 September 2013,
·The WorldSSHNet panel on the"Eighth Congress of the International Asian Philosophical Association", held at the Süleyman Demirel University in Isparta April 30th–May 3rd 2016.
This book publishes the papers resulting from the discourses on these events and distributes them to invite those academics who could not participate in our events but can thus join our controversial debates.
The editors of this book want to take the opportunity to thank all participants of the WorldSSHNet activities, those who contributed papers to the events, those who contributed chapters to this book and all others who contributed in several other ways to our thinkshops and thus also supported the publication of this book.
As a funding organisation that goes beyond paying lip service to the issues of inter-disciplinary and inter-national social science activities, but really supports them, we wish to express our gratitude to the Wenner-Gren Foundation for funding our thinkshop in Mexico City.
We extend our thanks to the generous financial support from CONACYT in Mexico, who through "Space and Knowledge. Dynamics and Tensions of International Collaboration in the Social Sciences in the Context of Globalisation" contributed to the publication costs of this book.
We, the editors, consider this book not as the end, but as a new point of departure for further controversial debates and would like to take this opportunity to invite readers to contribute to the continuation of these conversations with their critical comments.
Those who are interested in the WorldSSHNet may visit our www: http://www.worldsshnet.org/
Michael Kuhn and Hebe Vessuri
Chapter 1:Critical thought aboutglobal social sciences
MichaelKuhnandHebe Vessuri
Chasing credits, counting publications,becomingaglobalflagship, arguing about which national science community is a scientific centre, which a periphery, which national science community dominates theorizing around the world, is the global social science world keeping social sciences around the world busy as ifglobal social thoughtwas a scientific world cup. What seemsa rathermundanescenariois though theveryscience world recent science policy"incentives"have created, serving their idea of making knowledge a global commodity and global social thoughta battle betweennational science communities.
As with itsprevious publications[1], the WorldSSH Net invites to interrupt the routine work of social science academics and to think about what social sciences are doing, especially when they are theorizing beyond their nationally confined socials.
This book intends toprovidesome incentives for thinking about the social sciences and discusses"the global social science world—under the'European'universalism."
The oddnessinthe notionof a locally confined universalism tries to pointtotheodditythe universalisation of the European social scienceshasbroughtonthe social science world.
This book discussessome aspects of the European social science approach to social thought spreadand practicedacross the world as if it was the nature ofscientific thinking.If it was the case that the social science approach to social thought is the nature of theorizing about the socialor not,in any case the global spread of the European social science approachconfronts social science thinkers with more than theoddnessof the universalisation of an approach to social thought that was created in the context of the emergence of European, colonial nation states.
This book contributes some reflections about the universalized European social sciences and itdoes this in three sections:
Section I:Critiques of the critiques of the'European'sciences
Section II:The'European'universalism
Section III: The Social sciencesworld under'European'universalism
SectionI,critically reflecting oncritiques of the'European'sciences,consists of four chapters, whichdiscuss typicalcritiques the European social sciences have encountered. Indeed, critiquing the European social sciences has become,thanks to and sincethe post-colonial discourses,an acknowledged part of social science theorizing, at least theorizing about the global social.There are hardly any contributions to thecontemporarydiscourses aboutthe"globalising"social sciences,which do not support their critical viewsabout the European social scienceswith arguments such as theunsuitabletheoriescreated by the"Western"social sciences,the ethnocentrism of European theories or a scientific hegemony of the"Western"social sciences, when they argue about inequalitiesinthe distribution of scientific power between"scientific centres and peripheries". Pointingtothe"Western"social sciences which do no longer want to distinguishwhetherthis is a critique of theories created in the"West"of the"Western"social science system indicatesthe danger that critiquing the European social sciencesmaydeteriorate towards apolitically biased kind of scientific insult and does not do any harm to the European social sciences, whichareindeedstill highly appreciatedamong the world's academia. Not only the Western social sciencesand their theories,even in their critical discussions,areconsidered as the world's reference theories.Notonly,but especiallyyoung academics, if they have the choice to study in thediscriminated"West"seemingly prefer to gain their academic degrees in those"Western"universities. Onemight downplay this as a mere calculation regarding their careerprospects;however, if this is a calculation, then it is a calculation that counts on the global appreciation of the"western"social sciences, notjustamong students, but among the world's academia.
Hence, looking at the well-establishedand globally appreciatedcritique of the social sciences and questioning what and how this critique critiques the European social science, is what the four chapters in section Iseek to do.
In Chapter 2Kwang-YeongShin, reflecting on"postcolonialism and social theory revisited",arguesthat"post-colonial theories successfully undermined the validity and legitimacy of social theories in the West as the universal normal sciences but failed to provide a new paradigm of the social theories. They failedto be revolutionary sciences replacing the existing social sciences of the non-West."
Discussing"attempts to promote alternatives to social theories by post-colonial perspectives in the non-West",alternatives which"represent historical and cultural specificity of the non-Western countries", Shin focuses on three issuesovercoming the failureofpost-colonial theories, which did not manage to replace the theories from the West while thinking about the non-West. Firstly he raises the question if and why theories from the West need to be replaced by non-Western theories, since there are"many critical social theories, such as Marxism, Post-Marxism, critical theory, post-structuralism, feminism etc., stemmed from the West and critical intellectuals in the non-Western world which rely on those theories in their critical discourse on their own societies as well as global capitalism."
Secondly,heargues thatalthoughthe post-colonial criticism rejected the Western theories,itnever managed to reveal the social reality only non-Western theories are able to reflect on, and, thirdly, that the non-Western theories need to create their theories about the non-Western"explanandum""with"transparent discursive approaches", globallycommunicable theories, rather than with"obscurantism and ventriloquist discourses",preservedbythe non-West.
InChapter 3, unlike the prevailing trendsof another critique strand of the European social sciences,critiquing them for theoriesthat are not applicable to the social in the"non-West", as Shinphrases it,Huri Islamoglu,discusses"trends in Western social andeconomic sciences in the post-World War II eraunder American hegemony during the Cold War. It does this by addressing the ways societal conceptions and solutions to social issues emerging in Europe in the 19thcentury were universalized and generalized in various social sciencedisciplinesto serveas an idiom of Westerndomination in non-Westernworld regions. Secondly, the essay addresses the challenges to societal sciences since the 1980s and the rise of global sciences responding to exigencies of the global economic order and its free-tradist understandings."
Unlike the above critiqueof theunsuitable theories originating from the"West", strikingly all assuming that those European theories allow to understand the"West",this chapter discusseswhetherthese theories and their categories are at all appropriate to understand what the societies in the very"West"are all about. Considering the extent to which ontheone hand thesocial sciencetheory production has accommodated its way of thinking and its categories to a new waveofmarketization across the whole society,conceptualized and imposed to the world by the so calledneo-liberal politicalrationales, while on the other hand social science theorizing is rooted and rests on theideas ofpre-industrialised capitalism"of free-tradism in the 17thand 18thcenturies",this chapter suggests to not only think about new theories in the"non-West".
Tracing how the social sciences sincethe 19thcentury developed by ever struggling to accommodate their thinking towards the historically changing concepts of nation state policies and economieswithin the European experiences, ever grounding the development of theorizing in the historical phases of the European history and at the same time applying these theoriesto the world as a whole, pointstothe needs to not only think about new ways of theorizing, notjustin and about the"non-West", but about the whole global social.
As well as the previoustwochapters, chapter 4 by Doris Weidemann,under the title"Towards World Social Sciences: Why criticizing'Western Hegemony'does not help"thought, also questionsthe existing critique of the European social sciences.Opposing a"western hegemony"is another widespread critique of the theories created by the European approach to social sciences;Weidemann's chapter develops some arguments questioningwhetherthis notion helps to build"world social sciences".Pointingtosome typical steps,such ascreating variations of opposingpolitically constructedentitieslike"North"versus"South", attach to them mostlypolitically constructed'vice versa'judgments to then reject the discriminatedratherthan critiqued entities as being different from what is appropriate for the advocated entity. Sheargues that this contrasting view that subsumes in a rather odd way all kind of theories under categories,createsa critique of the social sciences entities, which opposes them in a way that"keep(s)Western hegemony intact".From elaborating on why this critique keeps the critiqued intact, the chapterdevelopsanalternative suggestion for how to shift from those dichotomousopposing entitiesand from the creation of such prejudicedselection of any politically constructed theory bodiestowards a mode of critique that invites critical reflectionsin all directions, not only towards the"West", and to therebymovetowardsbuilding world social sciences and a world discourse.
Chapter 5in this sectionby MichaelKuhn discusses"Why arriving at imperial thought is not an accidentof critical sociological thinkingbut the consequent endpoint of international sociological thinking".In contrast to the notions of theories, such as Islamoglu'sin chapter3, arguing that thanks to a decline of nation-states in a globalizing world traditional social sciences and their concept ofthenation-state as compensating global market effectsare no longer appropriate concepts for theorizing,Kuhn arguesthatnation-state constructs arethe very categorical foundationof critical sociological thinking,not in any particular historicalvariation of anation-taterationale, butin the conceptsofwhatanysociological thinking considers asthe essential of nation-state. This sociological concept of nation-stateappearsas at least ideally serving its citizensbyprovidingwhat sociologists consider as the genuine mission of nation-states,an ordered society. Itisthis idealization of the mission ofthenation-state as an ordering system, a structure and alike that isresponsible fortheories, created by critical sociological thinkers who present their thought asa critique of the European social sciences,that thesevery criticaltheories not coincidentally end up promoting imperial thoughtwhen they think inter-nationally.Sociological thinkingbound to think through categorieswhich foundedthe discipline of sociology,a view ofthe socialthat looks on the socialthrough theideaof anidealizednation-state mission, isincapable ofreflectingabout the global social other than as creating imperial theories.
Section IIcontributesthought about some aspects of social thought crafted through the European social sciences.A major concern of these debatesisstillthe notion of a scientific universalism. And this is somehow striking, considering that, with some exceptions,[2]today's social sciences across the world are so keen on being part of the very European social sciences, opposing, however, their claim of being universal theories. No doubt, the European social sciences, as Nieto phrasesin his chapter, considered their way of theorizing and their theories"as a unique and superior kind of knowledge and its diffusion seen as a natural consequence of its universality."Yes, it is surely the case, that the colonizers presented their knowledge"as a unique and superior kind of knowledge."However,concluding from the fact that the colonial powers forced the colonized world to share the views of the colonizers that the European science imposeda scientific universalism, iscertainlya disputableidentification of the political power of colonialists with an only imagined power no knowledge has, inviting to further debates about this notion.
In chapter 6titled"The European Comprehension of the World: Early Modern Science and Eurocentrism"Mauricio Nieto Olarte argues"that the scientific practices involved in the European exploration of new lands in the early modern period were related to the emergence of a new European self-perception that Christian Europe was legitimate sovereign of the world."He then discusses in three sections the"birth and diffusion of Western Science", the European"comprehension"of the world and finally the relation between the notion of a scientific universalism and the building of the colonial empire.
Vessuri and Bueno engage in chapter 7,entitledInstitutional Re-structuring in the Social Science World: Seeds of Change,some of the dominant debates about globalization of the social sciences. The argument of this chapter is fivefold: First, despite the long history of several national social science communities, invisibility and marginality of knowledge production in the south continues to be accepted as a fact of life. Dominant cultural flows and institutions have deep historical roots and are closely entwined with the resulting social science production. In time,however,withdifferent aims, regional and transnational associations were createdandsome of them represent a vivid expression of today's fashionable transnational networks.
Second, the massification of higher education has ultimately affected the identity of universities, whichhavebeen forced to compete with other institutions and social agents more aligned with corporate cultures and policy-making. What the identity of universities will be in the future is difficult to predict.
Third, new initiatives and trajectories have started to reconfigure the topography of knowledge production and diffusion. A series of technological and institutional novelties are once again altering the balance. New technologies and telecommunications, among other factors, generate global cultural flows whose stretch, intensity, diversity and rapid diffusion exceed those of earlier eras.The centrality of national cultures, national identity and their institutions is being challenged.
Fourth, original aspects in organizational infrastructure pave the way for an unprecedented transformation in the governance of knowledge production and diffusion of the social sciences. International agendas,"politics"in scientific organizations, tailored research for public policy, funding priorities and other channels of knowledge production are immersed in contradictory forces that challenge the purposes and aspiration of national academic systems and national social science traditions.
Fifth, given the dominant"inevitabilist"discourse, developing and emergent countries face new and difficult challenges to generate and use new knowledge, even social knowledge,according to social or economic goals defined with varying forms of autonomy. So far, however, the asymmetric geography of knowledge seems to persist, although some of the players have altered their strength.These five arguments move Vessuri and Bueno to explore the impact of contemporary sociocultural globalization that is transforming the contexts and the means through which the social sciences produce knowledge and are legitimated.
Chapter 8 byR.Grundmann,entitled"What happened to the spread of universal ideas?"analyses the role of the university knowledge production form in the relation between Western science and other forms of knowledge.
The main point of his paper is that the various critiques of the diffusionist framework have led to an abandonment of the notionof universal science, of linear transfer, and hence of the very concept of Western science. Sociologists and historians of science favour particularistic accounts with no appetite for generalizations. In contrast, researchers in the Neo-institutionalist framework invoke the existence of universalistic norms when it comes to knowledge production. The expansion of the universities on a global scale is explained through the appeal of a universal ideal, that of truth and univerwsal validity. There are reasons to be skeptical towards this interpretation and to advance a more pragmatic reading in terms of isomorphism in that societies have become convinced of the value of universities for knowledge creation that is instrumental in the search for efficacy. Governments support science in a global competitive market for talent, and individuals try to enhance their life chances by entering higher education. If we,as he does,for the sake of the argument, apply Basalla's three phases to the present case, we can probably identify phase three in the data: there is still an absolute dominance of Western authors in the field of social theory and'grand narratives'. This could be due to the fact that Western HE institutions are still an obligatory passage point for global elites and their offspring, that the Western legacy is too esoteric for new generations across the globe, or that it has become irrelevant.
Section III of this bookThe Social science world underand towards beyond the'European'Universalism"discusses with four chapter somephenomena ofknowledge production under the regime of the European socialsciences, how to oppose them,critical thought inviting to debatesshifting to a science world beyond the reign of the European social science traditions.
S. Patel's chapter 9,entitledIntervening in the Geopolitics of Travelling Theory: Constraints, Limitations and Possibilitiesrevises the growth of the Eurocentric episteme.Eurocentric knowledge, she argues,is based on the construction of multiple and repeated divisions or oppositions which get constructed as hierarchies, based on a racial classification of the world population. Sociology, in this view, became the study of modern (European –later extended to Western-) society while anthropology became the study of (non-European and non-Western) traditional societies. Patel aims to show that ironically and paradoxically this project found an expression in the work of indigenous intellectuals in theAsian subcontinent, searching to find an identity against colonialism.
Patel is keen to show that Eurocentrism is not only an episteme, but also a way to organize production, distribution, consumption and reproduction of knowledge unequally across the different parts of the world. It cannot be merely replaced through cognitive supplants of concepts, theories and methods, which was what the best of nationalist social science in ex-colonial countries attempted to do. Institutionalization under the aegis of the elite nationalist orientation has reproduced practices in place across the Global North, with the consequence of'infantilisation'of scientific practices within the Global South regions.She aims to show that merely intervening in the world of knowledge will not displace Eurocentric knowledge; intervening in the practices that structure knowledge will, and she proposesto build intellectual networks across institutions and scholarship among and between scholars of the non-Atlantic regionasa practicethat mayhelp to reflect collectively on common and relevant themes that structure the experience of being part of the'south'.
InChapter 10 aboutThe Impact of Internationalization on Post-Soviet Social Sciences and Humanitiesby Igor Yegorov and Pal Tamas, the authorsorganize their analysis of the social sciences and humanities in the former Soviet Union into four broad categories: infrastructural, methodological (or intellectual), cultural (or ratherpersonal), and political. They describe how the institutional infrastructure for research has crumbled. Very often individual scholars face impoverishment, a sharp decline in status, a deterioration of collegial interaction, and growing personal isolation. Russia's continuing difficulty to come to terms with the outside world wreaks havoc on a range of disciplines often identified as being inherently "Western." Professional interaction has diminished, contributing to a lack of a sense of belonging to a group. In some areas, younger scholars are left without mentors as senior scholars have left academia or are virtually unavailable as they pursue other endeavors. As the status of intellectuals declines, there is a corresponding diminished sense of mission for those engaged in intellectual pursuits.
Westernization has been largely understood as being of only one type. Descriptions of the given societies could be constructed according to the speed and character of their divergence from idealtypes of the Western model. In these years, almost no work is available that compares the transitional societies with real Western societies or societal processes.Participation in large European programs of social science cooperation is predominantly determined by the interests of foreign partners. Projects in collaboration are usually not interested in the dynamics of transformation in the post- Soviet countries, but only in the'Eastern'equivalents of problems formulated by the coordinators in their Western European social and research environments. Theresultingwork may be interesting or even original, butisusually only weakly related to local intellectual traditions and cultural environments; and cross-national comparative accents or efforts will normally be absent here.
Chapter 11 by Kumaran Rajagopal,entitledPoverty and Social Sciences: Pauperology as Apology for Modernity,unlike many other critical reflections focusing on the relation between scientific entities discusses a major theory complex the European social sciences operate with and distribute across the world as master theories for theorizing. Kumaranreflects on the concept of poverty as a key category for theorizing about the social in the"developing world"and, thus,onhow it affects thinking about themajority of people across the world.
Kumaran's chapter proves how the categorical basis of theorizing about poverty consist of a concept of poverty, that provides the ideological thought thanks to whichpoverty is not reduced but under whosetheoretical labelsitnot only continues to exist butitsperpetuation is presented as a fight against poverty. Summarizing his arguments, it is the cardinal fault of all social science theories discussing poverty to conclude from the fact that the non-existence of paid labor is responsible for poverty, that the existence of paid labor abolishespoverty. It is the insistence of social science thinking on a social mission only social sciences know, that allows to ignore that even employmentmayresult in poverty and to concludebyinsisting on the dreamy social mission of capital, that it must be the lack of capital in the"developing"countries that is responsible for poverty with and without employment. Hence, creating the very business that causes poverty is the circle all those projects set into force, putting into practice their wishful theories about poverty—ever at the cost of the poor.
InChapter 12 by Kazumi OkamotoentitledAcademic Working Culture: Shifting from National Competitions towards Transnational Collaborationsthe authorengages in thinking towards alternative discourses about internationalising social sciences. Sheargues thatthe mainstream discourse about how to internationalize social sciences accompanying ashift towards international social sciencesseems to be retardedbya still nationalway of thinking.Mainstream discourses mainly discuss the internationalisation of social sciences as a competition among national science communities, competing about a hegemony of still widely nationally constructed theories, for which, ironically,the international comparative studies are the most obvious example.The prevailing focus in these discourses is toargue about inequalities, asymmetries and scientific hegemonies, discourses whichallin different waysconsider the competition among national science communities and their locally constructed theories as the main challenge of internationalising social sciences.As an alternative approach to thinking aboutglobalising social sciences, she advocates to overcome a so far widely nationallyconfined theory production and to shift towardsthe collaborative production of knowledge across the national sciences communities and theirnational orientations. To do this she presents some ideas about howto investigatethesocial sciencestobetter understand their shared and particular working practices. Okamotolabelsthisas an investigation on"academic working culture", a collaborative production of knowledge beyondthe contemporary modes of global knowledgeproductionwhereacompetitionbetweennational science communitiesprevails.
[1]See: Michael Kuhn, Kazumi Okamoto, (eds.), (2013),Spatial Social Thought, Local Knowledge in Global Knowledge Encounters,ibidem Stuttgart; Michael Kuhn, Shujiro Yazawa, (eds.), (2015),Theories about and Strategies against Hegemonic Social Sciences, Ibidem Stuttgart; Michael Kuhn, Hebe Vessuri, (eds.),Contributions to Alternative Concepts of Knowledge,Ibidem Stuttgart, forthcoming; Michael Kuhn,How Social Sciences Think about the World's Social, Outline of a Critique, Ibidem Stuttgart, forthcoming.
[2]See for example: M. Kuhn and H. Vessuri (eds.),Contributions to Alternative Concepts of Knowledge,ibidem, Stuttgart, forthcoming
Section I:Critiques of critiquesof the 'European'social sciences
Chapter 2:Post-colonialismandSocial Theory Revisited
Kwang-YeongShin
1.Introduction
Therecurrent issue in social theoristsin the non-Western world is the meaning of the Westinsocial theory in general. For those who are aware of the long imperial rule of the West and its lingering impact on post-colonial countries in the post war period, it has been conceived with regard to hegemony of the West inthe space of academic world in the non-West. Becauseoftheoverwhelmingdominance of the West in representation of non-Western societies,intellectuals in the non-West seek to find out alternative social theories to those in the West.Among others,post-colonial perspectives in literary theory and cultural studiesprovided importantnewpathwaysto criticizethe dominance of the West in social theory and academic world.They succeeded in raising issuesembeddedin thepower-knowledge nexusbetween the West and the non-West orthe metropolisandthe periphery orthemainstream and subalterns.In particular, debunking hegemonic dominances in social theories explicitly andcriticizingthe concept of sciences implicitly, they allowed us to figure outalternative understandingsof thesocialformation of the contemporarynon-Westernworldas wellas the Western world
However, those challenges are not influentialenough to redirect the academic discourses andtheknowledgeproduction in the West as well asin the non-West.Thedominantsocial theoriesdeveloped in the context of Western societies havestill dominated the sphereof knowledge production inthesocial sciencesin the non-Westernregion.Thus,it is hard to deny thatthe discourse on subalterns still remains as the marginal statusintheacademic sphere, particularly inthesocial sciences.It is one thing toposetheproblematic ofideological interpellationof the dominantWesternsocial theoriesover the non-West. Itis completely another thing to generatealternative social theoriesto the dominant social theories of the West. In other words, post-colonial theoriessuccessfully undermined thevalidity and legitimacyof social theories in the West asthe universalnormal sciences but failed to provide a new paradigm ofthesocial theories.They fail to be revolutionary sciences replacing the existing social sciences of the non-West.
In this paper I will addresssomeissues involved in the attempts to promotealternativestosocial theoriesby post-colonial perspectivesin thenon-Westand try to formulate alternative concepts of social theory to represent historical and cultural specificity of the non-Western countries.I will focus on three issues which are interconnected with each other butcould be dealt with separately.The first issue is that whetheror notnon-Westerners needthealternative social theories tothesocial theories developed in the West. There are many critical social theories, such as Marxism, Post-Marxism, critical theory, post-structuralism, feminism etc., stemmed from the West and critical intellectuals in the non-Western worldwhichrely on those theories in their critical discourse on theirown societiesas well as global capitalism. While major post-colonial theoreticianswereborn in the non-West, most of them belong to major academic institutions inthemetropolis.The history of dependency theory is somewhat different from post-colonial theory in thatalmostallsocial scientists posing dependency theses were Latin American scholarsand stayed in institutions in Latin America.[1]
Second, how and whatreality can be theoretically represented?Totalizing critiques of Western social theories is not asufficientway toformulateanalternative understanding of social reality in the non-Western world. Without specifyingexplanandumand identifyingexplanans, anyalternativetheoretical attempts are doom to fail.Regardingexplanadum, post-colonial theorists disclosed the collective silence of social theories, revealing hiddendimensions ofthecolonial power-knowledgerelationship. Concerningexplanans,it did not provide successfulsocialmechanismthrough which reality of the non-Western world was formed and transformed,exceptcriticizinghegemonic dominance of the Westin the post-colonial countries, especially in India. In contrast, polemics of dependency theoriestried to identifyexplanansofunderdevelopment of Latin American countries,displayingexploitative economic relations between the US and Latin American countries.
Third,counter-hegemonic social theories should be communicable to social scientists of the Westas well asthose ofthe non-Westandhavediscursiverationality among social theorists beyond nationalityand spatiality.Obscurantismand ventriloquist discourses still prevailinthepost-colonial discourses, producing biblical elites and followersin academics.In other words, it is still regarded as a part of literary critique or humanities rather than social sciences.In addition, counter-hegemonic social theories also should be empiricallygroundedas far as those are theories about society.[2]Post-colonial discoursedid not providemuchtheoretical ramificationinthesocial sciences exceptcultural studies and cultural psychology. Counter hegemonic social theories should seek to explain socialrealitywith transparent discursive approaches.
In the following, I will discuss theoretical issues associated with the three issues and attempt to find plausible theoretical strategiesto resolve the issues. Specifically, I propose a comparative mechanism based approach to social reality which de-universalizes social theories of the West and treat them as social theories based on local or national contexts of the West.It might be considered asan extension of double indigenization (Shin, 2013: 77-94), provincializingof social theories(Chakarabarty, 2008;Kuhn, 2013: 33-48), andanalternative discourse(Alatas, 2010).
2.Postcolonial Problematic:What is to be explainedby whom?
Post-colonial discoursescan be portrayed by many critiques of colonial discourseswhich werecharacterized byEuro-centrism, calledOrientalism,andhegemonic epistemeof the West(Seid, 1974;Spivak, 1984; Baba,1990). While theoretical traditions of post-colonialism range from literary theory to psychoanalysis,ithas been a part of overwhelming cultural turns in the 1980s.[3]They implicitly assume that a geo-political dimension embedded in knowledgeand knowledge productionis importantin shaping the domination of the West and subordination of the non-West.That is epitomized bySpivak'sargumentthatthe West as Subject"pretends it has'no geo-political determinations'"(1984: 66).Debunking ideology of universalismand power relations in intellectuals, she disclosesgeo-political dimension of desire, subjectivity and ideology.
Post-colonial discourses criticize persistent cultural domination of the West over newly liberated colonial societies. Social theories of the West played a key role in cultural and psychological formation of hierarchal relations between the metropolis and the peripheries even in the post-colonial period. European hegemony of knowledge production perpetuatesthe representative imbalance between the two.The metropolis'domination of psyche of thepeople and intellectuals of theperipheriesprevents from altering the relationship between the metropolis and the peripheries. Post-colonial critiques of the dominance of knowledge production of the West over the non-West touch the meta-theoretical issues with regard to representation and understanding of their own identity andthehistory of the non-West.
However, post-colonial discourses suffer from simplified imaginary boundaries between the West and the non-West or between the metropolis and the periphery. They paid less attention to endogenous heterogeneity within the non-West or the periphery where some subalterns dominateothersubalterns(sub-subalterns).As globalization proceeds, theglobalchain of exploitation and dominationkeeps extending its encompassing influence to individuals andfamilies in local communities. As the web of marketrelations reachesvillages and alleysof the Global South, simple dichotomous classification of the West and non-West conceals the web of social relations embedded in and operating at different levels of the life-worldof the Global South.Thoughsome postcolonial theorists such asBhabha(1994:173)accentuateananalysis considering"complex cultural and political boundaries", they only focus on cultural dimensionsneglecting complexity ofpolitical andeconomic relations between the metropolis and the periphery.
Another weakness of post-colonial discourses is that their problematicwasmostly confined toan issue ofidentity and subjectivity. The dominance of cultural imperialism still exerts significant influence on the formation of subjectivity of the people of theGlobal South. Furthermore, Western dominance in mass culture of the non-Weststill prevails throughpopular songs, movies and consumer goods. However, the dominance of the West over the non-West primarily depends upon economic and military power.In addition, the formation of identity and subjectivity has been contestedthroughtheconflicting interpellation of family and local institutions.There are complex intervening and mediatingfactors between the Global North and identity and subjectivity of subalternsin the Global South. It is too simplistic to argue that cultural imperialism of the West directly dominates the life-world of subalterns andindentifyand subjectivity of subalterns are outcomes of cultural imperialism of the West.
Thus, post-colonialdiscourses did notfullyinfluence social sciencesin the non-Westexceptsome relatively marginal disciplines such ascultural psychology or indigenous psychologywhich stresses local culture or cultural practicesin the process of shapingthepsycheof the people(Kim and Berry, 1993; Kim, Yang and Hwang, 2006;Shewederand Levine, 1984).Cultural traditions stemmed from local historical experiences affectthemind-set of the people andthusresists universal application of psychological theories developed in the West. Culture specific psychology challenges Western psychology which assumes universal validity of psychological theories based on universal psychological beings. However, asWeidemann(2013) argues, indigenous psychology proclaimed by some psychologists in Asia still remains within the perimeter ofWestern psychology in the sense thattheir research still followsthe Westernmodelof science.[4]
Alternative modelsof sciencedonot exist yet, competing with all the other(bourgeoisie, Eurocentric or Western)models of sciences.Ratheralternative social theoriesmight be feasibletoexplain social reality which includes social and historical events, social institutions, and culture and ideologyof societies at a given time and space. It implies thatalternativesocial theoriesalsotend to explain social phenomena or social reality, identifying generativecausal dynamicsin a narrative way or in a more formal way.In spite ofdifference in ontological and epistemologicalfoundation of social theories, all social theories have a common aim to understand the formation and transformation of society or societies.[5]Alternative social theories also seek to provide understandings of social reality different from those originated from the West, assuming cultural and historical specificity exert strong causal influences on the psyche of the people, institutional arrangement, social relations and social actions.
3.New Strategies forTheory Construction
Those who seek to promote alternative social sciences against the hegemonicanduniversalizing social sciences developed in theWest face harshreality of social sciences outsidethe mainstream academic world.Above all, the social sciences havebeencompletely dominated by the West.As some alternative social theories suchas dependency theory emerged, it did not succeed in becoming alternative social theory of economic development in Latin America.
Sinceacademicinstitutions associated with education, research and publication are totally controlled by established institutions in theWest,it is hard to find alternative space for new challenging and critical social sciencesin the non-West.Paradigms developedin the West still dominate academics in the non-West simply because academic norms with regard to perspectives,research methods and writing stylesare set by the'Western standard'. Violating those norms is sanctioned byvarious institutional norms.
With regard tofurtherdeveloping problematicarticulated bypost-colonialism in social sciences,I proposefive elements in orderto developnon-hegemonic alternative theories.Thefive elementsare prerequisite for representing local and national contexts,at the same time for recognizing multiple layers of causality,partiallyaccepting the possibility of universal foundation of social theories, and formulating social scientific explanatory modelsbased on lived experiences of'subalterns.'
SocialTotality
The first step is a totalizing perception of the relationship between the West andthenon-West.The social formation of the non-western societies has been affected by the social formation of the West. Since Portugalhadexpanded its influence beyond the European continent since 15thcentury, the vast area of the world had been under the direct control of western countries. The formation of the modern world system has affected not merely the world economy but also theglobaltransaction ofknowledgeand information, exerting hegemonic powerof the West over the non-West.
However, the recognition of hegemonic power of the Westis onlyabeginning step for developingnon-hegemonicsocial theories.It becomes the fact of life that the global power relations shape the lives of the people through the web of commodity chains in the economy and political/cultural domination in the domain ofsciencesandideology. That is'the first order conditions of determination'within which local and national institutions are operating and individual and family lives aremanaged.Capitalist globalizationhas reinforcedthe economic impact of the West on the lives of thepeople in the non-West.This overwhelmingand encompassing reality have been easily neglected by social researchersfocusing on individuals atthe micro-level, ignoring the global power relations as the macro-structural factors. Thus,social theories and researchesin the non-Western world have been kept inthe"territorial trap"in which global power and domination are assumed to be outside of the framework of local and national territory(Agnew, 1994).
Of course, world system analysis(Wallerstein, 1974,1983and 2000)attempts tobuild radically different theory of social changesbased on geopolitical dimension. Itradically disclosesthe limits ofthe analysis oflocal and national social changes under the framework ofcapitalist developmentofasingle country, orasingle nation state. He suggested a macro-economic systemwhich wentbeyondthegeographic territoryoftheindividualnation state.Industrial development and tradeexpansiontook place simultaneously in some regionswith multiple cultural systems. Though cultural dynamics might be confined to smaller regions due to ethnic divisions anddifferentcultural heritages from the past,theglobal division of labormade locals and nationalsintegratedintothe world economy, generatinganunequal transaction of surplus from some regions called the periphery to other regions called the core.
Both indigenous social science researchesand mainstream social science researchestend to overlook dominant global forces which reveal itself very differently atthe individual level as well asthelocal/nationallevel. The global forceshaveoperatedanalogous to magnetic fields in the nature,though invisibleorintangible,influencing every aspects ofthephysical worldwe are living. Compartmentalized social science disciplines do not allowresearchers toperceive and theorize the overarching global forcesthat operate beyond the local and national boundariesproperly. Whileananalytical rigor has been appraised as a core ofthemainstream social sciences,thefailure to recognizethe importance of theglobal forces has resulted infragmentedand incompleteunderstandingsof individuals, societies andthe world.
Social Mechanism Centered Approach
The second stepfor an alternative theory constructionis to theorize the linkage between globalization and social changes at national orlocal levels.Recognition of the global power relations exerting influences over the national and local social changes is not enough tofully comprehendsocial changestaking placeat the local or national level, since local andnational societies consist of local institutions and actors with their owncultureandlocalhistories. Thus, we need to understand the interplay of the global forces and the localandnational factors to fully comprehend social change.Because there havebeen various modes of interaction between the global and the local, the mechanism of interaction should be theorized. Dependency theoriesin the 1970sor post-colonial theoriesin the 1990smight be regardedasalternativetheoretical attempts to identify relations of domination betweenNorthAmerica and South America andbetweenthe mainstream and the subalterns at different levels.But they did notfullyspecify the operating processesof unequal exchangebetween the core and the periphery ortemporal or spatial sequences of dominations by the West over the non-West.
In order to reveal how domination of the Westover the non-Westis takingplace through the nation stateand the global market,themechanism specific approach, which seeks to identify the processes of domination of the West over the non-West throughvariousinstitutions andlocal and globalagencies,is needed.
Hitherto, there have been two major approaches considered as models of social sciences. One isadeductive modeltowhich mainstream economists,among others,stick, assumingthat theoretically constructedhypothetical conditionsare identifiedby empirical observationandcommonlymathematical tools are used to prove theoretical deductionfrom those conditions. Anotheris to find correlations between events oramongvariablesto explain events or the stateof affairs. Rather thanidentifyingcausal dynamics betweenevents or variables, correlation or sometimes called associationhas beenconsidered as a proof of theoretical argumentor hypothesis.This approach has been common in the contemporary sociology and the political scienceas well. Even though some causal relations are assumed in the theoretical discussions, causal processes are not investigateddirectly. The analysis of correlation and associationhas beenwrongly assumed to be a verifying method of the existence of the causal relations.
Socialmechanismcentered approachfocusesonsequential processes in which social actors and institution are interactingat different spaces and times. Both social actors and institution are temporalproductsof interactions andalsoconstraining factors forboth social actors and institutional changes. Thus, social mechanismshave limited generalityand that defiesuniversal orgeneral social theories (Elster, 1991: 7-8). While society consists of individuals, individuals are not atomized anddo notact in the vacuum.They are differentlyinculcatedby different national culturesand influenced byclassexperiences at the workplace and local community. For example, aJapanese worker employed inToyota Motor Co. who is at the same timea member ofToyota Motor Co.union has quite different subjectivity and ideology from that of a South African coal miner, a member of theCOSATUin South Africa.They have experienced different power relations between labor and capital as well as the national politics.Identity and ideology of workers are outcomes of social and cultural processes deeply grounded inthenational and local context.The structure of authority within work organization, the relationship between union and management, historical legacy of labor struggle etc.have affected the formation of workers'perception of themselves,their union organizations, capitalists and the state. The configuration of institutionsand social relationshas generated different socialand politicalactors betweentheJapanese Toyota Motor Co.andaSouth African coal miner.
Social mechanismcenteredapproaches are different from variable centered approacheswhichdecompose individuals or groups intothesum of properties described by variables.For example, based on individual information,social actors,respondents,are dissectedintovariables, eventually numbers,such as gender, education, age, etc.The major concernof variable centered approachis to find outsignificantcorrelations among variablesand the relationship between dependent variable and independent variables. The variable centered approach is a correlation based social analysis, assuming variablesaremajor causal factors and correlations representrealcausal relations or possible indicators of causal relations. Ontologically actors are notcausal factorsin social events or social phenomena. Instead, variables are causal factors (formore details, seeHedstromandSwedberg, 1996: 291-293).C. W. Mills(1959) called it"abstract empiricism"by which statistical models are assumed to represent research interests.
A search for social mechanismsbetween anexplanandumanditsexplanansmight prevent researchers from over-generalization of the experiences of the West to the non-West. Because there arediverse possibilitiesof social mechanisms in social formation, the sameexplanandumcan be generated by differentexplanansacross nations. For example, major causes oftheeconomic growth inSouthKorea in thelate20thcentury were different from those of England in the 19 century. Economic growth as the sameexplanandumcan be explained by different causal factors and different social mechanismsof economic growthcan be identifiedbetweenSouthKorea and England.Thus, the division between the West and the non-West is also an oversimplified dichotomy, assuming homogeneity within the West and within the non-West. Social mechanism approach rejects oversimplification of social formation.
Furthermore, the social mechanism centered approach is an attempt to interrogatecausal processes which areculture specific or contextspecific, differentiating real causal processes from pseudo-causal processes frequently observed among over-generalized social theories and empirical research based on survey data.[6]Identifying"nuts and bolts of social mechanism"would help researchers reveal specificity of causal factors or causal processes which represent cultural differencesand institutional idiosyncrasy (Elster, 2007:31-52). Thus, the social mechanism centered approach is inter-disciplinary or trans-disciplinary approach because constituents of social mechanisms consist of various factors which cannot be confined to traditionalboundaries ofsocial sciences disciplines.The classification of social sciences and humanities are artificial demarcations with institutional power inuniversities.
Trans-disciplinary Approach
However,thesocial mechanism centered approach is not welcomed byeachdiscipline inthesocial sciencesbecause itdemandsnew approachestothe societywith differentunderstandingand anexplanation ofdifferentlayers andaspects of the society, transgressing traditional boundaries within social sciences which were established in the late 19thcentury and the early 20thcentury.Each discipline has its ownexplanandumby which each discipline establishes itsinstitutionalidentity and maintains organizational autonomy within higher academic institutions. The formation and transformation of each discipline within universities have accompaniedacademic politics,claiming and maintainingthegenuine area of researchand sometimes monopolizing professional jobs. Economics try to understand economic activities and economic outcomesuch as economic growth, business cycle, price change, wage determination, and so on. Psychology attempts to explain cognitive structure, psychic change including emotional depression and metal disorder of individuals.Political sciencespursue an understandingofthe relationship between political parties and voters, policy making processes, and political power and legal order. Sociologytries to understand social behavior,social structureand social transformation.
Variation inexplanadumresults in differential emphases onexplanansin social sciences.While emphases on interdisciplinary approach bring about convergence ofexplanansin social sciences in recent years, it is still limited in some areas. In particular,specialized journalsdeveloped in the 20thcenturyprevent social scientistsfrom searching for theoretical understandingsbeyond particular disciplines in the existingacademicboundariesinthesocial sciences.The institutional boundary exercises strong constraints on research activitiesfromchoosing research subjectstofinding plausible explanationsand the ways of publication ofresearchfindings.
The diffusion of Western education system into the world has broughtabout thealmostsame institutional boundariesin the non-Westernworld. The university system in the Third World followed the university system in the West, including disciplinary boundaries made in the West, the contents of curriculum, and evaluation of students and teachers. The model of sciences including both natural sciences and social sciences developed in the West wasalsotransplanted intothenewly liberated countries in Asia and Africa, where Western higher education system was established during the colonial rule. Even though there has beenanindigenous development of education and research in each countryin the non-West, the model of sciences developed in the West, mostly in the UnitedStates of America, dominatesthe idea of sciences and its institutional configuration in the non-West, that is, as hegemony of scientificeducation and research among universities in the non-West.
Hermeneutic Reflectionor Mental Experiment
AsSpivak(1984)argues, the subalterns cannot speak out by themselves.They are notfullyrepresented by academic representativeseither.Furthermore, they cannot present their own history and collective experiencesin an academic discourse. While they are living in the life world, they do not exercise their existential power at the sphere of knowledge production.Therefore, the agency centered approach to knowledgemight endup withanemphasis on practice because agency cannot produceascientific theory based onlived experiencebyitself.
Then the remaining issuewill be'what is realin the real experience of the subalterns'and'howitcan bepresentedand represented by whom? More fundamentally, how canrealitybeidentified?One way to go beyondtheessentialist approach to reality is to go further to empirical reality rather than transcendental reality.The Kantian conception of reality can be comprehended only by"noumena"which cannot be perceived by experience due to limitations and even distortion of sensibility of human beings. The reality in this case can be captured by a prioriknowledgethat is independent of experience.How is a priori knowledge possible? If reality is in
