The sociology curriculum of most universities legitimizes, institutionalizes, and reproduces not just the fact that the origin of sociology as a discipline is rooted in Europe at the time of Enlightenment, the French Revolution and industrialization but also consolidates the dominant intellectual tradition prevalent in the West. These curricula normalize the imagination that reflecting on the predicament of change in society and theorizing as an enterprise is undertaken only by Europeans and, later, by North American white males.
In the severe need of finding “alternative discourses” (Alatas, 2000) and questioning the unchanging nature of the teaching of classical sociological theory, Syed Farid Alatas and Vineeta Sinha offer their book Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon. Published in 2017 by Palgrave Macmillan. The book challenges the Eurocentric and Androcentric bias inherent in the sociological theoretical tradition and highlights the neglect of non-western and female theorists who have been historically and systematically rendered invisible and ignored.
By releasing the book, Alatas and Sinha call for the universalization and internationalization of social sciences and offer the book to academia to initiate a fresh approach to the teaching of classical theory in sociology classrooms. What makes the book substantive and creative is that it emerged from the university classrooms where the problem of “teaching Western sociological theory in a non-western context to non-westerners” (Alatas & Sinha, 2001, 316-331) surfaced and became the teachers’ responsibility to introspect on the curriculum and diversify.
Alatas and Sinha argue in the introduction of the book that rethinking the theory course is required both in the sense of theoretical concerns, which do not miss the experiences of colonization (& decolonization) of non-Europe and pedagogical practices that contextualize the theory to facilitate sense-making and make theories relevant for students today. Throughout the book, the authors speak about their project not being dismissive of the work of founding fathers but pushing for a re-reading with a lens of criticality as well as giving much-awaited space to women social thinkers and other groundbreaking theorists from non-West.
Interestingly, the authors remark on the aged debate on Eurocentrism and its failure to revise the contemporary teaching and reading of the canon. The case of “missing persons” in the history of social sciences, particularly women’s voices and their methodological contribution (McDonald, 1993) is also undertaken.
The book introduces biographies and works of seven under-celebrated figures who promoted sociological thought in a non-western context. Along with a powerful introduction and an epilogue, the chapters give a glimpse into the lives and times of these figures, the contexts in which they were writing, an outline of their social thoughts and sociological interpretations, and the methodological aspects. A common underlying pattern in choosing these personalities seems to be threefold. First, the period of the late 19th century (except Khaldun, who wrote in the 14th century); second, people (both men and women) who studied society in the grip of colonial rule; and third, the misrecognized and underrepresented theories that have relevance today and promises the scope of diversifying sociological traditions.
Take the chapter on Filipino thinker and activist José Rizal. Alatas begins with a claim that Rizal might just be the first systematic social thinker in Southeast Asia, and his sociological theory is the “theory of colonial society” (Alatas, 2017, 143). Foregrounding the Spanish colonial period in the Philippines, the chapter brings attention to Rizal’s critique of the Spanish construction of the image of Filipinos as ‘lazy people.’ Rizal, in his essay ‘Sobre la indolencia de los Filipinos’, deconstructs the nature of the creation of this distorted image and blames colonial exploitation that resulted in an unwillingness to work, which was erroneously read as indolence. Rizal also suggests that such construction had an “ideological function” (Alatas, 2017, 162), which, in the post-colonial intellectual tradition, is theorized as a legitimizing factor of most inhumane cruelties. Towards the end of this chapter, Alatas contrasts Rizal’s appreciation of modernity and rationalization with European thinkers who were pessimistic about it. In the context of the colonial regime, for Rizal, ideas, and values of modernity were necessary to reject and topple the Spanish rule and anti-rational conservative church. Rizal’s contributions to social and political theory, argues Alatas, show us an approach to studying the sociology of colonial society. As a reader, I also see that the traces of what Edward Said calls ‘Orientalism’ can be found in Rizal’s essay written almost a century before Said. Orientalism, in simplest terms, is the misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the ‘other.’ The chapter on Rizal was illuminative because finding a theorist from the Philippines is rare in classical theory. Reading the translated (from Spanish) lines of the original writings of Rizal was, I feel, a preliminary step towards an emancipation of social sciences from the hegemony of Eurocentrism.
The chapter on Pandita Ramabai Saraswati written by Vineeta Sinha showcases her tremendous personality as an activist, feminist, and prolific writer in the second half of 19th century India. Her works, much before the emergence of the theories of feminism/s, critique caste and patriarchy embedded in the Hindu orthodox tradition. As a social reformer, she built institutions for social reform and education for Indian women. Although most of her works are focused on reforms for high-caste Hindu women, it is befuddling to think why there has been no connection between her and Savitribai Phule (an anti-caste feminist social reformer working in the same period in the same region). Ramabai’s social commentary and her methodology of locating structural problems in a caste-Hindu society are powerful and cannot be ignored in any case. Sinha brings, in the chapter, Meera Kosambi, who compiled and translated Ramabai’s works and declares her writings as “militant feminist rhetoric” that has been erased from the mainstream records of history (Kosambi, 2000). Shedding light on the methodological aspects, Sinha brings Ramabai’s method of using her experiences and stories around her to articulate the situation of women. Her method was similar to what we now call autoethnography, and her approach could be associated with what Carol Hanisch said in 1969, “personal is political.”
Like Rizal, Ramabai’s work is an integration of analysis of society and reforming it. Although Sinha adds scathing critiques of Ramabai, which labelled her as someone who had essentialized notions of gender, and suggests that she only saw women as victims and in need of help. Sinha also argues for looking at the complexity of her location as an outcast converted Christian woman without any family struggling to keep writing and working for the emancipation of Hindu women. Personally, for me, two things were most special in this chapter. First, her views on the impossibility of objectivity in doing social sciences and the complexity of observing and perceiving the ‘other.’ Second, her reading of Harriet Martineau and coming together metaphysically as phenomenal women sociologists who travelled alone and observed American society. I think in the multiple criticisms of Ramabai from both feminists and anti-caste scholars, a critical re-reading of her works is required that is rooted in her biography, socio-political context, and the messiness of her fluid identities.
Alatas’s disappointment with introductory texts on sociology and the inadequate attention given to non-western thinkers, especially as a “source of theory” (Alatas, 2017), comes across powerfully in his chapters on Arab social scientist Ibn Khaldun and Turkish theologian Said Nursi. Khaldun’s work on the social history of Arabs, ‘Muqaddimah,’ is, as Alatas says, a scientific study of human societies, their organization, political matters, and historical change. I was astounded to read the concept of asabiyyah which, in a sociological sense, looks at social cohesion. One cannot help but make a connection with Durkheim’s work on solidarity, although Khaldun was writing around 500 years before him. Emile Durkheim’s theory of mechanical and organic solidarity is often discussed in functionalist discourses. Similarly, Nursi’s ‘Despair’ draws parallels with Durkheim’s Anomie and Marx’s Alienation. “Nursi’s study of tensions between tradition and modernity and the relationship between religious faith and modern life” (Alatas, 2017, 206) is declared by Alatas, as social theology. In his critique of both the Western and the Muslim world, Nursi explored issues like religious conflict, class, exploitation, and interactions between Islam and the West, which are perhaps more relevant today than in Nursi’s times. In developing Khaldunian sociological tradition, Alatas hopes to merge Khaldun’s theories with the modern practice of sociology and extend the social theology of Nursi.
Another Indian social scientist, Benoy Kumar Sarkar is captured in this collection, who produced more than 50 books only in English and critiqued Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Freud. Although problematic in his stance of praising Nazism as a form of benevolent dictatorship (Manjapra, 2014), it is suggested by Kris Manjapra, the author of the book Age of Entanglement, that Sarkar’s pro-Nazi ideas should be read in the light of Subhas Chandra Bose’s campaign to unite Hindus and Muslims and fight British empire with the support of Nazis and Axis powers. Sinha notes that Sarkar’s works also show evidence of critiques of Orientalism and Eurocentrism much before Wallerstein and Said and argues for a re-positioning of him as a critical theorist of modernity. Nonetheless, such critiques must be studied carefully before drawing parallels.
Two English Women, Florence Nightingale and Harriet Martineau, are also featured in the book. While Martineau, thanks to feminist sociologists, is a growing name in sociology, Nightingale is a surprising name to see in the list who, Sinha says, is most misrecognized. The chapter on Nightingale exposes the androcentric project of denying women the role of theorists and methodologists. Her work on the status of women, poverty, employment, and pioneering use of statistics to analyze social problems are privileged over the popular image of ‘lady with the lamp.’ Nightingale’s ideas on women are very close to Ramabai’s in the sense that they both circled naturalized femininity, expressed disdain towards women’s perceived ‘laziness,’ incompetence, and lack of purpose, and argued for setting up examples of better womanhood. Due to her refusal to join J S Mill’s women’s suffrage committee, disagreements with Martineau on women’s rights issues, and calling women’s rights ‘jargon,’ it becomes obvious that Nightingale can hardly be recognized as a feminist in the current frameworks. But Sinha argues that “it is less important to settle the debate about whether Nightingale can or should be labelled a feminist or not” (Sinha, 2017, 288) but should be noted for her sharp and often satirical critiques of gendered relationships, family, enforced idleness of middle-class Victorian women, flaws of colonial policies, and application of social sciences for reform. Through writing this chapter, Sinha hopes that it will liberate the imprisoned persona of Florence as a nurse into a vibrant reformist theorist of society and a producer of new knowledge. I will refrain from writing anything on the chapter on Martineau here as she has been, for many years now, being re-read already and stands in the possibility of getting resurrected into the mainstream courses of sociology.
Standing true to the promise of approaching the book from the method of inclusion and not exclusion, the authors have included chapters on Marx, Weber, and Durkheim. They write that the intention of making the book is “not to replace the old canon with a new one but rather to replace the domination of European-derived concepts and theories with a multi-cultural coexistence of the same” (Alatas, 2017, 170). Along with their theories, the chapters push for a critical reading of the canon. However, it is important to think about what must have been the reason for placing these European theorists in the book when we are aware of the availability of an overwhelming number of chapters written on them in almost every book that covers social theorists/theories. Is there any sense of pressure to include them, or did the authors place them here to create a sense of equality between non-Western theorists and the dominant thinkers?
Finishing the book, as a student of sociology, I wonder if my classroom would bring these theorists to serious study or if it would stop just at the point of celebrating and knowing about these people and their theories. As Alatas and Sinha wonder, when are we going to read ‘with’ them and not just ‘about’ them?
I would like to call the book a hegemony-breaking step in creating a non-dominant alternative discourse rather than non-western, as most theorists in the book lived in the dynamics of the unequal relationship between the West and non-West. The authors suggest a diversification in the reading of theorists (& theories) and not segregate and produce any idea of opposing binaries. I also want to specifically point out that the Indian theorists must be read along with anti-caste, feminist, decolonial and other emerging perspectives to maintain a balanced reading saved from the unnecessary glorification of the need for indigenization, especially in the current Hindutva endemic. I am sure this book is a beautiful offering in both addressing and treating the disciplinary amnesia of sociology. An epistemic justice!
References:
Alatas, S. F. (2000). An Introduction to the Idea of Alternative Discourses. Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science, 1-12.
Manjapra, K. (2014). Age of Entanglement: German and Indian Intellectuals Across Empire. London: Harvard University Press.
McDonald, L. (1993). The Early Origins of the Social Sciences. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
***
Neeraj Naidu is pursuing a master’s in Sociology from the University of Hyderabad. He would like to thank Anurekha Chari Wagh for suggesting this book and Rashmi Kumari for giving him feedback on the review.