Search

The paper traces the growth of sociology in India through three phases. The first phase, it argues, begins in the 30s with the slow consolidation of the discipline. In this phase, sociology was associated with the Indological perspective and the social was perceived in culturist terms and analysed through the prism of the past, in and through Sanskrit texts. In the second phase, which begins in the early 60s, when University education expands in India, this indigenous perspective is re‐framed. There is a shift from textual studies to empirical investigation and the village becomes the site for studying Indian civilization. This paper makes a detailed analysis of the social anthropological perspective of M.N. Srinivas whose theories on village and caste influenced the sociological imagination in this phase. The third phase starts in the late 70s with the growth of social movements of the subalterns which challenge the received culturist nationalist sociological imagination. Today sociology together with other social sciences are at crossroads in India due to the impact of neoliberalism. The latter has encouraged privatisation of education, decreased state funding in material and human resources and an increased state control on academia. All three have affected the autonomy of the teachers and as well the University system and thus the efforts to chart a new sociological imagination in which the Indian social is perceived in global comparative terms. It is difficult to assess which turn sociology in India will take in these circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is an investigation of attempts at endogenization and indigenization in the history of sociology in Japan. The author begins by presenting a short history of Japanese sociology. While the issues of endogenization and indigenization had been raised in the 1910s, imperialism and the militarization of the Emperor state and society blocked this form of development. Japanese social sciences have thus mainly followed the model of Western social sciences. The issue of indigenization gained attention after World War II and especially after the late 1960s, which was a time of reflection on the extreme influence of American sociology. In this context, this paper investigates the development of Kazuko Tsurumi's sociology, which is one of the best examples of work that deals with the issue of indigenization. Tsurumi analyzes social change from pre‐World War II to post‐World War II Japan by drawing on sociological functionalism. However, Tsurumi suggests that Kunio Yanagita's theory of folklore and ethnology provides a stronger explanatory framework than functionalism, and contends that Kumagusu Minaka has developed an approach rooted in East Asia. Tsurumi advances this indigenous development theory based on the work of Yanagita and Minakata, and at the same time internationalizes this theory. This paper concludes that Tsurumi's theory is an important medium between Western sociology and Eastern sociology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of sociology as a subfield has long aimed to describe the historical developments of the discipline, within which national traditions offer unique voices while also contributing to a global sociology. How do various sociological paradigms and national traditions approach social reality in similar and different ways? This paper examines Russian and Japanese contributions to the history of sociology by reviewing some of their major concepts and perspectives. On this basis, this paper seeks to probe into the past and present self‐understandings of the two sociological traditions, as well as their potentials for a more active role in global sociological discourse. Both countries have a history of protracted isolation, which has made them more or less invisible in the international sociological community. However, Russian and Japanese sociological traditions exist and are ready to be tapped, even as their production and mobilization of intellectual resources remain strongly embedded in their politics, cultures, and societies. A broader aim of this paper is to enhance mutual understandings and future collaborations between sociologists in Russia and Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper aims to examine the indigenization discourse in mainland China by charting its evolution in shifting historical contexts. Three phases are distinguished. In the 1980's, the idea of indigenization or "sinicization" was promulgated by Taiwanese and American Chinese social scientists. In taking up the idea, the early indigenization discourse in mainland China embraced rather than rejected positivism and modernity. The second phase is the 1990's to 2000's, when remarkable efforts at indigenization were made in the theory of social change, social psychology and post‐positivist philosophy. Yet these efforts did not constitute a pointed critique of Western social science. Most recently, there is a revival of interest in the indigenization idea, as evident in a major controversy over its adequacy and relevance in the Chinese context. While the call for indigenization is gaining currency, there is a concurrent trend of coalescence with the state‐sanctioned program of building "discursive power". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the field of sociology, focusing on its development in Asia and the ongoing east-west relationship. Topics include the influence of colonialism on the field of sociology, the historiography of sociology, issues of Westernization, and a review of literature on the history of sociology in Asia.

This paper explores the development of academic sociology in Hong Kong since the expansion of higher education and increased student enrolment in the nineties. Colleges gained university titles and sociology departments matured as a result. I attempt to trace the current state of sociology in teaching programs and research directions. I conclude with a discussion of future developments with specific reference to the repositioning of Hong Kong within sociology as the former British colony continue to negotiate, navigate and grapple its relationship with Mainland China both as a productive site for sociological research and a reference point to be different in method. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is a comparison of the views of Max Weber and Émile Durkheim on socialism; these two have yet to be compared on this topic. They offered shared critiques of socialism, but differed in assessment of its overall worth, with Durkheim being more welcoming. After considering possible explanations for this divergence I argue it reflects the contrasting methodologies adopted by both. Whilst Weber places questions of the 'value' of socialism solely in the conscious of the individual, and therefore beyond sociology, Durkheim sees this as a social question and therefore part of the practical concerns of sociologists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Very few articles or chapters account for the history of sociology in Asia as a whole or for its inception from the late 19th century, especially in Japan, China and India. The following article, partly based on archival evidence, takes into consideration two important elements that bind together the various developments of sociology in Asia after World War II, namely calls for a better relevance of concepts and theories in order to fight academic colonialism, and strivings in the 1970s for the organization of an Asian sociological or social science organization. It will end with a short reflection and interrogation on the role of Asia in the world social science archipelago. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociological theory is not irrelevant to the South but needs to be deparochialised. The parochiality of sociological theory as it exists today can clearly be seen from the canon. The canon would have us believe that sociological theory was the sole creation of a few white men who lived in the nineteenth century. The absence of non‐European thinkers in accounts of the history of sociological theory is particularly glaring in cases where non‐Europeans had not only contributed to systematic thinking about the nature of society in the modern period but also influenced the development of sociology in the West. Typically, a history of social thought or a course on social thought and theory would cover theorists such as Montesquieu, Vico, Comte, Spencer, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Simmel, Toennies, Sombart, Mannheim, Pareto, Sumner, Ward, Small, and others. Generally, both non‐Western thinkers as well as women founders are excluded. Although sociology is slow to take a decolonial turn, there are now efforts to critique and rethink the canon. This article is a contribution in the direction of critiquing and expanding the canon to render it less parochial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an exploration into the interrelation between the academic sciences of history and sociology in cultural studies. The challenges faced by both historians and sociologists in the United States concerning ideological independence and resistance to interdisciplinary influence are discussed. An overview of the successes and failures of interdisciplinary cooperation in American sociology is provided. The author suggests that sociologists must be willing to accept more influence from historical disciplines to maintain its strength and ensure future development.