Download the Complete Volume 1 - Academia Sinica

FACING AN UNEQUAL WORLD : 

CHALLENGES FOR A GLOBAL SOCIOLOGY

FACING AN UNEQUAL WORLD : 

CHALLENGES FOR A GLOBAL SOCIOLOGY 

VOLUME ONE: INTRODUCTION, LATIN AMERICA AND AFRICA 

Editors: Michael Burawoy, Mau-kuei Chang, and Michelle Fei-yu Hsieh 

Associate Editors: Abigail Andrews, Emine Fidan Elcioglu, and Laura K. Nelson 

A Joint Publication of The 

Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica 

Council of National Associations of the International Sociological Association 

Academia Sinica

Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology 

These Conference Proceedings are jointly published by the Institute of Sociology at 

Academia Sinica, Council of National Associations of the International Sociological 

Association, and Academia Sinica. 

Published in 2010 

Printed in Taiwan 

Copyright for the individual papers belongs to the authors. 

All rights reserved. Reproduction of materials in this book in any form requires prior 

written consent from the authors and full attribution. No part of this book may be 

reproduced for commercial purposes. 

Please direct inquiries to: 

Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica 

128 Sec. 2, Academia Rd., Nankang, Taipei 11529, Taiwan 

Phone: +886 2 2652-5100 Fax: +886 2 2652-5050 

email: ioswww@gate.sinica.edu.tw 

http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/ios/indexE.php 

ISBN- 978-986-02-2692-8

FACING AN UNEQUAL WORLD: 

CHALLENGES FOR A GLOBAL SOCIOLOGY 

Editors: Michael Burawoy, Mau-kuei Chang, and Michelle Fei-yu Hsieh 

Associate Editors: Abigail Andrews, Emine Fidan Elcioglu, and Laura K. Nelson 

CONTENTS 

VOLUME ONE: INTRODUCTION, 

LATIN AMERICA AND AFRICA 

Preface 

Acknowledgements from the Local Organizers 

ix 

xiii 

PART I: INTRODUCTION 

1.Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology 

Michael Burawoy, University of California, Berkeley, USA 

2.Challenges Facing Human Society in the 21 st Century 

Yuan-Tseh Lee, Academia Sinica, Taiwan 

3.Sociology in Times of Crisis 

Michel Wieviorka, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 

Paris, France 

4.The Imperative and the Challenge of Diversity: Reconstructing 

Sociological Traditions in an Unequal World 

Sujata Patel, University of Hyderabad, India 

3 

28 

35 

48 

PART II: LATIN AMERICA 

5.Revitalizing the Sociological View in Latin America 

Marcos Supervielle, Universidad de la República Oriental del 

Uruguay, Uruguay 

63

vi 

Contents 

6.On the Internationalization of Brazilian Academic Sociology 

Tom Dwyer, State University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 

7.The Dialogue between Criminology and the South’s Sociology of 

Violence: The Policing Crisis and Alternatives 

José-Vicente Tavares dos Santos, Federal University of Rio Grande do 

Sul, Brazil 

8.Challenges for and Practices in the Sociology of Work in Mexico: 

Between Global Paradigms and Local Development Paradigms 

Jorge Carrillo, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), Mexico 

9.Publishing Sociological Journals in Argentina: Problems and 

Challenges 

Alicia Itatí Palermo, Council of Professional Sociologists, Argentina 

10.Sociology, Technology Parks, Applied Research, and International 

Accreditation 

Napoleon Velástegui Bahamonde, University of Guayaquil, Ecuador 

84 

105 

126 

157 

166 

PART III: AFRICA 

11.Practical Responses to the Challenges for Sociology in the Face of 

Global Inequality 

Layi Erinosho, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria 

12.Social Sciences in Egypt: The Swinging Pendulum between 

Commodification and Criminalization 

Mona Abaza, American University in Cairo, Egypt 

13.South African Sociology: Current Challenges and Future Implications: 

A Review and Some Empirical Evidence from the 2007 National 

Survey of Sociology Departments 

Mokong Simon Mapadimeng, University of Johannesburg, 

Johannesburg, South Africa 

181 

187 

213

Contents 

vii 

14.Resistance to Rating: Resource Allocation, Academic Freedom and 

Citizenship 

Tina Uys, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa 

15.Poverty Fighters in Academia: The Subversion of the Notion of Socially 

Engaged Science in the Mozambican Higher Education System 

Patrício Langa, Eduardo Mondlane University, Mozambique and 

University of Cape Town, South Africa 

16.Challenges of Doing Sociology in a Globalizing South: Between 

Indigenization and Emergent Structures 

Ifeanyi P. Onyeonoru, University of Ibadan, Nigeria 

17.Globalization, Sociological Research, and Public Policy in Nigeria: 

A Critical Analysis of the Relevance of Socio-Legal Research to the 

Development Needs of Nigeria 

Abdul-Mumin Sa’ad, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria 

18.The Relevance of Sociological Studies and Training for Social 

Realities, Development Policy, and Practice in Ethiopia 

Feleke Tadele, Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, Social Workers, and 

Anthropologists, Ethiopia 

224 

245 

268 

282 

300

Preface 

Preface 

The papers included in these three volumes were originally presented at a 

conference of National (Sociological) Associations. It was sponsored by 

the National Association Liaison Committee of the International Sociological 

Association and hosted by the Taiwanese Sociological Association 

and the Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica. The conference 

took place March 23-25, 2009 in Taipei on the premises of Academia 

Sinica, one of the leading centers for scientific research in Asia. 

The theme of the conference was “Facing an Unequal World: Challenges 

for a Global Sociology.” It was designed to address the obstacles 

to forging a global community of sociologists, obstacles that included 

inequalities, dominations and dependencies within nations as well as between 

nations. We were also concerned to plot new directions for sociology 

that might address those obstacles and meet the challenge of a global 

sociology. We have arranged the conference papers into three volumes, 

divided according to region: Latin America, Africa, Western Asia, Asia- 

Pacific, West-North-South Europe, and East-Central Europe. The idea 

was to revisit the 10 conferences of regional sociologies organized by 

Immanuel Wallerstein, then President of the ISA, and published as part of 

the 1998 World Congress of Sociology. 1 

The region is not simply a convenient grouping of nations but important 

in its own right since the challenges facing sociologists crystallize 

around a region’s shared history and common geopolitics. Moreover, the 

region is the natural stepping stone from the national to the global level, 

especially important for the many countries with a weakly developed sociology. 

Of course, there are also risks involved as defining a region is 

itself a political act and, thus, always controversial. There is nothing permanent 

or irrevocable about the groupings we have chosen. They are the 

outcome of a negotiated process. 

There are obvious lacunae such as the absence of any official representatives 

from North America – the US representative had to withdraw 

and Canada did not send a representative. Nevertheless, there were two 

participants from the U.S. -- myself and Jan Marie Fritz -- and quite a 

1 The 10 regions were: Arab World, East Asia, East-Central Europe, Latin America, 

Lusophone World, Nordic Europe, North America, South Asia, Southern 

Africa, Southern Europe.

x 

Preface 

number of the participants were either trained in North America or had 

spent extended periods there. It is the nature of our unequal world, in sociology 

and beyond, that North America is always present. 

The opening address was given by the former President of Academia 

Sinica and Nobel Prize Winner for Chemistry, Yuan-Tseh Lee, on the 

challenges to human society posed by environmental and climate change. 

It was followed by two keynote addresses from President of the ISA, Michel 

Wieviorka, and former ISA Vice-President for National Associations, 

Sujata Patel. They were followed by 2 streams of 6 panels each, stretching 

over 3 days, plus a panel devoted to Taiwanese sociology. The panels 

included the following topics: New Approaches to Policy Research, Facing 

Northern Hegemonies, Facing Political Pressures, Beyond Universalism 

and Particularism, The Dilemmas Posed by International Ratings, 

Confronting Historical Legacies, Pressure for Policy Research, Doing 

Sociology in an Unequal World, Neoliberalism and the Academy, Forging 

Alternative Sociologies, Challenges of Regionalism, Transnational 

Collaborations. The closing panel included reflections on the conference 

from two ISA Vice-Presidents in attendance, Jan Marie Fritz, Devorah 

Kalekin-Fishman and Arturo Rodriguez Morato, and the President of the 

African Sociological Association, Layi Erinosho. 

In the final count there were 60 delegates from 43 different countries. 

All 57 National Associations, members of the ISA, were invited to send 

participants and 29 accepted. The ISA President, the Vice-Presidents and 

members of the National Association Liaison Committee contributed a 

further 10 participants. Then we invited another 9 sociologists from under-represented 

areas. In the final count we had 48 papers whose authors 

were distributed as follows: 17 from “A” countries, 15 from “B” countries, 

and 16 from “C” countries. 2 The conference organization covered 

all the expenses (including travel) of the participants from B and C countries, 

and the food and lodging in Taipei of participants from A countries. 

The ISA contributed 15% of the total cost but the bulk of the funding 

(85%) came from Taiwanese sources – the National Science Council, the 

Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica, Ministry of Education, and the 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Without this funding from Taiwan the conference 

would have been impossible. The Taiwanese team at Academia 

Sinica left no stone unturned to make sure everyone turned up, ensuring 

2 These are categories developed by the World Bank to distinguish economies. 

They are based on Gross National Income per capita. The ISA uses them to determine 

differential membership fees.

Preface 

xi 

that the participants who needed visas received them on time as well as 

helping participants plan their often complex air travel. 

If the organization of the conference became a lesson in global inequalities, 

the meeting itself was marked by an extraordinary and egalitarian 

esprit de corps with intense discussions flowing out into the corridors 

and into the night to be continued at breakfast. The Taiwanese team 

headed by Dr. Maukuei Chang (President of the Taiwanese Sociological 

Association and Chair of the Local Organizing Committee) and the evervigilant 

team-leader Michelle Hsieh, Fellow of the Institute of Sociology, 

Academia Sinica, were responsible for looking after every detail – from 

lodging to program, from travel to catering, from tourism to sumptuous 

banquets, from airport welcome to farewell prizes. They produced a 

magnificent conference website that hosted the program, conference papers, 

travel instructions, and, following the conference, audio and visual 

recordings of each panel as well photographs. Their herculean efforts 

paid off in a most successful endeavor of community building across the 

globe, precisely meeting the challenges discussed in the panels. To capture 

this atmosphere of engagement and collaboration, two students from 

the University of California, Berkeley – Annie Lin and Ana Villarreal – 

made a short film, based on interviews and film footage from the conference, 

entitled “Challenges for a Global Sociology.” The film focuses on 

four challenges in particular: barriers of language, unequal material conditions, 

privatization of research and the search for alternative theories. It 

is included in the DVD that comes with these three volumes. 

Bringing the papers together and publishing them involved another 

stage of international collaboration. We gathered together a team of 

Berkeley graduate students – Abigail Andrews, Fidan Elcioglu and Laura 

Nelson – who devoted their summer to translating and editing the revised 

papers. They entered into extended discussions with the authors to produce 

the finished document. Finally, the papers were sent back to Taiwan 

where Maukuei Chang and Michelle Hsieh worked on their publication. I 

hope these three volumes will initiate a world-wide debate among sociologists 

as to how we can constitute ourselves as a global community engaged 

in addressing the pressing issues of our time. Certainly, this prospect 

was given a powerful boost by the exciting discussions held in 

Taipei. 

Michael Burawoy, December 19, 2009

Acknowledgements from the 

Local Organizers 

The actual organization of this conference says much about the various 

aspects of global inequalities. The planning involved finding ways to 

overcome the hurdles that could possibly occur as a result of these inequalities. 

They ranged from negotiating travel permits with the Taiwanese 

government, which, like other governments, favors some nationals over 

others; organizing complex travel arrangements in an era of tightening 

border controls; securing funding to ensure the participation of delegates 

from under-represented regions; and initiating various creative measures 

to encourage genuine dialogues among all participants on an equal footing. 

These tasks could not have been accomplished without the help of 

the following agencies in Taiwan and their personnel who were involved 

in this project. Special thanks go to the National Science Councils of 

Taiwan, the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica, the Ministry of 

Education, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Also special thanks are 

due to the conference program chair, Professor Michael Burawoy, who 

was very supportive throughout the whole process; his enthusiasm and 

energy pushed us forward in this project of forming a truly international 

community of sociologists. 

One of the conference themes was the inequalities that exist in the 

discipline. In this regard, sociology’s knowledge production can be seen 

as a reflection of international relations. Taiwanese sociology, like many 

other national sociologies, has gained little exposure internationally despite 

its vitality. The complex process of mapping out the obstacles to 

forming a global sociological community involves knowing about each 

other and our distinctive national sociologies. A conference with this kind 

of diversity meant broadening the horizons of sociological imagination by 

bringing the world to Taiwan. Since the development of sociology in 

Taiwan has been heavily influenced by the U.S. and other western countries, 

the process, then, was to reveal what is indigenous to Taiwanese 

sociology as compared to the sociologies from other countries. Thus, including 

and encouraging local participation was a key item on the agenda 

when we started planning the conference. The conference would have 

been self-defeating had we failed to bridge the local-global linkages when 

its theme was to discuss the impacts of inequality and domination on the 

sociological knowledge production among and within nations.

xiv 


More importantly, learning about other distinctive national sociologies 

complements the increasing awareness and commitment to indigenization 

within the Taiwanese sociological community, an effort that has 

gone hand-in-hand with internationalization. Several efforts worth mentioning 

were made to achieve this goal, although they are not included in 

these conference proceedings. A special panel focusing on Taiwanese sociology 

was included in the conference program. Local universities also 

sent out invitations to some conference delegates to make campus visits. 

Special thanks go to these invited delegates who kindly agreed to travel 

extra miles to meet with Taiwanese faculty members and students. Excerpts 

of these meetings, jubilant feedback, and remarks from young sociologists 

and from local universities are well documented in the newsletter 

of the Taiwanese Sociological Association. The post conference 

one-day sociological tour of Taipei, which provided a glimpse into the 

country’s past and present, put the conference discussion into practice by 

illustrating how historical and colonial legacies could spur vitalities of a 

national sociology and the dynamism of civil society. 

Lastly, in an attempt to overcome the inequality resulting from an 

asymmetrical distribution of resources among regions, we made an extra 

effort to enhance accessibility by making all the conference materials and 

recordings (both audio and video) that could possibly serve as teaching 

and learning aids on global sociology available on-line for downloading. 

Thanks are due to the delegates who granted us the right to do this. With 

the intention to reach a potentially global audience, the decision to publish 

the conference proceedings was taken in a post-conference meeting 

between us and Professor Burawoy. The international division of labor in 

forging a global community was in action again. Special thanks go to the 

Council of National Associations of the International Sociological Association, 

Academia Sinica, and the Institute of Sociology at Academia 

Sinica for funding the publication project, and to Ms. Even Liu and Ms. 

Rufen Liao for their painstaking efforts in assisting the production of the 

proceedings. As a supplement to the hard copy of the conference proceedings, 

the on-line version will be available at 

http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/cna/index.php. All in all, planning this conference 

was a rewarding and enriching experience for us, the hosts, and 

many thanks go to all those who helped it to succeed. 

Mau-kuei Chang and Michelle Fei-yu Hsieh, Academia Sinica

PART I: 

INTRODUCTION

Facing an Unequal World 3 

Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a 

Global Sociology 1 

Michael Burawoy, University of California, Berkeley, USA 2 

Yuan-Tseh Lee, former president of Academia Sinica and Nobel Prize 

Winner, opened the second conference of the Council of National Associations 

with a call to scientists the world-over to come together and confront 

ever-deepening global problems. Some of the most serious challenges 

facing mankind -- climate change, energy crisis, and disease – 

stem from processes that transcend national boundaries and social divisions, 

yet the tools to tackle them are still largely locked within national 

boundaries and controlled by powerful, vested interests. The problem, Dr. 

Lee insisted, is not so much globalization but its incompleteness. Developing 

global communities along with global governance is necessary for 

tackling global problems. We can no longer retreat back to an insular localism, 

so we must move forward to realize the potentials of a more complete 

and complex globalization. He posed the challenge to sociology: 

how did we respond 

As sociologists we specialize in studying the downside of globalization, 

the obstacles to a globalization that will benefit humanity. We are 

experts in the ways inequality and domination present the deepest barriers 

to tackling the daunting challenges of our epoch. We postulate conditions 

for overcoming such barriers while criticizing false solutions that redistribute 

rather than diminish the ill-effects incomplete globalization. It is 

the presumption of this conference that for sociologists to address the 

exclusion and oppression underlying poverty and war, disease and environmental 

degradation on a global scale, our scientific community must 

itself first assume a global character ruled by dialogue and accountability 

We gathered together in Taipei, therefore, to examine our own discipline 

through the bifocal lens of domination and inequality – a risky but necessary 

project -- so as to create and embrace a global sociology that is equal 

to the global tasks we face. 

1 I am grateful to Emma Porio for her comments on an earlier version of this 

paper. 

2 Michael Burawoy is the Vice President for National Associations of the International 

Sociological Association.

4 

Michael Burawoy 

There is an obvious resistance to focusing on such divisions in our 

midst. Thus, the great theorists of inequality and domination, when it 

comes to the sociological field itself, revert to proclamations of unity 

rather than interrogating the inequalities and dominations that divide us. 

Immanuel Wallerstein (1999) proposes the absorption of sociology into a 

unified field of historical and social sciences, Ulrich Beck (2004) calls for 

a global cosmopolitanism, while Pierre Bourdieu (1989) announces the 

formation of an international of intellectuals, pursuing a “corporatism of 

the universal.” It is as if all divisions in our midst must spontaneously 

evaporate in the face of the world system crisis (Wallerstein), the depth of 

global inequalities (Beck), or the havoc wreaked by neoliberalism 

(Bourdieu). All differences among us, with respect to how we experience 

crisis, inequality and neoliberalism, must somehow be summarily buried 

to meet the challenge. Their genuine concern for the fate of humanity 

leads these sociologists to normative, if not utopian projects, abandoning 

the sociological tools that they have spent a life time sharpening. Projected 

from the pinnacles of Western academia these projects, at best, 

appear remote from the everyday practice of sociology in most of the 

world and, at worst, are deployed as universal arbiters of good practice. 

This is not to deny there is a unity that we share as sociologists, but it 

is not a unity that can be imposed by fiat. That which binds us together 

can only be produced by a laborious elaboration from below, stitching 

together commonalities in a complex global mosaic. The building block 

of that mosaic is the national sociology, for the nation has always been 

sociology’s basic unit of analysis as well as defining the parameters of its 

field of action. Such, at any rate, is the argument of this introductory 

chapter. We have to construct the bonds of unity through articulating and 

interweaving the differences that separate us. Thus, to explore those differences 

in our midst and the divergent interests they foreshadow is not to 

discredit others, but to simply recognize that we, like the people we study, 

cannot escape the inequalities in which we are embedded, and that it is 

only out of confronting these inequalities that common enterprises can 

possibly be forged. 

Such a reflexive project demands that we subject our own relations 

and practices to sociological analysis -- not to discredit their authors but 

to move sociology to a higher scientific plane. This introduction, therefore, 

sets out from the obvious inequalities we face within our discipline 

and association, before excavating their embeddedness within structures 

of domination beyond our discipline. From there I consider how those 

dominations, especially the symbolic ones, can be challenged by alternative 

sociologies. Finally, I ask how such alternatives can be grounded in 

experiences, institutions and movements within local and national con-


texts, so as to knit them together into a global configuration, albeit contingent 

and precarious. I base my reflections on the papers delivered at 

the conference, now revised and assembled in the three volumes that follow, 

papers that address the obstacles to be overcome, but also point beyond 

those obstacles to different ways of constructing global sociologies 

from below. 

THE CONTEXT OF INEQUALITY AND DOMINATION 

The challenges we face are immediately apparent in our own association. 

The International Sociological Association was established in 1947 under 

the auspices of UNESCO and, in the beginning, it was almost entirely 

dominated by sociologists from Europe and North America. Since then it 

has made enormous strides toward broader representation from different 

parts of the world. Individual members come from 120 countries while 

57 countries are collective members of the ISA. At its last World Congress 

in South Africa participants came from 104 countries. 

The real progress that has been made, however, only accentuates the 

negative side of the balance sheet. Thus, membership is still heavily concentrated 

in the rich countries: 68.7% of individual members and 40% of 

the collective members are from “A” countries. 3 Leadership is drawn 

from rich countries: at present the President and all 5 Vice-Presidents are 

from “A” countries. This may be unusual -- in the previous regime only 

half were from “A” countries – but equally important 92% of the Presidents 

of the 53 Research Committees come from “A” countries. Nor is 

this surprising if only because sociologists with the resources and time to 

build international contacts and influence and, then, to carry out organizational 

and administrative tasks are more likely to come from richer countries 

with their greater educational endowments, their greater affluence, 

and their fewer local and national obligations. The ISA can be a perfectly 

fair and neutral field but, situated in the context of global inequality, inequality 

in representation is the inevitable outcome. Although we can and 

must strive for greater equality in our midst, that it exists is not due to 

some Western conspiracy. 

Ironically, the more successful the ISA has been in broadening its 

membership basis, the more we face inequalities within the organization 

and the more cognizant we become of those sociologists left outside our 

3 A, B, and C countries – with A countries the richest -- are defined by the World 

Bank on the basis of per capita Gross National Income. They are used by the ISA 

as a sliding scale for membership and conference fees, travel subsidies, etc.

6 


organization and beyond our reach. The inequalities within the ISA inevitably 

reflect and mask far deeper inequalities between countries and, no 

less important, within countries. We are deeply enmeshed in global inequalities 

tied to the unequal distribution of material resources (income, 

research funds, teaching obligations, working conditions), social capital 

(professional networks, patronage) and cultural capital (educational credentials, 

university prestige, language facility, publications). As sociologists 

we are especially skilled in discerning such inequalities. 

From Academic Dependency to Western Hegemony 

Inequalities don’t simply exist, but are produced through relations of 

domination conceptualized by Farid Alatas (2006a) as “academic dependency” 

and “intellectual imperialism.” He sees domination in the 

cognitive realm – Eurocentrism, Orientalism, the “Captive Mind” 4 – as 

tied to but also legitimating dependency in the institutional realm, that is, 

dependency on foreign funds, foreign journals, foreign publishers, foreign 

training, and foreign demand for skills. 

A number of papers express this dependency as legacies of different 

forms of colonization: 

• Using Alatas’s framework, Shaikh Mohammed Kais describes 

just what academic dependency looks like in the postcolonial 

context of Bangladesh – from the difficulties of teaching, doing 

research, a process of hybridization that leads to the reproduction 

of marginality. When we talk of global sociology we 

should not forget the challenges faced by those who are more 

or less excluded. 

• Ifeanyi Onyeonoru describes the social legacies of colonialism 

in Nigeria and of continuing metropolitan domination, that has 

been countered by indigenization, engagement with local and 

national issues, as well as by connections based on national, 

regional and international associations. 

• Janusz Mucha describes the history of dependency in Poland, 

how that led to the development of an authentic but noninstitutional 

sociology, you might say a public sociology of the 

19 th . century, but then institutionalization set in under different 

regimes during the 20 th . century. So “Polish sociology” in- 

4 The theory of the “Captive Mind” was developed by Syed Hussein Alatas to 

describe the uncritical and imitative adoption of U.S. and European social science 

in Asia. See, for example, Alatas (1974).


creasingly has become “sociology in Poland,” even more so after 

the fall of socialism. 

Three other papers lay out the working of Western hegemony in Turkey, 

Australia and Japan, countries where one might not expect it: 

• Despite Turkey’s history as empire Aytül Kasapoğlu, Nilay 

Çabuk Kaya and Mehmet Ecevit describe the hegemony of 

Western sociology, manifested in the application of Western 

theory to the local context. 

• Similarly, Raewyn Connell presents Australia as a settler 

colony in the global periphery, a status that invites sociology’s 

unreflexive embrace of metropolitan sociology, what she calls, 

following Hountondji, “extravertion”. She shows how being 

responsive to local context and history or even to local publics 

does not necessarily feed back into an original professional 

sociology. 

• Japan is manifestly an independent nation within the core, 

which prompts Yoshimichi Sato to undertake a subtle analysis 

of the hegemony of Western sociology. He asks why Japanese 

and Chinese scholars do not develop their concepts (e.g. 

aidagara and en, guanxi) into universal ones, to compete with 

notions of social capital. Sato suggests it is necessary to go 

beyond such thick local concepts, formulated as a reaction to 

the inadequacies of social capital, by turning them into thin 

concepts that can travel to different places where they can be 

relocalized. 

Then there are cases in which the hegemony of the West, but 

especially of U.S. sociology is tied to geopolitics 

• Thus, Sammy Smooha presents Israel as part of the core 

actively embracing and participating in US sociology as its 

appendage. In his view, the result is that sociologists pay too 

little attention to Israeli specificity, which could provide the 

basis of an original contribution to world sociology. 

• Mau-kuei Chang, Ying-hwa Chang, and Chih-chie Tang from 

Taiwan offer a far more complicated picture of the effects of 

geopolitics on sociology. They write about the effects of a succession 

of external subjugations: first, of Japanese who used 

survey methods as an arm of colonial rule, then the sponsorship 

of sociology by the U.S. in the early years of the Nationalist 

KMT government, which led to the elevation of the 

(mainland) Chinese roots of Taiwanese sociology. When Taiwan 

lost its international status in the early 1970s, displaced by 

the People’s Republic of China, sociology took a new turn.

8 


Sinicization was replaced by a move toward indigenization as 

a reaction to the continuing dependence on the US and the 

threat of PRC. The combination of economic growth and geopolitical 

insecurity led to the institutionalization of sociology, 

but also intensified pressure on Taiwanese universities in general 

and sociology in particular to establish their international 

ranking, which, in turn, fed indigenization. 

While it is customary to condemn the enormous influence the US 

wields throughout the world, this should not lead us to overlook other 

circuits of North-South hegemony, such as the impressive presence of 

French sociology in much of Latin America as well as parts of Asia, 

Middle East and Africa. Such competing hegemonies, in this case over 

the valuation of different linguistic capital, do give some leverage to the 

dominated groups. There are three official languages in the ISA yet 

English prevails, not only because of the influence of the Anglo- 

American world, but also because so many countries in the global south, 

including India, China and much of Africa, have invested in English as a 

second language. 

National and Regional Hegemonies 

Hegemony within world sociology cannot be reduced to a simple North- 

South, West-East, developed-underdeveloped, metropolis-periphery 

dichotomy. First, there are important gradations in the world system and 

we might even invoke Wallerstein’s notion of semi-periphery to capture 

distinctive societies that combine within themselves features of both 

periphery and core. Thus, countries such as India, Brazil, South Africa, 

and China contain within themselves conditions approximating to the 

“North” as well as the “South”. Second, there is a center and a periphery 

in the production of knowledge within such countries that can be as stark 

as the difference between any rich and poor country. The model of 

academic dependency shouldn’t lead us to overlook patterns of inequality 

and domination within countries. 

• Tina Uys reports the criticisms of South African sociologists 

toward the rating system of their scholarly ouput, designed to 

promote international compertitiveness. First, it presumes 

a false consensus on standards. Second, ratings based on 

publications in international journals and relying on 

international reviewers draws research away from issues and 

problems of local and national importance. Third, it devalues 

the teaching and training of the next generation of sociologists, 

and instead creates an elite statum of researchers. In short, the


rating system effectively internalizes the hegemony of 

Northern sociology, thereby deepening the divide among South 

African sociologists. 

• Emma Porio describes the pressures on Philippine universities, 

subject to a range of audits and pressure for policy driven 

research with the result that there is increased differentiation 

both within and between universities, and this takes place at 

the same time as dependency on Northern funding increases. 

• From Egypt Mona Abaza tells another story – one in which the 

field of sociology is subject to a pincer movement of 

commodification and criminalization. Critical voices, even the 

seemingly most protected, such as Saad Eddin Ibrahim’s, are 

pilloried as subversive, jailed as spies. Public sociology 

becomes life threatening in an authoritarian regime with no 

autonomous civil sphere. In this case an international 

campaign in Ibrahim’s defense easily redounded against him, 

and even made him suspect among some of his colleagues. 

The semi-periphery not only draws attention to internal divisions 

within countries but between countries within regions. Thus, Brazilian 

sociology is the best resourced sociology within Latin America, Indian 

sociology within South Asia, South African sociology within Africa, just 

as the core countries of the European Union have richer traditions of 

sociology than its periphery. Inequality, yes, but does this imply 

domination What are the possibilities of collaboration across these 

divides 

• Tom Dwyer does not mince words when writing about the 

different mechanisms guaranteeing the domination of 

metropolitan sociology – from linguistic domination, to the 

control of journals and rating systems. Based on the experience 

of Brazil he proposes an alternative multi-polar vision of 

internationalization – one that emanates from countries of the 

South as well as from the North. A vibrant Brazilian sociology 

rates its own Portuguese-language journals on an international 

ranking system, and has actively pursued South-South 

collaboration (and Latin America has long been a leader in this 

regard). 

From the standpoint of the peripheries of yesterday’s empires things 

wolves 

don’t look rosy, especially when countries are cast to Western 

under the spell of socialist legacies. 

• Abulfaz Suleymanov describes the difficult situation in Azerbaijan 

where the Soviet legacy has left a vacuum in sociological 

training, the underdevelopment of social theory, coloniza-

10 


tion of research by Western interests, the reduction of sociology 

to commercially sponsored surveys, and more generally 

the subordination of sociology to the market at the cost of public 

concerns. In this context building a national association and 

making regional and international connections become especially 

important. 

• Rastislav Bednárik, writing about Slovakia, reminds us just 

how difficult it is for a young and barely recognized discipline, 

facing growing numbers of students with very limited teachers 

and resources. Slovakia may be in the European Union but its 

peripheral situation makes for a dramatically 

different 

conditions of knowledge production when compared to core 

countries such as Germany, France or U.K. 

• Inga Tomić-Koludrović describes the reaction of Croatian 

sociologists to the Bologna Process, integrating higher 

education in the European Union. She sees the opposition as a 

legacy of the socialist past and rooted in outdated nationalist 

sentiments that fail to come to grips with the new global 

dispensation – second modernization -- to which the Bologna 

process is a response. The Bologna process, she argues, is not 

simply an arbitrary imposition from above but is responsive to 

needs from below, from groups, identities and interests that 

have been marginalized. 

While not denying an overwhelming concentration of institutional 

resources and symbolic domination, emanating from the North, 

reinforced by the circulation through the North of a few privileged 

scholars from the South, nonetheless a simple North-South division, let 

alone a notion of US imperialism, does not capture the complex 

articulation of hegemonies of very different types within as well as 

among nation states. 

The Neoliberal Crisis 

Academic dependency across nations is itself being reconfigured as the 

position of sociology and more broadly of the university is challenged 

within the core. Sociology has become more precarious in Britain, 

Germany, and France as the golden years of sociology recede into the 

past and as the discipline has been threatened by neoliberal regimes 

which question the very idea of the social. 

• Louis Chauvel offers a chilling analysis of the decline of the 

salaried middle class in France since the 1970s. This class includes 

sociologists who find their positions under assault as 

the


value of the sociology credential falls relative to other credentials, 

such as economics, exacerbated by the decline in funding 

for the public university relative to the Grandes Écoles. 

• Marina Subirats warns of the dangers of disciplinary fracturing. 

She is precisely critical of sociology for not emulating the 

unity of economics. Reflecting on the experience of Spanish 

sociology, she proposes a “global sociology” that recognizes 

increased global interdependence, transcending national 

parochialism and disciplinary fragmentation, and facing the 

real problems of a world in crisis. 

Michel Wieviorka directly addresses the crisis of our times by 

accusing economists of misunderstanding its true character. The crisis 

does not have a simple teleology -- crisis-resolution-crisis, down-turn 

followed by the inevitable upturn. Such a cyclical account cannot 

comprehend what is qualitatively new because what is new is produced 

by collective actors, especially social movements, whose retreat in the 

first place was responsible for initiating the crisis three decades ago. The 

way out of the present crisis, Wieviorka avers, is through the birth of new 

actors, such as the anti-globalization movement, or the rebirth of old 

actors, such as the trade union movement. What he does not consider, 

however, is the possibility of sociologists becoming a global actor in their 

own right, simultaneously participant in and observer of the world they 

study. The chapters in the three volumes explore precisely this possibility, 

but it is a possib ility that rests upon negotiating our internal differences. 

FROM DIVERSE TRADITIONS TO 

ALTERNATIVE SOCIOLOGIES 

Farid Alatas argues that, in the short run, there is little we can do about 

the material side of academic dependency, and we should concentrate, 

therefore, on the side of ideas and theory. How can we combat 

Eurocentrism, Orientalism, and the “Captive Mind” Challenging the 

universalism of Western sociologies is a two-step project: first, to show 

that they do not reflect the experience of subjugated populations and then, 

to demonstrate that there are alternative theories that have been ignored 

or suppressed by metropolitan sociology. 

Diverse Traditions 

The ISA has long recognized the existence of multiple sociological traditions, 

signaled by a number of books. The first collection, National Tra-

12 


ditions in Sociology, edited by Nikolai Genov (1989), emerged from the 

11 th . World Congress held in Delhi in 1986. A second volume edited by 

Martin Albrow and Elizabeth King (1990), Globalization, Knowledge 

and Society, was a collection of papers that appeared in the ISA journal 

International Sociology since its founding in 1986. It was during this period 

that the Nigerian, Akinsolo Akiwowo (1986), made his famous intervention 

on behalf of “indigenous” sociology. In response to these debates 

Martin Albrow optimistically claimed that sociology goes through a 

series of stages: universalism, national sociologies, internationalism, indigenization 

and finally globalization. Most recently Sujata Patel (2009) 

has brought out The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions, 

showing how sociological traditions can be broadly grouped into regions 

that have shared common historical experiences. The recognition of mul- 

tiple sociologies is already a challenge to the idea of a single science that 

universalizes the experiences and thoughts of the most advanced capital- 

the relation of sociology and power 

ist countries. 

• Sujata Patel’s keynote address develops this theme, challenging 

those who would abandon national formations and their 

sociologies, sensitive to at 

global as well as national levels, and defending the necessity of 

developing multiple sociological traditions in conversation 

with one another. 

A long line of Presidents of the ISA have emphatically supported the 

plurality of sociologies, even if they still searched for an underlying or 

projected unity. Ulf Himmelstrand (1978-1982) made a point of opening 

dialogue with sociologists from Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well 

as with Africa and Latin America. Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1982- 

1986) wrote in his foreword to the first issue of International Sociology: 

“This will be the endeavor of our journal: to increase our knowledge 

about contemporary societies and sociologies, by showing pluralistic 

paths of concern in sociology rooted in different historical and cultural 

traditions” (1986: 2). Margaret Archer (1986-1990) proposed to develop 

a unified sociology but one based on diversity, and Piotr Sztompka 

(2002-2006), similarly called for a uniformity of world sociology combined 

with uniqueness of local sociologies. 

T.K. Oomen (1990-1994), however, was far more cautious about any 

proposed unity, concerned that internationalization could be a proxy for 

Westernization. Too hasty an internationalization without protection for 

weaker sociological traditions could lead to intellectual colonialism. He 

called for “multidirectional flow of sociology, particularly strengthening 

the flow from the weak to the strong centers” (Oomen, 1991: 81). The


only President to come from a recently decolonized society, he was the 

most forthright about the hegemony of Western sociology. 

Perhaps the ISA President to have done most for the development of 

regional sociologies, despite his unitary vision of sociology, was Immanuel 

Wallerstein (1994-1998). He orchestrated regional conferences that 

led to the publication of 10 edited volumes, one for each region’s sociology. 

His was a major step toward recognizing the diversity of traditions, 

and gave birth to a new generation of international sociologists. Alberto 

Martinelli (1998-2002) followed Wallerstein with another important insti- 

innovation that brought together young sociologists from all over 

tutional 

the globe -- the annual PhD Laboratory. In short, President after President 

has defended the plurality of coexisting sociologies, even if they have 

been less willing to tackle their arrangement in a hierarchical order. 

Southern Theory 

A more radical project thematizes the relations among these diverse traditions 

as one of domination, and proceeds to challenge that domination by 

valorizing what Raewyn Connell and others call Southern Theory. In 

Southern Theory (2007) Connell problematizes the canonical works of 

metropolitan theory – from the so-called classics of Marx, Weber, and 

Durkheim to the contemporary theories of James Coleman, Pierre 

Bourdieu and Anthony Giddens – whose silence on the South portends a 

distinctively Northern perspective disguised as universalism. Connell 

presents us with an alternative project that foregrounds social thinkers 

from the South who have not made it into the “mainstream” – from Africa 

the Dahomeyan philosopher Paulin Hountontdji, from the Middle 

East, three Iranian thinkers al-Afghani, Al-e Ahmad, and the more contemporary 

Shariati, from Latin America the Argentinian economist Raúl 

Prebisch, the Brazilian sociologist Fernando Enrique Cardoso, the Mexican 

anthropologist García Canclini, from South Asia subaltern thinker, 

Ranajit Guha, anthropologist Veena Das, and public intellectual Ashis 

Nandy, and from South Africa, an early African nationalist and gifted 

public intellectual, Sol Plaatje. Around such thinkers Connell proposes to 

build an alternative social science. In seeking out alternative traditions, 

theories or discourses that challenge the assumptions of mainstream U.S. 

and European sociology, she raises a number of intriguing questions. 

First, is it significant that the thinkers Connell dismisses are all sociologists 

from the North whereas those she embraces are a motley group 

of thinkers of whom none are declared sociologists, with the exception of 

Cardoso, who after all was deeply influenced by French sociology. Is sociology, 

then, only a (Northern) metropolitan project No less problem-

14 


atic is the fact that so many of Connell’s Southern Theorists, e.g. Cardoso, 

Plaatje, Prebish, and Shariati, are thoroughly infused with Northern 

(French, English, and U.S.) thinking. If there is a Southern sociology 

then what makes it Southern and what makes it sociology 

Second, can one dismiss “Northern” theory when it includes the critique 

of the very theorists Connell takes as representative of Northern 

sociology. Feminism, critical race theory and even Marxism have relentlessly 

attacked the economism of James Coleman, the functionalism of 

Pierre Bourdieu and the third way of Anthony Giddens. Does that make 

these Northern critical theories part of Southern theory Are there not, at 

least, two hegemonies: an hegemony within dominant countries/regions 

and a hegemony exercised by those dominant countries/regions over the 

subaltern countries/regions Does that not open up the possibility of alliances 

struck between subjugated sociologies of the North and “Southern 

Theory” 

Therefore, third, rather than homogenizing metropolitan sociology, 

can we not see it as a contested field with dominant and subordinate moments. 

Doesn’t this also apply to the South Connell’s chosen Southern 

theorists have to be restored to their context. Once we place Plaatje, Cardoso 

and Prebisch, for example, in their own intellectual fields, we will 

see how they reflect, refract and represent particular interests in their 

countries of origin. Thus, are there not hegemonic and subordinate sociwhich 

ologies within the South Can one understand the thinkers to 

Connell draws our attention without locating them in their national 

fields – intellectual and political 

• Mohammad Ghaneirad shows how and why Shariati’s complex 

hybrid of Islamic and Western thinking has dropped out 

of the present day Iranian sociological field. The state initiated 

drive for an Islamic sociology or a sociology that would promote 

the Islamicization of society has provoked a phobia of 

Nativism among professional sociologists concerned to defend 

their autonomy. Alternative sociologies are difficult to develop 

in this complex situation. There is a plurality of responses -- 

from the embrace of universalistic sociologies, inspired by 

Western concepts, to seeking new directions in public sociologies. 

But Shariati’s ideas are shunned from both sides of the 

divide. 

Finally, and relatedly, if Southern theory exists to express, albeit in 

complex and mediated form, the experience of the South, then what is 

this experience of the South How is that experience expressed in theory 

If the experience of the South is multiple, what distinguishes the South 

from the North How come Australia ends up in the “South” If South-


ern theory is not embedded in some material experience, nor reflective of 

some real interests, how can we expect social science to emerge from 

Connell’s Southern theorists 

• Farid Alatas has pursued a similar project but rather than dismissing 

Western theory he proposes different ways of amalgamating 

Western sociology with alternative intellectual traditions 

emanating from non-Western societies. In his contribution 

here he dwells on the history of a distinctive Chinese soci- 

ology and its relevance to the modern world. Elsewhere 

(2006b) he has creatively introduced Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical 

theory of history into Western debates about Asiatic society. 

In constituting her North/South binary Connell has raised a host of 

problems – problems that we can no longer side step. Together with 

Alatas she has fired the all-important opening shot, inverting the takenfor-granted 

hierarchy that all new ideas in sociology come from the North. 

They inspire us to think outside conventional sociological frames. We 

owe them both a great debt for making the project of alternative sociologies 

imaginable, now we must make it feasible. 

BUILDING NATIONAL SOCIOLOGIES 

We must come down from heaven to earth, we must ground any alternative 

theories in the living practices and concrete social relations of actually 

existing sociologists. If they are to spark the sociological imagination 

they must be rooted in the division of sociological labor, defined by its 

four elements – professional, policy, public and critical sociology. 

At the core of this division of labor is professional sociology that develops 

scientific research programs and is accountable to peers. Whether 

we are living in Colombo or Paris, Aukland or Oakland, Johannesburg or 

Sao Paulo, Tokyo or Beirut what defines us as sociologists is our connection 

to traditions of sociological research and theorizing, traditions that 

have been defined by our predecessors, traditions that are being continually 

redefined and rearticulated in a community of fellow scholars. To be 

sure professional sociology can be overdeveloped here and underdeveloped 

there, but it still lies at the core of our discipline. 

It is important, therefore, that professional sociology does not come to 

be monopolized – and the danger is ever-present -- by universities and 

research institutes in the North. National professional sociologies cannot, 

however, spring from nowhere. They must be responsive to and inspired 

by problems defined by local or national actors. This is what I call a policy 

sociology which is borne of but also feeds back into professional so-

16 


ciology. Whether we are talking of surveys or case studies, policy sociology 

should retain an intimate connection to professional sociology. If it 

does not maintain that connection it is easily captured by the clients it 

serves. There is, however, a second way of being connected to the local 

and national context, and that is through public sociology. Here the point 

is not to solve a problem defined by a client but to generate discussion 

and debate about the basic values and direction of society. You might 

say public sociology is the conscience of policy sociology in that it often 

debates issues of policy and influences the direction of policy. 

If professional sociology is the core of our discipline critical sociology, 

the fourth element, is the heart of sociology. Critical sociology is 

first and foremost the critique of professional sociology. Here, indeed, we 

find the agenda for alternative sociologies – a critique of the theoretical 

foundations of much professional sociology. Critical sociology interrogates 

the assumptions made by policy sociology, just as it infuses new 

visions into public sociology. Critical sociology involves sociologists in 

conversation with one another as to the foundations of their common enterprise. 

The assumption behind this model of knowledge production is that a 

flourishing discipline depends on the interaction among all four types of 

knowledge, on preventing the introversion of professional and critical 

sociologies or the extroversion of policy and public sociologies. The suc- 

lay precisely in the manifold ways these four types 

cess of our conference 

of sociology entered into a common discourse. Let me elaborate. 

Public Sociology 

Whether one is struggling for the rearticulation of sociologies within the 

existing global hegemony or one is seeking a new hegemonic order revolving 

around Southern Theory, new directions can only take root if 

grounded in real experience, in institutional life, and even in social 

movements. This requires a sociology that makes itself relevant to local 

or national issues, and accountable to local or national publics. The undertaking 

of such a public sociology should, therefore, be valorized by a 

national sociological community as a way to develop shared perspectives 

and deflate the universalistic claims of metropolitan sociology. 

Public sociology is dialogue between sociologists and publics – a dialogue 

that recognizes the autonomy and reciprocal interdependence of 

each side. It can work in two ways: either through an organic connection 

of sociologists with a community, organization or movement, or alternatively 

through addressing a far broader audience, and cultivating national 

debate, what I call traditional public sociology. Organic public sociology


would include Alain Touraine’s action sociology, deepening the consciousness 

of social movement militants and Paulo Freire’s pedagogy of 

the oppressed working through an interaction between sociologist and 

peasantry. Traditional public sociology would include the writings of Pierre 

Bourdieu in France, M.N. Srinivas in India or Shariati in prerevolutionary 

Iran. They all contributed to national debate about pressing 

social issues. 

A number of papers in these volumes provide examples of public so- 

policy-oriented sociology. There are risks on 

ciology from the past as well as the present. 

• Dénes Némedi presents the history of Hungarian sociology as 

a complex interlacing of internal and external influences starting 

with original versions of traditional and then organic public 

sociology in the 19 th and early 20 th centuries, superseded by 

Soviet Marxism that generated its own critical sociology before 

the embrace of a Western oriented professional sociology. 

• Georgy Fotev describes the dilemmas of traditional public sociology 

in Bulgaria battling with the communist legacy of a 

dependent and all 

sides: threats to value free professional sociology, dangers of 

populism but also distanciation, and ambiguous relations with 

the media. 

• With Indonesia as their case Rochman Achwan and Iwan 

Sujatmiko show what can be done when there is synergy 

between “sociology for society” and “society for sociology” 

(between professional-critical and public-policy sociologies). 

They point to the involvement of public sociology in the 

reform of governance and labor laws, economic empowerment, 

agrarian reform, and constitutional amendment. 

• Luis Baptista and Paulo Machado describe the efflorescence of 

sociology in Portugal after the end of the dictatorship in 1974. 

There sociology has had a close connection to national politics 

and policy science, but never at the cost of a public sociology. 

Indeed, the Portuguse Sociological association has organised 

open public debates about civic issues in different cities up and 

down the country. 

Between traditional and organic public sociologies there should not 

be a relation of hostility and exclusivity but one of synergy and interaction. 

Traditional public sociology gives direction to organic public sociologies, 

connecting them to one another, while organic public sociology 

grounds wider public debate in the realities facing different communities.

18 


Policy Sociology 

In some contexts public sociology faces major obstacles while in other 

contexts it is simply a luxury. On the one hand, aspiring traditional public 

sociologists may have difficulty accessing the national media, indifferent 

or hostile to sociological perspectives. On the other hand, sociologists 

may not have the resources to develop the time consuming organic relation 

to communities, and communities may not be interested in debate 

and discussion. They want sociologists to deliver something much more 

concrete. In other words, they want policy rather than public sociology. 

In addition, there may be real material pressures impelling sociologists 

into the policy realm, where they can garner necessary “extra” income, 

by serving external agencies that define problems as well as acceptable 

solutions. But here too there are different ways for sociologists 

to go about their business. On the one hand, there is the sponsorship 

model in which the client defines problems -- sometimes broadly, allowing 

sociologists considerable autonomy to bring critical perspectives to 

bear, and sometimes narrowly, serving as a paid expert or survey technician, 

often destined to legitimate policies already decided. On the other 

hand, there is the advocacy model in which sociologists takes it upon 

themselves to make policy proposals, seeking out advocates in the policy 

world. The initiative here lies with the sociologist rather than the client. 

Advocacy policy sociology can easily bleed into public sociology when 

the sociologist drums up support in the wider community. 

The following are examples of the advocacy model in which the policy 

sociologist formulates the character of the social problem and then 

defines appropriate (and inappropriate) responses or even solutions. 

• José‐Vicente Tavares‐Dos‐Santos, writing from Brazil, 

shows the influence of neoliberal punishment‐centered policing 

models within the criminology imported from the 

United States. In Porto Alegre he has developed alternative 

sociological models that protect citizenship security, on the 

basis of closer relations between police and community. 

• Napoleón Velástegui Bahamonde from Ecuador, offers a programmatic 

statement, insisting that sociology must join the social 

and natural sciences in promoting modernization and the 

university’s engagement in the knowledge-based society. 

• Vu Hao Quang writes of the role of sociology in analyzing social 

problems such as the fate of Vietnamese farmers under 

policies of the WTO. Here sociology is a technocratic discipline 

for the purposes of promoting social and economic development.


On the other hand, many of the papers describe the dangers of a sponsored 

policy sociology of a narrow contractual character that gives little 

autonomy to the researcher. If widespread this approach can have a distorting 

effect on the general practice of sociology in a given country. 

• Abdul Mumin Sa’ad describes the impediments to the sociologist’s 

influence over Nigeria’s legal policy making -- narrow 

perception of development, prejudices against academics, inadequate 

media access and coverage, no appropriate body for 

receiving and utilizing sociological research. 

• Patricio Langa describes another aspect of sociology’s limited 

significance -- the “instrumentalization” of the Mozambiquan 

university whereby the social sciences are relegated below the 

more “useful” and technical disciplines. Political interference 

in university life, a legacy of the previous socialist regime, advances 

neither science nor the national “fight against absolute 

poverty.” 

• Sari Hanafi describes the proliferation of private research centers 

throughout the Arab world, channeling resources away 

from and undermining public universities in the region, This 

new NGO-based global elite produces shoddy policy-driven 

research, competing for funds from foreign donors with their 

own political agendas, creating superficial knowledge of the 

region, abandoning any critical capacity toward fashionable 

paradigms. 

European welfare states have always had a strong policy orientation, 

combining both advocacy and sponsorship models. These cases from 

Denmark and Finland point to the emergence of new arenas of policy science, 

so-called mode-2 type knowledge, that is policy oriented knowledge 

produced outside the university by inter-disciplinary teams. 

• Kristoffer Kropp and Anders Blok also describe shifts toward 

policy science (and to some extent “mode-2” type knowledge) 

in Denmark, linked to a whole gamut of institutions broadly 

connected to the welfare state, leading to what they call “welfare 

reflexivity.” In the 1990s to the present, strategies of reprofessionalization 

and policy research rescued Danish sociology 

from the state-led offensives of the 1980s against the radicalism 

of the 1970s. 

• Pekka Sulkunen from Finland writes of the growth of “Mode- 

2” type transdisciplinary knowledge concerned with application 

and what works, with evaluation research, corresponding 

to transformations in welfare states toward programs proposed 

from below rather the plans imposed from above.

20 


Professional Sociology 

The focus on public and/or policy sociology is not intended to reproduce 

the existing global division of sociological labor with the metropolitan 

monopoly of theoretical work and scientific research, so it is important 

that national policy and public sociologies feed into a national professional 

sociology. Without that the enterprise would be of diminished 

value and significance. Here, too, there are multiple challenges and risks. 

Thus, limited resources make it more feasible to simply import professional 

sociology from abroad, or where resources are not so limited states 

may be intent on bench marking universities to “international,” i.e. metropolitan 

standards. This is what we might call formal professionalization. 

By contrast substantive professionalization involves the development of a 

relatively autonomous professional sociology, based on expanding research 

programs influenced by the issues brought to the table by public 

and policy sociologies. We can find examples of this in different continents, 

for example, subaltern studies in India, labor studies South Africa, 

participatory action research in Latin America, but, note, in each case the 

professionalization stems from embeddedness in local or national issues,. 

Certainly formal professionalization is one way to bring theories and 

methodologies, new paradigms to the attention of national sociologies, 

but it should not overwhelm substantive professionalization. Between the 

two there should be a reciprocal relation without the one outweighing the 

other. Indeed, at their best the Research Committees of the ISA can foster 

such a balance, fostering the fruitful circulation of ideas that can advance 

the autonomy and energy of national sociologies. 

Sustaining a relatively autonomous professional sociology can be 

very difficult due to the paucity of resources, the pressure for narrow policy-driven 

research and inhospitable national legacies. Below we have 

cases from Africa, the Former Soviet Union, Latin America and India that 

face very different challenges. 

Africa: 

• Simon Mapadimeng writes of the complexity of continuities 

and breaks with apartheid South Africa. The massive expansion 

of sociology students and thus ever-increasing teaching 

loads, the continuing divide between historically black and 

white universities, and the turn to client-driven policy research, 

are threatening the advance of research-based and critical sociologies, 

and South Africa’s place in the global division of sociological 

labor. 

• Feleke Tadele maps out the history of sociology in Ethiopia – 

an exceptional African nation without a colonial legacy. It has


experienced rapid growth in the recent period (manifested in 

degrees at all levels), owing to the demands for sociologists in 

the NGO sector. There is a strong emphasis on the applied dimension 

of sociology at the expense of building research tradition 

and indigenous social theory. 

The Former Soviet Union: 

• Gevorg Poghosyan depicts the dilemmas of Armenia released 

from the former Soviet Union as an independent state, struggling 

to constitute a national sociology de novo in a context of 

open borders and free markets. Facing the exodus of sociologists 

from the academic world into jobs abroad or private polling 

companies, the Armemenian Sociological Association tries 

to promote professional sociology through regional, diasporic 

and international connections. 

• Valery Mansurov offers a more optimistic picture for Russia, 

where he sees the convergence of postSoviet and Western sociology. 

As old restrictions are cast aside, Russian sociology 

has developed a multi-paradigmatic studies of elite formation, 

the continuing power of the Soviet nomenklatura, gender inequality, 

poverty and homelessness, conflict as in the Chechen 

War, adopting qualitative methodologies within new theoretical 

frameworks, including a reconstructed Marxism. 

Latin America: 

• Alicia Palermo from Argentina takes on one aspect of substantive 

professionalism, the challenges of sustaining national 

journals of sociology that are recognized nationally, regionally 

and world-wide. She emphasizes the biases of international rating 

systems, as well as the lack of funding and training, and 

calls for greater involvement of state agencies and collaborations 

among sociology journals across Latin America. 

• Jorge Carrillo writes about the challenges facing the sociology 

of work in Mexico – one of the strongest subdisciplines in 

Mexico, and renown throughout Latin America. With tightening 

economic resources, there are fewer research projects, and 

growing inequalities within the research community. Studies 

are more descriptive than theoretical, and miss an international 

comparative dimension, although there is a very fruitful collaboration 

across Latin America. 

India: 

• As Ishwa Modi writes, even a country as large as India with its 

large body of sociology, and its long traditions finds the development 

of an autonomous sociology difficult, especially in an

22 


era of marketization and privatization. But the Indian Sociological 

Society has tried to foster greater communication 

within India but also between India and other countries, especially 

those of the Global South, namely Brazil and South Africa. 

Professional sociology is also struggling in richer countries, under 

competitive pressures of internationalization. 

• Charles Crothers from New Zealand argues that policy and 

public sociologies have not borne fruit in a strong professional 

sociology. Indeed, in recent years sociology has been absorbed 

into other disciplines, leaving only one autonomous sociology 

department. Even though this white settler colony is part of 

the semi-periphery, it is a periphery of Australia which sets intellectual 

patterns for the region. 

• John Holmwood examines the consequences of the British “research 

assessment exercise,” that is designed to benchmark 

academic knowledge to international standards. He sees this 

formal professionalization as a form of “governmentality” that 

threatens the professional core and its critical alternatives by 

fragmenting sociology, with parts migrating into other disciplines. 

As all these cases suggest, the development of an autonomous professional 

sociology is very much dependent upon the largesse of the state, 

and the autonomy of a university system as well as the standing of the 

discipline within the university. One of the reasons for the expansion of 

Ethiopian sociology has been its ability to make teaching a priority, to 

offer degrees or diplomas in “applied” sociology that attract students. On 

the other hand, of course, excessive teaching loads can also sink the possibility 

of developing serious research agendas. Since teaching absorbs 

so much of the time of so many sociologists we have to give serious attention 

to innovative synergies between teaching and research, especially 

as electronic media become more widely dispersed. 

Critical Sociology 

It is critical sociology that sustains the integrity of the division of sociological 

labor. It sustains a balance between substantive and formal professionalization, 

between sponsored and contract policy research, and between 

traditional and organic public sociology. The project of critical 

sociology is to make us accountable to ourselves as well as others, and to 

build a reflexive community, reflexive about the values we think are im-


portant, values that might be infused into professional, policy and public 

sociologies. 

Critical sociology may be aimed at our discipline, but it is also a conduit 

of ideas from other disciplines. Again it is especially important to 

fend off pressures for narrow disciplinary chauvinism that can mark the 

social sciences of the North, especially in the United States. Interdisciplinarity 

is very important where public and policy sociology is emphasized 

since neighboring disciplines can offer important perspectives on social 

issues, but it is also very important where social science disciplines are 

individually very weak. Interdisciplinarity does not mean the dissolution 

of disciplinarity. Quite the opposite it feeds off disciplinarity, which is its 

sine qua non, just as it often provides intellectual sustenance for disciplinarity. 

Metropolitan sociology developed through the synergy of four types 

of knowledge – professional, policy, public and critical – even if now one 

or more dominate their disciplinary fields. It’s important to replicate that 

synergy, not just within countries but within regions too. Thus, Latin 

America, as a region, offers probably one of the best examples of a broad 

gauged synergy among the four types of knowledge and has given rise to 

one of most vibrant sociological fields in the world. 

• Marcos Supervielle, reflecting on the four phases of post- 

WWII history of sociology in Latin America, underlines its 

continuing engagement with society – whether at the level of 

policy experts or public dialogue. It is this engagement that becomes 

the spring board for original sociologies, creatively appropriating 

and critically appraising metropolitan theories 

while generating autonomous research traditions. Making itself 

accountable to local and national communities has been 

one ingredient but the creation of a regional community of 

scholars has been the second ingredient for the dynamic autocentric 

expansion of theory and research. 

• Takashi Machimura describes the very different situation in 

Japan where research and teaching has been largely conducted 

in Japanese. This has favored a synergy among the four types 

of sociology, including a strong public sociology, but communication 

with other sociologies is difficult. Although Western 

classics are translated into Japanese, Japanese classics rarely 

become a reference point for international sociology, despite 

Japan being the second or third most numerous concentrations 

of sociology in the world. 

If one way to resist the false universalism of metropolitan hegemony 

is to build robust national sociologies throughout the South, another way

24 


is to nationalize or “provincialize” Northern sociology. The universal 

claims, implicit or explicit, of U.S., French, German sociologies must be 

qualified by recognition of the particular realities they reflect and from 

which they have emerged. Here, too, more attention to a public sociology 

might help, but also openness to the contestation of universalistic claims 

by other national professional and critical sociologies. There is nothing 

like open discussion among sociologists from different parts of the world 

to clarify the particularity of universal claims! 

TOWARD FEASIBLE GLOBAL SOCIOLOGIES 

So, what does this mean for the development of global sociologies One 

form of global sociology, global sociology from above, is simply the universalization 

of a single, usually Northern, sociology. Here a comparison 

with economics is pertinent. Economics has managed to constitute its 

own object of analysis – the market economy – over which it has a monopoly 

of knowledge, and thereby it has created a theory and methodology 

with claims to universal applicability. The center of this univocal but 

ever-changing paradigm, is the United States. The paradigm imposes itself 

through transnational socialization (flows of students, prestige of US 

credentials), through flows of resources (scholarships, research funding, 

think tanks) and through the domination of international agencies (World 

Bank, IMF, etc.), which employ mainly U.S. trained economists (Fourcade 

2006). A large part of its success lies with the constitution of “national 

economies” which underpin an ongoing synergy between professional 

and policy science. Once the Soviet order had disintegrated it was 

hard to even imagine challenges to the domination of U.S. economics, 

although, of course, Europe always had its alternative models and there 

have been critiques emanating from the South. Undoubtedly, their success 

in creating a distinctive object of knowledge and in convincing others 

of their insights into its working undergirds the influence of economists 

in diverse political fields (Fourcade 2009). 

Sociology is different in that it has not successfully constituted its 

own object over which it has a monopoly of knowledge. Therefore, there 

has been no umbilical cord connecting professional and policy sociology 

– although a close approximation may be found in Scandinavia. Generally, 

efforts to establish a single paradigm with “society” as its object 

have failed. There is simply no well-defined object that sociologists study 

and over which they have a monopoly of knowledge. They study everything: 

from institutions to identities, from states to schools, from economies 

to families, from deviance to consent, from domination to social


movements. The ISA has 55 research committees, all focused on different 

topics. Thus, instead of having its own object, sociology has a distinctive 

standpoint, namely the standpoint of civil society – those institutions, 

organizations, and movements that inhabit the space between economy 

and state. This does not mean that sociology only studies civil society. 

Rather it studies state and market through their effects on civil society, 

and vice versa how civil society provides the conditions of existence of 

state and market. Because civil society is made up of competing forces, 

organized into patterns of domination and exclusion, so sociology is a 

contested and plural discipline, very different from the paradigmatic science 

of economics. 

To look upon sociology as defined by its standpoint means to recognize 

that the sociologist is simultaneously observer of and participant in 

society, that there is no place outside society not even for the scientist. 

Sociology, therefore, is always potentially an actor within the society it 

studies. In taking up such a stance sociology is necessarily skeptical of 

economists’ claims to neutrality, objectivity and universality. Indeed, 

these claims mask the interest of orthodox economics in the unrestricted 

expansion of markets, an expansion that threatens civil society and thus, 

not just sociology but also humanity’s capacity to protect itself against, 

for example, the degradation of the environment and labor. Sociology 

becomes, therefore, not only a potential opposition to economics in the 

academic field but also contributes to the counter-movement against markets 

in the wider society. 

As markets become global so sociology aspires to become global too, 

contributing to a global civil society, knitting together communities, organizations 

and movements across national boundaries. If orthodox economics 

is constituted globally from above through a process of academic 

imperialism, global sociologies are laboriously constituted from below 

out of particular national sociologies. This depends on the viability of 

those national sociologies discussed in the previous section, and then on 

building multiple connections among such national sociologies. This can 

be done directly or through the development of regional ties and regional 

sociologies, as has been done in Latin America, Europe and North America, 

and to a lesser extent in Asia and the Arab World. Moreover, through 

such linkages and circulations, conferences and joint projects, weaker 

sociologies are strengthened. 

Building a global sociology from below is a daunting and precarious 

task. If there is a paucity of collective actors in the world then sociology 

may have little alternative but to enter the vacuum. Indeed, faced with the 

possibility of being condemned to irrelevance, its very livelihood may be 

at stake. Can we look for global actors of tomorrow in the legions of so-

26 


ciologists, whose peculiarity is to simultaneously diagnose and confront 

the unequal world they inhabit. If sociology can be constituted as a collective 

actor, can it also reach beyond a trade union defensiveness, important 

though that is, to embrace wider interests and global awareness 

That’s the challenge of a global sociology. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alatas, Syed Farid. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses 

to Eurocentrism. New Delhi: Sage, 2006a. 

____. “A Khaldunian Exemplar for a Historical Sociology for the South.” 

Current Sociology 54, no.3 (2006b): 397-412. 

Alatas, Syed Hussein. “The Captive Mind and Creative development.” 

Internationl Social Science Journal 36 (1974): 691-99. 

Albrow, Martin and Elizabeth King (eds.). Globalization, Knowledge and 

Society. London: Sage, 1990. 

Archer, Margaret. “Sociology for one World: Unity and Diversity.” 

International Sociology 6, no.2 (1991): 131-47. 

Akiwowo, Akinsola. “Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from 

an African Oral Poetry.” International Sociology 1, no.4 (1986): 

343-358. 

Beck, Ulrich. The Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge, U.K., Polity Press, 

2004. 

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Corporatism of the Universal: The Role of Intellectuals 

in the Modern World.” Telos 81 (1989): 99-110. 

Cardoso, Fernando Henrique. “Foreword.” International Sociology 1, 

no.1 (1986): 1-2 Connell, Raewyn. Southern Theory: The Global 

Dynamics of Knowledge in SocialScience. Crows Nest, NSW, Australia: 

Allen and Unwin, 2007. 

Fourcade, Marion. “The Construction of a Global Profession: The 

Transnationalization of Economics.” American Journal of Sociology 

112 (2006): 145-94. 

____. Economists and Societies: Discipline and Profession in the United 

States, Britain, and France 1890s to 1990s. Princeton: Princeton 

University Press, 2009. 

Genov, Nikolai (ed.). National Traditions in Sociology. London: Sage, 

1989. 

Himmelstrand, Ulf. “The Role of the ISA in Internationalizing Sociology.” 

Current Sociology 39 (1991): 85-100. 

Oommen, T.K. “Internationalization of Sociology: A View from Developing 

Countries.” Current Sociology 39 (1991): 67-84.


Patel, Sujata (ed.). The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. 

London: Sage, 2009. 

Sztompka, Piotr. “One Sociology or Many” in Patel (editor), The ISA 

Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions, pp.21-28. London: 

Sage, 2009 Wallerstein, Immanuel. The End of the World As We 

Know It: Social Science for the Twenty-First Century. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota Press, 1999.

28 

Yuan-Tseh Lee 

Challenges Facing Human Society 

in the 21 st Century 

Yuan-Tseh Lee, Academia Sinica, Taiwan 1 

It is a great honor for a natural scientist to be invited to present a lecture 

at the 2009 Conference of the National Associations of the International 

Sociological Association. My talk will be focused on the issues of energy, 

the environment, and the challenges facing human society in the 21 st century. 

THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT 

OF HUMAN SOCIETY ON EARTH 

After the appearance of our ancestors on the heavily forested planet a 

couple of million years ago, the development of the human society as a 

whole was in harmony with nature. Humankind was indeed a part of nature, 

reliant on the sun to create most of what was needed to survive. 

Since the population of humankind was small, for a long period of time 

their limited activities seemed to have affected neither the biosphere nor 

the living environment of humankind to any great extent. 

However, the development of humankind took a new turn after the 

industrial revolution, which began about two hundred and fifty years ago. 

As humankind learned to transform energy from one form to another – 

from chemical, thermal, and electrical to mechanical – and invented various 

machines that could perform work thousands of times more powerfully, 

more precisely, and more reliably than could possibly be done with 

human and animal labor, the productivity of humankind increased immensely, 

and an unprecedented improvement of living standards was 

achieved. The success of humankind on the surface of the earth had been 

quite remarkable. But, during this process, humankind became addicted 

to the use of a large amount of energy, and since the energy from the 

biomass created by sunshine no longer satisfied our needs, we began to 

depend more and more on fossil fuels - coal, natural gas, and petroleum - 

1 Yuan-Tseh Lee is the President-Elect of International Council for Science and 

the President Emeritus of Academia Sinica.

Challenges Facing Human Society in the 21 st Century 29 

which were buried under the ground and had taken millions of years to 

accumulate. In the USA in 1850, 90% of the energy depended on wood 

burning, but 80 years later, by 1930, 90% of the energy came from the 

combustion of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels also provided energy and feed 

stock needed for the production of various new materials, such as plastics, 

fertilizer, synthetic fibers, steel, and cement, and regrettably people had 

drastically changed the intimate relation between humans and nature. 

The harmonious relation between people and the biosphere was disrupted, 

and the important role played by the sun in the development of humankind, 

or the philosophical view of Confucius that “Man and Nature are 

but one,” somehow seemed to have been forgotten. 

As we entered the 21st century, we began to realize that the current 

development patterns of human society were not sustainable. Problems 

related to population explosion, natural resource depletion, and the damage 

done to the living environment have become quite serious. In a sense, 

the earth was once regarded as “infinite” or “unlimited” for humankind, 

not only because of the resources available but also due to the ability of 

the earth to digest all the waste that humankind produced. However, 

from the point of view of the damage done to the ecosystem or the living 

environment, the earth as a whole should be considered “limited” and 

“overdeveloped” at present. For example, carbon dioxide produced by 

human activities is far exceeding the earth’s capacity to absorb it through 

the growth of the forest, coral reefs, and other mechanisms, and the trend 

of global warming is threatening the very existence of human beings on 

Earth. It is quite ironic that during the 20 th century not only are the “developed” 

countries overdeveloped, but so-called “developing” countries 

are also overdeveloped. It is unfortunate that so-called “developing” 

countries are following in the footsteps of “developed” countries and 

marching along the unsustainable path established by “developed countries” 

in the past when the earth was still “unlimited.” 

It is extremely important for humankind to wake up immediately and 

acknowledge the fact that the human society as a whole is living beyond 

its means. We must learn to work together as a community to find new, 

sustainable ways to re-establish an intimate relationship with biosphere, 

live in harmony with nature, and return to a more direct relationship with 

the mighty power of the sun. After all, it was the sun that brought us all 

together here on the surface of the earth.

30 

Yuan-Tseh Lee 

ISSUES RELATED TO ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

One of the most urgent problems people face today is related to the relationship 

between energy and the environment, especially global warming 

trends caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, and energy crises 

caused by the widening gap between the limited supply and rapidly growing 

demand for petroleum and other fossil fuels. The other problem, 

which threatens to wipe out large portions of humanity in a short time, is 

the spread of infectious diseases, like those caused by virus H5N1. 

It is comforting to know that, at present, the energy absorbed by the 

surface of the earth in one hour is approximately equal to the total energy 

consumption of the entire world in a year. In other words, the amount of 

energy the surface of the earth absorbs is approximately ten thousand 

times the energy consumed by the human society. It means that if we 

were clever enough, we could depend entirely on solar energy. For example, 

if an inexpensive practical photovoltaic cell, which converts 10% 

of solar energy to electricity, becomes available, it will only take 1% of 

the planet’s land area to generate enough electric energy to satisfy the 

energy needs of the entire world. If the electrical energy generated by a 

photovoltaic cell could be effectively stored or used to electrolyze water 

into hydrogen and oxygen—or to even more directly dissociate water by 

using a combination of photovoltaic cells—it is not inconceivable that 

countries with large land masses could become energy exporting countries, 

nor that hydrogen gas might then become a major energy source as 

we enter the age of the “hydrogen economy.” If we learn to produce biofuel 

more efficiently or invent efficient “artificial leaves,” their photosynthesis 

might provide enough biomass on Earth to satisfy our need for liquid 

fuel and other chemical feed stocks now provided by petroleum. 

THE DILEMMAS OF LIVING IN 

A PARTIALLY-GLOBALIZED WORLD 

Although we have witnessed the process of the globalization of human 

society during the last few decades, the process is only half complete, and 

because of this, we are suffering the consequences. Owing to highlydeveloped 

transportation and communication technologies, our world is 

relatively smaller than it once was, and it appears that the concept of a 

global village is slowly taking root as a number of human activities, most 

notably in the economic sphere, become globalized. The spread of disease 

around the world is another example. With thousands of airplanes 

daily crossing oceans and continents, loaded with people and goods, dis-


ease-causing bacteria, viruses, and other microbes certainly will not be 

confined to specific locations. Similarly, environmental problems such as 

the depletion of the ozone layer by chlorofluorocarbons and global warming 

trends caused by greenhouse gases are problems that must be addressed 

on a global scale. On the other hand, in spite of the increased 

international collaboration in the areas of science and technology, hightech 

economic competition is still largely carried out on a national basis. 

Currently, in the partially-globalized world, it is quite clear that only 

those people who are able to stage their activities on a global scale are 

benefiting enormously. For that reason, it is not surprising that we will 

have to tackle such problems as the widening gap between the rich and 

the poor, both among countries and between people within a country, nor 

that threats to solve problems by military force have not disappeared. 

These problems might be avoided if the entire world were to become 

“one community.” 

We should also realize that though the globalization of the world 

economy is driving us toward a borderless society, it will not reduce the 

differences among peoples in various regions overnight. Establishing a 

new, common global culture, together with more effective ways of communicating 

among all the peoples, will certainly take time. The differences 

among cultural heritages, languages, and religions that make this 

world so rich and colorful will not, and should not, be made to disappear. 

As the world shrinks in relative terms, and contact between peoples becomes 

more frequent, whether or not the differences in civilizations are 

likely to cause an inevitable crash (as suggested by the well-known 

scholar Samuel Huntington), seems to depend entirely on how well people 

around the world learn to communicate and to understand, appreciate, 

and respect each other’s cultural heritage. To become good citizens of the 

global village, we need to learn quickly and also to teach our young people 

to take a global view and to respect, appreciate, and understand the 

different cultures of different peoples. In this regard, scientists can certainly 

lead the way. 

THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY FORUM 

IN KYOTO 

In the fall of 2004, Mr. Omi, the former Minister of Finance of Japan, 

organized a very important annual forum in Kyoto, called “The Science 

and Technology in Society Forum.” More than six hundred leading scientists, 

business leaders, and policy makers were invited every year from 

all over the world to discuss problems related to the subject matter of the

32 

Yuan-Tseh Lee 

forum. The forum aroused great enthusiasm among participants and has 

since become a very successful and important annual event. This past 

October, in 2008, the fifth forum was held with more than 600 attendees. 

Mr. Omi made two important points when he described the fundamental 

concept of this forum in the opening ceremony of the first forum. 

He mentioned positive and negative aspects of the rapid progress of science 

and technology, and he noted that the benefits of science and technology 

have not yet reached everyone equally, which, as he said, “Is 

really what symbolizes the lights and shadows of science and technology.” 

While their negative aspects must be properly controlled, the positive 

features of science and technology should be promoted. 

Mr. Omi’s other important point was stated thus: “Today’s problems 

are global and can not be solved by any single country or by scientists 

alone.” He went on to say, “Boundaries between nations are merely lines 

on a map; nature makes no such distinctions. We should think of ourselves 

as members of humankind, whose very existence will be at risk if 

we do not live in accordance with the principles of Mother Nature.” Indeed, 

if an astronaut observes the beautiful earth from a spacecraft, the 

astronaut will not find any national boundaries. 

I believe most of us sitting in this room would support this idea without 

hesitation. However, if we do not try to answer some other questions 

related to the fact that the earth is “limited’ and the world is only “partially 

globalized,” our efforts to find solutions might encounter some difficulties. 

For example, we must also ask, “How many people could the 

planet support if we were to extend the living standard of the people in 

the so-called ‘developed countries’ to everyone on Earth” It is interesting 

to note that when India became independent, in response to the question 

of how the people in that country could catch up with the living standard 

of the people in Great Britain, Gandhi rightfully recognized that it 

would take the natural resources of many Planet Earths for the people in 

India to have the British way of life. It is just impossible. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

Many of the problems we face today are problems that cannot be solved 

with current scientific knowledge and technologies; they await the accumulation 

of new knowledge and the development of new technologies. 

That is why it is so important to continue our efforts to advance science 

and technology and to educate a new generation of creative scientists. 

During the long history of humankind, our ancestors invented various 

technologies in order to survive better or to improve their quality of life.


Their curiosity and their desire to understand natural phenomena were the 

basis of the advancement of science. Until about one hundred years ago, 

the advancement of science was driven by the available technology; only 

during the last century have technological advances been led by the results 

of scientific research. 

In recent years, we have observed encouraging improvements in 

international scientific collaboration. Many projects have been initiated; 

many agreements have been signed. Year after year, we have discussed 

“capacity building” in science, technology, and education for developing 

countries, but the worsening situation of the entire world has yet to find 

its turning point. For example, the rain forest, which is often compared 

with the lung of a human body, is continuing to disappear from the surface 

of the earth. For the past decade, every summer we have witnessed 

the thick dark smog generated by the forest fires in Indonesia contaminate 

not only the air in Indonesia, but also in their neighboring countries. It is 

not realistic to blame or to expect Indonesia to be able to keep their rain 

forest from disappearing. Unless we consider the protection of the rain 

forest in Indonesia “our responsibility” and raise enough funds to help 

Indonesia to establish a protected “global rain forest,” no matter how seriously 

we engage in international scientific collaboration, the rain forest 

will continue to disappear. 

We should all recognize the fact that the increasingly interconnected 

world cannot be a safe place if a large portion of its population still suffers 

from grinding poverty, disease, illiteracy, lack of education, unemployment, 

and other barriers to survival. Scientists can play key roles in 

finding the solutions to these problems. Especially if we learn to solve 

problems together; learn to share knowledge, new technological options, 

and the limited resources available; and learn to respect and understand 

different cultural heritages, then it will be possible to realize the establishment 

of a genuine global village that makes sustainable development 

possible for all. 

In order for science and technology to solve the problems man faces 

in the 21 st century, it is not enough to advance science and technology at a 

faster pace. The advancement of science and technology certainly will 

solve many problems we are facing today and will also shape the development 

of human society of the future. However, the serious problems 

related to sustainable development will not be solved unless we pay special 

attention to the roles played by science and technology in this “finite” 

and “half-globalized” world, learn to work together beyond national 

boundaries, and pay more attention to our collective “global competitiveness” 

for solving the problems of the entire world, rather than continuing 

to worry about the “national competitiveness” of our own countries.

34 

Yuan-Tseh Lee 

At present, the entire world consists of more than one hundred nation-states. 

One of the duties of the government of a nation-state is to 

collect taxes from its citizen and businesses to solve the nation’s problems 

and redistribute wealth. As the world has become more and more 

globalized, it has become obvious that there is a need for some sort of 

“global government” that can resolve the conflict between the interests of 

nation-states and the interests of the entire world. 

The best way to work together beyond national boundaries is to make 

national boundaries disappear all together. Although it might take a long 

time, our future certainly will depend on how soon all of us in different 

countries learn to operate as “one community” for the entire world, and 

we do not have much time to waste. Perhaps the European Union is a 

step in that direction. Half way through the 21 st Century, the formation of 

the “Global Union of the Planet of Earth” might become a reality, and 

then the sustainable development of the entire world might become possible. 

Otherwise, in the not too distant future, the solar system might 

send the farewell message to humankind on Earth.

Sociology in Times of Crisis 35 

Sociology in Times of Crisis 

Michel Wieviorka, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 

Paris, France 1 

Translated by Kristin Couper 

We have entered an era since September 2008 that countless observers, 

analysts, economists, and politicians have described as one of “crisis.” 

The term has become the key word of the moment. At the same time, the 

explanation we are offered to account for this phenomenon is something 

of a stereotype. 

How should the present crisis be understood By far, the majority of 

the commentators tell us that the simplest thing is to follow the sequence 

of events. Thereafter, we are presented with a story that is always the 

same, apart from a few variations in detail; Jacques Attali’s (2008) book 

constitutes a paradigm. We are told that, in the first instance, the crisis 

was financial (credit for consumer goods and especially the American 

housing “bubble,” the “subprimes,” “securitization,” the failures of financial 

institutions or banks, avoided in the last resort thanks to the intervention 

of states, etc.). It spread in the form of a worldwide social and economic 

crisis (so-called “technical” unemployment, axing of jobs, closing 

of firms, poverty, etc.). It will perhaps have dramatic political repercussions 

with violence, riots, and populist, nationalist, or extreme left forms 

of radicalization. Sooner or later, after a difficult period, it will be resolved. 

This will be the “way out of the crisis;” the economy will pick up 

again, cleaned up and perhaps strengthened, working more smoothly 

thanks to a banking system which has been improved under the leadership 

of states which have led the way to a recovery of confidence, thanks 

perhaps also to substantial progress having been made in global-level 

governance of the economy and finance. 

Of course, this narrative is not entirely false. However, in many respects, 

it is unbearable. Its economism tends to be over-simplistic; economics 

is the explanation for everything. The Marxist overtones are astonishing 

on the part of those who have developed it; if we are to believe 

them, the economic infrastructure controlled the political-ideological superstructure, 

as if the political actors were in no way responsible for the 

1 Michel Wieworka is President of the International Sociological Association.

36 

Michel Wieviorka 

catastrophe. All that is required is simply to await a reversal of the situation, 

which is already taking shape and is referred to as “the return of the 

state.” 

This narrative also has the overtones of a “saga” with a happy ending 

of the type: we’re going to suffer; we’ll have to tighten our belts, but 

we’ll get over it. And, those who created it, be they experts, economists, 

or others, are not lacking in self-confidence. They did not see what was 

coming, but they present themselves as qualified to explain in a learned 

fashion what happened and what the future will be like, even going as far 

as suggesting the most appropriate public policies to adopt. 

Moreover, when they are questioned, they state that some of them 

had forecast the American scenario, the inevitable bursting of the bubble 

associated with unbridled credit, in the property market and for consumer 

goods. At most, they concede that they did not imagine the extension of 

the crisis to the planet as a whole and with such rapidity; those who have 

been speaking about globalization for the past twenty years without ever 

imagining that it could also lead to a “global” crisis have no hesitation in 

declaring that this is the first crisis in globalization. 

This narrative also has an implicit characteristic that deserves to be 

made explicit. It does break, and very rightly so, with the image of a type 

of disassociation specific to globalization which is said to have disconnected 

the financial economy from the real economy. On the contrary, by 

insisting on the consequences of the financial crisis on employment, 

growth, the standard of living, the GDP (gross domestic product), etc., 

this narrative points to links between the two registers, links that are certainly 

very complex. 

But, are these repetitive remarks that always tell us the same story 

apart from a few variations the only way to look at the crisis Here, sociology 

definitely has other analyses to offer us. I even think that sociologists 

should make the “crisis” a priority in their interventions. A comparison 

enables us make the point forcefully: sociologists cannot continue 

to go about their business while the boat is sinking. 

THE CRISIS AS THE PROBLEM OF A SYSTEM 

The social sciences have developed on the basis of dealing with causes 

for concern that frequently evoked the idea of crisis. Thus, the concept of 

anomie, popularized by Emile Durkheim, refers directly to the idea of 

crisis. From this point of view, crisis means that a system (in particular a 

social, political, or economic one) is not working well, is getting stuck 

and changing in a way that cannot be controlled; this engenders reactions


in behavior which are themselves linked, for example, to frustrations and 

fears. 

Anomie, in Durkheim’s definition of the term, is the lack or inefficacy 

of norms in a society. Durkheim introduced the concept of anomie 2 

in The Division of Labour in Society (1893) and used it primarily in Suicide 

(1897). In particular, he differentiated between anomic suicide and 

other modalities of the phenomenon; anomic suicide occurs when norms 

are absent or else is due to the fact that anomie is long-standing, for example 

in industrial work, in trade, or when an abrupt transition leads to 

loss of efficacy of norms which no longer succeed in regulating behavior. 

For example, in times of financial crisis, anomie incites people to suicide. 

In an article that is frequently quoted, the concept of anomie was 

taken up again and transformed by Robert Merton (1938) to explain deviance. 

With Merton, anomie ceases to be in the norms and values which 

become confused or disappear, as in Durkheim; it resides in the means to 

succeed in achieving aims or legitimate, clear values which are in no way 

in crisis. The deviant accepts values that are socially recognized, but he 

uses non-legitimate means to achieve them. The values may be, for example, 

individual success; the legitimate means to achieve this are, for 

example, work or education. Now, some people are going to use illegitimate 

means, such as crime or delinquency, to achieve the individual success 

that the others earn as a result of study or professional activities. 

This idea leads to the hypothesis of the conformism of deviants: like everyone 

else, they want money or signs of social success, but they achieve 

them by means that do not conform. 

We should add that the concept of anomie implies that there is a society, 

an idea that might deserve to be discussed or criticized. The fact remains 

that, both with Emile Durkheim and the American functionalists of 

the 1930s, 40s, or 50s, the crisis refers in the first instance to the idea of a 

breakdown in the system or of a system and, in particular, to the idea of a 

problem of social bond. There is a break or the threat of a break in solidarity 

or in the social fabric; there is a lack of confidence. 

In some way, spontaneous sociology and also the sociology behind 

most of the stereotypical discourses on the present crisis concord fairly 

well with the classical categories which have just been described. If we 

restrict ourselves to these discourses, it is expected that in the context of a 

close correspondence between society, nation, and the state, measures 

will be taken by state authorities to restore confidence in economic and 

financial matters. Furthermore, those in power expect the population to 

rally behind them in the name of the higher interest of the nation. The 

2 The word had been used before him by Jean-Marie Guyau (1885).

38 


idea that by combating the crisis efficiently, violence will be avoided, 

radicalization minimized, and the move to extremes restrained also belongs 

to this same classical sociology. The crisis, here, is a temporary 

problem in the social system; it is a state of disaster of one or several societies 

which it is the task of their states to end, with the help of international 

agreements or negotiations and by means of appropriate policies, 

for example plans for reviving economic growth. Apart from the state, 

there are not many actors in this type of approach; at the most, there are 

the actors whose behavior ought to be regulated or governed by public 

instances: bankers, financiers, and traders who acted improperly in the 

previous period. 

Approaches to the crisis which originate in Durkheim or in functionalism 

can lead to the idea that it is time to change the social system or the 

type of society, but in most instances they extend into appeals for an end 

to the present difficulties and a return to the state ex ante. On this basis, 

the sociologist can intervene in the discussion. His or her intervention 

will be aimed at proposing remedies and solutions, rather than helping in 

the formation of actors and, by clarifying things for them, enabling them 

to improve their mobilization in the face of the crisis. 

“CRISIOLOGY” 

In the late 1960s, Edgar Morin (1968) proposed the development of a 

scientific study of the crisis, or “crisiology.” As we shall see below, this 

was a premonitory text, because it was written in the historical context 

where the general transformation which culminated in what we know today 

as “the” crisis was taking shape. Morin considered that the crisis can 

be an event which both reveals and has an effect. First, as an event that 

reveals, it reveals what usually remains invisible; it forces us to hear 

things we do not wish to hear. The crisis reveals elements that are inherent 

to the real and are not merely accidents; it constitutes a moment of 

truth. Thus, we could say that the present crisis reveals unbridled capitalism, 

in particular financial capitalism, in all its brutality and its extreme 

injustice. Above all, we see that it constitutes a paroxysm in a process 

that started long before September 2008. Second, as an event that has an 

effect, Morin explains that the crisis sets in motion not only forces of decomposition, 

disorganization, and destruction, but also forces of transformation. 

In these cases, it is also a critical point in a process that includes 

dimensions of construction, innovation, and invention. 

This idea of a critical point is reinforced by the etymology. The word 

krisis in Greek means decision, and it was first used in medicine. The


crisis is the critical point that enables the diagnosis, as Edgar Morin reminds 

us. From this point of view, the crisis is not only synonymous 

with congestion, impotence, a situation to be endured, and, as a consequence, 

the development of irrational elements that give rise to deregulation 

and a hardening of positions, the “paralysis” and “stiffening of what 

constituted the organizational flexibility of the system,” notes Edgar 

Morin. But, it also constitutes, on the contrary, a condition that is favorable 

to the actions and decisions of some actors and enables or even 

forces actors to think and improve their analysis in order to improve their 

action. Morin states: 

At one and the same time we can grasp the inadequacy and the interest 

of the concept of crisis: there is something inherent to it which is uncertain 

since it corresponds to a regression of the determinism specific to 

the system in question, therefore to a regression in knowledge. But this 

regression can and must be compensated for by progress in the understanding 

of the complexity associated with crises. (140-141) 

Continuing in the idea that the crisis both “has an effect” and “reveals,” 

Edgar Morin invites us therefore to admit that the crisis demonstrates 

that what was a matter of course is in fact a source of difficulties 

and presents problems; what worked had its limits, its drawbacks, and its 

inadequacies. The crisis therefore constitutes an incentive to invent 

something new. But, this incentive is imperative in a very particular context, 

in which emotions, passions, and fears tend to pervert reason and, in 

particular, the endeavor to get out of the crisis by rational means. It is a 

commonplace but one which corresponds to many realities to recall that 

in times of crisis many seek scapegoats, populism is likely to develop, 

and actors become more radical. It must be forcefully stated that in times 

of crisis, forms of behavior may also involve sectarianism, resort to 

magic and the irrational, and assume the garb of messianic movements. 

The forms of behavior are many and varied and do not conform to any 

sort of determinism; most of them are all the more alarming given that 

actors or a system in crisis develop in ways which are much less foreseeable 

and much more random than do actors in a system which works. But, 

crisis-type behavior can even take many other forms. In particular, these 

may include discouragement, apathy, as Marie Jahoda, Paul Lazarsfeld 

and Hans Zeisel (1933) observed in the classical study of unemployed 

workers in Marienthal, a small town in Austria where anomie was the 

predominant form of behavior at the beginning of the 1930s before the 

Nazis transformed it into forms of collective behavior and mobilization.

40 


In a crisis, disorder and rigidity are at work. But, in so far as the crisis 

is subject to the unknown, in the last resort, it does leave room for 

maneuver for individual strategies or the action of an active minority. 

The crisis is a disruption of a system in which uncertainties arise, but 

there are also new opportunities; this disruption is two-fold. It operates 

both in the sphere of social reality and in our knowledge; it opens up new 

perspectives in action and in learning. 

But, let’s take a step further. Seen from this perspective, is the crisis 

a characteristic of the system that it affects, or does it indicate the way 

out If we follow Edgar Morin, it tends to be the first path that we should 

take. He states that we can only develop a theory of crisis: 

If we have a theory of society which is also systematic, cybernetic and 

subject to negative entropy. To understand the crisis, if we want to go 

beyond the idea of disruption, ordeal, and equilibrium, we have to understand 

society as a system capable of experiencing crises, that is, a 

complex system which includes antagonisms without which the theory 

of the society is inadequate and the notion of crisis is unthinkable. (142) 

In this case, crisis is a characteristic, in the last resort a property of 

the complex system constituted by the society, a system that can transform 

itself or retrieve its own form of regulation. But, why not envisage 

a second path and see the crisis as the convulsion in the transition from 

one system to another, in any event a deciding phase in a process of 

change in the system 

Both of these hypotheses deserve to be applied to the analysis of actual 

crises. For example, Lenin in his time adopted the second one when 

he explained that in his opinion the main point was not that the actors be 

revolutionaries but that the situation be so, that is, defined in terms of 

crisis. The change in system became possible in 1917 in Russia from the 

point at which the crisis had become generalized, social, and political but 

also international and military, and the regime of the Czar was collapsing. 

Finally, we also find an interesting question in Morin: does the crisis 

come from within the system which it affects, or from without There, 

too, there is no single answer but separate experiences depending on 

which crises are under consideration. The disruption may come from 

without, for example, in the case of climatic catastrophes. It can also 

come from within, from a process that at the outset is not a theoretical 

source of crisis but that produces it with the result that the system is no 

longer self-regulating. In Marx, for example, crises in capitalism can 

originate in a contradiction that has become too great between the relations 

of production and the development of the productive forces. The


crisis then arises when the system becomes incapable of resolving the 

difficulties that until then it was capable of resolving. Morin states that 

the crisis is “the absence of solution (phenomena of deregulation and disorganization) 

which, as a result, is capable of creating a solution (a new 

form of regulation, gradual transformation)” (143-144). Here, he concurs 

in a way with Michel Dobry (1992), for whom the most interesting aspect 

of the sociology of crises lies in envisaging not the external disruption but 

the internal disruption and the processes of deregulation consequent to it: 

dysfunctioning and deregulation. 

Thus, with the “crisiology” outlined by Edgar Morin, we have paths 

or hypotheses that may enable us to tackle the present crises with categories 

other than those of the stereotypical discourse in which economics 

and politics predominate. As we shall see, the exercise is worth trying. 

THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION 

On the basis of what we have just said, it is possible to suggest a very 

different argument from the one that underlies the usual economic approaches 

to the present-day crisis. It consists in setting the present crisis 

into a long-term historical context and seeing it as a particular point in a 

process of change that started in the developed countries with the oil crisis 

that followed the Yom Kippur War. 

Immediately after World War II, the developed countries implemented 

models of functioning and developing which had been taking 

shape before the war, on one hand, in dealing with the crisis in 1929 and 

sometimes also, as was the case in France, within the Resistance (during 

World War II). These models, which have their Western versions and 

their Soviet versions, presented distinct characteristics, even if diverse 

variants could be seen: relatively strong growth, considerable intervention 

on the part of the state, confidence in science, a real capacity to project 

themselves into the future, and the idea that production opens the way to 

progress. Upward social mobility was a promise in which many could 

believe. Economic and social thinking gave primacy of place to the state 

and the nation as the framework for analysis and action, a framework that 

was rounded off by the Westphalian concept of international relations. 

The economy of industrial societies was one in which work was organized 

according to principles of scientific organization; there was a 

belief in the Taylorian concept of “one best way.” Education was becoming 

more democratic and the university more open, but not necessarily to 

all. The processes of migration were relatively limited and above all did 

not seem to pose major problems. At a global level, decolonization was a

42 


source of immense hopes about peoples’ and nations’ capacity to control 

their own destinies, and the Cold War provided a principle of structuring 

conflict that, on the whole, organized peace, rather more than war and 

violence. 

Lastly, politics were dominated in the democracies by the idea of a 

Left/Right opposition representing primarily the world of the working 

class in opposition to domination and the capitalist order. 

All this, briefly outlined, began to fall apart in the mid 1970s, sometimes 

earlier, and often later (in Eastern European countries). We then 

entered a long period of transformation, marked on one hand by the decomposition 

of these models from the post-World War Two years and on 

the other by the invention, or the outlines, of what could be termed other 

models. 

The present financial crisis must therefore be presented in the context 

of a different narrative from the one offered by the majority of the 

economists for whom the point of departure is the “subprime” crisis and 

the extension of the crisis in the American property market to the planet 

and to all spheres of the economy. Instead, it must be considered a climactic 

moment in a long, therapeutic process, a difficult and chaotic way 

out of the old models; from this same perspective, it must also be envisaged 

as a point in time when tomorrow’s models could be being invented 

or taking shape. On the basis of Morin’s “crisiology,” it is possible to 

conceive of recent events in a historical time-scale which does not begin 

with the “subprimes” and which does not restrict the crisis to the “effects” 

or “consequences” of the deviations of the financial system. This 

is not a linear historical development but one in which one world is taking 

shape while, at the same time, another is disappearing. 

CRISIS AND CONFLICT 

In the social sciences, it is possible to discern ways of thinking which 

differ from and are even opposed to those which focus on society or on 

the system, considered in its totality and in its difficulties maintaining 

integration; these promote an approach based on the idea of an insufficiency, 

a lack, a loss, or a deficit of conflictuality. In these cases, the 

analysis focuses not so much on the system or on the society as on the 

actors who do not succeed or no longer succeed or have not yet succeeded 

in setting up a conflictual relation, with the crisis representing the 

complete opposite of this type of relation. 

A conflict exists when actors are involved in a relationship that they 

recognize as binding them and opposing them; the actors admit that the


relationship involves issues, that these issues are the same for all, and that 

each of them is endeavoring to control or master them. 

These issues can be situated at various levels, and sociological theory 

may endeavor to rank them. Thus, in the 1970s, Alain Touraine (1974) 

suggested comparing three different levels of conflict, on the one hand, 

with three different levels of crisis on the other. He distinguished the 

highest level in sociological terms, which he called the level of historicity, 

at which the control of the main orientations of community life are decided: 

This distance that society places between itself and its activity and this 

action by which it determines the categories of its practice I call historicity. 

Society is not what it is but what it makes itself be: through 

knowledge, which creates a state of relations between society and its 

environment; through accumulation, which subtracts a portion of available 

product from the cycle leading to consumption; through the cultural 

model, which captures creativity in forms dependent upon the society’s 

practical dominion over its own functioning. (4) 

At the level of historicity, therefore, the conflict, in the vocabulary 

used by Alain Touraine, refers to the existence of a social movement, 

which is the action of an actor who is dominated and controlled, engaged 

in a struggle with the major actors and leaders for the control of historicity. 

Thus, in an industrial society, the most important issue at stake in the 

conflict between the working class movement and the employers was the 

control of the organization of labour, particularly the control of investment 

and the appropriation and use of the fruits of labour. In turn, at this 

level of historicity, the crisis emerges when the social conflict is either 

not possible or no longer possible, when it destroys the state and overtakes 

it, when it is incapable of acting and representing a social entity in 

its present state but also in its future and in its past. The crisis emerges 

when there is an absence of state power or when it is reduced to the mere 

exercise of force and is itself overcome and overwhelmed. A state that is 

in profound crisis generates reactive forms of behavior that may ultimately 

culminate in revolution. For example, in Russia in 1917 there was 

effectively a social movement of workers, but if there was a revolution it 

was not because the workers and the employers were at loggerheads; it 

was because the Russian State, as I said, had collapsed and was losing the 

war. Moreover, as soon as the Revolution was victorious, the new Soviet 

power lost no time in crushing the working class movement and in making 

the trade unions “transmission belts” controlled by it. This example 

nevertheless invites us to recognize that there may be a complex relation-

44 


ship between social movements and the revolution, or the conflict and the 

crisis, more generally speaking. 

Crisis does not necessarily prevent conflict; crisis has an impact on 

conflict just as it may also be the origin or the outcome of conflict. 

Therefore, let us be wary of over-simplistic arguments that might evoke 

an image of a connection between the two as if the violence of the conflict 

was inversely related to the extent of the crisis. Reality is more 

complex. Instead, a more balanced way of putting it would be to say that 

the sphere of conflict increases when that of the crisis declines and vice 

versa, but without any idea of this being pre-determined or automatic. 

When this can clarify things, let us be ready to combine in our analyses 

the hypothesis of conflict and that of crisis, and their interaction when 

they are mixed. For example, if we take May 1968 in France, we can 

make an analytical distinction between 1) the dimensions of conflict and 

of social movement – firstly the students, then the workers – and 2) elements 

of crisis, in particular in the university system and the political regime. 

Alain Touraine also suggests considering two other categories that 

are at a lower level, in sociological terms, than that of historicity. At the 

political or institutional level, there is a crisis if the political system is 

blocked, proves to be incapable of dealing with the demands that come 

from society or from certain of its sectors, or is incapable of shaping social 

discussion. For example, Italian terrorism, for which many explanations 

were advanced in the 70s and 90s, was in many respects due to the 

political crisis. In the context of the rapprochement between the left (the 

Italian Communist Party, or ICP) and the right (Christian Democrats), 

moving together towards a “historical compromise,” the ICP became incapable 

of dealing politically with demands which were classically their 

domain, in particular those which emanated from the youth of the time. 

Young people, who were often qualified and, at the time, could only find 

jobs on production lines, dreamt of another culture and, realizing that the 

university was becoming a way of controlling them, were swept into the 

violence of terrorist organizations. 3 Generally speaking, crisis-type conduct 

often takes the form of violence. 

At the political or institutional level, the conflict, as opposed to the 

crisis, assumes the garb of pressures from actors to improve their relative 

position within a political system in order to gain entry or to increase 

their influence; this is the main lesson of what is known as the theory of 

“resource mobilization.” 

3 I take this example since I studied it in-depth in my (1993) book The Making of 

Terrorism.


Lastly, and still in the wake of Alain Touraine, at an even lower level, 

there is an opposition between crisis and conflict within organizations. In 

these instances, the conflict is a relationship within which actors endeavor 

to obtain a better reward in return for their contribution; the organizational 

crisis is a sign of disorganization, an incapacity to deal with internal 

problems and to face the outside world. It expresses deterioration, a 

hiatus between values and discourse; here, also, it may be conveyed by 

violent forms of conduct. 

In all cases, violence may equally well be associated with a conflict 

and in this case appear as instrumental, like a tool or a resource mobilized 

by some actors to achieve their aims or be associated with a crisis of 

purely expressive and even desperate forms of conduct, for example, in 

the form of a riot. 

Now, let’s consider how these theoretical or general considerations 

can help in clarifying our understanding of the present crisis. 

THE CRISIS AS ABSENCE, LOSS, OR INSUFFICIENCY 

OF CONFLICT 

Let’s begin by considering the specifically social dimensions of the crisis. 

The effects are all the more devastating since the major principle of conflictuality 

that structured societies like ours for at least a century and until 

the mid-1970s, i.e., the opposition between the working class movement 

and the employers, is no longer fundamental. Until recently, it was still 

possible to contrast the Rhine model of capitalism, in which trade unions 

and governing boards of firms confronted each other in the context of 

highly institutionalized conflict, and the neo-American model, which prioritized 

share-holders and financial, or even speculative, rationales. 4 

The neo-American model, which seems to have gained the upper 

hand since then, signified the absolute domination of share-holders over 

managers, of preferring the very short-term economic viability of investment 

over the long-term stability of the firm. If the economy has suddenly 

decelerated is this only due to a lack of liquidity Is it not also because 

modes of organization have prioritized flexibility, the implications 

of which have been so well described by Richard Sennett (2005) in The 

Culture of the New Capitalism, at the expense of rationales of production 

enabling the structuring of social relationships in firms between managers 

and wage-earners 

4 See, for example, Albert (1991).

46 


Two questions arise here. The first is that of the capacity of trade unionism 

to make a comeback as a mobilized force in the firm, but also, 

further, to have an impact as an actor of a political type. Can we imagine 

a revival of trade union action Does this not imply new forms of militancy 

or conditions that very specifically encourage wage-earners to join 

trade unions There would need to be appreciable changes in the running 

and management of firms, the end of “neo-American” capitalism, which 

seems an unrealistic aim and is not prominent in trade union mobilization 

at the moment. The second question is: is trade unionism capable of projecting 

itself into the future by contributing to inventing new modes of 

development Is it not profoundly attached to the previous model, a prisoner 

of its major orientations, to the point that, when it does succeed in 

mobilizing, it runs the risk of temporarily reviving the old system rather 

than contributing to the construction of a new one At the end of the 

1970s and in the 1990s, some trade unions, like the CFDT in France, innovated 

by presenting themselves, timidly it’s true, as the political operator 

of new challenges including, in particular, ecologists, women, and the 

anti-nuclear movement. This idea deserves to be re-examined and updated. 

It does enable the trade union itself to be the traditional defender 

of wage-earners, jobs, and standard of living, while at the same time contributing 

to struggles which are not specific to it but which it realizes are 

playing a role in leading us towards a new era. 

Now, let’s look closely at the conflicts which signpost this shift, and 

today let’s look specifically at the altermondialist (“another world”) 

struggles. 

In the 1990s, the recognition of the global nature of the major problems 

in the world was the motive force behind what was best in the altermondialist 

movement. At this point, this movement was pleading in 

favor of another form of altermondialization; it introduced another principle 

of conflictuality into the public sphere. 

Since then, it has declined – a collateral victim in particular of the attacks 

of September 11, 2001, which is not to say that it is historicallyspeaking, 

bound to disappear – undermined by extreme politicization, 

which frequently transforms it into an anti-imperialist, anti-war, and anti- 

American force. Its decline deprives the discussions about the crisis and 

the way out of the crisis of a challenge that, in its time, did put an end to 

the arrogance of Davos. Paradoxically, it is an element in the present difficulties 

because it deprives us, in the wake of the decline of trade unionism, 

of a second principle of conflictuality. At a broader level, the severity 

of the present crisis seems to be accentuated by the difficulty which 

the challenges concerning the planet, the environment, the supranational


regulation of economic life, the existence of a world-level form of justice, 

etc., have in constructing a broader sphere for discussion and conflict. 

Whether it be a question of trade unionism or new movements, there 

is one hypothesis that seems to us to merit our attention: for sociologists, 

consideration of the way out of the crisis should mean analyzing the conditions 

which would enable the production and stimulation of actors engaged 

in conflicts. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Albert, Michel. Capitalisme Contre Capitalisme. Paris: Seuil, 1991. 

Attali, Jacques. La Crise et Après Paris: Fayard, 2008. 

Dobry, Michel. “Brève Note sur les Turpitudes de la Crisologie: Que 

Sommes Nous en Droit de Déduire des Multiples Usages du Mot 

‘Crise’” Cahiers de la Sécurité Intérieure (IHESI) 7 (January 1992). 

Durkheim, Emile. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Simon 

and Schuster, 1997. (Orig. pub. 1893). 

-----. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York: Simon and Schuster, 

1997. (Orig. pub. 1897). 

Guyau, Jean-Marie. Esquisse d’une Morale Sans Obligation ni Sanction. 

Paris: F. Alcan, 1885. 

Jahoda, Marie, Paul Lazarsfeld, and Hans Zeisel. Marienthal: The Study 

of an Unemployed Community. London: Tavistok, 1974 (Orig. pub. 

1933). 

Merton, Robert K. “Social Structure and Anomie.” American Sociological 

Review 3, no. 5 (1938): 672-682. 

Morin, Edgar. “Pour une Sociologie de la Crise.” Sociologie. Paris: 

Fayard (1984): 139-153. Orig. pub. in Communications 25 (1968). 

Sennett, Richard. The Culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven: Yale 


Touraine, Alain. Production de la Société. Paris: Seuil, 1974. 

Wieworka, Michel. The Making of Terrorism. Chicago: University of 

Chicago Press, 1993 (Orig. pub 1988).

48 

Sujata Patel 

The Imperative and the Challenge of Diversity: 

Reconstructing Sociological Traditions in an 

Unequal World 


Since the 70s and particularly after the 90s, the dynamics of the world 

have changed. Global integration has promoted a free flow of ideas, information, 

knowledge, goods, services, finance, technology, and even 

diseases, drugs, and arms. At one level, the world has contracted. It has 

opened up possibilities of diverse kinds of trans-border flows and movements: 

those of capital, labour, and communication. Together with interdependence 

of finances, new global practices have widened the arenas of 

likely projects of cooperation and collaboration. And, paradoxically, it 

has also created intense conflicts and increased militarization. 

At another level, the contexts of flows of capital and labour have 

changed; if these have encouraged voluntary migration, they have also 

encouraged human trafficking, displaced populations, and made refugees. 

Inequalities and hierarchies are now being differently organized even 

though we manifestedly live in one global, capitalist world with a dominant 

form and representation of modernity. Lack of access to livelihoods, 

infrastructure, and political citizenship now blends with new forms of 

exclusion - those of cultural and group identities as they are articulated in 

uneven ways in distinct spatial locations. 

Space is being reconstituted and articulated unevenly as sociabilities 

crisscross within and between localities, regions, nation-states, and global 

territories in tune with the changing nature of work and enterprise, 

agency and identity. Each of these locations has thus become a significant 

site of scrutiny and analysis, as sociabilities are being constituted 

unevenly within many, multiple locations. 

This process is and has challenged the constitution of agency of actors 

and groups of actors. Today, the globe is awash with differential 

forms of collective and/or violent interventions, concurrently asserting 

diverse representations of cultural identities together with livelihood deprivations 

as the defining characteristic of these collectivities. Fluidity of 

identities and its continuous expression in uneven and varied manifesta-

The Imperative and the Challenge of Diversity 49 

tions demand a fresh perspective to assess and examine the world; it 

needs to be perceived through many prisms. 

Are sociology and sociologists across the world ready to take the 

challenge that contemporary times pose for us What kind of resources 

do they have to tackle the demands presented by contemporary dynamics 

In the late nineteenth century and the twentieth century, the Europeans 

and later the Americans took up the challenge to assess societal 

changes facing their societies and evolved new perspectives. Does this 

legacy have traditions of criticality to give us a language and resources to 

cope with these challenges 

Sociologists declare that sociology is and remains the most reflexive 

of all social sciences. The first moment of reflection emerged when 

American sociology was institutionalizing the Parsonian approach in its 

university structures. But these and similar interventions merely interrogated 

the silences of gender, race, ethnicity and other identities within 

Europe and North America regions. There has been very little reflection 

regarding the implicit and explicit assumptions of power that have governed 

the formation of the discipline in Europe and its export to other 

regions of the globe. 

The genealogy of this reflection in the US can be traced to Alvin 

Gouldner’s (1971) seminal work, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, 

and to the later criticisms that emerged with the growth of student 

and feminist movements in the late sixties. This had its impact on European 

and American social theories, which, together with the impact of 

new perspectives developed out of structuralism and post-structuralism, 

reconstituted Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, and identity theory 

and reframed social theory as many-faceted, plural, and eclectic. These 

trends coincided with Wallerstein’s (1996) advocacy for the discipline to 

“open” itself to incorporate the challenges from interdisciplinary social 

sciences such as gender studies, environment studies, cultural studies, and 

race and ethnicity studies. 

These trends find recognition in texts such as Social Theory Today 

(Giddens and Turner 1987), which argue that there is no agreement in the 

profession about the fundamentals of what constitutes social theory. 

European and American traditions of the discipline assert this theoretical 

and methodological plurality. Neil Smelser (1994) treats it as an asset 

when he says, “The benefit is living in a field that refuses to seal itself 

into a closed paradigm and threatens to exhaust itself, but, rather, retains 

the qualities of intellectual openness and imagination” (8). 

In some fashion, this theme was reflected in Martin Albrow’s (1987) 

statement in the inaugural issue of International Sociology, when he proposed 

that the journal initiate an “… explicit search for [new] models of

50 

Sujata Patel 

inquiry and conceptual frames which can express the uniqueness of cultures” 

(9). In spite of this felt need, within Europe and the USA, discussion 

of sociological traditions has been generally restricted to a debate on 

social theories, the development of a culture of professionalization, and 

the affirmation of universality in its perspectives and practices. This universalisation 

locates the discussion of social theory in modernity and its 

growth in Europe and spread across North America and later the rest of 

the industrial developed world. For instance, Anthony Giddens (1996) 

asserts, “Sociology is a generalising discipline that concerns itself above 

all with modernity - with the character and dynamics of modern or industrialised 

societies” (3). 

It is in this context that we need to assess the recent interventions by 

Jurgen Habermas (2001) and Ulrich Beck (2006) for a post-national and 

trans-national social theory to embrace the new cosmopolitanism being 

ushered in by contemporary globalization. But this position reasserts the 

grounding of social theory in European modernity, in this case “the second 

modernity.” It makes Beck claim, “Reality is becoming cosmopolitan 

– this is a historical fact” (68). 

At this juncture, it is imperative that we recall Charles Taylor’s 

(1995) distinction of two kinds of modernity: cultural, wherein the theory 

assesses transformations in terms of the rise of new culture, and acultural, 

when theory examines transformations in terms of culturally neutral 

terms, such as Western rationality or industrialization, and now globalization. 

Taylor argues that most social theory is acultural and that Western 

modernity is powered by its vision of positive good. This affirms Western 

modernity as a moral outlook and distorts the theory at two levels. 

The first is the miscalculation of changes related to the specific culture of 

the West and the second is the universalization of facets of Western civilization, 

such as science and religion, as perennial. Taylor asks us to remember 

that science has grown in the West “in close symbiosis with a 

certain culture, in the sense … [of] a constellation of understandings of 

person, nature, society, and the good” (27). 

Beck’s argument on cosmopolitanism, I would contend, needs to be 

rejected on similar grounds. He argues that there is interrelatedness and 

interdependence of people across the globe, but this is assessed in terms 

of certain specific features that are now universalized. These are the 

emergence of supranational organizations in the area of economy, politics 

of non-state actors, and civil society movements; normative precepts like 

human rights; types and profiles of global risks; forms of warfare; and 

global organized crime and terrorism. Their common denominator is 

cosmopolitanization, i.e., the erosion of clear borders separating markets, 

states, civilizations, cultures, and the life-worlds of common people. But


does it Beck’s work remains located empirically within trends occurring 

in Europe and has no comparative global analysis to support its position. 

Of significance in this context is a lack of analysis regarding the 

relationship between power, culture, and knowledge. 

More interesting is Beck’s argument about methodological nationalism, 

which he claims is based on the “national prison theory of human 

existence” (12). He argues: 

Until now, methodological nationalism has been dominant in sociology 

and other social sciences on the assumption that they are nationally 

structured. The result was a system of nation-states and corresponding 

national sociologies that define their specific societies in terms of concepts 

associated with the nation state. For the national outlook, the nation-state 

creates and controls the ‘container’ of society and thereby at 

the same time prescribes the limits of sociology. (2) 

Beck’s assertion regarding nations and nationalism resonates with 

those of other commentators. In the early eighties, Anthony Smith (1983) 

argued that while sociologists have studied “society” as a bounded territorial 

unit - the nation-state - they have failed to acknowledge that the 

“study of society is always ipso facto the study of the nation” (26). In 

The Consequences of Modernity, Anthony Giddens (1990) elaborates this 

point when he states: 

Now, understood in this way, ‘societies’ are plainly nation-states. Yet, 

although a sociologist speaking of a particular society might casually 

employ instead the term ‘nation’, or ‘country’, the character of the nation-state 

is rarely directly theorized. In explicating the nature of the 

modern societies, we have to capture the specific characteristics of the 

nation-state - a type of social community which contrasts in a radical 

way with pre-modern states. (13) 

All three suggest that the subject matter of sociology is generally a 

description of the categories of people, institutions, organizations, and 

cultures of one’s own nationality. In this context, how can these be made 

universal Following this argument and in context with Taylor’s methodological 

points mentioned above, it becomes imperative to explore the 

relationship between explanatory schemas and styles of reasoning with 

specific cultural contexts and representations of nation and nationalism, 

rather than to assert an a priori universality. Rather, as Chakrabarty 

(2000) has suggested, these sociologies should be categorized as provincial.

52 

Sujata Patel 

Additionally implicated in nation and nationalism is control over territory 

and the use of its economic, political, and cultural resources, processes 

and knowledges for the project of nation and nation-building not 

only within one’s own nation-state but those of others, through colonial 

and neo-colonial control. To what extent has European and American 

theory assessed the impact of global distributions of power on the production 

and reproduction of conservative, radical, and reflexive sociological 

knowledge across the world 

From outside Europe and North America, we see the emergence of a 

diametrically opposite position that introduces a new voice to the entire 

debate. Labelled indigenous sociology and recently recast as a project of 

constructing endogenous (Adesina 2006) and autonomous (Alatas 2006) 

sociologies and as transmodernity (Dussel 2000), it elaborates a new epistemic 

position on the discipline, some of which is incorporated in 

Raewyn Connell’s (2007) book Southern Theory. Endogenous sociologists 

in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have argued for a need to excavate 

indigenous philosophies, epistemologies, and methodologies to conceptualise, 

understand, and examine “local” and national cultures and 

structures in the various countries of the South (Alatas 1974). 

The key issue here is colonialism and the imposition of Western science, 

theories, and methodologies in assessing non-Western societies. 

Scholars in the rest of the world have argued that the univerzalisation of 

European and American perspectives provided one grand vision and a 

“truth” assessing changes taking place in the world (Wallerstein 2006). 

Syed Hussain Alatas (1972) calls it the captive mind, “an uncritical imitation 

of scientific intellectual activity including problem setting, analysis, 

abstraction, generalisation, conceptualisation, description, explanation, 

and interpretation” (11-12). 

Indigenous positions have suggested that European and American 

perspectives were ethnocentric and obfuscated the analysis of specific 

contexts and processes, refracting, misrepresenting, and simultaneously 

defining one particular way of evaluating them (Alatas 1974; Mukerji and 

Sengupta 2004). This was not only true of conservative and positivist 

theories but also radical theories such as Marxism and those representing 

subaltern and excluded voices, such as environmentalism and feminism 

(Mohanty 1988; Mani 1990). As these have been exported to other countries, 

they too have become dominant universal models. 

No wonder, it is argued, the idea that there is very little in these non- 

Western societies and regions in terms of new conceptual and explanatory 

theories, and the suggestion that until there is we cannot seriously 

consider these sociologies as relevant, reconstituted domination in new 

ways. The Indian sociologists Radha Kamal Mukerjee and D. P. Mukerji


thus suggested that social sciences should be seen as a unified discipline 

that is culture-specific and that integrates values with analysis; they demanded 

that Indian values define the way sociological thinking in India 

be construed (Mukerjee 1955; Mukerji 1958). The same assessment 

structures Akiwowo’s (1987; 1990) demand for indigenous sociologies, 

to which end he elaborated a conceptual scheme for assessing sociological 

studies based on ideas and notions of African poetry. 

This perspective also affirmed the need for the nation-state (now in a 

different sense) to remain a critical locale for the classification and assessment 

of a range of sociological practices, including social theories. 

Additionally, there was a call to go beyond the nation-state in search of 

the supra-local, which could be the locale for new practices to be construed 

- especially in the case of large nation-states such as China and 

India. Indigenous sociologists have highlighted Western domination in 

an array of sociological practices, including those that dealt with teaching, 

such as importing syllabi, textbooks, and research (what to study, how to 

study, and what are considered best practices of research, including the 

evaluation of research projects and protocols of writing and presenting 

empirical and theoretical articles in journals) (Alatas 1974). 

These issues, together with a discussion on who funds research and 

who defines its agenda, opened up for debate the way social theory and 

its practices are embedded in the uneven distribution of global power, an 

issue of significance in the context of contemporary globalization. The 

argument here is that the discipline needs to be defined by the entire set 

of practices that structure its organisation, rather than merely the theories. 

These practices are unevenly organised across the globe, and their examination 

would lead us to assess the colonial construction of modernity. 

This is the resource from which it is possible to draw out the many ways 

of thinking and analysing contemporary, uneven, global processes. 

These dimensions are explored in a radical epistemic critique emerging 

from the neo-dependency school of Latin America. Theorists such as 

Anibal Quijano, Enrique Dussel, and Walter Mignolo have elaborated 

this position, arguing that universalization inherent in sociological theory 

is part of the geopolitics of knowledge. The key to this process is an assessment 

of modernity and its relationship to social theory. For instance, 

Dussel (2000) argues: 

If one understands Europe’s modernity - a long process of five centuries 

- as the unfolding of new possibilities derived from its centrality in 

world history and the corollary constitution of all other cultures as its 

periphery, it becomes clear that, even though all cultures are ethnocentric, 

modern European ethnocentrism is the only one that might pretend

54 

Sujata Patel 

to claim universality for itself. Modernity’s Eurocentrism lies in the 

confusion between abstract universality and the concrete world hegemony 

derived from Europe’s position as the center. (471) 

Dussel and Quijano see a need to examine sociological knowledge as 

a discourse of power, particularly in the context of contemporary developments. 

They propose that both classical and contemporary European 

theories, and now American social theory, need to be assessed as discourses 

of power. They contend that this theory is premised on assessing 

itself, the “I” (the West), rather than the “Other” (the rest of the world), 

which was and remains the object of its control, even after the formal 

demise of colonialism and imperialism. Universalism implies legitimating 

the knowledge of the “I” regarding “society” (Mignolo 2002). 

European and American social theories, they argue, incorporate a set 

of axioms to frame knowledge of society and consist of several features, 

which come together in terms of binaries to become a matrix of power 

and a principle and a strategy of control and domination. These scholars 

contend that this discourse has universalized the precepts of European 

and American modernity (as part of the imperialist project), disallowing 

legitimacy for new ways of thinking, of assessing processes in the rest of 

the world and unearthing its tradition(s) of philosophies and epistemologies 

together with its specific practices. They argue for a need to study 

not only sociological theories but the entire range of practices of production 

and reproduction of sociological knowledge within nation-states and 

regions. These have to be examined in terms of their organic links with 

the dominant discourse, with each of such reflections indicating diverseuniversal 

ways of understanding these symbiotic linkages (Quijano 2000; 

Lander 2002; Mignolo 2002). 

Obviously, sociological theories, (systems of interrelated concepts, 

categories, and modes of explanation that are designed to make sense of 

the world) are enmeshed in normative projects (systems of thoughts and 

beliefs concerned with a way of improving society). Sometimes these 

normative projects are explicitly stated, but often they’re implicitly argued. 

These normative projects are projects of power associated with 

imperialism (Connell 2006; Patel 2006; Wallerstein 1996). 

Critical and reflexive sociology has been the first to initiate a discussion 

on the symbiotic relationship between knowledge and power, including 

its own. But, as indicated above, the relationship between knowledge 

and power needs to be examined not only in terms of theories but in 

terms of an entire range of practices. Today, globalization is also reorganizing 

knowledge and its institutions in new and seminal ways. Can 

we delineate the way this process is affecting the nature of sociological


knowledge How is power and domination in its complex, colonial, neocolonial, 

patriarchal, discursive, national, and material manifestations 

affecting epistemology, its claim to truth, and its strategies of representation 

Whose ideas and perspectives is it reflecting when it enumerates 

the nature and content of consequences of globalization What is the relationship 

between national, regional, and global knowledges 

Dussel (2000) and Quijano (2000) suggest a need to construct “a 

worldwide ethical liberation project” in which alterity can be fulfilled 

through a creation of new knowledge where modernity and its denied 

alterity, its victims, would mutually fulfill each other in an imaginative 

process. Transcending the coloniality of power and embracing transmodernity 

is a project of mutual fulfillment of solidarity of center/periphery, 

woman/man, mankind/earth, Western culture/peripheral postcolonial cultures, 

different races, different ethnicities, and different classes. Can we 

fulfill this project at ontological, methodological, and theoretical levels 

Below, I present some steps that allow such a project to be initiated. For 

long, the criticism against dominant knowledges has been dismissed in 

terms of relativism and/or ethnocentrism. Borrowing from Taylor, I argue 

that there is a need for accepting a cultural theory of modernity 

(rather than an acultural theory) and that this can be constructed from 

many sites and in many locations and through many positions. Our goal 

should be to debate the various ways in which power has shaped and continues 

to shape the practices of sociological knowledge across the world. 

Our objective is to create a discussion on how to assess all aspects of the 

discipline organized and institutionalized across the globe: ideas and 

theories, scholars and scholarship, practices and traditions, ruptures and 

continuities through a globalising perspective that examines the relationship 

between sociological knowledge and power. 

Given that the relationship between knowledge and power may be 

structured in distinct ways across the world and within nation-states, there 

is a need to examine the resources of the discipline at three levels. First, 

disciplinary traditions need to be studied from multiple spatial locations: 

within localities, within nation-states, within regions and the globe. However, 

the nation-state is a key element in fashioning the traditions of the 

discipline. The nation-state defines sociological traditions in many ways. 

It does so directly. Whether democratic, authoritarian, fascist, socialist, 

or theocratic, it plays a critical role in legitimising the need for the 

discipline and framing its function for society. Democracies have gener- 

***

56 

Sujata Patel 

ally encouraged the teaching of sociology; this is not so for states that 

have propagated fascism, communism, theocracy, apartheid, and military 

dictatorships. These have, instead, barred it and/or controlled its teaching. 

In countries where the subject is not proscribed, the nation-state can 

intervene in myriad ways, including when private institutions play a direct 

role. It does this by determining the content of knowledge to be 

transmitted to learners and through a gamut of policies and regulations on 

higher education, which both encourage and constrain the development of 

the discipline. These policies determine the protocols and practices of 

teaching and learning processes, the establishment and practices of research 

within research institutes, the distribution of grants for research, 

the language of reflection, the organization of the profession, and the 

definitions of scholars and scholarship. 

These different disciplinary traditions are best understood if perceived 

as being organized within the nation-state after the Second World 

War, though there also exist traditions in terms of language communities. 

However, the former provides the most significant spatial and political 

locale to assess this history together with the evaluation of the many contradictions 

and contestations that have defined the organic linkages between 

these tradition(s). Sociological knowledge, this paper argues, is 

imbricated in the identity of the nation-state and within its politics. 

It is also significant to argue, following Smith, Giddens, and Beck 

(mentioned above), that the resources of the discipline need to be seen 

from above and below the nation-state. For instance, space in the form of 

locality remains a key category for structuring the resources of the discipline. 

But, these necessarily remain uneven and provincial. Thus, within 

each nation-state, one can assess the many starting points, many 

achievements, many failures, and many continuities and discontinuities. 

These ups and downs dealing with the organization, consolidation, and 

institutionalization of sociological traditions involve confrontations between 

dominant universal traditions and newly emerging subaltern ones. 

In this sense there is and will be diversity of sociological traditions within 

nation-states. 

These diversities exist not only within nation-states but also between 

them. Because the histories of sociological traditions in nation-states are 

differently constituted, the collective experience of growth and the spread 

of sociological traditions across the world is and remains diverse and unevenly 

organized. This unevenness is related to the relationship of each 

tradition with that of Europe and later of the USA and relates to the way 

these traditions came to be universalized across the world. 

Universalization of the North Atlantic tradition(s) is associated with 

the global distribution of power (Wallerstein 2006). In this sense, this


paper attempts to move beyond the binaries of universalism versus relativism/particularism 

to posit a third position which suggests that sociological 

traditions are both universal and diverse. It argues that the claims 

of each of the traditions of sociological knowledge are distinct and universal, 

but together these are not equivalent but remain plural, multiple, 

hybrid, or relative-positing claims based on criteria internal to each of 

these tradition(s) (Chakrabarty 2008). 

Second, traditions need to be discussed in terms of their sociological 

moorings in distinct philosophies, epistemologies, theoretical frames, cultures 

of science, and languages of reflection. These need to be explored 

to assess how, at various points of time in the history of the discipline, 

new perspectives on understanding social life have emerged by questioning 

dominant universalized and colonized sociological ideas. There is 

also a need to examine how the discipline has evolved to incorporate subaltern 

voices and use these voices in order to understand, assess, and 

comprehend evolving sociabilities. They also highlight how external and 

dominant processes, together with colonialism and neo-colonialism, have 

reframed knowledge, and they assert a need to excavate new endogenous 

and/or autonomous ways of thinking and of practicing sociology. 

Third, the intellectual moorings of sociological practices are extensive. 

There are diverse and comparative sites of knowledge production 

and its transmission. These range from campaigns, movements, and advocacies 

to classrooms and departments to syllabi formulations and protocols 

of evaluating journal articles and books. They involve activists, 

scholars, and communities in assessing, reflecting, and elucidating immediate 

events and issues that define the research process; in organizing and 

systematizing knowledge of the discipline; and in long-term, institutionalized 

processes for organizing the teaching process. 

Together, these diversities cannot be placed in a single line and considered 

equal; neither are these superior or inferior. Collectively, they are 

and remain both diverse and universal sociological traditions, because 

they present distinct and different perspectives to assess their own histories 

of sociological theories and practices. Each of these traditions has 

also evolved its own assessment of its relationship with other traditions 

and with the accumulation of sociological knowledge and power. In this 

sense, different traditions’ perspectives remain diverse and comparative. 

This is so for two reasons: 

First, they are diverse because each tradition makes its own assessment 

of how it is structured within the global distribution of ideas, scholars, 

and scholarship (whether these are adapted from imports or are stated 

to be indigenous/endogenous/local/national/ provincial); how these relate 

to its contexts, including the culture of teaching and research, institutions,

58 

Sujata Patel 

the state, and the economy. While these claims are universal, the interpretations 

of how these are interconnected with the North Atlantic tradition(s) 

and with each other remain different for each nation-state. Or, to 

put it in other words, what is distinct is how each tradition has contested 

the claims of those from the North Atlantic and evolved its own internal 

assessment of this relationship. In this sense, collectively, sociological 

traditions can be stated to be diversely universal or incorporating “diversality” 

(Mignolo 2002: 89). 

Second, following from the above, we can suggest that sociology was 

globalized from the moment of its birth with the assertion of the singularity 

of the process of modernity through the universalization of European 

and later the American provincial experience(s) (Chakrabarty 2000). A 

discourse of power structured universalization of knowledge regarding 

sociabilities. In this sense, while globalization has been debated to be a 

recent process, globalization of sociological knowledge has had a longer 

history. 

This globalization has sometimes erased earlier histories of modernities, 

reinterpreting these and displaced ways of thinking, being, and living. 

As a result, some tradition(s) have not evolved perspectives and theories 

to assess their relationships with dominant, universalized traditions, 

though the latter have been recognized. Others have adapted to external 

and dominant ideas. Yet, others have made a critique of the legacy of 

dependence and domination to assess and to reflect on their own modernities. 

If globalization of sociological knowledge has “silenced” the formation 

of many voices in certain regions and nation-states, it has also 

challenged the West by asking new questions and provided novel answers 

from other arenas. These energies need to be coalesced in a strong intraand 

internationalized network of communication that transcends the 

above mentioned multiple matrices of inequalities. Working from the 

margins of all borders can help to provide a new identity. The creative 

and imaginative use of these resources continues to remain the most significant 

challenge of the day. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Adesina, J. “Sociology Beyond Despair: Recovery of Nerve, Endogeneity, 

and Epistemic Intervention.” South African Review 37, no. 2 

(2006): 241-259. 

Akiwowo, A. “Building National Sociological Tradition in an African 

Subregion.” In National Traditions in Sociology, edited by N. Genov, 

pp. 151-166. London: Sage, 1987.


-----. “Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African 

Oral Poetry.” In Globalisation, Knowledge, and Society: Readings 

from International Sociology, edited by M. Albrow and E. King, pp. 

103-118. London: Sage, 1990. 

Alatas, H. “The Captive Mind and Creative Development.” International 

Social Science Journal 36, no. 4 (1974): 691-9. 

Alatas, F. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses To 

Eurocentrism. Delhi: Sage, 2006. 

Albrow, M. “Sociology for One World.” International Sociology 2, no. 

1 (1987): 1-12. 

-----. Cosmopolitan Vision. Cambridge: Polity, 2006. 

Chakrabarty, D. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical 

Difference Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2000. 

Connell, R. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in 

Social Sciences. Cambridge: Polity, 2007. 

-----. “In Defense of Provincializing Europe: A Response to Carola 

Dietze.” History and Theory 47 (February 2008): 85-96. 

Dussel, E. “Europe, Modernity, and Eurocentrism.” Nepantla: Views 

from South 1, no. 3 (2000): 465-478. 

Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity. California: Stanford University 

Press, 1990. 

Giddens, A. and J. Turner, eds. Social Theory Today. Cambridge: Polity 

Press, 1987. 

Gouldner, A. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New York: Basic 

Books, 1971. 

Habermas, J. The Postnational Constellation: Political Essays. Cambridge: 

Polity, 2001. 

Lander, E. “Eurocentrism, Modern Knowledges, and the ‘Natural’ Order 

of Global Capital.” Nepantla: Views from the South 3, no. 2 (2002): 

249-268. 

Mani, L. “Multiple Mediations: Feminist Scholarship in the Age of 

Multinational Reception.” Feminist Review 35 (Summer 1990): 24- 

41. 

Mignolo, W. D. “The Geopolitics of Knowledge and the Colonial Difference.” 

The South Atlantic Quarterly 101, no. 1 (Winter 2002): 57- 

96 

Mohanty, C. “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial 

Discourses.” Feminist Review 30 (Autumn 1988): 61-88. 

Mukerjee, R. “A General Theory of Society.” In The Frontiers of Social 

Science: in Honour of Radhakamal Mukerjee, edited by B. Singh. 

London: Macmillan, 1955.

60 

Sujata Patel 

Mukerji, D. P. Diversities: Essays in Economics, Sociology, and Other 

Social Problems. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House, 1958. 

Mukherji, P. N. and C. Sengupta, eds. Indigeneity and Universality in 

Social Science: A South Asian Response. Sage: New Delhi, 2004. 

Patel, S. “Beyond Binaries: A Case for Self-Reflexive Sociologies.” 

Current Sociology 54, no. 3 (2006): 381–395. 

Quijano, A. “Coloniality of Power, Eurocentricism, and Latin America.” 

Nepantla: Views from the South 1 (2000): 553-800. 

Smelser, N. (1994) “Sociology as Science, Humanism, and Art.” La 

Revue Tocqueville 15, no. 1 (1994): 5-18. 

Smith, A. “Nationalism: A Trend Report and an Annotated Bibliography.” 

Current Sociology 21, no. 3 (1973). 

Taylor, C. “Two Theories of Modernity.” The Hastings Center Report 

25, no. 2 (Mar - Apr 1995): 24-33. 

Wallerstein, I. Open Social Sciences. Delhi: Vistaar, 1996. 

-----. European Universalism: The Rhetoric of Power. New York: The 

New Press, 2006.

PART II: 

LATIN AMERICA

Revitalizing the Sociological View in Latin America 63 

Revitalizing the Sociological View 

in Latin America 

Marcos Supervielle, Universidad de la República Oriental del 

Uruguay, Uruguay 

Latin American sociology, like the sociologies of all the non-hegemonic 

regions, has become entangled, with time, within the typical debates 

about the pertinence of theories and models that it uses to analyze its society. 

Indeed, the categories with which this sociology pretends to analyze 

society, in general terms, were created to describe central societies: the 

German, the English, the French or the American ones, and therefore they 

are only relevant to analyze our society by means of analogy. This particularity 

takes us to the endless discussion of the validity of these categories 

of analysis or their heuristic performance. They have even been criticized 

because their being “imported” deforms reality, generating negative 

consequences, since they lead the investigation or reflection towards shallow 

conclusions or even worse, lend support to the wrong political agendas, 

incomplete or ill-intentioned in solving our society’s problems and 

predicting their future projection. 

This situation is certainly not new in Latin America. In 1900, Latin 

American scholars recommended the adoption of European categories, 

but only after a critical analysis so as to discard the useless ones. In some 

cases, they criticized harshly those who strayed from the real problems of 

our society and who were dazzled by European theorizations. This dazzling, 

which some have called “cultural colonialism” (Roitman 2008), 

still has some validity and important negative consequences for the production 

of sociological knowledge in our continent. This is notorious in 

two different ways. 

First, there is a certain inferiority complex in knowledge production, 

which is overcome in certain periods of our recent history, but which we 

still continue to confront. Second, as a reaction to such “cultural colonialism”, 

a kind of naïve nationalism has emerged which pretends to deny all 

contributions from outside Latin America, or at least to ignore them. It is 

also fashionable to denounce the sociological or intellectual “trends” in 

general. But the paradox is that the denunciation of these so-called alien-

64 

Marcos Supervielle 

ating categories is carried out in defense of imported categories themselves, 

but which conform to the standards of the dominant “establishment” 

of the Social Sciences and therefore become an alleged universal 

pattern. 

One possible outlook of the Latin American sociology is to observe 

its maturity, from the point of view of its autonomization from the center, 

that is, from European and North American sociologies. But this would 

deny the impact—positive or otherwise—that European concepts have 

had on the changed orientation. In our continent, the big educational reforms 

and the laicism and gratuity principles were inspired by the positivist 

ideas of Compte and Spencer. Contemporary European ideas of the 

time exerted a big influence on past Latin American sociology, especially 

in overcoming the fundamentally catholic “spiritualism”, which tended to 

support and legitimate very unequal structures within our societies. 

Therefore, one of the characteristics of the Latin American sociology 

is that it did not develop general theories or analytic models for our own 

society until very recently. To the reasons provided above, we must add 

that the development and evolution of this sociology has been very 

closely related to political, economic and social situations. Ours is arguably 

the continent where most high level politicians, such as presidents 

and secretaries of state have been sociologists with important academic 

careers. This implies a strong relationship between the social sciences and 

the political juncture, a situation which has benefited sociology under 

certain circumstances, but has weakened it seriously under others. As a 

consequence, the production of the sociology in Latin America is not the 

creation of big theoretical systems, but of categories of relevance as to the 

orientation of the social and political action. Categories, or concepts, such 

as periphery, dependency, structural heterogeneity, domestic colonialism, 

differentiated styles, marginal mass and informality, among others are an 

example of the original focus on our societies. 

Mindful of the disadvantages generated by this “cultural colonialism” 

and the lack of autonomy generated by historical circumstances, and also 

of the consequent immaturity of its sociological production, we think it is 

paramount to question ourselves about the function of sociological 

knowledge in Latin America and the conditions of its production in each 

historical era; the factors that modified its demand and generated new 

uses for it; and its uses today and the reasons why we see the possibility 

for a new development of sociology in this historical moment. 

The post-war Latin American sociology may be divided into the following 

periods.


• In the first period, there is a sociology of modernization that is closely 

tied to the theories of Latin American economic development. 

• A second period characterized by the emergence of theories of dependency 

and exploitation, that are critical of the sociology of modernization 

and economic theories of development, coincide with the 

initial phase of the Latin American dictatorship. 

• As dictatorships spread to almost the entire continent, the third 

phase is characterized by an ebbing in the the importance and vitality 

of sociology in its opposition to the expansion of the neoliberal 

philosophy and economics, the latter which are almost taking over 

the entire “room” of the social sciences. But at the same time, just as 

the dependency theory runs out of steam (or almost does), a professional 

and specialized sociology appears. And in the last phases of 

the dictatorships, a sociology of the résistance develops. 

• In the fourth and last phase, after the exhaustion of neoliberal theories, 

the re-democratizations of all the Latin American states, and 

increased popular participation through social movements, we find a 

re-valorization of sociology and a rediscovery of the possibilities to 

contribute to emancipatory mega-tales. We witness a re-evaluation 

of anti-dependent-on-the-hegemonic-countries sociology. European 

categories of modernization are revised in an effort to create the 

foundations for a sociology that overcomes domestic colonialism, 

that focuses on the development of social movements as the carriers 

of social change, and that is oriented to aiding the creation of a sustainable 

production system. And finally, we see the expansion of a 

professional and/or specialized sociology but now it is framed 

around a search for the reduction of social inequalities and in defense 

of social, civil, and politic rights of our societies. 

SOCIOLOGY OF THE POST-WAR MODERNIZATION 

Both World War II and the Korean War benefited the Latin American 

economies in that the “commodities” produced on our continent reached 

extraordinarily high prices and our industries bloomed while in the central 

countries production had become war-related. 

This very favorable context foretold a very optimistic, European-like 

future: that our continent evolution was supposed to hinge on its industrial 

development. This industrial and economic bonanza was also supposed 

to go hand-in-hand with a liberal and democratic society. 

This outlook was advocated by Latin American economists such as 

Prebisch and Furtado. The former was a great economic development

66 


theoretician and the first general secretary of CEPAL (Latin Americal 

Economy Comission) that was created in 1947 under the U.N. system. 

From the start, Prebisch called for the contribution of sociologists to expand 

on and enrich the economic development analysis of Latin America. 

From this original approach, sociology was asked to report on the potential 

of diverse social elements in order to generate the development of 

Latin American countries. With this goal in mind, the sociology built dichotomous 

categories (traditional-modern, dual societies, etc.) which, 

although they evolved with time, never totally abandoned their original 

matrix. 

In this first phase of modern Latin American sociology, which lasted 

until the mid-sixties, our sociology evolved from the dominant feudalbourgeois 

category at first, with clear European connotations, to an oligarchy-national 

bourgeoisie category later, which focused on the potentialities 

of the dominant classes for the development of our societies, to 

finally a broader category of the traditional society-modern society. 

This is not merely a nominal evolution; the transformation of one 

category into another entailed important conceptual changes, particularly 

because such transformation were the result of a increasingly complex 

analysis that evolved from the analysis of the dominant classes to one 

about all classes within society, including everyone in the analysis of 

such development. But it was always, or almost always, circumscribed 

within an analysis that presupposed the transferring from a backwards 

nucleus to a modern one. At the time, there was talk of “developing” societies. 

The measuring yardstick, the ideal standard, was always a developed 

hub, and all the negative attributes and impediments were found in 

the backwards, traditional or underdeveloped ones. This analytical strategy 

always started from a more specific definition of the developed hubs, 

the modern or developed one, attributing all negative or contradictory 

attributes to the backwards, traditional or underdeveloped one. 

But the really original contribution to Latin American sociology at 

the time was the role assigned to political activities in such a process of 

development. Medina Echeverría (1980), sociologist and Prebisch’s main 

collaborator at the CEPAL, assigned a particular relevance to political 

participation during the transition process from underdevelopment to development, 

because of the peripherical situation of our continent. It became 

obvious to them that it was necessary to achieve development 

through political activities so as to overcome the shortcomings of an 

area’s peripherical situation; there was also a discussion about the different 

development styles engendered by different political systems (Graciarena 

1967). At the same time, sociology was given the task to analyze 

the role of social classes in their development but not in their involve-


ment with class struggles, which was practically a non-existent subject in 

academic contexts as well as in the CEPAL at the time. 

Investigations were then carried out in order to find out the capability 

of the different social classes to participate in the development process. 

Fernando Enrique Cardoso conducted important research about the “Captains 

of Industry” (1964) and Alain Touraine and Torcuato Di Tella (1967) 

inaugurated sociological investigations with research on mining workers. 

Their findings on two mining endeavors show that those miners were in 

the middle of an industrial transition process, from a closed society to an 

open one, from a traditional enterprise to a modern one (Abramo and 

Montero 2000). Research by Nun about the most “excluded” segments of 

society allowed him to elaborate on the concept of “marginal mass” as 

opposed to “marginality,” fashionable at the time, to describe a nonintegrated 

sector of society and in order to point out that in Latin America 

not all “marginal masses” automatically became the “industrial reserve 

army” in the Marxist sense (2001). With this definition, Nun set the limits 

of who would participate in the transition to development and who would 

be excluded. 

Social Development in the Post-War Latin America is the book that 

best reflects the sociological thinking of that era (CEPAL 1963). Although 

not mentioned by name in this official book, all its authors were 

sociologists. This book highlights the social problems of the time. 

• There is rapid urbanization and social concentration in big cities, 

without a corresponding agricultural growth, but with a consistent 

country to city migration instead. 

• Countryside marginality was a result of stratification and production 

in ranches, and hence created a very poor quality of life and very 

low political participation among workers. 

• The authors acknowledge the naiveté of previous CEPAL analyses 

in which erasing the original hub was estimated to be a relatively 

easy task. Rather, they argue that such traditional societies apparently 

“have a flexible quality, capable of absorbing extremely rational 

elements, without losing its original physiognomy” (7). 

• The book also points out that such flexibility of the “traditional 

structure” has been supported by the domination of patron-client relationships, 

but that as a mechanism it might be worn out by abuse 

and demographic pressure; it also reaffirms that the prevalence of 

patron-client relationships is incompatible with modern pluralist 

democracies with economic support on industrial organization. 

• The authors also find that the flexibility of the traditional structures 

had partially absorbed the middle classes, which had been assigned

68 


a central role in “creative activity” as a source of change. This absorption 

had hence reduced the capacity for change. 

• Within the most popular classes, the authors remark on the relevance 

of unions, which did not follow European models. They also 

note the marginality of some urban social layers and even “dangerous 

areas” of the “mass situations” of some excluded or badly included 

sectors. 

• Finally, on a more conceptual plane, the authors argue that the dynamics 

of the traditional structures created “protoforms” of ideologies 

with ambiguous formulations, “soaked” with irrational elements, 

and that reflected the critical situation of the domination by 

clienteles and the situation of “massification” brought about by 

demographic pressure and fast urbanization. In other words, they 

emphasize the assimilation capability of the persistent traditional 

society. 

Latin American sociology, with its findings, did not question the 

categories it adopted from European and North American theories, but its 

conclusions tended to show that the evolution of societies in the central 

countries did not follow the same course as in Latin America. Because of 

its peripherical situation and certain resilience of the traditional sector, 

these evolutions follow a very different course in Latin America. 

Beyond that, the sociology practiced after World War II had progressive 

and democratic connotations, so that sociologists of this generation, 

their pupils, and their science were labeled as progressive or left-wing. 

This had consequences for the discipline’s consequent development. 

SOCIOLOGY OF DEPENDENCE AND EXPLOITATION 

Historic events such as the Cuban revolution of 1958 and the coup d’état 

in Brazil, which initiated a cycle of coup d’états in Latin America, eventually 

exhausted the previous theoretical model and contributed to the 

onset of the second period of the Latin American sociology. In addition, 

the second Ecumenical Council was of great influence on this new period, 

as it directed liberation theology and revitalized important Catholic 

scholars. These events influenced the new generations of sociologists in 

particular and Latin American intellectual activity in general since it incorporated 

revolution or at least a radical possibility for change within the 

horizon of Latin American development. But above all, it transferred the 

blame for the obstacles to development from the backwardness of our


societies, to the dependency of our peripherical situation on the hegemonic 

centers of world capitalism. 

Dependency theory opened up perhaps the more notorious period of 

sociology in Latin America. Simultaneously, other theories appeared. In 

Mexico, Gonzalez Casanova produced his theory of exploitation, an alternative 

to the theory of development. And, while dictatorships spread 

throughout Latin America, a specialized professional sociology developed 

providing information that was instrumental in making decisions 

about social policies, as well as a sociological research, intended to determine 

the resilient capabilities of the dictatorships. 

Meanwhile, both the Cuban revolution and the Brazilian dictatorship 

incorporated the concept of process “rupture” and radical directional 

change, unknown in the previous period. But the latter produced an important 

impact in that it caused a migration of sociologists, some of 

whom ended up in Chile, the location of CEPAL headquarters. Chile appeared 

as a very liberal country at the time, energized by an important 

growth in the political left-wing, which eventually produced the election 

of the first socialist government through free elections in the continent, 

that of Víctor Allende. 

The Brazilian dictatorship experience plus a certain euphoria related 

to the possibilities of progressive political changes in Chile, produced a 

strong skepticism as to: first, the possibilities of change by simply overcoming 

our backwards problems and, second, the removal of certain social 

structures that the following of the center-European models was generating. 

The ambiguity of the political climate, increasingly authoritarian, 

together with a strong hope of radical change, although with a wide range 

of hues, created the conditions for a different sociological reflection: the 

main task with regards to our development was not to overcome the most 

backward hub of the Latin American societies but rather, to overcome its 

dependency on the hegemonic centers of capitalism. Further, this dependency 

did not stop at our borders. 

In 1967, the book Development and Dependency in Latin America by 

Cardoso and Faletto, the former a Brazilian, the latter a Chilean, was published. 

The book expounded on several theses: 

• First, that it is necessary to differentiate between underdeveloped 

countries and those, increasingly less, which lack development 

completely and which have no commercial relationships with industrialized 

countries. Further, the authors argue that it’s important to 

differentiate out the diverse kinds of underdevelopment, according 

to the particular kind of relationship these societies forge with industrialized 

countries. The concept of dependency refers to “the

70 


conditions of existence and functioning of the economy and political 

systems, showing the relationship between the two, within the internal 

sphere as well as on the external” (38). 

• This category-dependency is therefore different from centerperiphery, 

because the latter only underlines the role of underdeveloped 

economies in the global market. 

• The analysis of the “dependency situation,” within the Latin American 

development context, means to highlight the definite and diverse 

interrelationships between and among the different social 

groups, as well as the activity of forces, groups, and institutions with 

a decisive role in development. This is because, for these authors, 

there is no metaphysical relationship of dependency; rather it is produced 

by an interest and co-action network that relates some social 

groups with others, and particularly, some social classes to others. 

The subsequent popularization and abuse of the concept of dependency 

led to its misuse. Therefore the original authors found themselves 

forced to find specifications as to its epistemological status. For instance, 

they pointed out that dependency did not have the same status as the central 

categories of analysis of capitalism such a plusvalía, acumulation, etc. 

(Cardoso 1978). The concept, not restricted to the political and economic 

spheres, was on occasion even applied to cultural or religious contexts 

(Ianni 1969). But the biggest criticism of the theory of dependency was 

that the “internal-external” relationship to which it necessarily refers, 

makes what happens in the dependent country appear as an automatic 

result of what happens in the hegemonic country of reference, a theoretically 

very poor and empirically false conceptualization (Cueva 1979). 

Another criticism pointed at the existence of an external dependency and 

an internal one in the theoreticians of the dependency, and argued that 

therefore the analysis oscilates between a national “focus” (external dependency) 

and a class focus (internal dependency), and that in general 

terms, the external dependency received more attention (Weffort 1994). 

Some took this criticism to a more radical level, arguing that the theory of 

dependency does not include a class analysis (Cueva 1979). 

Alongside the theory of dependency, as a result of political circumstances 

and intellectual exchanges in South America and in Mexico, another 

sociological intellectual production center, González Casanova produced 

the theory of exploitation in 1976. It also comes across as yet another 

criticism of the theory of development and modernization, and also 

explicitly a criticism of the theory of dependency, although it recognizes 

some merit in it. This theory mostly highlights the domestic relashionships 

within national states.


The main theses of the theory of exploitation can be summarized as 

follows: 

• Neither equality, freedom nor progress are values located beyond 

exploitation, but rather are characteristics or properties of it instead 

since inequality, power, and development are part of the exploitation 

relationship. 

• Unlike in the past, the class struggle has been mediatized so that exploitation 

no longer has direct effects on class struggle. For this reason 

it is necessary to demonstrate that exploitation is not an exceptional 

event but that it permeates the world system and affects its 

behavior. It is therefore the main category in this analysis. 

• Relationships of exploitation may be classified into exploitation of 

classes and exploitation of regions, and both may vary in weight and 

overlap with each other. Class-based exploitation, as a general category, 

takes the historical forms inspired by classical Marxism: 

slavery, feudalism, capitalism, and neocapitalism. Regional 

exploitation, as a general category, includes the countryside-city 

exploitation, colonial exploitation, imperialism exploitation, and 

domestic colonialism. 

• In the case of Mexico, domestic colonialism is the analysis of the 

native American problem. More broadly, it focuses on the social relationships 

of domination and exploitation among heterogeneous 

cultural groups. Generally, when using the frameworks of colonialism 

or semicolonialism, it is in reference to Mexican relationships 

with the metropolis or foreign powers, but the indigenous populations 

are victims of domestic colonialism, turning Mexico (and by 

extension others nations in the continent) into colonizer and colonized, 

without being aware of it. 

• The colonial structure and domestic colonialism differ from the 

class structure because they are not only forms of domination and 

exploitation of the workers but also of an entire population (comprised 

of diverse classes) by another population. 

These theories were more or less influenced by Marxism, which at 

the time entered the academic center, becoming a general frame of reference. 

Nevertheless, the theory of dependency was not clearly Marxist and 

the theory of exploitation drew from the Marxist category but incorporated 

connotations which transcended it and turned it into something different. 

The fading of relevance of the theory of dependency and of the theory 

of exploitation within Latin American sociology had more to do with

72 


a new culture of the social sciences gaining ground in the region, than 

with the theories’ inconsistencies or inability to account for the reality 

that it pretended to describe. Together with and driven by the growth of 

dictatorships in the south of the continent, neoliberal theory advanced as 

the dominant culture in reference to the economy, society, modernization, 

and development and later, in a second instance became the hegemonic 

continental culture. 

THE SOCIOLOGY DURING 

THE MILITARY DISCTATORSHIPS 

This hegemonization process of the neoliberal culture within the social 

sciences and in decision-making centers caused a deep change in the orientation 

of the dominant economics in Latin America. It changed the reflection 

of the development subjects focus among Prebisch and Furtado’s 

followers. And therefore, it changed radically the relarionship between 

sociology and economics. With its new paradigm, sociology did not feel 

the need to dwell on the analysis of social development, which became 

completely forsaken by international organizations There was never another 

book published, like in the sixties, about social development that 

focused on theories and sociological problems, neither by CEPAL nor by 

any other international organization. 

Sociology became increasingly excluded from all public policy and 

particularly from all development discussions. The impact of neoliberal 

economic theory that accompanied the dictatorships and later permeated 

the emerging Latin American democracies erradicated all reflection on 

class struggles. Classes themselves were no longer referenced in explanations. 

Analysis in economic terms of center-periphery and the deterioration 

of exchange terms became less relevant. By privileging the market, 

the historical and cultural dimension of development no longer received 

attention and gradually collective units of analysis were replaced by a 

focus on individual rationalities and rights. 

On a different plane and as a background to future sociological activity, 

the market became the main regulator of the economy and hence, of 

society. It became a priority for the state to withdraw all forms of social 

protection without providing any alternative safety net, and through increasing 

privatization, the role of the state in the economy was drastically 

reduced. 

Paradoxically, this process of “withdrawal of the state” from the social 

and economic activities took place during the dictatorships and with 

support from the military, a sector of the state. But even after the fall of


dictatorships in the eighties, this trend did not reverse and in fact became 

even stronger, because it was compatible with the emerging democracies. 

During the dictatorships, sociologists were the target of strong repression. 

A few scientists, who had gained notoriety at a very young age, 

shunned professional practice to join the guerrillas, such as Camilo Torres 

in Colombia. Others immigrated either to Europe or to other Latin 

American countries that were unaffected by military governments, including 

Mexico and Venezuela, where they were able to continue working 

in their profession. Universities located in countries that had dictatorships 

either cancelled or drastically reduced instruction in sociology. Sociologists 

and other social scientists were displaced from their traditional 

posts at national and international institutions and culturally suppressed. 

In this very negative context, sociologists changed the focus and orientation 

of their profession, in order to survive. 

Sociologists’ labored re-insertion took mainly three main directions. 

First, a great number of them took technical jobs in countries under dictatorships. 

Second, because sociologists had incorporated social and statistical 

research into their working methodology in the past, and had accumulated 

experience in conducting and organizing surveys, they used this 

fact to their advantage. Since diverse national and international operators, 

both in the public and private domain, demanded additional statistical 

information, a specific market for professional sociology appeared. It was 

of a very neutral nature and produced increasingly specialized descriptive 

information of the most diverse social populations. Indeed, many organizations 

of the UN system required additional information from different 

socioeconomic levels in order to carry out international comparisons. 

This demand generated job opportunities for college teachers in social 

research private institutes. Simultaneously, nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) from Sweden, Canada, and Holland supported these institutions 

with their research programs and which demanded stable staff. Survey-conducting 

companies emerged as the demand for market research 

for television and radio audiences, goods and services, and later, public 

opinion for electoral and other purposes grew. Third, during the period of 

re-democratization, a market demand for statistics investigation units 

emerged for the central administration and private enterprises. Again, 

sociologists were able to seek positions in these niches. 

In these new centers of knowledge, the characteristics of their sociology 

allowed for a much more specific empirical knowledge of social reality, 

but it could not describe the whole of society, nor could it predict 

changes in trends or the direction of macro societal policies. These new 

professional sociologies appeared as a new division of sociology within 

sociology, very descriptive, supported by sophisticated quantitative

74 


methodologies, reaching an unprecedented expansion due to the development 

of informatics and its database capabilities. Even when this 

knowledge was incorporated into diverse theories, they were sectorial 

(education, health, job, etc.) and became reorganized under different 

paradigms and sought to solve more pragmatic problems than the sociology 

of modernization, development, dependency or exploitation had intended. 

These sectorial sociologies became legitimate and justified to a 

great extent, insofar as they described different kinds of populations. But 

in these descriptions, they also modified their unit of analysis so that it 

was no longer a social class or other form of stratification, but rather the 

individual. Moreover, thanks to the informatics resources which could 

account empirically for these populations, sociology gravitated towards a 

focus on individuals as the informative support of society, allowing for a 

dialogue with the more radical liberal postures that would accompany 

liberalism. 

A second area of development in sociology, which also originated 

during the dictatorships of democratic regimes with a strong authoritarian 

sign, was in the promotion of communities, particularly ethnic communities. 

Its goal was no longer a focus on macro-social or societal subjects, 

but rather pointed to the defense of aboriginal cultures that were facing 

the aggressive cultural integration promoted by urban centers. These cultures, 

many of which are non-writing, used to have a strong wealth of 

knowledge that entitled them to their own social models, and which they 

were stripped of by the advance of occidental culture. 

Scholars like Paulo Freire in Brasil or Orlando Fals Borda in Colombia 

developed different strategies of public sociology with an ethnographic 

character. Freire (1974) argues that 

As a result of man’s relationship with reality, of being with her and 

in her, because of acts of creation, recreation and decision, he dynamizes 

the world. He dominates reality, humanizing it, increasing it 

with something he creates, he temporalized the geographic spaces, 

creates culture. And this play of man with men, challenging and answering 

to challenges, altering, creating, is what does not aloow for 

immobility neither of society nor of culture. And while he creates, recreates 

and decides, historical eras are shaped. (34) 

In this way, Freire developed a pedagogy oriented to very popular sectors 

with an innovative sociological base. 

Orlando Fals Borda developed the Partcipative Action Investigation 

(IAP) Method (1991). For this methodology, Fals Borda leaned explicitly 

on Cardoso and Faletto’s theory of dependency, as well as on Gonzalez


Casanova’s, Camilo Torres’s and Freire’s sociology of exploitation. It is 

an investigation of anthropological foundations, which intends to substitute 

the valorative neutrality with a “telos” (purpose) that implies a commitment 

within this context of transforming a society in a direction considered 

inadmissible. To do it, he wishes to break the traditional relationship 

between the investigator and the investigated group defined as subject-object 

and proposes a subject-subject relationship. This break with 

the traditional relationship is crucial, since the author intends to build a 

new society, and this break operates on a scientific level as well as in a 

social one. In the domestic realm, it affects machismo in the man-woman 

relationship; in education, it affects the student-teacher relationship; in 

politics, it affects leader-follower relationship; in medicine, the patientdoctor 

one; and generally seeks symmetrical relationships in all fields. 

The second great challenge of this methodology is to recognize the popular 

wisdom (or popular science) which points to something that he feels 

that science and traditional techniques have forgotten and forsaken; life, 

feelings, joy, and everyday life. For Fals Borda, IAP eventually achieves 

an encounter of both kinds of knowledge: technological, “which could be 

leading us to world destruction” and popular wisdom that emphasizes 

other values (19). Indeed, a new path may appear from there. 

Finally, during the dictatorships, and mostly at the end of that era, a 

sociology that was oriented by the opposition between democracy and 

dictatorships, developed, which set the foundations for a political science 

that would rapidly develop in the following years. The main focus in this 

sociology of resistenceI was no longer modernity and development, but 

on the capability of the popular forces to overthrow dictatorships. In work 

sociology, for instance, the intention was to analyze the possibilities of 

rebuilding the working-class and union movements. In Brazil, where this 

trend grew most notably, the focus was on the relationship between resistence 

and conflict, but within the political framework as opposed to one 

that was concerned with modernization, as in the past (Abramo and Montero 

2000). 

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF 

TODAY’S RE-EMERGING SOCIOLOGY 

The lack of focus of the sociological production in this period, as a result 

of the general conditions under the dictatorships, continued into the era of 

democratization that ended the authoritarian cycle of the eighties. After 

all, the transition into democracy failed to produce any changes with regards 

to the neoliberal economic orientations or the pretension to turn

76 


sociology into the social science of reference for all kinds of social and 

economic policies. In addition to all this, the political sciences were fortified 

by the very important and liberal concept of democracy during this 

period. 

The dominant theoretical-philosophical perspectives took relevance 

over societal reflections and its specific dynamism as the bases for explanations 

about the characteristics of Latin American national societies and 

as results of the economic, cultural, institutional, and social policies that 

these societies experience. 

In spite of the weak bonds between the sociological reflection and 

private and public decision-making processes, of the lack of thematic and 

theoretical focus in academic centers, and waning efforts to strengthen 

common Latin American theoretical production, and—perhaps as a consequence 

of this last factor, of the growing importance attached to theoretical 

production from central countries—inspite of all this, Latin 

American sociology started slowly to recover. At this time, Latin American 

states were required to carry out economic structural adjustment and 

which gave way to large-scale privatization of public enterprises and the 

financial crisis of the new century. These events generated social responses, 

movements, and demonstrations of a very wide nature which 

again prompted important questions with no easy answers from an economic 

or political point of view. 

Growing democratization, the intent to overcome neoliberal cultural 

hegemony, the dynamism of social movements struggling for democratic 

freedom, and struggling to share the costs of crises and the structural adjustment 

policies with the upper classes as well as the growing participation 

of ethnic groups or segregated sectors in these struggles, opened up 

the possibility for a renewed sociology that went back to its sources in 

hopes of improving Latin American societies. 

We will attempt to describe, albeit incompletely, the big trends in 

Latin American sociology today, as it recovers its reflective capacities 

and is again oriented by emancipatory megatales. 

Today, an important theoretical reflection on the academic level has 

developed that is a continuation of the center-periphery controversy. According 

to this first line of thought, there is a growing concern about 

Latin America’s social and economic role in the global context, of the 

economic and cultural impact which hegemonic societies have on the 

continent, and its role in globalization process. In some cases, globalization 

is understood as a new version of the theory of dependency or even 

as the result of liberal (or liberal neo-conservative) policies (Gonzalez 

Casanova 1995). Borón (2005) among others, have analyzed the impact 

of neoliberal policies, the negotiations over external debt payments, and


the repercussions these have had on making the region one of the most 

socially unequal places in the world, along this line of thought. From a 

different perspective, but still with a focus on the external impact on 

Latin America, Robles (2000) incorporates the concept of “risk” giving it 

an original twist than how it was used in Europe. Robles argues that risk 

marks the end of the “pretense of rationality of capitalism” and identifies 

Latin American societies as “of risk of the globalized periphery,” and that 

they are bound to suffer from two kinds of risks: first, global risks such as 

global warming, intercontinental wars, and financial risks (16). Although 

these risks deeply impact and affect our societies, we have no way of 

preventing or avoiding them. Second, our own risks on a national level, 

including unemployment, poverty, inequality and so forth, are risks that 

our goverments assume in order to produce solutions for our most urgent 

problems but which add to the growth of global risks. 

A second line of thought focuses on the description of Latin American 

society through the lens of ethnicity and multiculturalism and therefore 

requires non-eurocentric categories to understand it. To do so, it is 

necesssary to criticize and break with the European social sciences model, 

which has been accepted as universal. This school of thought has carried 

out broad historical revisions in order to understand, criticize, and distance 

itself from the European model, and propose alternative models 

(Mignolo 2003; Dussel 2003). This tradition intends to redefine categories 

using the insertion of Latin America into a global and colonial system 

as a starting point and by arguing that “[t]he historical process that 

defined the historical dependency from Europe as the power world center 

started here [Latin America]” (Quijano 1992: 106). Quijano sustains that 

Latin America never actually reached modernity and even today is reproduced 

as modern/colonial. According to him, Latin America acceses the 

world market at a time of rapid expansion but one that is still dominated 

by a Spanish colonization of a “dark” medieval type. With the extraordinary 

profits reaped from America, Spain strenghtened the pre-capitalist 

exploitation in this continent and also violently “undemocratized” independent 

communities in Spain (Basques, Catalans, etc.), thus generating 

an internal colonialism and the destruction of the internal Spanish productions. 

This process called the Lord’s Regime (regimen señorial), is 

what made for the enrichment and secularization of Central and Northern 

Europe. This regime destroyed a historical, socio-cultural, and demographic 

world in perhaps the most important destruction in the history of 

mankind. This holocaust generated a new system of world domination, 

whose central tenet is the concept of race (Quijano and Wallerstein 1994). 

It pointed to not only native aborigines but also to the immediately “ethnitized” 

black slaves. Race was originally a way to distinguish Indians

78 


from Iberians, later extended to distinguish blacks as well. The concept of 

race became congealed within the system of social exploitation. By the 

end of the sixteenth century, blacks were by definition slaves while Indians 

were servants. In the eighteenth century, among mulattos it was the 

hue of their skin color that defined their social and work status. Whiteness 

was identified with the “West” and its modernity, and this concept’s 

relevance extended into the era after national independences. The colonialism 

of the powers-that-be implied the sociological invisibility of non- 

Europeans, that is, the overwhelming majority of the Latin American 

population. In this sense, the recent indigenous and African-American 

political-cultural movements definitely question—for Quijano—the 

European version of modernity and propose an alternative rationality 

premised on the idea of social equality. It also denies the legitimacy of 

the nation-state founded in the coloniality of power and proposes the affirmation 

and reproduction of the reciprocity and its ethics of social solidarity 

as an alternative option to the predatory tendencies of modern capitalism. 

In any case, the question of identity takes centerstage in a historically 

open and heterogeneous project (Quijano 2007). 

A third, very dynamic line of contemporary sociology takes off from 

social movements research. This school of thought evolved out of a sociological 

analysis of the resistence to the dictatorships and has important 

peculiarities with respect to the social movements in hegemonic countries. 

In these movements, we find “old” social movements such as working 

unions, renewing themselves and extending to non-factory sectors (De la 

Garza 2005) and “new” social movements that develop in new social 

“spaces.” Its relevance lies in the dynamism and diversity of Latin America. 

These movements may be linked to re-democratization struggles and 

attempts to access public services, as well as to to urban, rural, ethnic, 

union, feminist, ecological or international movements or a wide range of 

combinations among them. They appear as a social expression of a demand 

for change and they reflect the incapacity of the state to meet social 

demands and aspirations within today’s historical context. They are 

socio-political actions by collective social actors belonging to different 

social classes and socioeconomic and political groups. These actions take 

place in a social and political-cultural process that creates a collective 

identity or new subjectivities for the movement members, originated from 

common interests (Falero 2008). This identity is amalgamated by the 

solidarity principle and built from the referential base of cultural and political 

values shared by the group in non-institutionalized collective 

spaces. It takes the form of struggle for social, civic or political rights. 

Therefore they are autonomous from the state as well as from political 

parties despite their ties with and being influenced by them. Social


movements generate a series of innovations in the public (governmental 

or non-governmental) and private spheres. They participate directly or 

indirectly in the political processes of the country and contribute to the 

development and transformation of civil and political society. Hence, 

they participate in the historical-social change of a country (Ghon 1997). 

A great number of sociologists, observing these movements or participating 

in them, try to project new emancipatory megatales that may be imparted 

to all Latin America. Although these tendencies are on a different 

level of sociological reflection than previous ones, they dialogue with 

them to a great extent. 

1) A new sociology of production emerges with the intention of figuring 

out the extent to which the Latin American economy can develop 

self-sustaining production models. This tendency strenghtens with the 

2002 crisis, when enterprises and the whole system appear to be extraordinarily 

fragile because of external reasons. A new tendency questions 

the sustainability of our productive models such as the “maquilas” in 

México, and the coherence of productive chains or clusters based in Latin 

America as part of other regions (Contreras and Carrillo 2003). These 

(mostly) economic worries find important sociological contributions in 

the proceses of work organization and their transformation (Novick 2000), 

organizational work and risk analysis (Walter and Pucci 2007) and so 

forth. This sociology relates to entrepreneurial and union actors, but focuses 

on the optimization of organizational and productive processes of 

goods and services. It is inscribed within an emancipatory megatale in the 

sense that this line of sociological thought tries to break free from the 

economic logic and strategies of hegemonic countries, or at least, establish 

certain spaces of negotiation with them. 

2) Most sociologists are busy in this period with a professional sociology 

that intends to solve multiple sectorial problems or formulate diagnoses 

or produce descriptive data for public or private decision-making 

processes. In the “Latin American Sociology Treaty,” De la Garza (2006) 

points out that, in opposition to other first world sociology manuals 

which are organized by big theoretical trends (such as functionalism, 

Marxism, etc.), the most traditional path of organizing the exposition by 

specialized subdisciplines of sociology was chosen. In the Treaty, there 

are subjects like the sociology of culture, historical sociology, the sociology 

of work and family, the sociology of syndicalism, the sociology of 

organizations, the sociology of entrepreneural actors, urban sociology, 

rural sociology, the sociology of law, the sociology of health, and the sociology 

of religion among others. Although these tendencies maintain a 

dialogue with the specialized sociologies of central countries and at times 

with other tendencies of Latin American sociology that were mentioned

80 


above, they are extremely sensitive to the inequalities that plague Latin 

America as a continent and to the struggles for social, civil, and political 

rights. Therefore these sociologies produce excellent descriptions of Latin 

American societies and foster the development of emancipatory megatales. 

3) Finally, a relevant sociology of denunciation has developed. In all 

meetings of Latin American regional associations, including ALAS, 

ALAST, and ALASRU, the majority of seminars denounce situations 

considered unacceptable by the researchers. In general terms, such 

research provides little in the way of a heuristic perspective for sociology 

as a whole. Even so, it is highly relevant because it expresses society’s 

malaise as explained by sociologists. A second more elaborated form of 

this sociology of denunciation is dedicated to criticizing, on the one hand, 

the new categories which seem to define the functioning of today’s 

society, or rather, a proposal of how our societies function. This line of 

analysis criticizes categories such as “employability” or “equality of 

opportunity” because beyond their seemingly progressive intentions, they 

operate as concepts in a neoliberal macrologic which places the market as 

society’s main focus. These concepts tend to strengthen and give 

consistency to this neoliberal focus. Finally this sociology of 

denunciation is also present in the sociopolitical sphere in some countries 

like Argentina. It shows the authoritarian aspect in the post-dictatorship 

phase, in particular with the piquetero movement. The work of Marisela 

Svampa tries to demonstrate that beyond its formal aspects, the politics 

related to social movements are still strongly repressive. The 

characteristics of this kind of sociology are a sort of public sociology, 

since it is not only expressed in specialized magazines but also 

communicated in mass newspapers. It aims to produce categories, with a 

strong expressive content, their validity determined by the extent to 

which not only academia, but the general public, the communicators and 

the oppositional political sector adopts them. 

CONCLUSION 

Latin American sociology has faced a dual dilemma: on the one hand, it 

has had to deal with theoretical systems from Europe or North America, 

and on the other hand, it has joined a very problematic political world 

during the post-war era, from which did not want or did not know how to 

distance itself, in general terms. 

There, to my understanding, lies the strength and weakness of Latin 

American sociology: its capacity for active commitment but which also


keeps it from building its own conceptual systems. Its production has always 

been of conceptual categories that never culminate in theoretical 

systems, but that have nevertheless moved and expressed the aims of different 

social movements or served as the basis of public and private decisions, 

all fundamental for social change. 

Its lack of thematical and theoretical unity today may become a 

source of revitalization if it can adopt a common focus and very general 

goals. We think it already has these goals, although it does not make them 

visible explicitly and systematically. The focus on inequality in all its 

possible manifestations and the shared goal to fight for all social, civil, 

and political rights could serve as as the positive correlation of a Latin 

American sociology that renews itself without losing its ties with the tradition 

that inspired it. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abramo, L. and Montero, C. “Origen y evolución de la Sociología del 

Trabajo en América latina.” In Tratado latinoamericano de 

Sociología del Trabajo, edited by E. De la Garza Toledo, pp. 65-94. 

Mexico: Colegio de México, FLACSO, UAM and Fondo de Cultura 

Económica, 2000. 

Borón, A. “Prefacio.” In La trama del neoliberalismo. Mercado, crisis y 

exclusión social, edited by E. Sader and P. Gentili. Buenos Aires, 

Argentina: CLACSO. 

Cardoso, F.H. and E. Faletto. Desarrollo y Dependencia en América 

Latina. Siglo XXI. Mexico, 1977. 

Cardoso F.H. “Notas sobre el estado actual de los estudios de la 

Dependencia”. In Problemas del subdesarrollo latinoamericano, edited 

by S. Bagú, F.H. Cardoso, A. Córdova, T. Dos Santos and H. 

Silva Michelena. Mexico: Nuestro Tiempo, 1978. 

CEPAL. “El Desarrollo Social. De América latina en la posguerra.” 

Buenos Aires, Argentina: Solar/Hachette, 1963. 

Cueva, A. “Problemas y perspectivas de la teoría de la dependencia.” In 

Debates sobre la teoría de la dependencia y la sociología 

latinoamericana, edited by D. Camacho. San José, Costa Rica: San 

José educa., 1979. 

De la Garza Toledo, E. “¿Cuál puede ser el campo de la Sociología a los 

inicios del siglo XXI” In Tratado latinoamericano de Sociología, 

edited by E. De la Garza Toledo. Mexico: Anthropos / UAM, 2005. 

Dussel, E. “Europa, modernidad y eurocentrismo.” Buenos Aires: 

CLACSO, 2003.

82 


Falero, A. Las batallas por la subjetividad: luchas sociales y 

construcción de Derechos en Uruguay. Montevideo, Uruguay: CSIC, 

2008. 

Fals Borda, O. and Brandão C. R. Investigación participativa. Montevideo, 

Uruguay : Instituto del Hombre / Ed. Banda Oriental 

Montevideo, 1991. 

Ghon, M.G. Teorias dos Movimentos sociais. São Paulo, Brazil: Loyola, 

1997. 

Freire, P. La educación como práctica de la libertad. Buenos Aires, 

Argentina: Siglo XXI, 1974. 

Graciarena, J. Poder y clases en el Desarrollo de América latina. Buenos 

Aires, Argentina : Paidós, 1967. 

Gonzalez Casanova, P. Sociología de la explotación. Buenos Aires, 

Argentina: CLACSO, 2006 (1969). 

-----. Globalidad, neoliberalismo y democracia. Mexico: CII en Ciencias 

y Humanidades/ UNAM, 1995 

Ianni, O. Imperialismo y cultura de la violencia en América latina. 

Mexico: Siglo XXI, 1969. 

Medina Echavarría, J. Consideraciones sociológicas sobre el desarrollo 

de América latina. San José, Costa Rica : San José educa, 1980. 

Mignolo, W. 2003. Historias locales/diseño globales. Colonialidad, 

conocimientos subalternos y pensamiento fronterizo. Madrid, Spain: 

Tres Cantos, 2003. 

-----. La idea de América Latina. La herida colonial y la opción 

descolonial. Buenos Aires, Argentina: GEDISA, 2007. 

Nun, J. Marginalidad y exclusión social. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura 

económica, 2001. 

Novick, M. “La transformación de la Organización del trabajo.” In 

Tratado latinoamericano de Sociología del Trabajo, edited by E. De 

la Garza Toledo, pp. 123-147. Mexico: Colegio de México, 

FLACSO, UAM and Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2000. 

Quijano, A. “Colonialidad del poder y la experiencia cultural 

latinoamericana.” In Pueblo, época y desarrollo: la sociología de 

América Latina, edited by R. Briceño-León and H. R. Sonntag. 

Caracas, Venezuela: Nueva Sociedad, 1992. 

-----. “Don Quijote y los molinos de viento en América latina.” In De la 

Teoría crítica a una crítica plural de la modernidad, edited by O. 

Kozlarek, pp. 123-146. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Biblos, 2007. 

Quijano A. and I. Wallerstein. “Americanity as a Concept or the Americas 

in the Modern World-System.” International Social Sciences 

Journal, 44(1992): 549-558.


Robles, F. El desaliento inesperado de la modernidad. Concepción, Chile: 

Sociedad hoy / Dirección de Investigación U.de Concepción, 2000. 

Rosemann, M.R. Pensar América latina. El desarrollo de la Sociología 

latinoamericana. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CLACSO libros, 2008. 

Sader, E. and P. Gentili. Pós-neoliberalismo: as políticas sociais e o 

estado democrático. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: Terra e Paz, 1995. 

-----. La trama del Neoliberalismo. Mercado crisis y exclusión social. 

Buenos Aires, Argentina: FLASCO, 1999. 

Touraine, A. and T. Di Tella. Huachipato y Lota. Paris, France: CNRS, 

1967. 

Walter, J. and F. Pucci. “La gestión del Riesgo y las crisis”. Fon CSI – 

San Andrés y Buenos Aires, Argentina: Ateneo, 2007. 

Weffort, F. “Notas sobre la teoría de la dependencia: teoría de clases o 

ideología nacional.” Revista Política y Sociedad, no 17, (1994): 97- 

115. (Orig. pub. 1972).

84 

Tom Dwyer 

On the Internationalization of Brazilian 

Academic Sociology 

Tom Dwyer, State University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 1 

The origins of contemporary Brazilian sociology go back to the cities of 

São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro and were strongly associated with the presence 

of foreign sociologists who played important roles, from the 1930s, 

in setting up what became important sociology departments or centers. 

Their influence guaranteed that early generations of Brazilian sociologists 

were trained and subsequent efforts permitted sociology to acquire a 

small degree of international exposure. 

FROM BRAZILIAN SOCIOLOGY’S EARLY RECEPTION OF 

INTERNATIONAL INFLUENCES TO ITS EARLY 

INSTITUTIONALIZATION 

Sociological production during this early period was not subjected to international 

exposure. In spite of their extraordinary importance, of the 

foundational works of three sociologists who are today considered as 

classical Brazilian sociology, only one major work has been published in 

English. 2 This has certainly deprived foreign researchers of access to an 

understanding of Brazil and of Brazilian thought, one that would enrich 

their comprehension of the limits and strengths of the application of classical 

sociological theories for understanding social formations that, while 

having very strong roots in the European traditions, are quite innovative. 

In 1950, the Brazilian Sociological Society (SBS) was founded; what 

precipitated this move was a letter from the newly established International 

Sociological Association (ISA) where the Sociological Society of 

São Paulo (founded in 1934) was asked if the society would be interested 

in representing Brazil by joining ISA. In other words, the SBS was 

founded with a view to internationalizing Brazilian sociology. From an 

1 Tom Dwyer is President of the Brazilian Sociological Society. 

2 The three classic books are: “Casa Grande e Senzala” (“The Master and the 

Slaves”) by Gilberto Freyre (1933), “Raízes do Brasil” (“Roots of Brazil”) by 

Sérgio Buarque de Holanda (1936) and “Formação do Brasil Contemporâneo” 

(“The Formation of Contemporary Brazil”) by Caio Prado Junior (1942).

On the Internationalization of Brazilian Academic Sociology 85 

early stage two Brazilians occupied positions on the ISA’s Executive 

Committee, the first president of the SBS Fernando de Azevedo between 

1950-1952 and Luiz Costa Pinto between 1953 and 1959. Over the following 

years teaching programs in sociology were set up in diverse parts 

of the country. In these early days Brazil was a poor, largely rural country 

and quality transport was not readily available, so few sociology departments 

were set up and few students were trained. 3 In 1954 and 1962 

national sociology conferences were held. 

SECOND PHASE: DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION AND 

A CERTAIN INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PRODUCTION 4 

In 1964, a populist left-wing government, which had allies in the trade 

union and rural workers’ movements, was overthrown by a right-wing 

military coup, which had support among the middle and upper classes. 

As the military regime consolidated its power, especially from the end of 

1968, the process of sociology’s institutionalization was severely debilitated. 

Some prominent sociologists lost their jobs in public universities, 

others were imprisoned, tortured, and went into exile. The SBS went into 

hibernation, and the academic sociological community spent over two 

decades without organizing its own conferences. Brazilian sociology experienced 

many other difficulties, both institutional and linked to research 

and teaching during the military regime. The subjects studied changed 

and it became more difficult to carry out empirical research because of a 

combination of censorship, fear, and lack of funding. 

Many Brazilian sociologists lived a painful process of forced internationalization 

that corresponded to their periods of exile. They became 

exposed to the reality of countries such as Chile (before Pinochet’s coup), 

Mexico, France, United Kingdom, Canada, and the USA. This experience 

forced many to start thinking about Brazilian reality in new ways. 

During the dictatorship, the Latin American Sociological Association’s 

(ALAS) bi-annual conferences became a significant meeting ground for 

Brazilian sociologists, which also proved true for sociologists in other 

Latin American countries under military rule. Also, many who had gone 

into exile became exposed to international ideas. In addition, international 

organizations, particularly the Ford Foundation and some European 

3 From the early 1930s until 1955 a total of 280 people earned sociology degrees 

in the State of São Paulo. In Rio de Janeiro, such statistics are more difficult to 

produce because of the variety of institutions involved; between 1939 and 1948 a 

total of 35 degrees were awarded (Brunner and Barrios 1987) 

4 This section is drawn from Porto, M. S. G. and Dwyer, T. (forthcoming).

86 

Tom Dwyer 

foundations, played a role in financing critical social sciences in Brazil. 

In this period, there was a certain projection of Brazilian sociology 

onto the international scene as the book Dependency and Development in 

Latin America written by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Enzo Faletto 

(1979) was translated into a number of languages. Indeed, it was during 

this period of the dictatorship that the image of Brazilian sociology in the 

world seems to have been very positive. Not only was the discipline engaged 

in the movement for democratic change, but it also produced 

scholarly work that was highly relevant to its own society and to international 

sociology. 

Cardoso would become vice president of the ISA between 1978 and 

1982 and its president from 1982 to 1986. 

INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND A LOW DEGREE OF 

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF PRODUCTION 

Institutionalization 

In all fields of science and technology in Brazil, it has been common to 

attribute what is seen as mediocre performance to successive military and 

civilian government mismanagement, e.g., start-stop policies, the legacy 

of high inflation, and the lack of commitment of resources (Fernandes 

1990; Schwartzmann 1994). In the social sciences, the forces that affect 

the natural sciences were aggravated by the severe difficulties found under 

military rule. These have meant that it has fallen on the present generation 

of senior sociologists to take responsibility for the reinstitutionalization 

of the discipline: founding (or restructuring) departments, developing 

curricula, developing post-graduate programs from scratch, founding 

and editing scientific reviews, developing the discipline’s scientific society 

(SBS), etc. 5 One consequence of such internal demands has been to 

reduce the time available for research and for confronting the numerous 

hurdles placed in front of those who wish to internationalize their produc- 

5 Beyond there being some 60 Brazilian sociological reviews in Latindex in 2005, 

there were some 132 degree awarding programs in 84 tertiary institutions and 

13,000 students are enrolled in social sciences courses. There are about 900 university 

teachers in the social sciences and a total of 1,700 masters and 1,400 doctoral 

students enrolled in 51 post-graduate programs (Leidke 2005). The most 

recent bi-annual Brazilian Sociology Conference had some 2,600 registered participants 

(nearly ten times the number of a decade earlier), and the SBS has 

nearly 1,000 members. These numbers constitute evidence of the consolidation 

and institutionalization of the area.


tion. 

While it might appear that after more than two decades since the end 

of military rule the institutionalization process has finished, in fact, new 

demands arise. Most recently, in June 2008, the president of Brazil 

signed into law a project that requires sociology (social sciences) to be 

taught in all years of the high school education and in all of the more than 

30,000 high schools in the country. This law reintroduces sociology, excluded 

by the military regime, into the secondary school curriculum. It 

places huge demands on many senior members of the discipline, for they 

shall have to write at least some of the specialized teaching materials 

necessary for the high schools, participate in commissions, and especially 

develop and teach courses to prepare a future generation of high school 

sociology teachers. 

From Academic to Non-Academic Sociology 

So far, I have only mentioned academic sociology. However, at the same 

time as the discipline becomes more institutionalized, it loses some of its 

most talented members to non-academic pursuits. 

In consolidated democracies, the political and administrative spheres 

of power are usually relatively consolidated in institutional terms: a group 

of highly qualified public policy developers and analysts exists (frequently 

recruited from the ranks of sociology graduates), and the political 

class is professional. Such is not the case in many Latin American countries, 

where some of the most prominent social scientists are seconded 

from their universities into central and state government to play a role in 

public policy development and analysis. More rarely they will temporarily 

or permanently abandon their academic careers to exercise high political 

office. In other words, the perceived success of the academic discipline 

and the relative weakness of the administrative and political classes 

combine to drain the discipline of some of its most talented academics. 

As such, those who remain in the universities frequently have to work 

harder to guarantee that basic teaching is carried out. 

Internationalization of Teaching and Training 

In Brazil, the ideas of foreigners, and especially European and North 

Americans, have been received for a long time and have fed and made 

Brazilian sociology prosper as an intellectual exercise. 

The tradition, which can be observed from the 1930s onwards, of 

importing foreign works, reading them intensely, and trying to apply 

them to build up an understanding of Brazilian society, has indeed been a

88 

Tom Dwyer 

hallmark of our sociology. Most post-graduate programs require reading 

proficiency in one or two foreign languages (beyond Spanish, which is 

easily read by native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese) as a prerequisite 

for entry. This means that teachers are able to use a wide range of 

sources and foreign texts (especially books). As a consequence, many 

Brazilian sociologists are capable of mixing literature written in English, 

French, Spanish, and Portuguese languages to build a type of sociology 

that is extremely cosmopolitan, thereby guaranteeing an international flavor 

to local production. From my own observations, this is not so common 

among sociologists from English, French, and many Spanishspeaking 

countries. 

In the past, a major obstacle to producing world-class sociology in 

Brazil was the lack of quality research libraries. Today, there are severe 

problems with the book collections in all Brazilian university libraries; 

however, the availability of journals has increased remarkably with large 

collections (mainly written in English) now being available on-line in the 

most important universities. On-line databases such as Sociological Abstracts 

and Social Science Citations Index have also become widely 

available over the last decade to staff and students in all major Brazilian 

universities; however, the numbers of systematic users still appears to be 

quite low. One reason for this is that students observe that such databases 

do not adequately reflect international sociological production, because 

(as we shall soon see) their contents neglect much Brazilian and Latin 

American production; as such, their legitimacy is questioned. 

It is worth noting that the return of democracy and the institutionalization 

of academic science and technology have been associated with an 

increased percentage of students completing their postgraduate training in 

Brazil. While this change reduces the exposure of the next generation of 

teachers to overseas living and academic cultures, it increases their sensitivity 

to their own country. In order to guarantee that the relative increase 

in the numbers of students studying at home does not result in academic 

disciplines become nationalistic or provincial in outlook, scholarships are 

widely available for postgraduate students to travel overseas for up to a 

year to enhance their doctoral training. Students typically attend universities 

in the Northern hemisphere, particularly ones to which their advisors 

or research teams already have institutional linkages. This has occurred 

due to generous government and limited international agency support.


INTERNATIONALIZING BRAZILIAN 

SOCIOLOGY’S PRODUCTION 

I shall divide this discussion into a number of sections. The first will examine 

the relationships with the ISA; the second will look at indexing of 

international sociology; following up on this, some considerations will be 

traced with regards to the forces that appear to operate upon sociological 

production from non-central countries. Subsequently, the question of 

language shall be examined. In the final part of this paper, I shall explore 

how Brazilian sociology is reacting to such forces and to the changing 

nature of power in the world that is redefining what internationalization 

means. 

The ISA as a Factor of Internationalization 

Generous government and funding agency support has without doubt had 

a role in underpinning Brazilian presence at the World Sociology conferences, 

organized by the ISA. In the last two editions, Brazil had the 

eighth largest national delegation in Brisbane and seventh largest at Durban. 

Brazilians have occupied leadership positions on some ISA research 

committees and on the executive committee. Executive committee members 

have included Neuma Aguiar (1990-1994) and Alice Abreu (2002- 

2010), and currently, Brazil is the only Latin American country which is 

represented on the ISA executive committee, where it has three members: 

Alice Abreu, Elisa Reis, and José Vicente Tavares dos Santos. However, 

while it is easy to form the impression that such presence helps internationalize 

the discipline, I am not aware of research that has sought to ascertain 

the connection between such presence and the wider visibility and 

image of Brazilian sociology internationally. 

Brazilian researchers are active in many of the ISA research committees 

and certainly make their colleagues more aware to what is occurring 

in Brazil and in Brazilian sociology. However, the difficulties of talking 

in a foreign language, the outrageous fact that sessions allocate equal 

time for presentations to native and non-native speakers, and also the fact 

that sociologists from non-central countries feel obliged to make introductory 

remarks that set out the context of their country and their research 

(something which researchers from central countries assume everybody 

knows) leads many to feel that they are not given a fair hearing. 

Particularly, there is a diffuse feeling that a type of arrogance is exhibited 

by native speakers who do not pay attention or show interest in what nonnative 

speakers have to say. To add insult to injury, native speakers fre-

90 

Tom Dwyer 

quently do not exhibit the cultural sensitivity to talk slowly when speaking 

to a cosmopolitan audience. 6 

One problem is, indeed, that many of the papers presented at ISA do 

not appear to be transformed into articles that are published internationally. 

Recent ISA initiatives to permit sessions in languages other than the 

ISA’s three official languages and to encourage national associations to 

present session proposals are important steps to guarantee a wider range 

of international activities at the world sociology conferences. 

International Indexing of Publications 

In the now distant past when there were no international indexing systems 

and the scientific community was far smaller, scientific production was 

recognized as “international” when it became widely visible. Since the 

gradual return to democracy in Brazil during the 1980s, no single Brazilian 

piece of academic sociology has been able to achieve the international 

prominence of Cardoso and Faletto’s book. While this book was widely 

appreciated among scholars in central countries, it achieved large audiences 

in Latin America and in other dependent countries such as India, 

New Zealand, and Australia. In the absence of widely recognized “great 

books” written by Brazilian authors, we must move to look at other indicators 

of internationalization. 

Alice Abreu (2002) pointed out that the percentage of all ISI indexed 

articles published in Brazil in the year 2000 was 1.33%, less than one half 

of the percentage published by Australia (2.83%), a country with a population 

that is about one tenth the size of Brazil’s. 7 This is just one indica- 

6 I personally feel that these problems are sometimes so important that should 

ISA consider obliging all of those who present their work in ISA conference to 

speak in their second language (as long as it were one of the three official ISA 

languages). We would go a great way to removing a considerable source of 

domination exerted by many of our English native-speaker colleagues. It would 

also remove a source of considerable irritation and ill-feeling for non-native 

speakers of English (which is increasingly becoming ISA’s lingua franca). Of 

course, there is a practical obstacle: not many native English speakers even know 

how to read, let alone speak, a second language! Indeed, in my view, the question 

of linguistic domination by English is a serious obstacle to the internationalization 

of sociology. Also, the lack of knowledge of foreign languages by English 

native speaking sociologists seriously limits their capacity to understand the 

role that language plays in forming social imagination and guiding practices, and 

it impoverishes, because such sociologists exclude themselves from having an 

intimate knowledge of other conceptual and cultural systems. 

7 It is of course necessary to evaluate the number of scientists in each country 

and the demands on them. Also, it is more probable that Brazilian rather than 

Australian scientists publish in non-indexed reviews. A further element of a pos-


tion of the type of structural problems faced with regards to internationalization. 

Many Brazilian and Latin American scientific reviews in all 

fields, for a number of reasons that include problems of regularity in their 

production, and lack of institutionalization of the publishing field, are not 

listed by the internationally recognized indexing services. There are 

some indications that this is changing, as the number of articles by Brazilian 

researchers in all fields indexed by ISI increased by four times in the 

1990 to 2002 period (Abreu 2007). One reason for this movement, which 

has not really touched the humanities and the social sciences, has been a 

large increase in Brazilian natural science reviews edited in English. 8 

The number of Brazilian sociology publications that are quoted in ISI is 

very small. Alice Abreu (2007) has observed that less than 3% of Latin American 

sociology journals that are indexed in Latindex (www.latindex.unam.mx) 

are included in ISI. 

When we examine Sociological Abstracts we can see that the presence 

of Brazilian resident authors is extremely reduced. Consider the 

following table: 

NO. Articles published % Articles with % 

Articles in Brazil 

authors from Brazil 

1970 7.835 19 0.24 17 0.22 

1980 15.166 23 0.15 21 0.14 

1990 22.175 53 0.24 95 0.43 

2000 28.422 372 1.31 247 0.86 

2005 28.658 554 1.93 45 *** 

Here we see evidence that an increasing number of articles published 

in Brazil are indexed in Sociological Abstracts. If we exclude the year 

2005 for which data was incomplete (data for this table was collected in 

July 2008), the number of Brazilian resident authors also appears to be on 

the increase. However, the contribution of both Brazilian published artisible 

explanation is given by Connell (2007), “Natural scientists in Australia also 

have strong international connections, but they are focused on the United States 

and Britain, a pattern of quasi-globalisation” (218). 

8 The online Brazilian Political Science Review 

(www.bpsr.org.br/english/revista/natual.htm) was launched recently in an 

attempt to internationalize the audiences of that discipline’s production. 

However, it has not yet been indexed internationally. 

The recently inaugurated SciELO English Language Edition 

(http://socialsciences. scielo.org/scielo.php) contains a limited number of English-language 

versions of articles that had previously appeared in some Brazilian 

and other Latin American social science journals.

92 

Tom Dwyer 

cles and Brazilian authors appears to remain extremely low. 

Raewyn Connell’s (2007) book reflects about how researchers from 

countries that lie on the periphery will have severe difficulties in having 

their voices heard in international debates and publications, particularly 

books, “Texts are also material objects produced by publishers and governed 

by copyright laws. It has always been difficult for works published 

in the periphery to circulate in the metropolitan centers and to other parts 

of the periphery” (219). 

A good example of a case where English language use is handled remarkably 

well by non-native English speakers are the Nordic countries. 

A search was carried out using the most recently developed international 

indexing system, Google Scholar (GS), of the publications of members of 

16 sociology departments. The research team found that only 15% of 

scholars have more than five publications that turned up in the search. 

While 85% of department members that turn up in the GS search had at 

least one publication, less than 25% of these are cited more than ten times 

(Aaltojarvi et al. 2008). In other words, there appears to be a high degree 

of invisibility built into careers that, even when they can easily be conducted 

in the English language, are conducted outside of central countries. 

9 However, such an observation appears to affect not only the social 

sciences. A Costa Rican biologist wrote, “Some of my colleagues dream 

of having a paper published in Nature or Science, usually considered the 

two most influential journals (in that order). However, their chances are 

low (for example, Science accepts 20% of manuscripts from the USA but 

only 1% of papers from ‘Third World’ countries)” (Gibbs 1995). The 

author concludes: 

Tropical scientists have three basic options. They can despair and make 

no effort to do good science, they can choose to live at the shadow of 

temperate science, trying to please the interests of temperate journals, 

readers and citation indices, or they can do what the USA did so successfully 

after spending many years at the shadow of British science, 

that is, to develop a local scientific pride based on quality and a good 

balance between basic and applied science. 

National agencies that evaluate scientific activity are increasingly 

demanding that scientists publish internationally. Ming-Chang Tsai observed 

at the 2005 ISA Conference of National Associations that a posi- 

9 Here we include countries such as India, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand.


tive evaluation based on the key indicator used by the Taiwanese evaluation 

agency, number of publications indexed by the SSCI, was almost 

entirely dependent on the country of advanced training. Basically, those 

trained in North America were indexed, whereas those trained elsewhere 

were far more likely to have few indexed publications. At the same 

meeting, Victor Arayza observed that his Israeli colleagues, should they 

wish to publish internationally, would have their best chances if they 

were to write about the only subject that seems to interest the so-called 

“international” journals: the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and its ramifications. 

In other words, in order to be positively evaluated, it is necessary 

to turn one’s back on the investigation of many pressing problems of 

one’s society, because they are problems which do not spark “international” 

interest. Indeed, these two papers suggest that if one works outside 

of the central countries, it is necessary to deform one’s thinking and 

research agendas to respond to research questions and to standards that 

are imposed from abroad, in order to be considered a good “international 

class” scholar by the evaluating agencies. Here, indeed, we are talking 

about a distortion that is produced by the demand that scientific production 

be evaluated by reference to publications in scientific journals that 

are recognized as being international; in both cases publication in the researcher’s 

native language is considered to be less relevant than publication 

in English. 

In other words, the domination of international publishing markets, 

indexing systems, and referees by researchers from the central countries 

appears to threaten the capacity to produce knowledge in an autonomous 

fashion in the non-central countries. At this same ISA conference, I remember 

hearing Pharta Mukherji, a former president of the Indian Sociological 

Society, use an expression to refer to colleagues who have become 

so infatuated with the West or of having influence in the West; he 

referred to them as developing a “captive mind syndrome.” This indeed 

is a very powerful expression, and without consciously combating it, the 

social sciences are condemned to lose their unique perspective, which is 

not only theoretical and methodological, but which is also embedded in a 

culture and where research problems are classically determined by their 

relevance to society. 

Raewyn Connell (2007) argues that Southern theories are excluded 

from world sociologies and that it is necessary to draw on marginalized 

forms of knowledge to reconstruct our image of the world. In other 

words, the Northern-dominated power structures are seen impeding the 

development of a viable sociology capable of responding to the complexities 

of our times.

94 

Tom Dwyer 

DIFFICULTIES OF INTERNATIONALIZATION 

OF SOCIOLOGY 

For Sociologists from Non-English Speaking Countries 

Connell’s interesting book leaves to a side any examination of the complex 

questions posed by the domination that the English language has 

achieved since the end of World War II and that threatens the very idea 

that it is possible to develop an “international sociology.” ISA recognized 

the nature of this problem over a decade ago when it commissioned 

a report on the language question that was presented at the Montreal Conference 

by Alain Touraine (1998). One important conclusion of this report 

was that “Sociology should consider itself as a world discipline integrating 

various intellectual traditions, especially when they have deep 

historical roots.” This is a point that appears to be very similar to Connell’s. 

Few native English speakers realize how difficult it is to produce for 

a refereed journal that is published in a foreign country and language. 

Pina Cabral (2007), a prominent Portuguese social scientist, recently produced 

a short reflection around the question of internationalization of the 

social sciences. He notes that even senior social scientists who have published 

from the beginning of their careers and who have been fortunate 

enough to have seen their articles in journals and well-received edited 

books are often treated, when they submit articles and chapters for review 

in English language publications, as beginners; the work is refereed by 

very junior colleagues, who do not have sufficient understanding of what 

is being said to adequately review the article. Indeed, I have heard similar 

complaints over cafezinhos with Brazilian colleagues. 

However, for those who choose to publish in ISI-indexed journals, 

Pina Cabral remarks that adopting such a strategy does not normally work 

well for those who are outside of the globally defined circuits of excellence, 

which are always linked to the hegemonic centers of power. Given 

the very nature of social power in intellectual fields, he argues, it is difficult 

to imagine things occurring in any other way. The capacity to guarantee 

a future (futuridade) for the results of scientific research on knowledge 

production as a whole is not measurable in simple terms of “objective 

impact factors” that are so loved by technocratic evaluators. It is not 

enough to publish articles that are considered worthwhile in English to 

guarantee futuridade for what one publishes. Pina Cabral defends an idea 

that appears to emerge from rational choice theory: citation may depend 

on a type of cost-benefit relationship between the citer and the cited (and, 

of course, those who are deliberately not cited). Frequently, to publish in


English it becomes necessary to deny one’s intellectual roots to succeed. 

Pina Cabral explains, “It is more interesting / chic to quote Foucault (because 

he is an American craze, which has nothing to do with loving 

things French) than Thales de Azevedo, even when what is being said has 

more to do with the brilliant work of the latter, which, for the majority … 

is simply unknown” (236). 

A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy 

W. I. Thomas’s genial formulation that if people define a situation as real 

it will be real in its consequences contributes to explain the low levels of 

internationalization of the production of Brazilian sociology. We do not 

publish in English, because we know that the odds are against us, and 

when published it is highly likely that we shall be ignored. 10 To submit 

any article for publication is always a time-consuming operation; to prepare 

articles in a foreign language normally requires spending considerable 

money on translation and revision. However, journals that use blind 

referees do not permit the researcher to have a reasonable degree of certainty 

of achieving a favorable outcome. Indeed, we are far from being 

naïve actors; we know that much of what is unique in our society does 

not interest those who have power to define the so-called universal in 

terms of a dominant Western paradigm (which, in reality, is not one but 

many). For such reasons, many do not see publishing in English as a realistic 

goal. 

Brazilian sociologists tend to give greater importance, as do sociologists 

in many lands, to the publication of books and book chapters in their 

native language than to the publication in refereed scientific reviews in 

English. This option can be interpreted in many ways, as part of a tradition, 

a desire to be relevant, or a flight from the challenges, the rigor, the 

marked playing cards, and the possible humiliation involved in having 

one’s work evaluated “internationally.” In Brazil, the vast majority of 

book production occurs nationally, 11 and should it circulate internationally, 

this will only occur in other countries that use the Portuguese lan- 

10 It is important to note that there exist specialists on Brazil who are called 

“Brazilianists.” They normally (especially the more junior ones) write ignoring 

Brazilian production and do so using concepts from the central countries to fit 

their writings about Brazil into a supposedly “international” (but usually North 

American) perspective. 

11 It is important to note that the system of national circulation of books published 

in the various regions of Brazil is often fragile. This led the SBS to launch, 

in 2006, its first scientific review, SBS Resenhas, which publishes book reviews 

online twice a year (to be found on www.sbsociologia.com.br).

96 

Tom Dwyer 

guage and more rarely in Latin American countries and nations that use 

Latin languages. Also, many Brazilian sociologists appear not to consider 

publication in national refereed journals to be more important than 

publication in non-refereed journals. Such a state of affairs is a result of 

the “culture of the invitation,” whereby people prefer to be invited to 

submit an article, in full knowledge that publication will be guaranteed, 

than to go through the considerable effort and pain necessary to publish 

in a refereed journal. 

*** 

Renato Ortiz (2006) incisively summarized the nature of the question 

when he considered that no language could be considered a “lingua 

franca;” such a role is only exercised in certain specific areas where it 

takes on the function of being “franca.” He described: 

In this way English language, in the natural sciences, serves as a predominantly 

‘franca’ language; its role concentrates on the transmission 

of information, minimizing the other dimensions of social life (prestige, 

aesthetics, sentiments, etc.). But if this is possible, and this is the dimension 

that scientists value, a language which is emptied of other connotations 

with the aim of maximizing instrumental communication, so 

valued by natural scientists - what can be said about the social sciences 

(35) 

Indeed, we arrive at the provocative idea that it is impossible to develop 

quality social sciences by resorting to a lingua franca. This implies that a 

more complex strategy of internationalization must be adopted, one 

which involves high quality translations, with all their expense and difficulties, 

and which pays close attention to both narrative and concept development 

as it occurs in given linguistic and socio-historical contexts. 

TOWARDS AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW OF 

INTERNATIONALIZATION: RECENT TRENDS IN THE 

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF BRAZILIAN SOCIOLOGY 

The Official Evaluation System 

The Brazilian classificatory system has been built up in response to demands 

from the leading funding agency CAPES, which conducts collective 

evaluations of post-graduate programs based on a complex system


based on peer evaluation (see Adorno and Dwyer 2006). Journals are 

classified by merit into six categories: International A, B, and C, and National 

A, B and C. Of the 23 journals that have been most recently classified 

by the sociology committee as “International A,” 12 are in published 

in English, seven in Portuguese, two each in French and Spanish. The 

number of journals classified as “International B” is, of course, far greater: 

three are published in Portuguese, 16.5 in English, 9.5 in French, seven in 

Spanish, one in Italian (the attribution of 0.5 to one journal having a bilingual 

title). 

It is important to note that seven Brazilian journals that are published 

in Portuguese are considered international. In other words, they have 

editorial boards with non-Brazilian members and articles that are considered 

to be of international quality. The sociology area committee of the 

CAPES agency has made a strong movement to force the recognition that 

certain Portuguese language publications are of international quality. 

This introduces an endogenous definition of internationalization, rather 

than a purely exogenous one. 

Given the arguments that have been put forward earlier in this paper, 

it is certainly not difficult for sociologists from other countries to understand 

what is at stake here, the movement to define Portuguese language 

publications as being of international quality is, of course, linked to the 

defense of language as a basis of the culture of the society which social 

scientists study and within which they must express themselves. However, 

there is also another aim: CAPES evaluates all areas of science, resources 

can be allocated as a function of comparative evaluations of the 

“worth” of each institution and area of knowledge, and the principle 

measure of “worth” is international publication. In their search for resources 

and power, natural scientists try to impose a universal criterion of 

evaluation, where English-language publications are considered as international, 

on all other areas of science. If Portuguese-language publications 

are not considered “international,” social scientists would be attesting 

to their own inferiority relative to the natural sciences. It far easier 

for a natural scientist to submit publications making an instrumental use 

of English, because such sciences are typically far more formalized and 

socio-historical, and cultural context is far less important than in the social 

sciences. 

REDEFINING INTERNATIONALIZATION 

We have just seen that the sociology area committee of CAPES has produced 

a definition of internationalization that recognizes that publishing

98 

Tom Dwyer 

in Portuguese is to be considered, in certain cases, an international activity. 

This constitutes a political victory. 

Until very recently, internationalization was defined as having links 

to, publications in and using research and teaching materials from 

wealthy Europe and North America (particularly the USA). More recently, 

Latin America has been newly defined as important, particularly 

in political sociology, where transitions towards democratic rule that occurred 

from the mid-1980s onwards meant that similar social and political 

processes were occurring in many countries simultaneously. Later, 

this intensified as, on the one hand, globalization, neo-liberalism, and the 

Washington Consensus were seen as imposing a certain sets of policies 

on most governments. Popular responses emerged within many of these 

societies to oppose the major forces criticized as seeking to impose inequality 

and cultural and institutional homogeneity on quite diverse populations 

and to weaken governments’ capacity for autonomous action. 

However, another form of internationalization came through increasing 

regional exchanges, particularly in the Southern Cone, where the formation 

of Mercosul, a common market, has generated international research 

agendas around many of the difficulties and challenges of economic integration 

and the concomitant rise of social problems. Also, there have 

been increasing exchanges of students and university staff between these 

countries, and the Spanish language is being more frequently studied in 

Brazil (rather than improvised by mixing Portuguese and espanhol into 

the hybrid portunhol). In the Amazon region, the perception of the existence 

of urgent problems such as environmental degradation, issues relating 

to native cultures and their survival, drug trafficking, rising violence, 

development issues, and cross-border migration has led to a consciousness 

of the need to develop pan-Amazonian perspectives. Whilst the vast 

majority of the Amazon region’s area is located in Brazil, a large population 

lives in neighboring countries and has been traditionally studied by 

anthropologists. The rise of economic integration, modernization, and 

more recent forces linked to globalization is altering research dynamics. 

Official targeted support is serving to stimulate both Pan-Amazonian and 

Mercosul-oriented research. 

Globalization seems for many to be associated with the inevitable rise 

of English as a world lingua franca. One of the reactions against this 

seeming inevitability has been the formation of a political alliance of lusophone 

(Portuguese speaking) countries. Beyond Brazil and Portugal, 

these countries include East Timor (which, on independence, rejected 

English as a possible national language, placing the Portuguese language 

at the heart of its national identity), Angola, Mozambique, Guinea-Bissau, 

São Tomé and Príncipe, and Cape Verde. Official support for the devel-


opment of commerce and cultural exchange between lusophone countries 

has also extended into stimulus for scientific cooperation. In early February 

of 2009, the 10 th edition of the bi-annual Congresso Luso-Afro- 

Brasileiro de Ciências Sociais was held in Braga, Portugal. While studies 

in specialized areas such as violence and historical sociology occasionally 

have specific comparative dimensions, this conference is a point 

where a visible tendency can be seen to develop a common approach 

within the shadow of a linguistic community, a linguistic community 

which is international and cosmopolitan, uniting both rich and poor countries, 

countries with populations with varying degrees of internal differentiation, 

and at various stages of development, with problems of war and 

violence, in a common reflection. It is still too early to speak of these 

congresses as space where, in the shadow provided by a common linguistic 

identity, which permits both affective and instrumental dimensions of 

communication to be united, “counter-hegemonic” intellectual dynamics 

can be developed. Such development is certainly a major bet of some 

who are most deeply involved in this movement. There is a growing consciousness 

that development will require stimulus for comparative research 

between lusophone countries, greater visibility of the community’s 

scientific journal Travessias, increased use by the countries of the Brazilian-based 

online journal and indexing system Scielo (www.scielo.br) 12 

and efforts to move towards institutionalizing lusophone social sciences. 

Indeed, there appears to be an increasing perception at government 

level of the necessity to develop deeper interchange with other countries 

that employ Latin languages, especially Spanish, French, and Italian. 

There have recently been scientific meetings in this direction. Also, there 

have been efforts to bring together researchers specialized in Brazil under 

auspices that are different to that provided by the metropolitan-dominated 

conferences of the Latin American Studies Association and the Brazilian 

Studies Association. 

Quite recently, South Africa has become a reference point for some 

Brazilian researchers. Our two countries have many apparently similar 

social dynamics: school failure, extreme social exclusion, policies designed 

to promote social integration, and extreme levels of violence. 

Academic relations between South African and Brazilian sociologists 

received initial early support and/or stimulus from the University of 

Michigan and the Ford Foundation. As contacts developed, perceptions 

12 As we saw in note 7, one relevant development is that Scielo now publishes 

limited English-language online editions of some leading Brazilian Social Science 

journals.

100 

Tom Dwyer 

grew of the existence of scientific problems that are common to both 

countries have emerged. 

The recently formed group of Heads of State (or government) of 

India, Brazil, and South Africa (IBSA) meets annually and has formed 

the IBSA trilateral development initiative. 13 The identity of this 

seemingly disparate group is that its members are unique in that they 

share large populations and areas, are developing countries, and have 

democratic governments. Cooperation has rapidly resulted in the signing 

of protocols to stimulate scientific research and in Brazil-specific 

research funds becoming available. 

Over recent years, there has been much talk about the future world 

role to be played by a small group of previously subaltern or marginalized 

countries that have large territories and populations and considerable 

natural resources and will constitute not only large markets but will be 

important producer nations. Most frequently referred to as the BRICs 

(Brazil, Russia, India, and China) this loose and highly diverse group of 

countries is marked, for Brazilian researchers, by considerable deficit in 

both our knowledge and understanding. It is worthwhile noting that the 

concept of BRICS is sometimes elastic, in Brazil the “S” may be capitalized 

to represent South Africa, and a “M” occasionally inserted to include 

Mexico. Indian sociologists talk of a possible future inclusion of Pakistan 

should that country stabilize politically and become less hostile to 

the West. As these countries play an increasing role on the world stage in 

cultural, economic, and political terms, we can imagine that new tensions 

will occur between them and European and North American countries, 

tensions will emerge among them, and such tensions will produce new 

questions for sociological analysis. 

Of great importance to contemporary Brazil are the increasing relations 

with China. It is worthwhile noting the pioneering nature of the 

work of one of the founding fathers of Brazilian social sciences, Gilberto 

Freyre (2003), recently republished as a book under the title of China 

Tropical. He documented some aspects of China’s (and indeed the Orient’s) 

historic influence on Brazil, which flowed from Portugueseadministered 

Macao via Goa and served to shape the country, including 

its customs, architecture, and lifestyles, until the 1850s, when new trading 

patterns led to a decline in this influence and the United States’s long rise 

to a hegemonic position in the region. A century later, he saw another 

type of approximation emerging, as, in the mid-twentieth century, Brazilian 

and Chinese xenophobia emerged in relation to dominant countries, 

and especially the USA. While the USA continues to be Brazil’s first 

13 www.ibsa-trilateral.org


trading partner, a rise in economic exchanges has today pushed China 

into a position, entirely unimagined even a decade ago, as Brazil’s second 

trading partner. With this comes a need to build and disseminate an understanding 

of Chinese culture in Brazil and vice versa. It is necessary to 

build capacities to investigate and understand the conflicts that will inevitably 

emerge as exchanges increase in many areas: immigration, leisure, 

cultural exchange, tourism, commerce, etc. Chinese sociologists express 

interest in learning about the extraordinary rapid processes of economic 

and social change that occurred in Brazil during the 20 th century and specifically 

how this had an impact on youth and also on government, such 

interest is linked to attempting to understand the changes their country is 

currently undergoing, which have few parallels in the history of the world. 

Common research problems will emerge from this process. My bet is 

that, should this happen, a new comparative dimension will be introduced 

into the sociology of both countries. 

The rise of these nations as economic powers has, in Brazil, started to 

be associated with a change in perception of what is relevant for the internationalization 

of Brazilian sociology and the social sciences more 

generally. Such a movement will take many years to build up, and certainly 

we shall have to learn from our North American and European 

counterparts because their sociologies have had international ambitions 

for a lot longer than Brazil. In terms of academic traditions, linguistic 

skills, regular funding, and institution building they are certainly a far 

ahead of us. It is imperative for sociology to widen its scope and to build 

up a research dynamic that is increasingly South-South in nature. In this 

way, we shall be able to understand our development processes through 

the eyes of comparative research that are in dialogue with, but relatively 

autonomous from, the research dynamics based on a North-South logic 

that have dominated for so long. This is, in a way, what Raewyn Connell 

(2007) and Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Maria Paula Meneses (2009), 

in spite of their differences, are talking about. 

I must note that the role of the SBS in this fast changing arena cannot 

be omitted. It stimulates debates and encourages participation in international 

forums, be they the traditional international ones, regional, or 

linked to new global dynamics. Scientific societies have a responsibility 

to lead and to stimulate. At the same time as Brazil’s bi-annual national 

conferences always bring in some of the world’s leading sociologists to 

talk, today participants come from an increasing variety of countries and 

continents. Simultaneously, SBS is seen as having relevance to the agendas 

beyond other Latin American developing countries. Normally, invitations 

to speak at conferences are made on an individual basis to prominent 

Northern scholars; in Brazil’s case some invitations are made in an

102 

Tom Dwyer 

institutional manner, because many of our best sociologists are little 

known internationally (and frequently for the reasons exposed earlier on 

in this paper). While Brazil’s best sociologists are up-to date with international 

debates and read these in a cosmopolitan manner, oral expression 

may be difficult. In the context of increasing formal international exchanges 

it is my bet that recourse to translators will become necessary to 

guarantee that many of the most complex ideas, and contexts, be understood 

as clearly as possible. 

However, the fact is that these new intellectual dynamics are already 

occurring. Brazilian social sciences must equip themselves to comprehend 

the recent rise of Brazil to the status of a regional power and, as expressed 

in the notion of the BRICs, to a more important player in a global 

sense. Through exposure to other systems of social dynamics, new ways 

of learning and new angles of vision will certainly develop, enriching our 

understanding of ourselves and social theory. One key aspect will be the 

development of a deeper understanding of other cultures and the processes 

of change that are occurring outside of the countries that are today 

still referred to as “central.” Here we are not speaking so much of the 

internationalization of Brazilian sociology but of the formation of a new 

type of international sociology, one not envisageable before the building 

of international databases, air travel, Internet, and appropriate funding for 

comparative research. 14 The process by which our discipline will be 

transformed is likely to be chaotic. Yet, sociologists will still be motivated 

by the search for truth about universal dynamics of social life, and 

oriented by a rereading of the classical and contemporary sociological 

traditions, this motivation will guide sociologists into an labyrinth where 

knowledge about the lives of social actors in many parts of the globe will 

no-longer be able to be ignored. The complex nature of our contemporary 

world marked by cultural conflicts, environmental change, the rise of 

new centers of power, increasing exchanges of information and, as of 

September 2008, by the collapse in the domination of a form of economic 

thinking which sought to radically separate the economic dimensions of 

life from its social and political ones, sets the stage upon which future 

efforts will be conducted. In such a context, sociologists will redefine the 

role and purposes of internationalized sociology. 

14 Until very recently it was extremely difficult for Brazilian researchers to obtain 

financing for South-South research. The international efforts of the funding 

agencies, as occurs in many developing countries, were nearly all focused upon 

developing academic and research relations with Northern countries: the 

CAPES-COFECUB agreements with France, the many Brazilian cathedras in 

European universities, scholarship allocation to study in Northern hemisphere 

universities etc.


CONCLUSION 

There is a tension inherent in the internationalization of Brazilian sociology 

that comes from, on the one hand a need to be seen and recognized in 

the centers that currently dominate world sociology, and on the other 

hand there is the imperative, propelled by globalization and supported by 

both the Brazilian government and committed researchers, to redefine 

international scientific relations in a way that is adequate to a new and 

changing international context. This latter effort raises a danger that is 

not present in the former; Brazilian sociology (and indeed social science) 

is small and has a strong commitment to being relevant within its own 

country, yet in this new effort, we may end up spreading ourselves far too 

thinly. 

In the traditional centers of world power, the definitions and the criteria 

of excellence appear to be already defined: change will only be incremental; 

learn to play the game and your scientific work will can become 

recognized for what it is worth. Such a definition, which as we have seen 

serves as an obstacle to the development of an internationally recognized 

Brazilian sociology, will be redefined in a multi-polar world. 

We Brazilian sociologists still have a great deal of work to do at 

home. Some of us seek international recognition in a traditional sense; 

however, members of the discipline are now deeply involved in a process 

of seeking to redefine what is international as what is relevant in the 

world viewed from a Brazil in interaction with a renewed sociological 

tradition. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abreu, A. “A (Strong) Voice from the South Latin American Sociology 

Today.” Paper presented at the special session “Towards a 

Global Sociology: Learning from Regional Experiences” at the ISA 

World Congress of Sociology, Brisbane, 2002. 

Abreu, A. “A Internacionalização da Ciência na América Latina e o 

Caribe: o Contexto Institucional.” Paper presented at the XIII Brazilian 

Sociology Congress, Recife, 2007. 

Adorno, S. and T. Dwyer. “The Evaluation Culture and Postgraduate 

Sociology Programmes in Brazil.” Paper presented at the World 

Congress of Sociology, Durban, 2006 

Aaltojarvi, I., Arminen, I., Auranen, O. and H.M. Pasanen. “Scientific 

Productivity, Web Visibility, and Citation Patterns in Sixteen Nordic 

Sociology Departments.” Acta Sociológica 51, no. 1 (2008): 5-22.

104 

Tom Dwyer 

Brunner, J. and A. Bairros. “Inquisición, Mercado y Filantropía. Ciencias 

Sociales y Autoritarismo en Argentina, Brasil, Chile y Uruguay.” In 

As Ciências Sociais na América Latina em Perspectiva Comparada 

1930-2005, edited by H. Trindade and G. de Sierra, pp 71-169. Porto 

Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2007. (Article orig. pub. 1987) 

Cardoso, F.H. and E. Faletto. Dependency and Development in Latin 

America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1979. (Orig. pub. 

1972) 


Social Science. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007. 

Fernandes, A. M. “Science and Dependent Development: How Successful 

Is the Brazilian Case” Paper presented at the World Congress of 

Sociology, Madrid, 1990. 

Freyre, G. China Tropical. São Paulo: Imprensa Oficial do Estado de 

São Paulo, 2003. 

Gibbs, W.W. “Lost Science in the Tropics.” American Scientist (August 

1995): 76-83. 

Liedke Filho, E. D. “A Sociologia no Brasil: História, Teorias, e 

Desafios.” Sociologias 14 (2005). 

Ortiz, R. Mundialização, Saberes, e Crenças. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 

2006. 

De Pina Cabral, J. “Língua e Hegemonia nas Ciências Sociais.” Análise 

Social 182 (2007): 233-237. 

Porto, M. S. G. and T. Dwyer. “Development, Dictatorship, and Redemocratization: 

Trajectories of Brazilian Sociology.” In Sociological 

Traditions, edited by S. Patel. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, forthcoming. 

De Sousa Santos, B. and M. P. Meneses. Epistemologias do Sul. 

Coimbra: Almedina, 2009. 

Schwartzman, S. “Catching Up in Science and Technology: Self- 

Reliance or Internationalization” Paper presented at the World 

Congress of Sociology, Bielefeld, 1994. 

Touraine, A. “Social Knowledge and the Multiplicity of Languages and 

Cultures.” Report presented at the World Congress of Sociology, 

Montreal, 1998. 

Trindade, H. “Ciências Sociais no Brasil em Perspectiva: Fundação, 

Consolidação e Expansão.” In As Ciências Sociais na América 

Latina em Perspectiva Comparada 1930-2005, edited by H. Trindade 

and G. de Sierra, pp 71-169. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 2007.

The Dialogue between Criminology and the South’s Sociology of Violence 105 

The Dialogue between Criminology and the 

South’s Sociology of Violence: 

The Policing Crisis and Alternatives 

José-Vicente Tavares dos Santos, Federal University of Rio 

Grande do Sul, Brazil 

Since the 1980s, the structural changes of the capitalist mode of production 

have produced a crime metamorphosis, the internationalization of 

criminal organizations, and the social fabrication of violence. After the 

“Age of Extremes” (Hobsbawm 1994), we might define the first period of 

the twenty-first century, beginning in 1991, as the period of the Worldization 

Process. 1 It can be characterized by an expansion of capitalistic activities, 

global crisis, and the culture of post-modernity. This new period 

can be summed up as the age of late modernity. 2 

The last three decades, or late modernity, is a time of “liquid fear,” 

because “fears are many and variable. People of different social, gender 

and age categories are haunted by their own; there are also fears that we 

all share – in whatever part of the globe we happen to have been born or 

have chosen (or been forced) to live” (Bauman 2007: 20). 

The world panorama is thus marked by social issues which express 

themselves in articulated forms, but which manifest themselves in differently 

across societies. The present period is characterized by a combination 

of various elements: “the disembeddedness of everyday life, the 

awareness of pluralism of values, and an individualism which presents 

the achievement of self realization as an ideal” (Young 2007: 2). In late 

modernity, society and contemporary states have difficulty coping with 

the spread of diffuse violence (Giddens 1996). The social roots of these 

acts of diffuse violence appear to be based on the processes of social 

fragmentation: “the desegregation of the organizing principles of solidar- 

1 The terms “worldization” and “globalization” are used in this article (the distinction is 

an established one in Spanish, Portuguese, and French) to imply two different social 

processes. “Globalization” means the internationalization of the world economic process. 

“Worldization” is used to underline the social phenomena created by economic globalization. 

2 See Tavares dos Santos (2002).

106 

José-Vicente Tavares dos Santos 

ity, the crisis of the traditional conception of social rights to provide a 

framework for thinking about the excluded” (Rosanvallon 1995: 9). 

“Postmodern reality assumes the existence of insuperable conflicts” 

(Bauman 1998: 32). Indeed, plurality, discontinuity, and dispersal are 

aspects of advanced capitalism’s cultural logic. What occur are the phenomena 

of “disaffiliation” and a breakdown of relations of otherness, 

diluting the bond between oneself and the other (Castel 1998; Bauman 

1998; Jameson 1996). Moreover, it is a society “where both inclusion and 

exclusion occur concurrently – a bulimic society where massive cultural 

inclusion is accompanied by systematic structural exclusion” (Young 

2007: 32). Changes are taking place in social institutions, such as the 

family, the school, the factory, religion, and the criminal justice system 

(the police, courts, mental asylums, judiciaries, prisons), transforming 

processes of socialization, as we go through a process of crisis and deinstitutionalization. 

A worldwide landscape of insecurity emerges: “vertigo is the malaise 

of late modernity: a sense of insecurity, of insubstantiality, and of uncertainty, 

a whiff of chaos and a fear of falling” (Young 2007: 12). Consequently, 

late modern societies produce transformations in crime and in 

forms of violence. The phenomena of diffuse violence acquire new contours 

and spread throughout society. The multiplicity of forms of diffuse 

violence in contemporary societies, such as violent crime, social exclusion, 

gender violence, acts of racism, and school violence, is expressed in 

a microphysics of violence (Tavares dos Santos 2009). 3 

Nevertheless, crime has changed in late modernity. According to 

Jock Young, the definition of crime has become problematic for several 

reasons: 1) today, aggressors are multiple, so the likelihood of becoming 

a victim has come to seem normal; 2) the causes of crime are also widespread; 

crime is part of the continuum of social normality, since its relationship 

with society is constitutive; 3) moreover, the space for action is 

both public and private, and it occurs in social spaces that are in dispute – 

residences, neighborhoods, plazas, private mass properties or streets; 4) 

the relationship between the aggressors and the victims is complex – they 

may be strangers or intimates, outsiders or members of the in-group; 5) 

social control over crime is spread over multiple government agencies 

and informal actions, including a strong presence of private security; 6) 

the efficacy and efficiency of formal social control are problematic; 7) 

finally, the public’s reaction is oriented by an irrational fear of crime and 

a moral panic (Young 1999: 46). In this social world, “the dangerous and 

3 This notion is analogous of Foucault’s concept of the microphysics of power (Foucault 

1994: 38-9).


oppressive trends in crime and crime control that have occurred in the last 

three decades are fundamentally rooted in the political economy of neoliberalism 

policies, and its cultural and social concomitants” (Reiner 2008: 

13). It can be explained by the fact that “neoliberalism is associated with 

much greater inequality, long-term unemployment, and social exclusion” 

(107). 

We are in a civilizational malaise, which has shifted the focus of contemporary 

society to an obsessive preoccupation with individualism and 

personal safety. Social inequality has become an important concept with 

which to explain the social roots of this diffuse violence. For this reason, 

we must answer the following question: what kinds of processes produce 

the global outcomes of inequality that we are observing and experiencing 

(Therborn 2006) 

Young people are particularly affected by the emphasis on individualism, 

the narcissistic cult of individual freedom, all of which stimulates a 

“winners” and “losers culture,” and which breaks the bonds of sociability. 

However, youth relate with violence in an ambivalent manner: sometimes 

as victims, and other times, as aggressors. In contemporary society, they 

have fought to cohabit as well as to overcome violence. In fact, “the lethal 

combination is relative deprivation and individualism” (Young 1999: 

48). 

NEOLIBERALISM AND 

THE ADMINISTRATIVE CRIMINOLOGY 

In a political context where the influence of the USA and the UK, neoliberal 

economics, and neoconservative politics is strong, the neoliberal 

model of coping with crime has created what we call “administrative 

criminology.” This model “wanted to hold out deterrent penalties that 

would be rigorously enforced and tough enough to act as real disincentives 

to potentials offenders. Better, more vigorous policing and harsher, 

more certain punishments were his preferred solution: more deterrence 

and control, not more welfare” (Garland 2001: 59). 

This orientation was compound by several elements. The right realist 

approach has two dimensions: “first, it tends to take an individualized 

view of crime, looking for explanations in individual choices rather than 

in broader social or structural conditions; second, right realist responses 

to the crime problem tend to be coached in terms of greater controls and 

enhanced punishments” (Newburn 2007: 271). 

The right realist position takes conventional legal definitions of crime 

for granted, ignores the importance of the socioeconomics context in

108 


explaining crime, even translating its principles into genetic and individualists 

theories, and proposes that crime is caused by a lack of selfcontrol. 

It overemphasizes control and containment, accepts the fear of 

crime as rational, and prioritizes order through deterrent and retributive 

means of crime control. Indeed, “in the view of the right realists the 

breakdown of moral values and social controls associated with permissiveness 

was central to understanding rising crime rates” (271). 

Additionally, administrative criminology appeals to some concepts of 

rational choice theory. Rational choice theory is premised “on the idea of 

‘expected utility,’ assuming that individuals proceed on the basis of 

maximizing profits and minimizing losses. A rational choice theory allows 

the difficult question of criminal motivation to be reformulated as a 

calculation – a balancing of cost and benefits” (NEWBURN 2007: 280-1). 

Another scholar, Clarke explains that “…the rational choice model 

regards criminal acts as calculated, utility maximizing conduct, resulting 

from a straightforward process of individual choice. This model represents 

the problem of crime as matter of supply and demand, with punishment 

operating as a price mechanism” (quoted in Garland 2001: 130). 

Moreover, administrative criminology emphasizes control theories (15): 

“Hirschi states that the common property of control theories at their simplest 

level is their assumption that delinquency acts result when an individual’s 

bond to society is weak or broken” (Downes and Rock 2007: 

202). In a later version, Hirschi and Gottfredson proposed that 

“crime…stems from low self-control: it provides an immediate, easy and 

simple gratification of desires that is attractive to those who cannot or 

will not defer enjoyment. It can be intrinsically pleasurable because it 

involves the exercise of stealth, agility, deception, or power” (Downes 

and Rock 2007: 202; Reiner 2008: 89). 

Finally, there is the situational control approach which emphasizes 

“the purely technical, cost benefit ratio aspects of crime: the opportunity 

for crime available in the environment and the risks attached to criminal 

activity” (Downes and Rock 2007: 209). Indeed, this “new administrative 

criminology with its actuarial stance…reflects the rise of risk management 

as a solution to the crime problem” (Young 1999: 27). So, “an actuarial 

approach is adopted which is concerned with the calculation of risk 

rather than either individual guilt or motivation” (45). In others words, 

“the actuarial stance is calculative of risk, it is wary and probabilistic, it is 

not concerned with causes but with probabilities, not with justice but with 

harm minimization, it does not seek a world free of crime but one where 

the best practices of damage limitation have been put in place; not a utopia 

but a series of gated havens in a hostile world” (66).


As Garland (2001) affirms, this administrative criminology is a “new 

criminology of everyday life” premised on a “set of cognate theoretical 

frameworks that includes routine activity theory, crime as opportunity, 

lifestyle analysis, situational crime prevention, and some versions of rational 

choice theory” (128). He continues: “… the new approach identifies 

recurring criminal opportunities and seeks to govern them by developing 

situational controls that will make them less tempting or less vulnerable. 

Criminogenic situations, ‘hot products’, ‘hot spots’ these are the 

new objects of control” (129). Afterwards, “… the new criminology of 

everyday life approaches social order as a problem of system integration. 

(…) For these frameworks, social order is a matter of aligning and integrating 

the diverse social routines and institutions that compose modern 

society” (183). 

The administrative criminology of neoliberalism period built up, during 

the Reagan’s rule in the US (1981-1988) and the Thatcher mandate 

(1979-1990) in the UK, a consensus about crime control with five core 

elements: crime is public enemy number 1; there is an individual but not 

a social responsibility for crime; victims are more important than offenders; 

crime control works; and a high crime society is normal” (cf. 

REINER 2008: 124-129). Since the 1980s, this “culture of control” has 

been exported around the world (GARLAND 2001). 

THE “BROKEN WINDOWS” POLICING MODEL 

IN LATIN AMERICA 

During the 1990s, the international transfer of information concerning 

policing models from the US to Latin America had many forms of influence. 

Most notably, consultancy security firms were created and projects 

financed by the US government were implemented. We shall discuss each 

of these in the following sections. 

Consultancy Security Firms 

The beginning was the Manhattan Institute created in 1978 as a thinktank 

organization. According to its website, “The Manhattan Institute has 

been an important force in shaping American political culture and developing 

ideas that foster economic choice and individual responsibility. We 

have supported and publicized research on our era's most challenging 

public policy issues: taxes, health care, energy, the legal system, policing, 

crime, homeland security, urban life, education, race, culture, and many

110 


others. Our work has won new respect for market oriented policies and 

helped make reform a reality” (Manhattan Institute). 

The first famous work published by the Manhattan Institute was the 

book by Charles Murray entitled Losing Ground in 1984. Tom Wolfe 

(2003) reports that 

the triumph of all triumphs was the now famous ‘Broken Windows’ 

strategy for reducing crime in big cities by first cracking down on the 

quality of life misdemeanors that create an atmosphere of lawlessness. 

Criminologist George Kelling and the famous political scientist James 

Q. Wilson introduced the concept in an article in the March 1982 Atlantic 

Monthly. (…)The quarterly's Summer 1992 issue ran an interview 

by Kelling with New York's young Transit Police Chief William J. 

Bratton about putting Broken Windows to the test in New York’s subways. 

That followed a forum called ‘Rethinking New York,’ starring 

Kelling. (…). Rudy Giuliani came early stayed late and took notes. He 

wanted to run for mayor in 1993. 

George Kelling and James Q. Wilson wrote that “[t]o the extent that 

this is the case, police administrators will continue to concentrate police 

personnel in the highest crime areas (though not necessarily in the areas 

most vulnerable to criminal invasion), emphasize their training in the law 

and criminal apprehension (and not their training in managing street life), 

and join too quickly in campaigns to decriminalize "harmless" behavior 

(though public drunkenness, street prostitution, and pornographic displays 

can destroy a community more quickly than any team of professional 

burglars). Above all, we must return to our long abandoned view 

that the police ought to protect communities as well as individuals. Our 

crime statistics and victimization surveys measure individual losses, but 

they do not measure communal losses. Just as physicians now recognize 

the importance of fostering health rather than simply treating illness, so 

the police and the rest of us ought recognize the importance of maintaining, 

intact, communities without broken windows” (1982: 10). 

To work in Latin America, they organized the “Inter American Policy 

Exchange” so as “to foster increased contact, collaboration, and cooperation 

among institutions and individuals in the Americas that will result in 

benefits for both hemispheres. (…) The Inter American Policy Exchange 

will build on the Manhattan Institute’s previous work in the countries of 

Argentina, Brazil, and Chile and includes an expansion of our work to 

Mexico and Venezuela.” A key project of this program was concerned 

with crime and policing: “On numerous occasions we have brought Institute 

Senior Fellow George Kelling and former New York City Police


Commissioner William Bratton to Latin America to discuss the reforms 

they helped institute in New York City that have resulted in a 65% reduction 

in serious crimes over the past eight years. (…) In addition to large 

conferences attended by hundreds—sometimes thousands—of people, 

these trips always include working meetings with police chiefs and top 

government officials in each country. These meetings have now led to 

formal consulting arrangements with governments in such places as Buenos 

Aires, Argentina, Caracas, Venezuela and Fortaleza, Brazil to help 

reform the way policing is done in Latin America” (Manhattan Institute). 

Nevertheless, the message was spread not only to the South, but also 

to Europe. Young reports trenchantly on a seminar at Westminster promoted 

by the Institute for Economic Affairs, in London, in July of 1997, 

addressed by Bratton which provoked mixed feelings: “The audience was, 

to say the least, disappointed: they had come to hear that the simple and 

the dramatic would work but had heard largely a story of common sense 

laced with self-congratulation” (1999: 124). 

Today, the main noticeable consultancy security firms are The Bratton 

Group L.L.C., an international police-management consulting firm 

created in 1996, and the Giuliani Partners L.L.C., founded in January 

2002. These organizations are global security consulting firms, that originated 

from the New York City Police Department when Major Giuliani 

chose William J. Bratton as New York City Police Commissioner (1994- 

1996). Bratton coordinated a successful managerial reform, which was 

inspired by J. Wilson’s “broken windows” approach, but was also based 

on the fight against police corruption and the support of a dozen youthfocused 

social projects. 

This model of policing began to be exported to several countries. In 

Britain, for example, they are used by the Home Office (Young 1999). In 

addition, many foreign delegations came to the NYPD to be informed 

about the model (SOARES 2000: 350-376; Maranhão Costa 2004: 145- 

198). The same year Bratton was removed from his position. Immediately, 

he founded The Bratton Group L.L.C., an international policemanagement 

consulting firm. “From 1996 on, Chief Bratton worked in 

the private sector, where he formed his own private consulting company, 

The Bratton Group, L.L.C., working on four continents, including extensive 

consulting in South America” (“Los Angelos”). 

Bratton explains that 

Latin America is the new frontier of reform for police work. Having 

taken part in reforming U.S. police departments, including the New 

York City Police Department, in the 1980s and 1990s, we see enormous 

potential for the transformation of policing institutions in South Amer-

112 


ica, Central America and Mexico that badly need the shakeup. The 

good news is that with major efforts from government, business and 

citizens, the turnaround is happening now. (…) Yet, as consultants in 

the region over the past five years, we have seen many positive signs. 

Political leaders notably Alfredo Pena, mayor of Caracas, and Tasso 

Jereissati, Governor of Ceara State in northern Brazil has made profound 

changes in their police departments. (…) Much of Latin America's 

policing problem is a problem of scale. The region's cities have 

grown and changed rapidly, but police departments have not grown and 

changed with them. (…). The military model followed by so many 

Latin American police agencies further compounds the problem. Accustomed 

to military style operations, Latin American police have developed 

little competence in two essential police functions: preventive 

patrol and investigation. (Bratton and Andrews 2001). 

Since October 2002, Bratton has been the Chief of the Los Angeles 

Police Department. 

The other global consultancy security firm is Giuliani Partners L.L.C., 

founded by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, in 

January 2002. The firm’s mission expresses commitment “to helping 

leaders solve critical strategic issues, accelerate growth, and enhance the 

reputation and brand of their organizations in the context of strongly held 

values.” One of the five principles of the firm is “Preparedness”: “The 

public and private sectors face a multitude of risks and challenges stemming 

from terrorism, crime, natural disasters, market performance, and 

countless other factors that threaten an organization’s ability to survive. 

Governments are already taking steps to protect civilians and businesses 

from the effects of a variety of threats. The private sector can do more to 

prepare to secure its personnel, assets, and future. Relentless preparation 

develops a culture of responsibility and awareness” (“Giuliani Partners”). 

The firm has advised business and government agencies on security, 

leadership, and other issues, in the US as well as in Trinidad and Mexico 

City, in 2003. The New York Times reported in 2003 that 

Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and possibly the 

world’s best paid crime fighting consultant, ended his first working tour 

of Mexico City today, after a 36-hour whirlwind of mean streets and 

chic suites. (…) Mr. Giuliani will seek ways to cut crime in Mexico 

City, and he promises ideas in four months, results in four years. His 

visit was the talk of the town, but not so much for his thoughts on civilizing 

the capital. It was the $4.3 million his firm is pocketing that attracted 

attention, along with the security cordon that surrounded him:


about 400 officers, a force far greater than that usually accorded foreign 

potentates, presidents or pop stars. (…). His promise to come up with 

crime-busting concepts is being taken with a grain of salt in Mexico 

City, by citizens and the police alike. (Weiner 2003) 

The main orientation of these consulting security firms is to propose 

“the policies and practices through which American interests and priorities 

are exported around the globe.” But, “the fact that several of the most 

prominent of these firms so aggressively promote the ‘New York Police 

Department model’ is also controversial. This model is the approach to 

crime and disorder taken in New York City under Mayor Giuliani based 

on a particular interpretation of ‘broken windows policing.’ This model 

justified especially aggressive law enforcement approach to a number of 

urban social problems. It is this law enforcement approach that has been 

exported by leading transnational security consulting firms” (Mitchell 

and Beckett 2008). In fact, these firms have advised many big cities in 

Latin America, including Mexico City, Mexico Caracas, Venezuela, Fortaleza 

and Ceara, Brazil and Santiago, Chile. 

In the Brazilian case, the Governor of the State of Ceara, Tasso Jereissati, 

made a contract with the “First Security Consulting,” coordinated 

by Mr. Bratton, in 1997. The project’s purpose was to foster the activities 

of police integration, with an urban design of “models districts of public 

security” where all the states’ agencies could work together (Barreira 

2004: 10). 

The “law and order” discourse, in particular, New York’s “zero tolerance” 

policy had been imported by conservative political sectors in many 

Latin American cities, but only in reference to reinforcement of police 

presence on the streets, the fight against petty crime, but without any 

attempt to recreate the entire network of associative services which was a 

part of the original program in New York. 

An evaluation of these international policing policies concluded that 

“[t]he overarching goal of American assistance to foreign police is clear – 

to safeguard the United States from criminal activity from abroad.” However, 

the theory of international cooperation seems very clear to Bayley 

(2006). According to him, “[i]t is based on the theory that crime is most 

effectively controlled by punishment. American programs give hardly 

any attention to alternative strategies…” (128-129). 

United States Government International Programs 

The relationship between the US’s main political agenda and the build up 

of policing in Latin America has been well documented since the late

114 


twentieth century (Huggins 1998). However, over the last three decades, 

it is relevant to note the application of US political interests in distinct 

levels of regional power, not necessarily due to the political demands of 

the foreign country receiving these programs (Bayley 2006). On the other 

hand, there is bilateral cooperation over the “Drug War,” specifically 

Plan Colombia (since 2002) and the Merida Plan (since 2008). 4 In addition, 

policing schools have been established abroad, a strategy that merits 

detailed discussion here. 

The International Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) was created in 

1995, by the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC), an 

interagency law enforcement training organization that has serviced over 

87 US federal agencies since 1970, and the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) since 2003 (“Federal Law”). Several academies have 

been established around the world including in Budapest, Hungary (1995), 

in Bangkok, Thailand (1999), in Gaborone, Botswana (2001), in San 

Salvador, El Salvador (2005), and a Regional Training Center in Lima, 

Peru (2005). 

The FLETC mission is to “train those who protect our homeland” by 

“provid[ing] fast, flexible, and focused training to secure and protect 

America. They share, for example, the United Kingdom Home Office 

orientations of “Problem Oriented Approach to Crime Reduction”: “The 

PSU [Police Support Unit] trains their police force and analysts to look at 

the cause of the problem for the purposes of reducing the opportunity for 

the problem to reoccur” (“London Metropolitan Police”). 

In addition, the FLETC uses SARA (Scanning, Analysis, Response, 

and Assessment), a problem solving model used in these type of strategies. 

The International Law Enforcement Academy is dedicated “to support 

emerging democracies, help protect U.S. interests through international 

cooperation and to promote social, political and economic stability 

by combating crime.” The ILEA’s objectives are “to support regional and 

local criminal justice institutional and law enforcement building; to facilitate 

strengthened partnerships among countries in regions served by the 

ILEAS aiming to address the problems with drugs and crime; to provide 

high quality training and technical assistance in formulating strategies 

and tactics for foreign law enforcement personnel; to improve coordination, 

foster cooperation, and, as appropriate, to facilitate the harmonization 

of law enforcement activities within regions, in a manner compatible 

with the U.S. interests; to foster cooperation by foreign law enforcement 

4 Plan Colombia’s full title is the Plan for Peace, Prosperity, and the Strengthening of the 

State and is described at 

http://www.usip.org/library/pa/colombia/adddoc/plan_colombia_101999.html. The Merida 

Initiative is described at http://search.state.gov.


authorities with U.S. law enforcement entities engaged in coping with the 

organized crime and the other criminal investigations; to assist foreign 

law enforcement entities in the professionalization of their forces in a cost 

effective manner; and to build linkages between U.S. law enforcement 

entities and future criminal justice leadership in participating countries, as 

well as among regional participants with one another.” For example, the 

San Salvador Academy “has as its objectives, supporting criminal justice 

institution building and strengthening partnerships among the regions' 

law enforcement community. The training focus is on transnational 

crimes, human rights and the rule of law with emphasis on trafficking in 

narcotics, trafficking in persons, terrorism, money laundering and other 

financial crimes” (“Federal Law”). 

STRUCTURAL VIOLENCE IN LATIN AMERICA: 

HOW TO OVERCOME ADMINISTRATIVE CRIMINOLOGY 

Latin American societies show an increasing structural form of violence 

that demands a new framework for the sociology of violence and policing. 

The globalization process, particularly neoliberal policies has led to the 

creation of social structures determined by exclusion, and has provoked 

new social conflicts and sometimes posed constraints on the consolidation 

of democracy in this part of the periphery of the capitalist world system 

(Tavares dos Santos 2002: 123). 

Violence as a new global social issue is provoking changes in the 

state. We are seeing contemporary forms of social control having the 

characteristics of a repressive social control. The “penal social control 

state” is growing more attractive in late modern societies, and it is accompanied 

by a systematic appeal to the use of illegal and illegitimate 

violence (Melossi 1992; Pavarini and Pegoraro 1995; Wacquant 1998: 7- 

26). 

A general crisis of institutional social control has supplemented the 

democratic transition processes in Latin America. This crisis has included 

police brutality, difficulty in accessing the justice system, the social selectivity 

of criminal justice, and prison conditions; in sum, it has entailed 

a loss of legitimacy of formal social control (Pinheiro et al 2000). These 

elements of the culture of control in Latin America have many dimensions 

and characteristics. First, there is the social production of the paradox 

of insecurity such that “[a]n increasing obsession with security practices 

and paraphernalia, even if successful in reducing crime, can exacerbate 

the sense of insecurity by acting as reminders of danger” (Reiner 

2008: 115). Second, there is extreme brutality and corruption in police

116 


departments in peripheral countries of the capitalist world system (Chevigny 

1995). Third, there has been an expansion of private security firms, 

especially ones that do vigilante work in places of “mass private property.” 

Fourth, there is currently mass imprisonment, mainly of young men 

who belong to the “underclass” or to stigmatized ethnic minorities (Wacquant 

2000). Police officers’ education and their tendency to discriminate 

on the basis of gender and ethnicity continues to be a huge problem today. 

Last, but certainly not least, many have observed police officers’ lack of 

respect for human rights in their everyday practices. 

Finally, there is the selectivity of the judicial system, the barbarity of 

the prisons as atrocious warehouses for men (increasingly becoming an 

issue as well as for female offenders), the new forms of electronic vigilance 

that threaten democracy and individual and collective freedom (Tavares 

dos Santos 2000; Wacquant 2000). In Argentina and Brazil, there is 

a discrepancy in the justice system, from the criminal legislation to the 

prison system, problems in the functioning of institutions responsible for 

preventing and coping with crime, and the increase in crime control, in 

other words, in “the loss of legitimacy of the system, its high degree of 

selectivity and authoritarianism” (Azevedo 2008). 

THE PARADOX OF ABSTRACT CRIMINOLOGICAL 

MODELS AND EMPIRIC CHAOS: THE POLICING CRISIS IN 

LATE MODERNITY 

The crisis of policing is configured analytically by a series of theoretical 

and political insufficiencies, and constitutes one of the new global social 

issues that has manifested itself in several geographic zones. In the U.S., 

the crisis of legitimacy began in the 1970s. According to Weisburd and 

Braga (2006), “[t]his was the case in part because of the tremendous social 

unrest that characterized the end of the previous decade. Race riots in 

American cities, and growing opposition, especially among younger 

Americans, to the Vietnam War, often placed the police in conflict with 

the young and with minorities” (4). 

In the United Kingdom, by the 1980s, “the police were subject to a 

storm of political conflict and controversy. During the 1984 -1985 miners’ 

strike they were in equal measure reviled by the Left and revered by 

the Right. (…). In the early 1990s, there was a growing consensus between 

political and police elites about the need to reform policing in a 

community-oriented direction, aiming to ensure efficiency and quality of 

service” (Reiner 2000: IX).


In Latin America, the political difficulties of policing results from the 

processes of democratic transition, during the last twenty years: the efforts 

to institutionally reconstruct law enforcement in the postdictatorship 

era (Frubling and Candina 2001). 

The configuration of the police issue as one of the new global social 

questions can be witnessed in the record of several international meetings, 

ranging from the Human Rights Conference (in Vienna, in 1993, promoted 

by the UN) to the IX World Social Forum (in Belem do Para, Brazil, 

in January 2009). 

The debates have centered on the following themes: transformations 

in contemporary society that began in 1990 with the changes in the forms 

of crime, including the expansion of diffuse violence and the spread of 

violence against women, children, old people and ethnic minority and 

sexual groups; the violation of human rights and the victimization of the 

poor, the young, and ethnic minorities; the strengthening of civil society 

and the involvement of local collectivity with human rights and the right 

to security; and the consequences of these changes on police organizations. 

The aspects of police organizations that have been affected by these 

transformations include police management, the experiences of community 

police and charges of police brutality, the education of police officers, 

and the new consortia with universities (Tavares dos Santos 2009). 

In sum, these conferences have reached conclusions that are critical 

of authoritarian and violent police conduct and endorsing the political 

intention to move towards other kinds of policing. 

The age of late modernity has shown an increasing crisis of policing 

(Reiner 2000: 216; Wright 2002; Bayley 1994). An important piece of 

evidence for this crisis is the fact that “[o]n the one hand, extensive malpractice 

has begun to undermine the status and effectiveness of the professional 

public police. On the other hand, a more community-based police 

seem as yet unable to meet the needs of a diversity of cultures or to 

be able to control extremes of deviance”(Wright 2002: 16; see also 

Bayley 1994: 11). 

In this context, it is quite important to summarize the debate about 

the four police models that are in dispute in the contemporary field of 

social control and policing. 

Community policing involves strategies of decentralized action that 

enable police to work locally with problems and solutions, focusing on 

social integration and mediation of interpersonal conflicts on a local level 

(Kádár 2001, point 8; Comité Europeén 2000: 150, 144; Reiner 2000: 10; 

Young 1999; Weisburd and Braga 2006: 27-73). According to Bailey, 

community policing aims to prevent crime. Policing is done by a 

“neighborhood police officer,” who would be “community based in a

118 


double sense.” First, “they would be based in communities, rather than 

entering them episodically in response to calls for service.” Moreover, 

“the problems they handle would be those based on community conditions” 

(Bayley 1994: 147; see also Dias Neto 2000). 

Management theory is premised on the ideas of “total quality” borrowed 

from the business principles of management for the “new public 

management” (Wright 2002: 160 - 166). Here, the orientation of the police 

work is different, because “the adoption of the language of consumerism 

in late modern policing is already clear, through the discourse of 

‘services’… Police carry out surveys mainly to establish customer satisfaction” 

(Wright 2002: 174). Frequently, this approach was completed 

with “third-party policing” (Weisburd and Braga 2006: 191-221). 

Tough police confirms a “law and order” point of view about policing 

in the late modernity societies: “The nubs of my conclusion are that all 

the reform initiatives of recent years have been vitiated by a failure to 

reject the ‘law and order’ framework, and to recognize the inherent limitations 

of the policing. They have been fatally damaged by government 

policies which aggravated unemployment and exclusion, especially 

among the young and ethnic minorities, creating problems of policing in 

a new and growing underclass” (Reiner,2000: 10). It means the demand 

for a tough police, directed by the notion “zero tolerance” in North America, 

Latin America and Europe (Reiner 2000: 1112; Comité Europeén 

2000: 144; Kádár 2001: 9-10; Bayley 1994: 143; Young 1999: 123-124; 

Weisburd and Braga 2006: 77-114). Indeed, in New York City, the crime 

mapping and the statistical analyses used by the police – the COMP- 

STAT – became a global innovation in police management (Weisburd 

and Braga 2006: Part VII, p. 267-301). 

The Citizenship Police: Late modern policing is concerned with 

peacekeeping, conflict management, criminal investigation, risk management, 

and the promotion of community justice (Wright 2002: XIII, 

177). Police organizations sometimes use new approaches to better their 

relationship, communication, and reciprocity with civil society (Wright 

2002: 175). This model necessarily respects the lawful democratic state, 

approving “professional rules” for the police who keep the balance between 

“freedom and security” (Kádár 2001: point 3, 7; Comité Europeén 

2000: 13, 144, 150; see also Bauman 2006). 

We could then think about the construction of a world citizenship, 

oriented to the prevention and eradication of forms of diffuse violence 

and the construction of another ideal type of police, the Citizenship Police. 

The feature of the reform being discussed includes accountability to 

the community, proximity, social conflict mediation, and shapes the field


of a democratic social control (Rolim 2006). This is a social field in 

which different agents of social control participate (police officers, judges, 

lawyers, prison managers, social scientists, and journalists). They share 

their theoretical, technical, and political stands in order to develop the 

practices, the forms of police organizations, and the right to security in 

the new century (Tavares dos Santos 2004: 89-106). 

THE SOCIOLOGY OF VIOLENCE AND THE ALTERNATIVES 

OF POLICING 

“The crisis in criminology is a crisis of modernity” (Young 1999: 32), 

derived from five majors challenges: “the rise in the crime rate; the revelation 

of hitherto invisible victims; the problems of what is crime nowadays; 

the growing awareness of the universality of crime and the selectivity 

of justice; and the problematization of punishment and culpability” 

(34). 

Arguably, there has been a change in contemporary sociological 

thought which aims to provide explanations for and solve social problems 

of our times. Such a trend is particularly notable in the sociology of 

violence in France (Wievorka 2004), the US (Collins 2008), and strongly 

in Latin America (Adorno 1999; Zaluar 2004; Misse 2006; Grossiporto 

2006; Barreira 2008; Tavares dos Santos 2009). These sociological traditions 

combine empirical research, theoretical explanations, and social 

commitment. 

This heritage is an intellectual work about modes of domination, social 

control, social conflicts, and about the invention of new social institutions. 

Consequently, we would like to contribute to the sociology of violence, 

while also fostering a critical approach that could help to go beyond 

the fears of late modernity. 

The emergence of collective action and institutional initiatives is the 

expression of a movement against violence. That movement has been, on 

the one hand, a multiplication of plans to prevent violence and reduce 

violent crime, viewed as new alternatives for public security policies 

capable of guaranteeing the citizens’ right to security. On the other hand, 

it is the expression of a collaborative effort between public universities 

and the state which has been advantageous, indicating a movement towards 

the transformation of the curricula, the content, and the conceptualization 

of the police officer’s role. 

Thus, in Latin America, certain processes are evident: a) the crisis of 

effectiveness and legitimacy faced by the police but which has not elicited 

any reform initiatives (Mexico, Venezuela, Bolivia, Peru and Ecua-

120 


dor); b) the creation of new police institutions in countries that have suffered 

civil wars (such as in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua); partial 

reforms in Argentina (Província of Buenos Aires), Uruguay, and Colombia; 

communitarian police initiatives (in Chile and Brazil); programs 

of police education organized by public universities (as in Brazil, Argentina, 

and Província of Buenos Aires ) (Tavares dos Santos 2009; Dammert 

and Bailey 2005; Bobbea 2003; Brinceno Leon 2002; Tagle 2002; 

Coronado, Rivelois and Moloeznik 2004; Arcon 2003; Chevigny 1995; 

Cels 2004; Pegoraro 1999; Frubling and Candina 2001, 2004; Gabaldon 

and Birbeck 2006; Carranza 1997; Huggins 1998; Soares 2000; Maranhão 

Costa 2004; Pinheiro, Mendez and O’Donnell 2000; Quintana Taborda 

2005). 

In other words, in the worldization framework, the emergence of the 

concept of citizen security assumes the social construction of a democratic, 

nonviolent, and transcultural police organization, which returns to 

the objective of policing as part of a democratic governmentality. There 

is a visibility to and a conceptualization of the importance of social struggles 

against the worldization of injustice, as a form of resistance. These 

small scale and plural struggles also have a positive dimension as well, 

for they are negations of the forms of exercise of domination. We find 

new agents of resistance; the social movements confront the centrality of 

state power over social space-time, but in doing so, these movements 

affirm the cartography of small experiences in search of a rearrangement 

of the social world. As IX World Social Forum stated in Belem do Para, 

Brazil, February 2009: “another world is possible” for a “good living.” 

So, Latin American societies should implement a policing that is 

concerned with the practices of emancipation, and that communicates, in 

everyday life, with the practices of social groups, of all genders, ethnic 

origins, and ages. The noteworthy theme is to include the collective security 

of citizens in a complex of civil, political, and social rights. 

The emergence of a notion of citizenship police, within the perspective 

of worldization, entails the social construction of a policing oriented 

to human dignity and equity, on a worldwide scale. Citizenship policing 

could be a mode of participation in the collective fabric of the sociological 

imagination about violence and policing in the future. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Adorno, S. “Violência e Civilização.” In A Sociologia para o Século 

XXI edited by J. V. Tavares dos Santos and A. Gugliano, pp. 77-106. 

Pelotas, Brazil: EDUCAT, 1999.


Barreira, C. Cotidiano Despedaçado: Cenas de uma Violência Difusa. 

São Paulo, Brazil: Pontes, 2008. 

Barreira, C., et al. Questão de Segurança. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 

Relume Dumará, 2004. 

Bauman, Z. O Mal Estar da Pós-Modernidade. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 

Jorge Zahar, 1998. 

-----. Liquid Fear. Cambridge: Polity, 2006. 

Bayley, D. Police for the Future. New York: Oxford University Press, 

1994. 

-----. Changing the Guard: Developing Democratic Police Abroad. New 

York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 

Bobbea, L. Entre Crimen y el Castigo: Seguridad Ciudadana y Control 

Democrático en America Latina y el Caribe. Caracas, Venezuela: 

Nueva Sociedad, 2003. 

Bourdieu, P. Raisons Pratiques: Sur la Théorie de L'action. Paris, 

France: Seuil, 1994. 

Bratton, W. and W. Andrews. “Driving Out the Crime Wave: The Police 

Methods that Worked in New York City Can Work in Latin America.” 

July 23, 2001. http://www.manhattaninstitute.org (accessed August 

1, 2009). 

Briceno L. R., ed. Violencia, Sociedad, y Justicia en America Latina. 

Buenos Aires, Argentina: CLACSO, 2002. 

Carranza, E. Delito y Seguridad de los Habitantes. México: Siglo XXI, 

1997. 

Carrion, F., ed. Seguridad Ciudadana: Espejismo o Realidad Quito, 

Ecuador: FLACSO, 2002. 

Castel, R. As Metamorfoses da Questão Social. Petrópolis, Brazil: 

Vozes, 1998. 

Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS). Políticas de Seguridad 

Ciudadana y Justicia Penal. Buenos Aires, Argentina: CELS, 2004. 

Chevigny, P. Edge of the Knife: Police Violence in the Americas. New 

York: New Press, 1995. 

Collins, R. Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory. Princeton: Princeton 


Comité Europeén pour les Problèmes Criminels. Les Pouvoirs et 

Responsabilités de la Police dans une Société Démocratique. 

Strasbourg: Conseil d´Europe, 2000. 

Coronado, J., J. Rivelois, and M.P. Moloeznik. Criminalización de los 

Poderes, Corrupción y Tráfico de Drogas. Guadalajara, Mexico: 

Universidad de Guadalajara, 2004.

122 


Dammert, L. and J. Bailey. “Police Force Reform and Military Participation 

against Delinquency.” Revista Fuerzas Armadas y Sociedad 

1(Jan./June 2005): 133-152. 

Dias Neto, T. Policiamento Comunitário e Controle sobre a Polícia: a 

Experiência Norte-Americana. São Paulo: IBCCRIM, 2000. 

Downes, D. M. and P. Rock. Understanding Deviance: a Guide to the 

Sociology of Crime and Rule Breaking. 5 th ed. New York: Oxford 


Elias, N. O Processo Civilizador: Uma História dos Costumes, Vol. I. 

Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 1990. 

Elias, N. O Processo Civilizador: Formação do Estado e Civilização, 

Vol. II. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 1993. 

“Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.” http://www.fletc.gov (accessed 

August 1, 2009). 

Foucault, M. Dits et Ecrits. Paris, France: Gallimard, 1994. 

Frubling, H and A. Candina. Policía, Sociedad y Estado: Modernización 

y Reforma Policial en America del Sul. Santiago de Chile: Centro de 

Estudios para el Desarrollo (CED), 2001. 

-----. Polícia, Participación Ciudadana y Reformas a la Policía en 

América del Sur. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Centro de Estudios para el 

Desarrollo (CED), 2004. 

Gabaldon, L. G. and C. H. Birbeck. Policía y Fuerza Física. Caracas, 

Venezuela: Nueva Sociedad, 2003. 

Garland, D. Punishment and Modern Society. Oxford: Clarendon, 1990. 

-----. The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 

Giddens, A. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity, 1989. 

Giddens, A. Para Além da Esquerda e da Direita. São Paulo: UNESP, 

1996. 

“Giuliani Partners.” http://www.giulianipartners.com (accessed August 1, 

2009). 

Grossi Porto, M.S. “Elementos para uma Reflexão sobre Violência no 

Brasil dos Anos 90.” Educação e Sociedade 15, no. 48 (2006): 326- 

337. 

Helksinki Commission. Polices in Democratic Transition. Budapest: 

CDROM, 1998. 

Hobsbawm, E. The Age of Extremes: a History of the World 1914-1991. 

New York: Pantheon Books, 1994. 

Huggins, M. K. Polícia e Política: Relações Estados Unidos /América 

Latina. São Paulo: Cortez, 1998. 

Huggins, M. K., et al. Violence Workers: Police Torturers and 

Murderers Reconstruct Brazilian Atrocities. Berkeley, CA: 

University of California Press, 2002.


Jameson, F. Pós-Modernismo: a Lógica Cultural do Capitalismo Tardio. 

São Paulo, Brazil: Ática, 1996. 

Kádár, A. Police in Transition: Essays on the Police Forces in Transition 

Countries. Budapest, Hungary: Central European University 

Press, 2001. 

Kaminsky, G. Tiempos Inclementes: Culturas Policiales y Seguridad 

Ciudadana. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Universidad de Lanús, 2005. 

Kelling, G. L. and C. Coles. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order 

and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Free Press, 

1996. 

“London Metropolitan Police.” http://www.met.police.uk (accessed August 

1, 2009). 

“Los Angelos Police Department.” http://www.lapdonline.org (accessed 

August 1, 2009). 

Maguire, M., R. Morgan and R. Reiner. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994 

Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. “Manhattan Institute for Policy 

Research.” http://www.manhattaninstitute.org (accessed August 1, 

2009). 

Maranhão Costa, A. T. Entre a Lei e a Ordem. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: 

FGV, 2004. 

Martin, G. and M. Ceballos. Bogotá: Anatomía de una Transformación: 

Políticas de Seguridad Ciudadana 1995 - 2003. Bogotá, Colombia: 

Editorial Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, 2004. 

Melossi, D. El Estado del Control Social. Madrid, Spain: Siglo 

Veintiuno de España, 1992. 

Misse, M. Crime e Violência no Brasil Contemporâneo. Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil: Lumen Juris, 2006. 

Mitchell, K. and K. Beckett. “Securing the Global City: Crime, Consulting, 

Risk, and Ratings in the Production of Urban Space.” Indiana 

Journal of Global Legal Studies (2008). 

Muncie, J, E. McLaughlin and M. Langan, eds. Criminogical Perspectives. 

London: SAGE, 2001. 

Murray, C. “The Underclass.” In Criminological Perspectives, edited by J. 

Muncie, E. Mclaughlin and M. Langan, pp. 120-135. London: Sage, 

2001. 

Newburn, T. Criminology. Willan: Devon, 2007. 

Pagon, M., ed. Policing in Central and Eastern Europe. Ljubljana: College 

of Police and Security Studies, 1996. 

Pavarini, M. and J. Pegoraro. El Control Social en el Fin del Siglo. 

Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires, 1995.

124 


Pegoraro, J. “Inseguridad y Violencia en el Marco del Control Social.” 

In Violências no Tempo da Globalização, edited by J. V. Tavaresdos-Santos, 

pp. 201-228. São Paulo: Hucitec, 1999. 

Pinheiro, P. S., J. E. Mendez and G. O’Donnell. Democracia, Violência e 

Injustiça. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2000. 

Quintana Taborga, J. R. Policía y Democracia en Bolivia. La Paz: PIEB, 

2005. 

Reiner, R. The Politics of the Police. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 

2000. 

-----. Law and Order. Cambridge: Polity, 2008. 

Rico, J. M. and L. Chinchilla. Seguridad Ciudadana en America Latina. 

México: Siglo XXI, 2002. 

Rolim, M. A Síndrome da Rainha Vermelha: Policiamento e Segurança 

Pública no Século XXI. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 2006. 

Rosanvallon, P. La Nouvelle Question Sociale. Paris: Seuil, 1995. 

Sain, M. F. Seguridad, Democracia y Reforma del Sistema Policial en 

Argentina. Buenos Aires: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2002. 

Soares, L. E. Meu Casaco de General. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 

2000. 

Sousa Santos, B. A Crítica da Razão Indolente: Contra o Desperdício da 

Experiência. São Paulo: Cortez, 2000. 

Tagle, F. T. El Sistema de Justicia Penal en la Ciudad de México. 

México: FCE, 2002. 

Tavares-dos-Santos, J. V., ed. Violências em Tempo de Globalização. 

São Paulo: Hucitec, 1999. 

Tavares-dos-Santos, J. V. “The World Police Crisis and the Construction 

of Democratic Policing.” International Review of Sociology 14 

(2004): 89-106. 

Tavares-dos-Santos, J. V. “The Worldization of Violence and Injustice.” 

Current Sociology 50, no. 1 (2002):123-134. 

Tavares-dos-Santos, J. V. Violências e Conflitualidades. Porto Alegre: 

TOMO, 2009. 

Taylor, I. Crime in Context. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999. 

Taylor, I, P. Wallon and J. Young. Criminología Crítica. México: Siglo 

XXI, 1977. 

Therborn, G, ed. Inequalities of the World: New Theoretical Frameworks, 

Multiple Empirical Approaches. London: Verso, 2006. 

Van Swaaningen, R. Critical Criminology: Visions from Europe. 

London: SAGE, 1997. 

Wacquant, L. Punir os Pobres: a Nova Gestão da Miséria nos Estados 

Unidos. Rio de Janeiro: REVAN, 2007.


Wacquant, L. “L’Ascension de l’Etat Pénal en Amérique.” Actes de la 

Recherche en Sciences Sociales (1998): 7–26. 

Wacquant, L. Las Cárceles de la Miseria. Buenos Aires: Manantial, 

2000. 

Weiner, T. “Enter Consultant Giuliani, His Fee Preceding Him.” The New 

York Times, January 16, 2003. http://www.nytimes.com (accessed 

August 1, 2009). 

Wiesburd, D. and A. A. Braga. Policing Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. 

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 

Wiewiorka, M. La Violence. Paris: Balland, 2004. 

Wilson, J. Q. and G. L. Kelling. “The Police and Neighborhood Safety: 

Broken Windows.” The Atlantic Monthly 249, no. 3 (March 1982). 

Wolfe, T. “Revolutionaries: on how the Manhattan Institute Changed 

New York City and America.” New York Post, January 30, 2003. 

Wright, A. Policing: An Introduction to Concepts and Practice. Cullompton, 

Devon: Willan Publishing, 2002. 

Young, J. The Exclusive Society. London: Sage, 1999. 

Young, J. The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: Sage, 2007. 

Zaluar, A. Integração Perversa: Pobreza e Tráfico de Drogas. Rio de 

Janeiro: FGV, 2004.

126 

Jorge Carrillo 

Challenges for and Practices 

in the Sociology of Work in Mexico: 

Between Global Paradigms and 

Local Development Paradigms 

Jorge Carrillo, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), Mexico 1 

The field of sociology of work in Mexico (henceforth, SWM) is relatively 

new, having started in the early 1980s. It has made important advances in 

its almost thirty years and has solidified into a highly productive and professionally 

well-organized sub-discipline both in Mexico and in the rest 

of Latin America, and not only in sociology. Currently, an association, 

an academic journal, and at least one solid postgraduate program are 

dedicated to the sociology of work in Mexico. Mexico’s connections in 

Latin America have led it to be selected to host the Latin American Congress 

on the sociology of work for the second time. However, in spite of 

these capable institutional entities and the networks that have been built, 

SWM faces strong limitations and serious challenges, as we will see 

throughout the course of this document. 

This paper analyzes the practices, challenges, and limitations of the 

sociology of work in Mexico. In particular, and as an example, this 

document will look at the study of industrial models, which, in addition 

to being the SW topic most studied during the 1980s and 90s in this country, 

is without a doubt the topic subjected to most analysis and that has 

aroused the most debate. The paper is divided into five sections: introduction, 

institutionalization of the profession, context and practices, productive 

models and local development of ideas, and conclusion. 

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE SOCIOLOGY OF WORK 

AS A PROFESSION 

The sociology of work in Latin America, and specifically in Mexico, was 

1 Jorge Carrillo would like to thank Joselito Fernandez for his assistance in writing 

this document. Dr. Carrillo can be reached at carrillo@colef.mx. His website 

is www.colef.mx/jorgecarrillo/multinacionales/.

Challenges for and Practices in the Sociology of Work in Mexico 127 

institutionally established in the late 1980s and since then has evolved 

both institutionally and thematically, consolidating its own identity 

(Abramo et al. 1998). A large body of research exists in the area, particularly 

in Mexico, due to the importance of labor and its influence on the 

primary social structures (Muro 2007: 541). 

Studies on social problems abound, and studies are being developed 

on labor and the organizational processes of companies and institutions 

specific to the Mexican experience and that of each regional context studied. 

These studies are based on sociological, anthropological, demographic, 

and economic approaches, broadening the range of knowledge 

on labor. However, despite the wealth of said interdisciplinarity, social 

research in Mexico does not yet approach sufficient theoretical depth and 

internationalization; instead, it predominantly produces studies of practical, 

descriptive, and local character. Nevertheless, this research has 

evolved toward greater diversity of approaches and methodologies. 

Contributions to this field have taken shape in the Latin American 

Congresses held since 1993 and in forums, researcher networks, associations, 

and publications such as the “Latin American Sociology Treaty” 

(“Tratado Latinoamericano de Sociología”) and “The Sitation of Work 

in Mexico” (“La Sitación del Trabajo en México”) (De la Garza 2001; de 

la Garza and Salas 2003). Local and national empirical studies have 

made particularly important contributions. According to one of the most 

prestigious labor sociologists at the international level, Juan José Castillo 

(1997), research in Latin America is “first rate,” with important empirical 

contributions carried out in the past three decades. This has made the 

academic debate generated in Latin America enter into the international 

level with strength and personality. 

Institutionalization 

To summarize, I will highlight four organizations that speak to the 

strength of the sociology of work in Mexico and demonstrate the institutionalization 

of the profession. 

First, the Latin American Association of the Sociology of Work 

(Asociación Latinoamericana de la Sociología del Trabajo, ALAST) was 

launched in 1991. At that time, a group of sociologists of work who had 

informally gathered at the end of a seminar in Mexico City decided to 

form a professional association at the Latin American level. Their first 

Congress was held in November 1993. Since then, the ALAST Congress 

is held every three years in different countries (so far including Mexico, 

Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, and Uruguay). In 2009, Mexico served as host 

for the second time, with the sixth ALAST Congress taking place on May

128 


19-22. 2 The ALAST Congresses bring together between 400 and 500 

participants from the American continents. Since 1995, ALAST has also 

published a Latin American Journal on Labor Studies called the Latin 

American Journal of Labor Studies (Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios 

del Trabajo, RLET), with 19 issues published to date. This journal 

has an itinerant character corresponding to the sites of the Congresses. In 

2003, the assembly decided that the journal could be hosted by a country 

distinct from that of the Congress site, due to the financial difficulties that 

may be faced by the Congress host country. Since 2006, Mexico has 

served as ALAST headquarters while the journal is edited in Venezuela 

in response to the lack of financial and human capacity in Mexico to produce 

two journals on the same theme. 

Second, the Mexican Association of Labor Studies (Asociación 

Mexicana de Estudios del Trabajo, AMET) was founded in 1996 as part 

of the ALAST strategy to foster national associations. The first Mexican 

Congress on the sociology of work was held that year in Guadalajara. 

The goal of AMET is to promote labor studies in Mexico and to foster 

collaboration among its members, with particular emphasis on promoting 

the diversity of theories, approaches, and problems within the field of 

labor studies, not only from sociology but also from related labor disciplines 

and sub-disciplines such as anthropology, economics, law, history, 

and administration, among others. AMET organizes its national congress 

every two years in alternating cities (Guadalajara, Mexico City, Puebla, 

Hermosillo, Oaxtepec, and Querétaro), chaired by an executive committee 

that also rotates. The assembly of all AMET members holds session 

at each Congress and is the decision-making body. Between approximately 

250 and 300 professionals participate in each Congress. The volume 

of participants varies depending on the economic situation in the 

country and the capacity of the organizing group. AMET has just under 

100 professors-researchers and postgraduate students as regular members. 

The inscription fee is paid at the Congresses themselves and is around 

US$50 including membership and Congress participation. 

Third, the academic journal titled Work Journal (Revista Trabajo) is 

published on a semesterly basis and has served as one of the primary outlets 

of SWM. Due to financial limitations it has depended highly on support 

from the Metropolitan Autonomous University, Iztapalapa campus 

(UAM-I). Fortunately, the journal is currently co-edited by UAM and a 

commercial editorial press (Ed. Plaza y Valdez). It is now financially 

supported 50% by the ILO-Mexican branch and 50% by UAM. This 

2 Due to the swine flu in Mexico, the Congress was postponed until April 20-23, 

2010. See http://www.izt.uam.mx/alast for more information.


journal, while it has had several directors, has been organized primarily 

by Enrique de la Garza, who is the journal’s current director and is the 

most prestigious labor sociologist in Mexico and one of the most outstanding 

in Latin America. Since its origins, the journal developed a 

unique organization, involving an editorial committee that makes decisions 

collectively. The journal did not originally use blind review procedures, 

but now it does. The journal is not sold commercially but is distributed 

free nationally and internationally through the ILO and the personal 

networks of its committee. The articles are currently the products 

of ad hoc seminars held with ILO funding. 

Fourth, the Labor Studies Program is a Master’s and Doctoral program 

based at UAM-Iztapalapa in Mexico City. It was initiated in 1989 

and to date had graduated 60 students. The program has 30% professors 

from UAM, and the rest comes from different Mexican and foreign institutions. 

Eighty percent of the students that have already finished the program 

have jobs as professors or researchers in other universities. It is a 

solid program that is unique in terms of its specialization in Mexico. The 

program is certified by the National Council on Science and Technology 

(Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, CONACYT) and is considered 

a program of international rank (the maximum category). The importance 

of being certified as a program by CONACYT is that all Mexican 

students receive grants to cover living expenses. It is important to 

note that all public universities and research centers in Mexico are practically 

free. The student fee (for both undergraduate and graduate students) 

at UNAM, for example, is less than US$100 annually. These scholarships, 

therefore, enable all the programs to have 100% full-time students. 

Research Agenda 

Thematically speaking, according to De la Garza (1992), research on labor 

in Mexico has gone through three periods: 1) Until the decade of the 

1930s, research in this area was characterized by writings by politicians 

and union leaders on the doctrine and practice of the student movement. 

2) Between 1940 and 1968, research was carried out on labor law and 

relations between the labor movement and the state. 3) From 1970 to the 

present, studies have had a more academic character with more varied 

themes. Four currents and research styles appear in this phase: historiography, 

structuralism, labor processes, and productive models. 

Regarding this third phase, the historical period corresponds to the 

1970s, and the central object of study was the relation between the state 

and the labor movement (union autonomy, corporativism, democracy in 

the unions, and worker participation in elections), with a primarily Marx-

130 


ist approach and led by militant researchers and students (De la Garza 

1992). Priority was granted to studies on collective worker actions in the 

present and some on pre- and post-revolutionary Mexico (Goldemberg 

1980). 

The structuralism that also emerged in the 1970s began with population 

and labor force studies, from the perspective of the segmentation of 

the labor market, occasionally following a Marxist economic approach. 

The range of themes then expanded to migrations, labor force mobility, 

socio-demographic profiles, and wages. Research on gender and informality 

also began. Another branch of structuralism aims to link variables 

such as union affiliation, wage, collective bargaining agreements, conflicts, 

and labor strikes. The instruments of this research have been surveys 

and governmental statistics, using the household as a unit of analysis 

(De la Garza 1992). 

The trend toward research on the labor process began in the late 

1970s. In contrast to the historiographic current, which analyzes leaders 

and the relation between labor movements and the state, it considers 

workers in their working lives, labor conditions, and their transformation. 

It is linked to pioneering anthropological works about the automotive industry 

in Ciudad Sahagún and the shoe industry in León, Guanajuato. Its 

studies are based on “Italian laborism” and influenced by Touraine’s 

early analysis of the centrality of labor. Its recurring themes have been: 

labor processes, technologies, and organizations, under the influence of 

Taylorism-Fordism and flexible production. From that perspective, new 

methods such as direct observation and participant observation gain new 

value. This research current declined in the second half of the 1980s as 

consequence of neoliberalism, the union crisis, and beginning of the 

process of restructuring production (De la Garza 1992). 

Studies on the process of reorganizing production and productive 

models date from the latter half of the 1980s to the present. They 

emerged as part of a second phase of research on labor processes and the 

make up the new labor studies in Mexico (De la Garza 1992; 2000). 

They are “free of ideological and militant content and theoretically and 

methodologically better endowed.” Their themes are: the labor process, 

the labor market, the spatial reproduction of labor, and industrial relations. 

Labor studies about increasing competitiveness also begin to emerge, including 

research on the diffusion of just-in-time and total quality control 

practices in the maquiladora industry (Carrillo 1995). 

Practically all the new labor studies entail extensive empirical research 

and fieldwork. On the one hand, they focus on verifying the existence 

in establishments and in different industrial sectors of the phenomena 

that occur in developed countries. But, on the other, they are about


understanding and explaining the new phenomena and the local adaptation 

of many of the transferred processes, given that each society is 

unique. At least two alternative approaches to the same process are 

thereby developed: one that engages more with economic sociology and 

evolutionary economics, and another that engages more with political 

economy, industrial relations, and the philosophy of science, as we will 

see below. 

The sociology of work in Mexico and in Latin America has certain 

characteristics that differentiate it from other kinds of labor studies (De la 

Garza 2002): 

1. It centers more on workers than on the company. 

2. It is not reduced to manufacturing labor processes but rather 

encompasses the service and primary materials sectors, the labor 

market, the social reproduction of workers, and the industrial relations 

system. 

3. While predated by 1970s studies on labor processes, it is distinct 

from these in that: a) It does not respond in the same way to 

French or American sociology of labor or Italian laborism. 

Rather, it is in dialogue with the new economic institutionalism 

(theories of regulation, flexible specialization, and industrial governance, 

including neo-Schumpeterian approaches), and new 

theories of industrial relations and neo-corporativism. b) It does 

not center on the labor process as part of Taylorism-Fordism, 

whose main category was “control over the labor process and its 

repercussions for the worker’s consciousness” (De La Garza 

2001), but instead focuses on the restructuring of production and 

its relation with the neoliberal model. c) It is not based on 

“economistic,” “structuralist,” or ideological interpretations of 

labor but rather uses a more integral approach that allows a sociological 

reading. Today, such new labor studies dominate the sociology 

of work in Mexico. Authors such as Aglietta, Lipietz, 

Coriat, Piore, Sabel, Shaiken, and Burawoy have been very important 

in this phase. 

4. It takes issue with the theory of dependence, which no doubt was 

an important approach, for failing to explain the current restructuring 

of production, the successful models implemented by foreign 

and domestic multinationals, or the use of best practices in 

labor flexibility that tend to be precarious. Carlota Perez (2007) 

clarifies this disjuncture: 

The enormous difficulties experienced by the great majority of 

developing countries in their efforts to industrialize have led to

132 


pessimistic theories of dependency which hold that there is a 

permanent structural gap between developing and developed 

countries. On the other hand, the few recent examples of relative 

success, which seem to counter that theory arouse an intense interest. 

(2) 

Overviews of the sociology of work in Mexico coincide with Oscar 

Contreras’s argument that the new labor studies generated a large amount 

of research that, though with varying quality, expands and accumulates 

knowledge on the phenomena of the restructuring of production, labor 

flexibility, and labor relations. 

Nevertheless, this new direction in the sociology of work in Mexico 

has not followed as comprehensive a development as the history makes it 

seem. On the one hand, a) it “de-laborizes,” focusing on the industry, 

emphasizing and prioritizing value chains, and centering on the firms as 

its almost exclusive subject. b) In this sense it returns to structuralism as 

vision of social change (Castillo 1997; De La Garza 2001). On the other 

hand, the globalization of the Mexican economy and the need to increase 

the productivity of companies, institutions, regions, and their human resources, 

present an enormous challenge which has convinced labor sociologists 

of the need for multidisciplinary approaches. Anthropology, labor 

law, economic sociology, socio-demographics, and socio-politics in 

particular have been important ways to comprehend and explain the complex 

labor reality. In fact, Enrique de la Garza –as expressed in interview- 

considers this interdisciplinarity to be the most important strength 

of SWM. He explains it as follows: the sociology of work arrived late to 

Latin America, considering that studies of factories began in this continent 

in the 1970s, while in Europe they started in the early 20 th century. 

Therefore, in Mexico and Latin America there are fewer solid structures 

of disciplinary division and it is easier to make interdisciplinary combinations 

without risking illegitimacy and without the community viewing the 

work as suspect, as is the case in the United States and Europe given the 

precise limits there. There is also greater theoretical and methodological 

freedom for research. Furthermore, communications among Latin 

American colleagues have developed in similar conditions and have been 

cordial, open, and collaborative, which has fostered solid ties and multiple 

exchanges, even though they are by hand. This is the second strength 

of SWM.


THE NEW ENVIRONMENT AND PRACTICES 

The sociology of work has developed in the context of the complex 

Mexican situation, heterogeneous at the level of industrial sectors or even 

within companies, but primarily regionally diverse. Globalization and the 

demand for competitiveness of private firms and public institutions have 

impacted the discourses, research practices, and ideologies of professors. 

The processes of modernization, first, and then globalization, have 

had important impacts in Mexico. The most evident is the growing openness 

and integration of the Mexican economy and society and, in particular, 

the incorporation of best practices in companies, the government, and 

academic institutions. In the social sphere, the impacts appear in the expanding 

polarization of society and the increase in poverty and Mexican 

emigration toward the United States. But, the sociology of work has also 

been affected. Although relatively limited, there has been a process of 

decentralization and modernization of its institutions. The number of 

universities and research centers has increased, as has the number of researchers 

and academic groups. Networks have also grown of researchers 

in alliance with research groups abroad, international agencies and 

institutions, and excellent universities in developed countries. This expansion 

of the activities of sociologists of work in Mexico coincides not 

only with the modernization of production but also with the modernization 

of the government and in particular of CONACYT and the upperlevel 

education institutions, as we will see below. 

Prior to the 1980s, research in the other sciences was concentrated in 

Mexico City, in particular in its two main universities, the National 

Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and the Autonomous University 

of Mexico (UAM). These universities, together with others from 

the large cities of Guadalajara and Monterrey, formed the research triad 

in the country. The early 1980s witnessed the beginning of the process of 

decentralization of higher education. Public research centers emerged 

across the country in the social sciences and humanities, the natural sciences, 

and the exact sciences (such as math). Meanwhile, CONACYT, 

founded in the 1970s, became increasingly important in funding research 

and supporting post-graduate education. By the late 1980s, CONACYT 

became the body responsible for coordinating and evaluating the activities 

of the 32 research centers progressively installed across the country. 

In turn, in the universities, research activity increased both within the institutes 

at the large Mexico City campuses, but also in various state universities. 

It should be recalled that all public universities in Mexico are practically 

free (annual fees range from US$30 to 200), and in the case of

134 


graduate programs, all students who have achieved the necessary certification 

receive a grant through CONACYT that covers living expenses in 

exchange for their full-time dedication to their studies. 

Research Financing 

Resources for science and research in Mexico come for the most part 

from the government (80-85%) and to a much lesser degree from the private 

sector (15-20%). More and more diverse funds exist within the government 

to support research. Not more than a decade ago, these funds 

were dispersed among multiple branches of the Federal Government (in 

each of the ministries, the presidency itself, and in particular in CONA- 

CYT). There were also resources and programs available in each of the 

State Governments. But, each entity had its own rules, resources, and 

agendas, as a result of which there was a large disparity and variation in 

the allocation of resources. Grant making ranged from open and closed 

competitions to institutional and personal allocations of funds, forming a 

broad mosaic of distribution of the resources to support research. Particular 

emphasis was given to allocating funds to the study of productive 

modernization, technological development, and productivity, in the case 

of economic activities. Funds are currently allocated for new topics such 

as innovation, networks, competitiveness, and the sociology of knowledge. 

The most transparent and professionally-distributed resources came 

from international organizations. For example, the World Bank allocated 

resources as public debt through the Ministry of Labor for training programs 

(Probecat), modernizing production (Cimo), training and certifying 

workers in labor skills (Conocer), measuring international migration, and 

studying labor. Evaluations and audits assured that said programs functioned 

efficiently. These programs, with grants distributed through 

closed competition among recognized researchers, strongly advanced 

quantitative and qualitative research and were carried out by scholars of 

labor. It should be highlighted that these produced the face-to-face surveys 

with statistical representation, such as the National Survey on Employment, 

Wages, Technology and Training (Encuesta Nacional de Empleo, 

Salarios, Tecnología y Capacitación, ENESTYC), the Survey on 

Migration to the Northern Border (Encuesta de Migración a la Frontera 

Norte, EMIF) and the multiple evaluations of governmental social programs, 

such as Opportunities (Oportunidades). 

By the beginning of the 21 st century, the disperse funds were concentrated 

and coordinated, and a consistent methodology was established for 

the allocation and evaluation of resources. The funds are now nationally


administered by CONACYT, and all evaluations of governmental programs 

take place through the National Council for the Evaluation of Social 

Development Policy (Consejo Nacional de Evaluación de la Política 

de Desarrollo Social, CONEVAL). This entity carries out enormous efforts 

to streamline innovation and development, as well as research in 

science and technology (S&T). A large percentage of its employees are 

or were researchers, and more importantly, its relies exclusively on researchers 

in the formation of councils, commissions, evaluations, etc. 

Sociologists of work also participate in multiple commissions. To this 

end, CONACYT has implemented programs such as: 1) Training of Scientists 

and Technicians, which seeks to strengthen the links between 

companies and universities through sabbatical and post-doctoral residencies, 

labor linkage programs, and post-graduate fairs, 2) Scientific Research, 

which funds basic and applied research and the development of 

scientists through the National System of Researchers (Sistema Nacional 

de Investigadores –SNI), and 3) Innovation and Technological Development, 

which was created to advance these areas by employing scientific 

and/or technological developments, for which it grants economic support, 

capital input, and lines of credit. 

The primary sources of governmental funds for research in Mexico 

are now guided by transparency, open competitions, peer evaluations, 

operating manuals, and follow-up evaluations. The Internet has been a 

fundamental tool in this process, as has the participation of all of the researchers 

who belong to the SNI. Nevertheless, like many other programs, 

these also have important limitations: bureaucracy, the lack of 

administrative flexibility, and the variability of resources from year to 

year (due to designated budget amounts and the constant devaluation of 

the Mexican currency since 1976). 

Despite the multiplicity of funds and programs, the accessibility of 

information about them through their web pages, and the decentralization 

of funding, Mexico’s investment in science, technology, and innovation 

is still insufficient. In the past 35 years, investment has not surpassed 

0.6% of GDP, and Mexico has been outpaced by emerging countries such 

as Brazil, which has invested at 1% of its GDP, Korea at 2.91% (2003), 

and Vietnam at 2% (2005). Developed countries belonging to the OECD 

(other than Mexico, which is also a member) also invest very different 

amounts in science, technology, and innovation; for instance, the United 

States invested 2.68% of its GDP in 2004. In 2008, Mexico only invested 

around US$ 4.5 billion in science and technology, despite the stipulation 

in the 2002 Law on Science and Technology that investment should constitute 

a minimum of 1% of the annual GDP. 

A new method is being developed for distributing important financial

136 


resources through thematic networks formed by research groups that link 

disciplines in the social, natural, and exact sciences. There are currently 

thirteen thematic networks in the country supported by CONACYT. 

These networks aim to link together various university activities. For 

instance, one of them, whose primary objective is to research complexity, 

science, and society, is led by sociologists of work, with links to physicists, 

ecologists, and anthropologists. 

These advanced network initiatives are being developed to address 

the challenges posed by globalization and the increasing complexity of 

Mexican social life. For example, the country is losing competitiveness, 

its industrial sectors are evolving, and poverty, migration, and insecurity 

are increasing. Mexico has been losing its competitive advantage at the 

international level, falling from position 32 to 60 in the period from 2000 

to 2008 (Porter & Schwab 2008). The multinational firms in the country 

(more than 3,000 firms with more than 32,000 sites) have been acquiring 

greater economic roles, and many of them are in the process of industrial 

upgrading. Industrial clusters may be found across the country. More 

than 40% of the population lives in poverty. Between 10 and 20% of the 

110 million Mexicans are international migrants. And, there is practically 

a war going on against drug trafficking in Mexico, particularly in 

the states along the United States border, such as Baja California and 

Chihuahua. 

National System of Researchers (SNI) 

The SNI was founded in 1984 with the goal of supporting scientists dedicated 

to full-time research. Due to the relatively low wages and the constant 

devaluation of the Mexican peso in relation to the US dollar, a 

monthly economic incentive was established in accordance with individual 

performance, which aims to compensate researchers permanently 

committed to research. Currently, and given the devaluation of the currency 

(now at about 14 pesos per dollar), the monthly amounts range between 

US$800 and 1,500. There are currently 14,000 researchers in 

Mexico certified in this system in six areas of science. In the social sciences 

(not including humanities), between 2003 and 2008, approximately 

1,000 new researchers were integrated into the system, and 2,500 advanced 

to new levels (Figure 1). An average of 600 researchers is accepted 

by the system each year in the all sciences.


Figure 1. Mexico, New Entrants to the National System of Researchers (SNI). 

Area 5, Social Sciences 

Permanent Evaluation Based on Incentive System 

Incentives for and evaluations of academic work (institutional and collegiate) 

that originates in the open economy are also part of the shift of the 

sociology of work in Mexico towards rules that prioritize speed and volume 

of production over quality. The education and formation of research 

groups is also associated with this methodological institutionalization the 

sociology of work in Mexico. Globalization and the demand for competitiveness 

in private companies and in public institutions in Mexico have 

provoked changes in discourses, public support programs, research practices, 

and professors’ ideologies. 

Each university and research center has its own system of performance 

incentives. While different methods and amounts of economic incentives 

exist, the systems generally combine numbers and types of publications, 

teaching hours, and levels of participation in seminars and conferences. 

The amounts represent approximately 15-30% of the individual’s 

institutional income. In addition, many professors (more than 

15,000) are in the SNI, for which they receive a monthly bonus of between 

US$500 and 1,500 depending on their level (four levels exist; see 

Figure 1). The indirect wage of a professor-researcher in any science 

throughout the country may represent up to 60% of his or her income. In 

most institutions a series of diverse professional activities is permitted de 

facto: consulting corporations, doing research, advising and evaluating 

public sector programs, receiving funds from foundations, teaching 

classes in other universities, or participating in paid professional commissions, 

among other things. Generally, these resources are not constant 

and vary widely according to the expertise of each professor-researcher 

and to the social-professional networks he or she maintains. 

All of this results in a wide divergence of institutional incomes 

among researchers in Mexico, currently ranging between US$1,300 and

138 


10,000 per month. Prior to the recent devaluation this range was between 

US$2,000 and 15,000 per month. There is no doubt that, as in the rest of 

the country, there is a polarization of wealth; while the majority of researchers 

earns very little, a minority gets a lot. While the directors of 

research centers currently earn monthly salaries approaching US$10- 

12,000, a professor with a permanent university post earns US$1,000. 

PROBLEMS AND LIMITATIONS 

Decline in the Number of Researchers 

In spite of its growth since the 1980s, the number of professors and researchers 

in the sociology of work in Mexico continues to be small and 

faces central challenges such as the crisis of sociology. The “professional 

space” is controlled by a small number of people, and given the size of 

the sector theoretical-analytic confrontations are more visible and even 

personal. The lack of larger debate makes it hard to reach general consensuses 

or construct broader research agendas. Strong competition and 

internal inequality exist among research groups. People compete for the 

same funds at the national level and for participation in groups and networks 

abroad. On the other hand, as Oscar Contreras mentioned in a recent 

interview, while research groups have been constituted, they are few, 

and their status is precarious. Outstanding among them is that of Enrique 

de la Garza, which may be considered a school of thought (with a paradigm, 

a journal, a postgraduate program, research projects, and significant 

participation in associations and organizations), but it is the only 

well-consolidated group in Mexico. There are only three or four additional 

groups. This implies a serious problem of reproduction for new 

generations. 

Competition for Scarce Funds 

The funds for research programs and researchers are limited and vary 

each year, but different perspectives exist on this issue. In his comments 

in our interview, Enrique de la Garza (2009) considered the problem of 

limited financial resources to be minor. He reflected, “Not because they 

are abundant, but rather because there are not that many permanent 

groups applying for resources all the time; they are divided among a few 

people. If there were many groups, then yes, competitions would be 

hard-fought.” In any case, the pursuit of the sociology of work in Mexico 

is affected by the unequal distribution of resources inside the country,


particularly in comparison with more highly industrialized countries. 

Perhaps more important is that we lack enough resources to undertake 

internationally comparative studies, such as those conducted by researchers 

in developed countries, and that funds are concentrated in the 

exact and natural sciences. Another issue is that the majority of research 

in social sciences in Mexico is focused within Mexican territory, while 

international research, when it exists, is rarely directed and financed from 

within Mexico. 

Another problem associated with finances in Mexico is the lack of a 

serious culture of project evaluation by academic peers. Enrique de la 

Garza (2009) commented, “There is too much politics (friends, enemies, 

in favor of or opposed to a theoretical perspective) … and peers are not 

very objective.” 

Finally, although it applies to all of Latin America, a clear example of 

economic uncertainty is the ALAST journal. The itinerant character of 

the journal implies a complex editorial organization; each new journal 

headquarters must build a work team, assure institutional support mechanisms, 

etc., in other words, “nationalize the publication.” All of this devolves 

into a situation in which stable structures are never created and 

must be reinvented every three years (Iranzo and Lucena 2008). A similar 

problem occurs with several of the editorial and organizational initiatives 

of SWM. 

Concentration of Skills Among a Few People 

The lack of resources stimulates competition as well as concentration. 

However, researchers’ necessary mingling in their competition for the 

limited resources and their participation in associations, groups, networks, 

congresses, etc., permanently connects members. Nevertheless, the hierarchical 

relationships between evaluators and appraisers, professors and 

students, administrative staff and researchers, leaders and followers are 

transferred to the professional practice. 

Loss of Specialization 

There are ever fewer sociologists of work who exclusively focus on labor. 

Researchers are increasingly obligated to diversify their knowledge, update 

it, and address the multiple requirements of universities, research 

centers, and particularly the various levels of government. Enrique de la 

Garza (2009) and Oscar Contreras (2009) (another recognized sociologist 

of labor at the regional level) mention the transience of the research 

groups, given how members often disperse and move toward other

140 


themes and positions (such as governmental administrative posts or positions 

within the universities themselves). All of this has repercussions for 

the problem of how to integrate different scholars’ long-term research 

agendas. 

The complex Mexican social environment, with new foci more oriented 

to innovation and competitive advantage on one hand and to pressing 

social problems such as poverty and migration on the other, has promoted 

this thematic opening and dispersion of researchers. While the 

expansion in the number of research approaches, themes, and methodologies 

is very positive, it no doubt affects the specialization in labor studies. 

Juan José Castillo (1997) mentions that interdisciplinarity has become 

trivial in current literature on the sociology of work in Latin America. In 

addition, the practice of a multi-methodological perspective is not well 

developed. 

Oscar Contreras (2009) mentions that the political and ideological 

orientation of researchers, generally leaning toward the left, in many 

cases affects their research. He recognizes that while this is inevitable 

and may on occasion be beneficial, it is nevertheless a primary problem 

for SWM, given that it limits the possibilities for analyzing and discovering 

different sides of the world of labor. 

Dispersion, “politicization,” and declining social science interest in 

labor have resulted in the diminishing importance of this field. From its 

position as a central problem in the 1970s, 80s, and part of the 90s, it has 

gradually evolved into a marginal theme while political sociology, electoral 

sociology, gender, the environment, and other themes have risen in 

importance. 

Failure to Renew Human Resources 

Practically only one teaching program exists focused on labor studies, 

and despite its high ranking and recognition, it is insufficient to both support 

the remaining universities and research centers and continue the 

work of labor sociologists who founded the field in the 1980s. Oscar 

Contreras (2009) affirms this observation, while mentioning that, in addition 

to the noted postgraduate program, independent courses and specialized 

centers exist in some universities and colleges. In some cases these 

labor centers have disappeared (such as the COLSON regional research 

center). The central problem in many cases is the clash between specialized 

groups. Central themes such as gender, poverty, reproductive health, 

and migration, for example, compete for institutional and human resources. 

This has a direct impact on SWM in the form of a certain degree 

of thematic dispersion, as already noted, complicating the reproduction of


research agendas in the new generation. 

Furthermore, labor sociology once attracted talented and curious 

young people, many of whom had great potential for research. But, new 

generations have progressively lost interest, in part because of the limited 

viability of the specialty in labor (Oscar Contreras 2009). For example, 

there is little content in quantitative methods. All of these aspects represent 

a great challenge for the continuation of this field. Labor themes 

must be made intellectually attractive, and professors must foment synergies 

with students, through joint publications and increased exchanges 

among institutions and research projects. 

Dependency on International Organizations 

The unequal relationship between sociologists of labor in Mexico and 

researchers and research groups from the advanced industrialized countries 

also resounds in the unequal development of the science. The international 

research that is carried out in Mexico, when it happens, generally 

depends on funding, resources, methodologies, and analytical proposals 

from the industrialized countries. 

Nevertheless, not only are there leading researchers in the sociology 

of labor who have international presence and coordinate highly relevant 

projects, although they are few, but their theoretical collaborations are 

unorthodox and highly fruitful. De la Garza (2009) considers this a tradition 

in Latin America. Scholars mutually influence each other, and while 

the majority of the ingredients come from developed countries, they are 

neither linear nor mechanical. In other words, sociologists of labor in this 

continent are not simple disciples of Europe or USA, but rather mix, introduce 

local ingredients, and make their own creations. 

Lack of International Experience 

The central problems that affect the possibilities for international research 

are the lack of resources to carry out “truly international research,” researchers’ 

limited international experience beyond attending international 

congresses, and their lack of English language facility. Contreras (2009) 

mentions the need to “de-provincialize” the study of work and take it to a 

more international level, in order to carry out more solid comparisons and 

have an impact in other regions of the planet.

142 


MODELS OF PRODUCTION AND THE LOCAL 

DEVELOPMENT OF IDEAS 

The topic of production models in Mexico, like in other developed and 

underdeveloped countries, relates to a wide range of studies, given that it 

is linked to the supposed “surpassing of Taylorism-Fordism” and the “installation 

of post-Fordism.” However, in the Mexican case, even Taylorism-Fordism 

has not developed in many of the country’s regions, and 

forms of pre-industrial production continue to be used. On the other hand, 

a large percentage of such studies have centered on analyzing production, 

focusing little attention on differences in country of origin and their respective 

corporate cultures (Japanese, American, Mexican, etc). These 

differences are vitally important in Mexico in terms of the adaptation of 

the Japanese Production System (JPS) (Abo 1994; 2004), transferred capacities 

(Dutrenit et al 2006; Carrillo and Torres 2008), and which systems 

are truly appropriated (Pozas 2007). 

In the Mexican context, studies have focused on large (usually foreign) 

companies to understand technological, organizational, and labor 

change (De la Garza 2001), and to a much lesser degree on previously 

forgotten sectors such as local family-run companies, with traditional 

production systems based on paternalistic and informal relationships and 

oriented to local markets (Carrillo and Torres 2008). These studies reveal 

different modernization strategies, among which two stand out: 1) flexible 

modernization that involves the labor force in reducing production 

costs, and 2) the development of company culture as competitive strategy. 

Both illustrate the importance of the regional context that conditions and 

modifies them, given that, as Carrillo and Torres (2008) put it, “The new 

production systems are not developed in a vacuum but rather inserted 

within specific labor, social, and cultural contexts, which give content to 

numerous methods and practices.” These hybrid production systems reveal 

particularly regional realities. 

In addition, recent studies consider the relationship between the modernization 

processes in companies located in Mexico and market transformations, 

revealing diverse strategies. A relevant conclusion is that 

there are no pure strategies in the new production systems. This finding 

is consistent with the results of studies conducting by Abo (1994; 2004) 

and Kawamura (2009) over the course of 25 years of research in five continents 

on the hybridization of industrial transplants. 

The studies on models of production in Mexico question the notions 

of the exact replication of models and the trend toward convergence 

among them, given the regional heterogeneity and diversity within companies 

(Carrillo 1995; 2008; De la Garza 1998; 2005). Some studies tend


to consider company subjectivities and the construction of company culture 

important elements in organizational changes, although they still 

rank companies and systems of production based on a more structural 

perspective, giving little significance to the social actors, especially 

workers (De la Garza 2000; Contreras 2000). 

After 2000, studies began in Mexico that extended a debate, started in 

the 1990s in the USA and Europe, about whether the Japanese Production 

System of export-oriented industrialization truly generates development. 

This controversy is intimately linked to the current climate in Mexico of 

declining competitiveness and slow industrial growth in the maquiladora 

export industry in particular, as well as in other dynamic sectors (such as 

automotive, electronics, and clothing). Scholars have wondered whether 

these conditions are related with JPS and the development of R&D activities 

(Carrillo and Torres 2002). 

Along with new production models, scholars have also addressed 

value chains (influenced by Italian industrial districts and Porter’s clusters). 

Production networks have acquired great importance in Mexico, 

and their characteristics and impacts are very regionally diverse, particularly 

when it comes to noncommercial, local, institutional efforts that 

support company development and production. Public and private 

“bridge” institutions (Cassalet 1998) between the government, the educational 

sector, and companies are very important in the promotion of these 

industrial clusters. 

A central concept that sheds light on the debate on models of production 

is “glocalization.” Robertson (1995) introduced the term to make 

clear that global processes are always embedded in local practices (see 

also Connell 2007). The continuous process of work restructuring in order 

to stay on track will take on different forms in different contexts. 

This work restructuring is an ongoing, locally situated process in which 

actors within organizations play an important role. As illustrated in empirical 

research on Mexico, the way actors shape their everyday work 

practices differs enormously in different local situations. Nevertheless, 

even when taking organizational context into account, the increasing importance 

of the global in local processes is obvious. 

Another significant theme in the sociology of work in Mexico is geographic 

relocation, particularly the tension that exists between “clusterization” 

in Northern Mexico (the regional concentration of firms and jobs 

and their economic, social, and cultural consequences) and the relocation 

of labor toward low-wage areas inside and outside the country. 

Weick (1995) helps shed light on the processes via which work restructuring 

takes place by analyzing how the concept of sense-making is 

grounded in both individual and social activity. Individual and social

144 


activities form the groundwork of each organization in which work is 

structured and restructured. It is important to emphasize that this sensemaking 

is not taking place in a free or neutral space; on the contrary, the 

ways people come to make sense of things are strongly connected to 

power relations (Beukema and Carrillo 2004). Therefore, the rules and 

resources to which actors can appeal are indispensable to the work restructuring 

processes and should be thoroughly taken into account when 

researching work restructuring. In their actions, people constantly reproduce 

the existing situation, but they also try to modify it according to 

their possibilities and interests (cf. Burawoy 1985; Delbridge 1998; 

Miller & Slater 2000). Since existing structures within organizations are 

rather persistent, meanings, norms, values, and power relations will only 

gradually evolve and cannot simply be changed by force from “above” 

(e.g., by management) or from “outside” (e.g., by state regulations). 

Studies of the restructuring of production in Mexico developed in the 

context of broad international debates on whether or not the world is flat 

(Friedman 2005), whether or not there is a best way (Boyer and Freyssenet 

2000), whether or not it is possible to transfer JPS to contexts so 

unlike those in which it emerged (Abo 1994; 2004). Two approaches 

have spread furthest. The first describes polarization and limited growth, 

which excludes workers as structuring actors. Rather than evolution, this 

is social involution of non-winning companies and their workers. The 

second claims that a process of learning and industrial upgrading is occurring 

in which R&D processes and value-added methods are adopted, 

along with a company culture of social responsibility and new internal 

and external relations, particularly with local institutions. Drawing on 

distinct sources of information and aiming to prove different points, these 

approaches reach opposing conclusions. More importantly, however, 

both have developed new interpretations along the way, generating better 

understanding the evolution over generations of maquiladoras and the 

adjustment of socio-technical configurations. 

The Mexican situation is, apparently, more complex and heterogeneous 

at the moment than it was in the 1970s or 80s. As a result, debate, 

analysis, and policy recommendations about labor are located within 

broader debates. The central debate in relation to models of production 

may be synthesized as follows. While some researchers presume polarization 

and segmentation, emphasizing the limitations to endogenous 

growth based on MNCs, others presume learning and co-evolution, noting 

which capabilities are strengthened and encourage better development. 

The latter point out that productivity, learning, and evolution are concentrated 

in very few foreign firms, while the majority decline, with no possibility 

of change. Alternatively, some companies gradually develop di-


verse capabilities that allow them to improve working conditions, and in 

this process they learn and evolve. Of course, both of these approaches 

offer evidence that this process is not linear and does not apply to all 

companies and workers. It is therefore structurally heterogeneous. Nevertheless, 

an overview of both reveals opposite trends. This polemic led 

to the development of two separate working groups that, while complementary, 

have also had confrontations. 

While Mexican analyses of production may be unique, they have not 

emerged in isolation. Considering the recent development and the future 

of the sociology of work in Latin America, the central question is: does 

Latin America need its own sociology of work 3 This question invokes 

the problems of universalism and contingency (Castillo 1995). Studies of 

work in Latin America have two themes: a) the origin of foreign influences 

(mainly from France and the USA) and the way in which foreign 

concepts were adapted or reformulated when applied to our context, and 

b) the change in production patterns, how social actors participate in development, 

and how sociology can account for it. The main argument is 

that Latin American social sciences have relied on theoretical approaches 

used to analyze the evolution of production in industrialized countries, 

both in the import-substitution phase and in the market-globalization 

phase. However, Latin American social sciences have been able to develop 

an original path, characterized by the prominence of social change, 

interest in the labor movement, and the relatively late appearance of the 

workplace (Abramo and Montero 1995: 1). Carlota Perez (2007) notes 

that while dependency theorists become frustrated, attempts to copy successful 

strategies also prove unrealistic in totally different conditions. 

She has called for understanding how technologies evolve and spread and 

under what conditions “catching up” is possible. 

Sociological research on production elsewhere makes it possible to 

understand research groups, visions, methodologies, policy recommendations, 

and professional practices in Mexico. The unequal relationship 

between sociologists of work within Mexico and those connected with 

groups in advanced, industrial countries has been the starting point for the 

constitution of diverse practices. Based on Italian “laborism,” Lipietz’s 

version of French regulation, and broad knowledge of the labor movement 

and production in Mexico, Enrique De la Garza (2005) defends an 

3 Raewyn Connell (2007) analyzes this issue in a more universal manner. Her 

concept of “Southern Theory” “calls attention to periphery-centre relations in the 

realm of knowledge … [and] emphasizes that the majority world does produce 

theory” (viii-ix).

146 


eclectic focus on what he calls socio-technical configurations (Box 1). 4 

His most recent work on this topic, in which his purpose is most clear, 

critiques the maquila model in Mexico. 

Box 1. Socio-Technical Configurations: A Step Forward in Models of 

Production 

Enrique de la Garza is unquestionably the leading scholar of both trends 

in generations of maquiladoras and the viability of this model of industrialization. 

Based on the 2003 Survey on Models of Production in the Maquila 

(Encuesta Sobre Modelos de Producción en la Maquila, EMIM 

2003), coordinated by de la Garza in Central and Southeastern Mexico 

and on the ENESTYC maquila modules from 1998 and 2001, de la Garza 

(2005) asks whether the maquila is an acceptable way to grow the economy 

and provide dignified employment (15). 

His work confronts what he refers to as the optimistic promotion of 

upgrading by Carrillo, Lara, Hualde, and Contreras. He argues, “This 

position has been losing force … and theories on the restructuring of production 

have abandoned evolutionism” (36). He considers the model of 

production an intersection of the level technology, the form of work organization, 

the type of labor relations and work conditions, and the labor 

force profile (socio-demographic characteristics, skill level, and wage 

levels) (18). He later adds labor and management cultures. 

He statistically describes the impact of each of the dimensions that 

make up this configuration (although he never incorporates the cultural 

variables). The purpose is to demonstrate that the percentages and indicators 

of the variables decrease (involution), or that their distribution favors 

low-technology activities and labor indicators (EMIM 2003). He 

uses an interval of two years in the case of the ENESTYC, and of only 

one year for the EMIM survey. His main empirical results consist of the 

construction of two indices. The first is a set of indicators that reveal the 

model of work organization (Taylorist-Fordist 76.9% and Toyotaist 

23.1%). The second speaks to the level of flexibility: Low (38.7%), Medium 

(46.8%), and High (14.5%) (De la Garza 2007: 421). 

His interpretation suggests an extreme polarization. While the author 

rejects the concept of models of production because it is about “attributes 

established from theory,” he substitutes it for the concept of “sociotechnical 

configurations of production” (although the title of his book and 

4 The concept of socio-technical configurations does not appear in the title of any 

of the dozens of publications by Enrique de la Garza on production, labor, the 

maquila model, etc.


publications use the term models of production). He concludes that, in 

reference to the maquila, there are two dominant configurations: Taylorism-Fordism, 

and Precarious Toyotaism (De la Garza 2005: 68). Both 

are based on low wages and the intensification of labor (Ibid: 72). 

Meanwhile, Jorge Carrillo and others question the level of heterogeneity 

in the maquila industrial structure. Do behavioral patterns exist 

Analysis of export maquila plants produces an affirmative answer. In 

1997, Carrillo and Hualde developed the concept of three generations of 

maquiladoras to classify different types of firms in terms of how labor, 

technology, and industrial organization are combined and used (Box 2). 

A few years later they identified a fourth generation (Carrillo and Lara 

2005). 

Box 2. Generations of Companies: A Step Forward in Understanding the 

Maquila Model 

The term generation is understood as an ideal type of firm with a certain 

socio-technical level and with a tendency to predominate among leading 

firms during a specific period of time. The concept acknowledges the coexistence 

of firms from different generations at the same time, and it allows 

us to contemplate not only the evolution of firms but also the strategies 

and policies of industrial promotion and development. In sum, the 

typology enables us to understand the quality of industrial upgrading 

through generations of firms (Carrillo and Hualde 1997; Carrillo and Lara 

2005). The typology was analytically constructed based on different 

variables and indices but relies most on trends in company activities and 

strategies in relation to labor. It is presented below. 

The first generation is based on the intensification of manual labor 

and simple assembly (“assembled in Mexico”). The second generation is 

based on the rationalization of labor (“lean production”), manufacturing, 

and the adoption of new technologies (“made in Mexico”). The third 

generation is based on intensification of knowledge, research, development, 

and design activities (“designed in Mexico”). Finally, the fourth 

generation is based on the centralized coordination of activities for the 

group of plants located in the country and owned by the same company 

(“coordinated in Mexico”). The evolution of different generations may 

be understood using the following scheme: manual labor rational labor 

creative labor coordinated labor. In other words, labor-intensive 

technology-intensive knowledge-intensive network-intensive. 

In response to criticisms of the typology of generations, scholars attempted 

to measure them to determine how the generations were distrib-

148 


uted in the maquila industry and how widespread their evolution was. 

Two maquila surveys carried out by COLEF in 1990 and 2002 in Northern 

Mexico indicate the diffusion of industrial upgrading over time based 

on the typology of generations of companies: in 1980 100% of maquila 

plants were first generation (Carrillo and Hernandez 1985); in 1990 82% 

were first generation and 18% second (Carrillo and Ramirez 1992); and 

in 2002 18% were first, 55% second, and 27% third generation (Carrillo 

and Gomis 2005). 

The authors found that it as not a linear evolution, and it did not apply 

for all companies. The concept of socio-technical configurations is 

also highlighted here, but relative to the industrial upgrading process. 

Based on the 2002 survey, six types of companies were identified according 

to the combination of technology, innovation, autonomy from the 

parent company, and vertical integration (Carrillo and Gomis 2005). In 

the electronics and auto-parts sectors in Tijuana, Mexicali, and Juarez, six 

groups or conglomerates of companies were found (using a statistical 

cluster analysis) with similar characteristics in terms of technological factors, 

vertical integration, and degree of decision-making autonomy, all 

coexisting in space and time. It is important to add that this hexagonal 

structure was also found in non-maquiladora manufacturing companies 

in Mexico by other authors (Dominguez and Brown 2004). 

The hexagonal structure in the maquiladora industry and the evolution 

of generations lead to the following conclusion: first of all, the results 

call into question typologies that suggest patterns of “dual” progression 

(for example, modern or traditional) or “three-way” divisions with 

closed and exclusionary categories (for example, traditional, Fordist, and 

Toyotaist). The differences among maquiladora plants do not present 

themselves in pure or delimited categories, but rather in hybrid configurations. 

Secondly, the idea that each plant is unique and therefore hybrid 

also comes into question, given that groups of establishments exist with 

similar arrangements (Carrillo and Gomis 2005). 

The analysis of the restructuring of production, its relationship to industrial 

models, and its implications for labor in Mexico serves as an example 

of the main challenges faced by research groups and individual 

researchers. The analysis and debate are depend strongly on the unit and 

source of analysis used: national surveys (De la Garza 2005) or regional 

surveys and case studies (Carrillo and Barajas 2007). This may produce 

not only opposite results (Precarious Toyotaist versus Industrial Upgrading) 

but may also contribute to the formation of professional identity and 

the understanding of the primary task of sociology vis-à-vis society. 

Which of the two approaches is superior or better in analytical, explana-


tory, and public-usefulness terms Are there complementarities or strict 

polarity Some authors have framed their positions in response to these 

questions (Box 3). 

Box 3. The Critique (based on Contreras 2008) 

For some time, the dominant approach in academic studies was “neo- 

Taylorist,” a particularly critical perspective in relation to the economic 

and social impacts of maquiladoras in Mexico. Among the most valuable 

contributions of this current is having shown some of the negative 

aspects of the maquiladoras: low wages as the primary competitive advantage; 

almost nonexistent production chains in the national economy; 

labor intensification as strategy to raise productivity; environmental deterioration 

resulting from indiscriminate and unregulated development; 

and, finally, multiple labor force control and subordination mechanisms 

inside the companies. 

However, this perspective also had important limitations, such as assimilating 

the diverse and complex social processes of companies to mere 

management strategies to reinforce control over the workforce. This type 

of reductionism impeded adequate analysis of the intense transformations 

that the maquiladora companies began to experience in the late 1980s 

and throughout the 1990s. The introduction of new technologies and new 

administrative methods were interpreted as company strategies to intensify 

labor burdens, reinforce controls over the labor process, and increase 

the fragmentation and manipulation of the workers. In an expression that 

aptly summarized the neo-Taylorist vision regarding the changes in the 

maquiladoras, in the late 1980s, Alain Lipietz (1995) called it a “shoddy 

Japanization.” In a more analytical formulation of this characterization, 

Enrique de la Garza (2005) referred to “Precarious Toyotaism.” 

Perhaps more pernicious than this conceptual ambiguity is the assumption, 

widespread among academics who ascribed to this perspective, 

that the task of academic analysis consists of combating this industrialization 

model, rather than explaining the trajectory of the industrial model, 

the social processes of companies, and their relations with their surroundings. 

For its part, toward the late 1990s, the COLEF group converged with 

another academic network that might be referred to in generic terms as 

the UAM-X group (in reality, another node that included researchers 

from various institutions in Central Mexico). The first had considerable 

experience in empirical research, and the second offered a more sophisticated 

theoretical and methodological platform, connected to the tradition 

of Latin American critiques of economic development but in particular

150 


with recent theories of institutional and evolutionist economics. They 

addressed themes such as technological learning; problems of adaptation, 

cooperation, and network formation; and company relations with the institutional 

context (Villavicencio 2007). This new group carried out studies 

on the evolution of the technological and organizational capacities of 

maquiladora companies and their links with supplier industries and support 

institutions (Dutrenit 2007), which generated knowledge-intensive 

industrial clusters and resulted in a process of co-evolution, albeit dispersed, 

considering that various types of companies were identified (Lara 

2007). 

Rather than a theoretical or methodological confrontation, the group 

confronted heterogeneous sets of concepts and variables; rather than a 

debate that would enable it to assess the explanatory capacity of the theories, 

the comparison of strategies focused on their political implications. 

As the extreme, this kind of interpretation more or less mechanically 

linked the organization of production with forms of domination and manipulation 

of workers, instead of critically associating new technologies 

and new administrative methods with development and modernization 

(Contreras 2008). 

CONCLUSION 

The sociology of work in Mexico is relatively new. Given its approximately 

thirty-year trajectory, it has been very productive and has been 

able to institutionalize, earn recognition, and forge its own identity in the 

Mexican and Latin American contexts, as well as at a more international 

level. 

Regarding the origins of SWM, in this new stage it is important to 

recognize endogenous and exogenous aspects. We may situate the domestic 

factors at the beginning of the 1980s in the international seminars 

organized by UNAM on industrial reorganization and the emergence of 

new technologies, on one hand, and in the professor training courses organized 

by UAM, on the other. Professors such as Francisco Zapata and 

Orlandina de Oliveira of El Colegio de México and Enrique de la Garza 

of UAM-I were central in this “incubator stage.” In reference to the external 

origins, the interaction with other sociologists of work from Latin 

America and other countries was a clear catalyst of the construction of 

the profession. Workshops and meetings with the Latin American Social 

Sciences Council (Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales - 

CLACSO) in Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Argentina were key 

in the formation of this network and identity. The list is long, and at the


risk of unintentionally omitting key colleagues, for which I beg forgiveness, 

I would like to name a few professors who fulfilled very important 

roles in the first stage of construction of the sociology of work in Latin 

America, in collaboration with Mexican sociologists of work: Martha 

Novick and Maria Antonia Gallart from Argentina; Nadya Castro, Marcia 

Leite, Alice Abreu, and Roque Aparecido da Silva from Brazil; Lais 

Abramo, Cecilia Montero, and Alvaro Díaz from Chile; María Eugenia 

Trejos and Juan Pablo Perez Sainz from Costa Rica; Carlos Alá Santiago 

from Puerto Rico; Luis Stolovich and Marcos Superville from Uruguay; 

Consuelo Iranzo and Hector Lucena from Venezuela; Rainer Dombois 

and Ludger Pries from Germany; Juan José Castillo from Spain; Pierre 

Tripie and Elena Hirata from France; and John Humphrey from the UK. 

The central themes which have been addressed by SWM include: 

technological change, work organization, flexibility in the labor markets, 

the way the labor force is used, union changes, worker culture and subjectivity, 

chains of production, and company strategies. In general, these 

topics are related to industrial reorganization, industrial restructuring, the 

labor market, and labor relations. Particular attention has been paid to the 

theme of models of production, as a concept that organizes and guides 

multiple changes. 

Among the strengths of SWM are the networks that have been 

formed linking the diverse disciplines in projects, associations, and working 

groups, enriching the knowledge and capacities of labor sociologists. 

The dialogue with and influence from economic-sociology, sociodemographics, 

socio-politics, and socio-anthropology have been particularly 

relevant. To summarize the benefits of these networks, we could 

highlight: a) multidisciplinarity; b) greater academic rigor; c) participation 

in teaching courses, and d) our necessary coexistence due to the multiplicity 

of activities where we coincide (networks, congresses, forums, 

workshops, book presentations, and the dissemination of studies). The 

empirical character of the majority of the studies and the collective work 

on the most important projects speak to the strategic values of SWM. 

On the contrary, the factors that limit the sociology of work as profession 

are also numerous. They include: a) the preference for descriptive, 

empirical studies with little theoretical innovation; b) the small 

number of researchers and students; c) the lack of financial resources for 

research and their instability; d) the lack of financing to carry out comparative 

international studies and Mexico’s disadvantaged financial situation 

in comparison with the developed countries; e) the predominance of 

hierarchical relations in researcher training, professional relations, and 

administrative and research teams; f) the lack of specialization due to the 

diversity of converging approaches, methodologies, and disciplines; g)

152 


the absence of sufficient internationalization of scholars, including facility 

with the English language; and h) the lack of debate and consensus on 

how to broaden our research agenda. 

Finally, the challenges for SWM are vast. Needs include: a) greater 

internationalization of researchers and students; b) theoretical innovation; 

c) greater depth and expertise in several labor-related topics; and d) increase 

in the number of researchers and students. Of particular importance 

is the need to carry out comparative international studies. In this 

respect, Enrique de la Garza highlights the need to take advantage of new 

international funds, such as those from the European Union, that have an 

interest in Latin America, to put together international projects that are 

truly comparative between countries in the region, but also with other 

regions of the world. This latter activity could help overcome a very 

common practice (not only in Mexico): the vast production of books and 

organization of conferences carried out year after year with the purpose 

of publishing collections of thematic or regional papers on Mexico or that 

relate to other countries, but that generally are not comparative. While 

there are financial resources in Mexico and Brazil, they are very limited 

in other Latin American countries. It is therefore crucial to diversify the 

search for funds. It is not only a matter of internationalizing Mexican 

sociologists of work but also of being able to increasingly attract notable 

visiting professors from diverse regions of the planet. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abo, T., ed. Hybrid Factory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. 

-----. Japanese Hybrid Factories. A Comparison of Global Production 

Strategies. London: Palgrave, 2004. 

Abramo, L. J., et al. “The Institutionalization of the Sociology of Work 

in Latin America.” Work and Occupations 24, no. 3 (1997): 348- 

363. 

Abramo, L. J. and C. Montero. “La Sociología del Trabajo en América 

Latina: Paradigmas Teóricos y Paradigmas Productivos.” Revista 

Latinoamericana de Estudios del Trabajo 1, no. 1 (1995): 73-96. 

Boyer, R. and M. Freyssenet. Productive Models: The Condition of Profitability. 

New York: Palgrave, Macmillan, and Gerpisa, 2000. 

Berger, S. How We Compete: What Companies around the World are 

Doing to Make It in Today’s Global Economy. New York: Doubleday, 

2006. 

Beukema, L. and J. Carrillo. “Globalism/Localism at Work.” Research 

in the Sociology of Work 13 (2004): 99-124.


Burawoy, M. The Politics of Production. London: Verso, 1985. 

Carrillo, J. “La Experiencia Latinoamericana del Justo a Tiempo y el 

Control Total de la Calidad.” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios 

del Trabajo 1, no. 1 (1995): 193-217. 

-----. “Flexible Production in the Auto Sector: Industrial Reorganization 

at Ford - Mexico.” World Development 23 no. 1 (1995): 87-102. 

----- and R. Barajas, eds.. Maquiladoras Fronterizas: Evolución y 

Heterogeneidad en los Sectores Electrónico y Automotriz. Tijuana: 

COLEF, 2007. 

----- and A. Hernández. Mujeres Fronterizas en la Industria 

Maquiladora. Tijuana: COLEF, 1985. 

----- and A. Hualde. “Maquiladoras de Tercera Generación. El Caso de 

Delphi-General Motors.” Comercio Exterior 47, no. 9 (1997): 747- 

758. 

----- and A. Lara. “Mexican Maquiladoras: New Capabilities, Coordination, 

and the Emergence of New Generation of Companies.” Innovation: 

Managment, Policy and Practice 7, no. 2 (April-August 2005): 

256-273. 

Carrillo, M., J. Martínez and J. Lara. “El Comportamiento de la Maquila 

en Querétaro.” In Modelos de Exportación en la Maquila de 

Exportación en México. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdez/UAM, 2007, 

pp. 139-168. 

Carrillo, M. and J.L. Torres. “El Debate Sobre las Maquiladoras en 

México.” Internal Document, Universidad Autónomade Querétaro, 

Querétaro, 2002. 

Casalet, M. “The Institutional Matrix and Its Main Funtional Activities 

Supporting Memoration.” In The Mexican Innovation System, edited 

by M. Cimoli. México City: OCDE/CONACYT, 1998. 

----- and L. González. “El Entorno Institucional y la Formalizaron de las 

Redes en el Sector Electrónico de Chihuahua.” In La Emergencia de 

Dinámicas Institucionales de Apoyo a la Industria Maquiladora de 

Mexico, edited by D. Villavicencio. Mexico City: Ed. Miguel Angel 

Porrua/UAM, 2006, pp. 49-88. 

Castillo, J. J. “¿A Dónde Va la Sociología del Trabajo” Revista 

Latinoamericana de Estudios del Trabajo 1, no. 1 (1995). 

-----. “El Paradigma Perdido de la Interdisciplinaridad: Volver a los 

Clásicos.” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del Trabajo 5 

(1997). 

COLEF. “Encuesta de Aprendizaje Tecnológico y Escalamiento 

Industrial en Plantas Maquiladoras.” Proyecto Conacyt no. 36947-s 

Aprendizaje Tecnológico y Escalamiento Industrial: Perspectivas 

para la Formación de Capacidades de Innovación en las

154 


Maquiladoras en México. Tijuana: COLEF/FLACSO/UAM, 2002. 


Social Science. London: Allen & Unwin, 2007. 

Contreras, O. “Los Estudios Acerca de la Flexibilidad Laboral en México: 

Algunas Observaciones Críticas.” Estudios Sociológicos 18, no. 54 

(2000): 727-735. 

-----. “Reflexiones sobre la Sociología del Trabajo.” Paper presented at 

the 6th Congress of the Asociación Mexicana de Estudios del Trabajo, 

Queretaro, 2008. 

-----. Interview by J. Carrillo, Tijuana, February 2009. 

Delbridge, R. Life on the Line of Contemporary Manufacturing. Oxford: 

Oxford University Press, 1998. 

De La Garza, E. La Sociología del Trabajo en México: Balances y 

Desafíos. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdez/UAM, 1993. 

-----. “La Situación del Trabajo en México.” In Economia y Sociología 

del Trabajo. Madrid: Ministerio del Trabajo, 1994. 

-----. “La Flexibilidad del Trabajo en América Latina.” Revista 

Latinoamericana de Estudios del Trabajo 5 (1997). 

-----, ed. Tratado Latinoamericano de Sociología. Mexico City: Fondo 

de Cultura Económica, 2001. 

-----, ed. Modelos de Exportación en la Maquila de Exportación en 

México. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdez/UAM, 2005. 

-----. “The Crisis of the Maquiladora Model in Mexico.” Work and 

Occupations 34, no. 4 (2007): 399-429. 

-----. Interview by J. Carrillo, Tijuana, February 2009. 

-----. and J. Carrillo. “Los Fundamentos Teóricos de la Sociología del 

Trabajo en México.” Iztapalapa 42 (1997): 15-48. 

-----., J. Carrillo and F. Zapata. “Los Estudios Sobre el Trabajo en 

México.” Revista de Trabajo 2, no. 8 (July 1995): 165-183. 

-----. and C. Salas, eds. La Situación del Trabajo en México. Mexico 

City: Plaza y Valdéz, 2003. 

Domínguez, L. and F. Brown. “Medición de las Capacidades 

Tecnológicas en la Industria Mexicana.” Revista de la CEPAL 83 

(August 2004): 135-151. 

Dombois, R. and L. Pries. “¿Necesita América Latina su Propia 

Sociología del Trabajo” Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios del 

Trabajo 5 (1995). 

Dutrenit, G. et al. Acumulacion de Capacidades Tecnologicas en 

Subsidiarias de Empresas Globales en Mexico: El Caso de la 

Industria Maquiladora de Exportación.” Mexico City: Miguel Angel 

Porrua/UAM, 2006. 

Friedman, T. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Cen-


tury. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Gioux, 2005. 

Giuliani, E., C. Pietrobelli and R. Rabellotti. “Upgrading In Global 

Value Chains: Lessons From Latin American Clusters.” World 

Development 33, no. 4 (April 2005): 549-573. 

Goldemberg, J. El Movimiento Obrero en el México Post-Revolucionario. 

Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1980. 

Hualde, A. Aprendizaje Industrial en la Frontera Norte de México: La 

Articulación entre el Sistema Educativo y el Sistema Productivo 

Maquilador. 2nd ed. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdes, 2001. 

Humphrey, J. “Nuevas Fuentes de Competitividad Manufacturera: 

Organización de la Producción y Relaciones Interempresariales.” 

Revista Mexicana de Sociología LVII, no. 4 (1995). 

----- and H. Schmitz. “Governance and Upgrading: Linking Industrial 

Clusters and Global Value Chain Research.” IDS Working Paper No. 

120. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, 

2000. 

----- and H. Schmitz. “How Does Insertion in Global Value Chains 

Affect Upgrading Industrial Clusters” Regional Studies 36, no. 9 

(2002). 

Iranzo, H. and C. Lucena, “Presentación.” Revista Latinoamericana de 

Estudios del Trabajo 20 (2008): 4. 

Katz, J. Reformas Estructurales, Productividad y Conducta Tecnológica 

en América Latina. Santiago: Fondo de Cultura Económica y 

CEPAL, 2000. 

Kawamura, T., ed. Hybrid Factories in the United States under the 

Global Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 

Lara Rivero, A. Aprendizaje Tecnológico y Mercado de Trabajo en las 

Maquiladoras Japonesas. México: Miguel Ángel Porrúa/UAM, 

1998. 

-----. “Packard Electric/Delphi and the Birth of the Autopart Cluster: the 

Case of Chihuahua, México.” International Journal of Urban and 

Regional Research 26, no. 4 (2003). 

-----. Co-Evolución de Empresas, Maquiladoras, Instituciones y 

Regiones: Una Nueva Interpretación. Mexico City: Miguel Ángel 

Porrúa/UAM, 2007. 

-----, J. Arellano, and A. García. “Co-Evolución Tecnológica entre 

Maquiladoras de Autopartes y Talleres de Maquinado.” Comercio 

Exterior 55, no. 6 (2005): 586-599. 

Lipietz, Alain. “De Toyota-City a la Ford-Hermosillo: La Japonización 

de Pacotilla.” El Cotidiano 67 (January-February 1995): 39-47. 

Miller, D. and D. Slater. The Internet. Oxford: Berg, 2000. 

Montero, Cecilia. “Trabajo y Desarrolló Endógeno: Notas para una Ética

156 


del Trabajo en América Latina.” Revista Latinoamericana de 

Estudios del Trabajo 5, no. 5 (1997). 

Muro, Gabriel. “Notas sobre la Metodología Cualitativa en la Sociología 

del Trabajo.” Consejo de Ciencia y Tecnología de Guanajuato 2, no. 

26 (October 2007): 540-551. 

Perez, C. “New Technologies and Development.” In The International 

Library of Critical Writings in Economics 213: Innovation and Economic 

Development. Amsterdam: Mytelka, 2007. 

Porter, M. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: Basic 

Books, 1990. 

----- and K. Schwab. Global Competitiveness Report 2008-2009. Geneva: 

World Economic Forum, 2008. 

Pozas, M. “Entre la Generación y la Apropiación del Valor Agregado.” 

Paper presented at Seminario Fimas Multinacionales en Mexico: de 

la Innovación a la Responsabilidad Social, Mexico City, November 

2007. 

Robertson, D. “Glocalization: Time-Space and Homogeneity- 

Heterogeneity.” In Global Modernities, edited by M. Featherstone, S. 

Lash and R; Robertson. London: Sage, 1995, pp. 25-44. 

Stallings, B. and W. Péres. Growth, Employment, and Equity: The Impact 

of Economic Reforms in Latin America and the Caribbean. 

Santiago: CEPAL-United Nations, 2000. 

Toyota Company. The Toyota Production System, Tokyo: Toyota Motor 

Company, 1996. 

Villavicencio, D, ed. La Emergencia de Dinámicas Institucionales de 

Apoyo a la Industria Maquiladora de Mexico. Mexico City: Miguel 

Ángel Porrúa/UAM, 2006. 

Weick, K. Sensemaking in Organization. London: Sage, 1995.

Publishing Sociological Journals in Argentina 157 

Publishing Sociological Journals in 

Argentina: Problems and Challenges 

Alicia Itatí Palermo, Council of Professional Sociologists (CPS), 

Argentina 1 

The topic I will discuss is the problems and challenges faced by scientific 

journals of sociology in Argentina. 

First, I will talk about the importance of scientific journals. Second, I 

will present a brief history of scientific journals of sociology in Argentina. 

Third, I will characterize their current situation and analyze their problems, 

many of which are shared with other Latin American journals. 

Fourth, I will review the challenges they face ahead.Scientific journals 

are the main means that the scientific community has to communicate 

their research. 

As regards the importance of scientific journals, some authors (Cole 

2000; Martin Sempere 2001) claim that scientific journals are not only a 

means of communicating scientific knowledge but also that, from the sociological 

point of view, they constitute part of the system of evaluating 

research activity. 

Martin Sempere (2001) notes, "The concept of journal embodies all 

the main functions to be fulfilled in scientific communication, and it has 

as its principal component quality certification." She also mentions the 

protection of copyright, the dissemination of research results, and the 

function of storage and accessibility, which ensures the stability of the 

information. From this perspective, scientific journals are the result of 

efforts by publishers and other agents in the system of research and development 

that, together with researchers, makes their existence possible. 

The quality of these publications, their dissemination, and their impact in 

the scientific community reflect the maturity of this research and development 

system. 

Therefore, editing a journal is a key element not only in the institutionalization 

of any discipline but also for the structure of scientific 

evaluation. Professional fields are areas with different levels of structuring. 

These fields have limits and rules that establish who is in or has the 

1 Alicia Itatí Palermo is the editor of the Revista Argentina de Sociología.

158 

Alicia Itatí Palermo 

skills necessary to enter the field, exercise those skills, and be able to advance 

in the profession. 

There are more structured areas and less structured areas that have 

more permeable boundaries or are in the process of construction. For 

many authors, this is the case in sociology, especially in our country, 

where the discipline has existed for around fifty years. 

BRIEF HISTORY OF SOCIOLOGY JOURNALS 

IN ARGENTINA 

The history of scientific journals of sociology in Argentina 2 shows the 

absence, for several decades, of a journal that defines the scientific field 

of sociology, despite several abortive attempts. 

Pereyra (2005) argues, "The history of sociology in Argentina has 

been characterized by an unusual circumstance: the absence of a journal 

that defines the scientific field of sociology, establishes disciplinary 

boundaries, and channels discussions about its issues, problems, and challenges, 

as other countries have carried out in some publications.” He 

concluded that the founding of the Revista Argentina de Sociología (Argentine 

Review of Sociology, RAS) 3 is an opportunity to establish a new 

communication channel for Argentinean sociologists and promote greater 

communication within the field of sociology, a dialogue always necessary 

for the development of sociological knowledge. 

The University of Buenos Aires (UBA), and more specifically the 

Faculty of Philosophy and Arts, had an important role in the history of 

sociology in Argentina. Even though the major in sociology was established 

at the university in 1957, 4 the first courses in sociology had existed 

since 1898, and an Institute of Sociology was founded in 1941 which 

published the Boletín del Instituto de Sociología 5 and later the Cuadernos 

del Instituto de Sociología. Until then, papers in this field were published 

in literary journals and in university annals. Pereyra (2005) goes 

on, "The 50s witnessed another experiment that also failed: the unfinished 

plan to found the Revista Argentina de Sociología. This scientific 

2 This historical review builds on Pereyra (2005). 

3 The RAS is a sociology journal, published by the Council of Professional Soci- 

ologist, which began in 2003. 

4 Currently, there are sociology majors at the following national universities: 

Buenos Aires, Comahue, Cuyo, La Plata, Litoral, Mar del Plata, San Juan, San 

Martín, Santiago del Estero, and Villa María. 

5 In 1952 and 1953 this bulletin published papers and proceedings of the First 

Latin American Congress of Sociology, held in Buenos Aires in 1951.


journal was going to be edited by the Institute of Sociographic Planning 

at National University of Tucumán ... However, after editing the first issue, 

the journal did not go on sale for reasons as yet unknown.” 

At the end of the decade of the 1950s, the journal Desarrollo 

Económico was founded, a publication which is currently published by 

the Economic Development Institute, still exists, and has achieved high 

standards of quality, so one can highlight its role in science social, even 

when it is not a sociology-specific journal (between 1958 and 1991, only 

12% of articles published by this journal were sociological, according to 

the magazine’s own classification). 

In this decade, perhaps with inspiration from the newly-established 

major in sociology, several national universities began to edit sociological 

journals. They included: Cuadernos de Sociología of Universidad 

Nacional de La Plata (1962); Boletín del Instituto de Sociología Raúl Orgaz, 

Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (between 1957 and 1973); Investigaciones 

en Sociología of the Institute of Sociology, Universidad Nacional 

de Cuyo (edited with breaks between 1962 and 1970); Estudios de 

Sociología, published between 1961 and 1965 by Editorial Omega, under 

the auspices of the Argentinean Society of Sociology and the International 

Institute of Sociology (published between 1961 and 1965), and 

Latin Sociology of Instituto Di Tella (from 1965 to 1975). This last journal 

was published in English and included, among the members of its 

honorary committee, Robert Merton and Talcott Parsons. 

The military government 6 (1976-2003) complicated the lack of journals 

even more. The absence of a strictly sociological academic journal 

deprived academics of a larger debate about the problems of sociology in 

Argentina. During the 1980s, sociology took refuge in research reports 

from research centers like the Center for the Study of State and Society 

(CEDES) 7 and the Latin American Council on the Social Sciences 

(CLACSO). 8 In the 1990s, other journals appeared, but they did not succeed. 

At present, the picture in relation to academic journals of sociology is: 

there are few social science journals published by universities or research 

centers. 

6 On March 24, 1976 the military overthrew the government of President Isabel 

Martínez de Perón and started a de facto government, suspending constitutional 

guarantees. This dictatorship continued until December 2003. 

7 The Center for the Study of State and Society, founded in 1975, is a multidisci- 

plinary center dedicated to studying social, political, and economic issues in Ar- 

gentina and Latin America 

8 The Latin American Council on the Social Sciences, founded in 1967, is an 

international non-governmental institution, which brings together research and 

graduate programs in 25 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean.

160 


However, in 2003, the catalog Latindex (Regional Information System 

for Online Scientific Latin American, Caribbean, Spain, and Portugal), 

included in its directory (the directory is the record of scientific 

journals) 190 scientific journals from Latin American social sciences, 

distributed as follows: Brazil: 33%, Mexico 25%, Argentina 17%, Colombia 

5% and Venezuela 5%. 

This shows that Argentina, despite its low number of journals, is in third 

place in the region in publishing social science journals. If we take into 

account the journals included on the list (journals ranked at the highest 

scientific level), there are only 16 journals classified as sociology: 9 Aportes 

para la Integración Latinoamericana; Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad; 

Educación, Lenguaje y Sociedad; Espacios Nueva Serie; Estudios del 

Trabajo; Estudios Migratorios Latinoamericanos; Geodemos; La Aljaba; 

Medicina y Sociedad; Mitológicas; Mora; Población y Sociedad; Razón y 

Revolución; Revista Argentina de Sociología; Scripta Ethonológica y 

Trabajo y Sociedad. Clearly, not all of these are specific to sociology, and 

some of them refer only to a branch of sociology. 

I would like to draw your attention to the Revista Argentina de Sociología, 

published by the Council of Professional Sociologists 10 since 

2003. On the one hand, this is the institution I represent, and on the other 

hand, in the past few years, the Revista Argentina de Sociologìa has become 

an academic journal of highest level, included not only in the catalog 

Latindex at level 1, but also in the Núcleo Básico de Revistas 

Científicas Argentinas, which is a selection of publications in science and 

technology published in this country, recognized, and classified as level 1 

by the Argentinean Center for Scientific and Technical Information, in 

the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research. Also, it is 

included in other international indexes, such as the SCA Sociological Abstracts, 

and Cambridge Scientifics Abstracts. 

That a few years was enough for the Revista Argentina de Sociología 

to establish itself as a top-level journal in the national and Latin American 

field of sociology, with a wide acceptance and recognition among 

professionals in the social sciences, shows an expected rise in the profes- 

9 In Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain, and Portugal Latindex categorizes a 

total of 129 journals as sociology journals. 

10 The CPS was created through a national law in 1988 and governs professional 

practice within the area of the capital city of Argentina (Buenos Aires), the na- 

tional territory of Tierra del Fuego and the South Atlantic Islands. The CPS has 

846 sociologists enrolled.


sionalization of the field of sociology, which was absent until that time, 

despite the existence of a significant number of social science journals. 

Interestingly, the Revista Argentina de Sociología is not published by 

a university. As we saw, the history of sociology in Argentina has shown 

the existence of research centers and institutions in the field of sociology, 

with a strong production in social science. The Consejo de Profesionales 

en Sociología (Council of Sociological Professionals) has developed academic 

and professional activities continuously since its foundation and 

has academic cooperation agreements with universities and academic institutions, 

including the Latin American Sociological Association 

(ALAS), the Association of Sociologists of French Language (AISLF), 

the Association of Sociologists of Russia, and the College of Sociologists 

of Peru. The International Sociological Association (ISA) recognized 

Argentina’s CPS as a regular member of the Council of National Associations 

of ISA, given the absence of a federation of Sociology in Argentina 

and CPS’s prestige and its academic and professional quality. 

The Consejo de Profesionales en Sociología organized meetings of 

sociology associations from Latin America in the congresses of the Latin 

American Sociological Association. In the Preparatory Meeting of the 

XXVII Congress of this association, held at the National University of 

Nordeste, Corrientes, Argentina, in 2008, this institution also organized 

and coordinated a meeting of Argentinean colleges and professional associations, 

in order to initiate efforts to create a sociological federation in 

Argentina. 11 The Association of Sociologists of the Province of Buenos 

Aires, the Association of Sociologists of San Juan, and the Association of 

Sociologists Santiago del Estero participating in this meeting. 12 These 

associations had recently restarted operations after a more or less prolonged 

period of inactivity. 

The leadership role of the CPS in this field is growing and can be 

viewed in light of its participation in academic and professional fields, in 

the Institute of Sociological Research, and in the Revista Argentina de 

Sociología, which has been positioned in Argentina as a channel of 

expression for social communication and discussions about research in 

Latin America. 

11 In our country, a sociological federation existed, but it stopped working sev- 

eral years ago. 

12 In 1985, by provincial law, the College of Sociologists of the Province of Bue- 

the College of the Province of San Juan, but this college remained inactive from 1989 until 1998. It now has 36 sociologist enrolled. In 2005, by provincial law , 

nos Aires , which now has 220 sociologists enrolled, was established, but it was 

inactive in the period from 1998 - 2000. In 1986 a law was passed to establish 

the College of Santiago del Estero was established, which now has 131 sociologists 

enrolled.

162 


PROBLEMS FOR SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS IN ARGENTINA 

Editing a scientific journal of sociology in Latin America in a time of 

social and economic crisis like the present is a challenge. Globalization, 

social inequalities, and high levels of unemployment and social exclusion 

that affect the majority of Latin American countries are facts about which 

sociologists and social scientists of varied disciplines have much to contribute, 

both to understanding them and to searching for alternatives to 

improve the living conditions of the social actors involved. 

In addition to this challenge, there are several difficulties that editors 

have to face. The main difficulties are: this journal’s low visibility 

worldwide, the low recognition by national science and technology agencies 

and by the authors themselves, the poor preparation of the editors in 

the process and rules of publishing scientific journals, the lack of funding, 

the difficulties of editing volumes on time, and primarily the absence of 

editorial policies that support such journals in most Latin American countries. 

The following are some of these difficulties. 

First, in Latin American countries, when evaluating scholars’ productivity, 

science and technology agencies give higher scores to articles published 

in journals indexed by Social Sciences Citation Index (SCI), of 

Institute of Scientific Information (ISI). However, Latin American journals 

are rarely indexed by the Social Sciences Citation Index. There are 

only five Argentinean journals evaluated by ISI and incorporated into the 

SCI. Of these, only one is in the area of Social Sciences (Desarrollo 

Económico, edited by IDES, Institute of Economic and Social Development), 

but as we saw, this journal is not specific to the field of sociology. 

Moreover, there are prejudices against index journals that are not 

coming from the United States or Western Europe or are not written in 

English or French. Inclusion in the indexes ensures the visibility of the 

journal. Latin American journals publish articles of excellent quality, and 

they are very prestigious, but they have little worldwide visibility. Another 

problem faced by Latin American journals is funding, which reflects 

the problem of financing the sector of science and technology. 

In turn, there is a lack of training in editing for the editors of these 

journals, who are unaware the rules or processes of editing scientific 

journals and even choose not to index their journals. These problems 

made it necessary to work actively to improve Latin American journals.


CHALLENGES FOR SOCIAL SCIENCE JOURNALS 

IN ARGENTINA AND LATIN AMERICA 

The problems faced by scientific journals should be addressed both by the 

government policies and by editors. Policies are needed to improve national 

scientific journals and provide financial support and training for 

editors. 

On the editors’ side, work is needed in networking, collaborating, and 

collaboratingwith other editors to create national or regional indexes and 

networks. Now, I will present a brief overview of what has happened in 

Argentina in these two areas. 

Government Policies. 

The Argentinean Center for Scientific and Technical Information is the 

institution responsible for developing policies related to scientific journals. 

In order to support national journals, it has joined the Latindex System 

and promoted the scoring of Argentinean scientific journals. Inclusion 

in the Latin American System Latindex marks a change in the ways 

the contents of journals published in the region are scientifically assessed. 

Ana Maria Flores, coordinator of the Scientific Publications Area 

CAICYT / CONICET, highlights the importance of the Latindex System 

for Argentinean scientific journals, explaining that LatIndex: 1) is the 

first national survey of scientific publications from all disciplines, 2) 

makes it possible to select, evaluate, and prioritize scientific publications 

according to international standards and set editorial quality parameters 

for the region, 3) advances the scoring of scientific journals in Argentina, 

4) makes a new form of contact with readers, publishers, abstracting services, 

and databases for international distribution. All contact information 

for journal editors is updated, and the articles are open access on the 

web. 

The Argentinean Center for Scientific and Technical Information also 

offers national science editing seminars, in order to train the editors of 

national journals in scientific editing. The aim is to preserve Argentinean 

publications, which are often the only source of research of local or regional 

interest, the best vehicle to publicize the research being undertaken 

in universities and research centers in the country, and an important element 

of training for young researchers.

164 


Editors of Scientific Journals 

Editors also must work to improve scientific journals in the social 

sciences. As Eduardo Sandoval Forero (2004), the coordinator of the 

network of Latin American journal editors called Revistalas says, "The 

complex situation of the journals and their future in Latin America, not 

only in the national indexes but also in the international context, and the 

lack of policies that support knowledge dissemination in Latin American 

countries, require a collective effort that would be difficult for any single 

publication to solve. Forming networks has the potential to mobilize efforts, 

skills, and editorial policies. Surely, a network will facilitate the 

creation of common understandings for publishers. A network allows us 

to organize ourselves as editors, exchange information, establish partnerships, 

and, where possible and appropriate, share resources among journals 

from different institutions and geographic areas.” 

In Argentina, the Revista Argentina de Sociología is committed to the 

important task of promoting the visibility of Latin American scientific 

journals. Our efforts to communicate scientific knowledge are not limited 

to editing but extend to the task of establishing a forum for exchange, 

communication of the problems faced, and cooperative work among academic 

journals in social sciences in Latin America. 

With the aim of working together, in the context of the XXIV Congress 

of the Latin American Association in Arequipa, the editors of a 

group of Latin American journals founded the network Revistalas, of 

which I am co-coordinator along with Eduardo Sandoval Forero. 

Same of the goals that Revistalas established are: 1) Develop a directory 

of scientific journals of Latin American social sciences and humanities, 

2) develop editorial strategies through cooperation, for example, by 

exchanging articles and referees, and 3) organize meetings of the network 

at the National and Latin American Congress of Sociology, as well as 

activities that allow us to discuss the situation of Latin American journals 

and to seek strategies to improve these journals. 

Finally, and as a conclusion, I am convinced that by joining forces 

and working cooperatively, we will take steps forward to improving Latin 

American journals. For this, we need specific policies and participation 

by editors in the establishment of these policies. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Cole, Stephen. “The Role of Journals in the Growth of Scientific Knowledge.” 

In Blaise Croning and Helen Barsky Atkins, eds. The Web of


Knowledge. Medford, New Jersey: ASIS Monograph Series Information 

Today, 2000. 

Flores, Ana María. “Las Normas para la Edición de Revistas Científicas: 

los Índices y la Evaluación de las Revistas Científicas. Aportes y 

Críticas.” Paper given in the panel “Las Revistas Académicas de 

Ciencias Sociales: Problemáticas y Perspectivas de la Edición 

Científica en Argentina.” Presentation at I Encuentro 

Latinoamericano de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales, La Plata, 

2008. 

Martín Sempere, María José. “Papel de las Revistas Científicas en la 

Transferencia de Conocimientos.” In Román Román, Adelaida, et. al. 

La Edición de Revistas Científicas: Guía de Buenos Usos. Madrid: 

Centro de Información y Documentación Científica CINDOC (CSIC), 

2001. 

Palermo, Alicia Itatí. “Editorial.” Revista Argentina de Sociología 4, no. 

7 (2006). 

Pereyra, Diego. “Las Revistas Académicas de Sociología en Argentina. 

Racconto de una Historia Desventurada.” Revista Argentina de 

Sociología 5, no. 3 (2005). 

Sandoval Forero, Eduardo. “Ciencias Sociales y Revistas Científicas en 

América Latina.” Revista Convergencia 11 (2004).

166 

Napoleon Velástegui Bahamonde 

Sociology, Technology Parks, Applied 

Research, and International Accreditation 

Napoleon Velástegui Bahamonde, University of Guayaquil, 

Ecuador 1 

This presentation to the Conference of National Associations of the International 

Sociological Association, the Taiwanese Sociology Association, 

and the Institute of Sociology of the Academia Sinica, has two central 

goals, one theoretical and one practical, that, though they are opposites, 

are also complementary. 

First, I seek to contextualize the period that social sciences and sociology 

are going through, an era of profound changes and new ideas and 

challenges. 

Second, I propose to put into use the wealth of social science and sociological 

experience to help focus our attention on ideas coming from 

the natural sciences and technology, and enhance our ability to respond to 

current demands for improving the quality of social life, particularly 

among the world’s most vulnerable people. I suggest we could do this by 

developing applied research, highlighting the potential of technology 

parks (areas dedicated to scientific research and supported by business), 

and democratizing the process of international accreditation in centers of 

higher education, particularly those in developing countries and especially 

in Latin America. 

SOME THEORETICAL PREMISES: GLOBALIZATION 

AND MODERNIZATION 

As I noted in the paper I presented at the Sixth World Sociology Congress 

in Durban, South Africa in July 2006, the changes I’m referring to 

are varied and extensive: social, economic, cultural, ideological, technological. 

And, humankind has effected these changes in the course of just 

one generation. However, they are of such magnitude, depth, and gradually 

increasing speed that the paradigms in place have not been able to 

1 Napoleón Velastegui Bahamonde is President of the Federación Ecuatoriana 

de Sociologos (Ecuadorian Federation of Sociologists).

Sociology, Technology Parks, Applied Research, and International Accreditation 167 

interpret and explain them. 

Today, we are not only witnesses but also fundamentally protagonists 

of an extraordinary conceptual revitalization, of the construction of new 

paradigms that aim, once again, to respond more precisely and more accurately 

when the clock of global warming strikes, increasing peoples’ 

consciousness about environmental care and protection and about citizens’ 

rights, calling not only for more strength but also importantly, for 

more flexibility and tolerance. 

Therefore, I pointed out at that recent congress, new efforts to examine 

social scientific and especially sociological problems have emerged in 

the context of this broad theoretical reconstruction. Sociological thinking 

is not only moving on to new issues but has also been forced to take on 

new directions by the combination of these accelerated changes and 

emerging social dynamics. 

We can now say that the multiple themes of social sciences in general 

and sociology in particular tend, directly or indirectly, to emerge from a 

matrix of social relations, at once new and old. The axis of these social 

relations is no longer singular but increasingly represents an “ordered 

pair,” in a “binary” relationship of inseparable correlation and feedback 

between two ends: 1) productivity and 2) quality of life. Class competition 

progressively makes these two sides inseparable, but also, and perhaps 

most important, their interaction marks – more transparently – an 

overall trend towards excellence in all human spheres, including economic, 

social, cultural, scientific, and technical activities. Productivity is 

not exclusively an economic category; it is also is becoming a sociological 

category. 

Now, it is unlikely that a low quality of life will generate high productivity. 

We are past the time of Peter the Great, when he would announce, 

"I will make them progress even if I have to drag them,” or the 

recent and pathetic example of Pinochet, who carried out Allende’s offer 

but “kicking and screaming” and in rivers of blood, being sentenced in 

life. 

Instead, we are seeing the dawn of a new era characterized by greater 

social participation, greater respect, and greater racial, social, and religious 

tolerance. The ancient contrast of wealth and poverty has diminished 

but not disappeared. While it remains, its presence will have an 

increasingly dramatic effect, because humanity will look at it from a 

greater ethical height, whose greater sensitivity implies an inherent need 

to help generate answers more quickly. In this new era, we have seen the 

development of a new social vision in which, in another paradox, the two 

poles of business and science inform the growth of a multidisciplinary 

theory where the social sciences need the natural sciences and vice versa.

168 


As always, these extraordinary vital changes follow age old but increasingly 

intense social and historical patterns that also manifest themselves 

in the active participation of their diverse components: ourselves. 

I agree with the idea expressed in this conference regarding the "end 

of determinism," or at least the beginning of the end. At the same time 

we must remember that this will not be the end of determinants, because 

without patterns there is no science. Entropy is not absolute. As nonlinear 

thermodynamics tells us, in open systems, non-equilibrium states 

arise. This enables humankind to explain the behavior of biological, social, 

and other structures and phenomena. 

Today, we have conceptual systems in the social sciences that grew 

up under "the golden tree of life" and were nourished by the strength of 

other disciplines, particularly the natural sciences. Nevertheless, we must 

never forget to repeat, with Goethe and to maintain our sanity, that like 

any theory, natural science is also ambiguous. 

At the Durban Congress, I organized my proposal as follows. Regarding 

the character of globalization, one of the determining factors I 

mentioned, I pointed out: 1) Globalization is a historical regularity, a law 

of socio-economic development, whose basic direction has been oriented 

towards excellence, quality, integration, and interdependence in all 

spheres of social and economic life. 2) With regard to the link between 

globalization and the regional level, I suggested that globalization is going 

through a stage of regionalization (e.g., the European Union) and simultaneously, 

a process of strengthening "the local" is emerging that is 

helping to forge the identity of nations still in the process of consolidation. 

The difference is that this time, “local” identity is coalescing around the 

urban perspective, whereas in the past century developing countries emphasized 

the rural. 3) Regarding the great wealth-poverty paradox, I 

pointed out that globalization, like all contemporary social phenomena, 

has a paradoxical character, but it is also irreversible and progressive. Its 

fundamental dynamic is scientific and technological, but it responds to 

the growing, current demand for productivity and competitiveness in all 

areas, so it affects all aspects of social life generally, and the urban demands 

of labor markets and culture specifically. 

The Americans, with their practical sense, through the words of their 

former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, define globalization as the fact 

that almost all products that weigh over ten pounds and cost more than 

ten dollars are global composites. Beyond theorizing, this simple, categorical 

definition demonstrates that this “miracle,” the phenomenon of 

globalization, has already taken a seat at the concert of the real. 

Finally, considering the relationship between globalization, regionalization, 

and the processes that occur in regions and nations with low and


medium productivity, particularly in Latin America, I argued that the 

modernization processes of nations are correlative and complementary to 

the process of globalization. In low and medium productivity countries, 

rapid changes in the economic structure make local branches no longer 

primary but secondary and generally tertiary. As a result, both the state 

and society as a whole have had to update their role and their structure to 

deliver better services to citizens. The profound transformations occurring 

in Latin America can only work on the condition that simultaneously 

with these changes, enough resources, in both quality and quantity, are 

generated to support a new brand that merges business vision with greater 

social responsibility. 

SOME PRACTICAL POINTS: TECHNOLOGY PARKS 

The second theme of this paper concerns contemporary processes like the 

"Bologna Process," the Technological "Nobel" and operational proposals 

for technology parks. 

As a source and as a result of the changes noted above, there has 

emerged a new organizational culture around innovation, risk, entrepreneurship, 

environmental management, civil rights, the optimization of 

resources, and the control of corruption, among other things. This new 

outlook reflects strategies to consolidate and reinforce the changes that 

have converged from various parties, approaches, and efforts, in this case 

in Latin America, influenced by global, regional, national, and local factors. 

We will not mention any particular social strategies emerging in this 

continent – since that’s not the purpose of this paper – but suffice it to say 

that although none of these efforts are the same, all of them share a common 

factor: the desire to resolve, in the local environment and at the contemporary 

level of social development, the secular paradox of an unequal 

world. 

In Europe, one of the oldest continents and the cradle of important 

civilizations and social science ideas, which today epitomizes the regionalization 

phase of the globalization process, technology parks have 

emerged as a means to stimulate the relationship between research, development, 

and investment. 

Technology parks are one of the most visible expressions of the many, 

diverse responses demanded by this new organizational culture and the 

new social relations among science, technology, society, state, and the 

market. The rate of growth of these “knowledge cities” in Europe, for 

instance, is different from that in Latin America. This situation itself 

provokes a few questions.

170 


In the specific case of Ecuador and its main port city, Guayaquil, one 

might ask of academia and higher-level institutions for knowledge, 

“What are the challenges universities, and particularly the University of 

Guayaquil (UG), face for institutional development and leadership in the 

next 50 years” 

An important part of the response revolves around the fact that to advance 

towards a knowledge-based society, in any country in Latin America 

just as in the EU, universities in general and the University of 

Guayaquil in particular need to begin an accelerated modernization process, 

both in their relations with the state and in their relations with businesses 

and society. The energy needed, including extensive financial resources, 

cannot be wasted on the current high levels of chaos, which misuse 

resources that are essential to meeting the population’s demand for an 

improved quality of life. 

To orient ourselves, let’s examine a few international experiences. 

First, in Europe, in the “Bologna Process,” begun in 1999 and lasting 

until 2010, 40 countries are working to strengthen their academic autonomy 

and expand their roles in innovation and economic development. 

On the other hand, it’s worth remembering that the four finalists for 

the “Nobel Prize” in Technology in 2008 (the third edition of the Millenium 

Technology prize being for 1,150,000 Euros), coming from 26 

countries, are committed to doing research to “improve peoples’ quality 

of life.” 2 

Just these two cases demonstrate the wide range that extends from the 

“jumping off point” of the Bologna Process to the technological inventions 

supported by the “Nobel” in technology, imply that at the moment, 

2 These finalists included: 1) Andrew Viterbi (USA, University of South California), 

whose contribution revolutionized cell phone communication technology 

through the “Viterbi” algorithm, which has been crucial to improving computers 

and MP3 storage capacity in wireless networks. 2) Alec Jeffreys (United Kingdom, 

University of Leicester), who developed DNA fingerprinting, which has 

resolved thousands of paternity and immigration cases, among other uses. 3) 

Emmanuel Desurvire (France, Director of Physical Research, Thales Corporation), 

who applied enriched Erbium to enhance fiber optic networks, transforming 

the world of broadband and long distance communication, and 4) Robert 

Langer (USA, MIT, Department of Health Sciences and Technology), who pioneered 

several fields of biotechnology, including the application of medication 

without injections to combat malignant tumors. Likewise, the first edition of the 

Millennium Technology Prize went to Tim Berners-Lee (USA), “father” of the 

Internet, and the second went to Shuji Nakamura (Japan), inventor of the LED 

(Light Emitting Diode) semiconductor, a replacement for the “traditional” electric 

lightbulb that gives off a pleasant white light, consumes little electricity, and 

lasts for a long time.


the destiny of sociology and the social sciences should begin from its intersection 

with the natural sciences and technology. This intersection will 

allow us to generate new offers or create new universities to face the fundamental 

challenge of international accreditation and to fulfill a strategic 

role. 

One important mechanism for such innovation is technology parks, 

which encourage broad responses, filled with the contemporary spirit of 

innovation and entrepreneurial quality, such as water resource management, 

environmental protection, citizen participation and rights, and the 

creation of early warning systems for risks and disasters, among other 

things, all based on science and technology. The research from such sites 

makes it possible to produce real products, new conceptual systems, and 

direct applications in production, culture, and technology transfer to address 

these challenges. 

Currently, it’s well known that universities no longer have exclusive 

control over science. For this reason, new relations between science, 

technology, society, businesses, and the market demand a rapid reorientation 

in order to jump start them towards the future, towards a knowledge 

society. Only absolutely “stable” and “traditional” topics and institutions 

are neophobes, and as a result, are generating a cycle of inevitable and 

irreversible obsolescence that is driving them towards an outdated institutional 

fundamentalism. 

The University of Guayaquil, like other centers of higher education, 

must act immediately to confront this challenge. If it does not, it will not 

be a protagonist but a passive witness. Its international accreditation as 

well as its own strategic development as an institution are in danger, 

given the immanent risk of becoming seriously isolated and excluded by 

an intense competition for available financial resources. Access to resources 

depends on developing a new management approach, which will 

be effective to the extent it equips itself with a holistic and interdisciplinary 

vision, oriented towards inclusiveness, empowerment, and redirecting 

resources. 

This means reworking the university’s scientific, technological, and 

cultural leadership, as well as the management of the institution, for the 

next 50 years. For the University of Guayaquil (UG), the urgent needs 

include the following: 1) the immediate formulation of background conditions 

and a workplan to help us obtain membership in the International 

Association of Science Parks, 2) the creation of a UG Technology Park 

Foundation, 3) the formation of an interdisciplinary team of specialists to 

design the UG technology park, 4) the development of a UG research 

system, 5) a legal framework for the UG technology park, 6) a design for 

studying the current and potential supply and demand for UG within its

172 


realm of influence, based on planning policies that overcome traditional 

divisions based exclusively on the political and administrative division of 

provinces, counties, and towns and, instead, take watersheds 3 into account, 

7) the redesign of the university campus and selection of the most 

appropriate location for the UG technology park, 8) the selection of companies 

to support the UG technology park, 9) a study of the most productive 

areas within UG’s area of influence, particularly in the Guayas River 

Watershed, 10) to highlight these areas of productivity, the creation of a 

new paradigm, a “wealth map,” to complement the earlier “poverty 

maps,” and 11) the distribution of these results. 

All this is so that a new organizational culture of entrepreneurship 

and innovation emerges synergistically at the heart of the university and 

contributes significantly to peoples’ struggles to improve their quality of 

life through progressively increasing our productivity and competitiveness. 

We hope the technology park, whose study area will be the Guayas 

River Watershed, becomes a catalyst of this process. 

As the International Association of Science Parks (IASP) defines 

them, technology parks are physical spaces that maintain formal and operational 

relationships with universities, encouraging the development of 

businesses by adding valuable knowledge from the third sector, to build 

the university of the future. The IASP explains that a technology park 

should have a stable management agency that promotes technology transfer 

and fosters innovation among the companies and organizations that 

use the park. This agency should also provide a team of specialized professionals 

to meet social and business demands. The team should be oriented 

to raising productivity and competitiveness through a culture of 

business innovation and knowledge sharing among institutions within the 

park or associated with it. It should also help stimulate the flow of 

knowledge through cultivation, “spinoff,” or other similar things. 

The nature of the UG technology park will be diverse, since the 

economy of its city and the region of its area of influence is diverse. 

The potential themes for the technological park’s services to the 

public, private, and community sectors include mainly information and 

communication technologies (ICT); communication and social networks; 

nutrition and agro-industry; medicine and health; small, medium, and 

large industries; renewable and environmental energy management; water 

management; tourism and trade; business management; innovation and 

risk; engineering; and consulting. The technology park will form net- 

3 Watershed: an area defined by a natural water drainage system, delimited by 

the section of a river to which it refers and the summit line, which is also called 

the “water divider” of hydraulic resources. Since the 1970s, watersheds have 

been used for planning the use of natural resources.


works of technology and innovation transfer; it will integrate projects 

linked to local, regional, and national development efforts; and it will 

address the demands of the nation and the market. 

However, because the natural and social sciences have an interdependent 

relationship, the natural sciences alone will not be able to fulfill 

this mission. In order to meet the aforementioned challenges, the natural 

sciences will be insufficient without active citizen participation and the 

interpretation and systematization of social facts on the part of social sciences 

and sociology. 

Now, the equation is: productivity + welfare = competitiveness. This 

equation could not have emerged in an earlier period. It required that 

people build up more social and business maturity, as manifested in the 

decline of clientelistic networks. Now, in Ecuador, increasing citizen 

participation in electoral processes and in the dismissal of presidents and 

governments demonstrate that we have overcome the past. 

However, as we know, resistance to change is always sustained by 

the most powerful of forces: the force of habit. 

The present and, more importantly, the future of this equation depends 

on the emergence of new responsibilities imposed on scientific disciplines 

and higher education centers. These tasks will be related, on the 

one hand, to the real and potential needs in their areas of influence and, 

on the other hand, to their relationships with social movements, which 

should also rebuild and reconstruct an outdated social psychology, based 

on dilapidated, clientilistic, and permissive customs. 

In the recent past, in Ecuador, one of the factors that contributed decisively 

to generating the biggest crisis in the history of the republic was 

the role played by “swallow capital,” closely linked to huge, unparalleled 

waves of corruption. Apparently, the bait was very “attractive:” some 

investors were willing to pay up to 80% and more of the annual bank interest 

rate! This phenomenon emerged in a context of inflation and devaluation. 

It pulverized the monetary reserve. More seriously, in this 

nefarious period emerged not only speculative, devaluing, partisan macroeconomic 

government policies but also a system of social concepts and 

practices that were similarly distant from the fundamental objective: productive 

investment. 

Large social groups turned their backs on fruitful work and ended up 

living a parasitic “lifestyle.” For instance, in Guayaquil, it was common 

to see money changers on October 9 Street and Pichinca Street, completely 

occupied with responding to the enormous demand for buying and 

selling dollars from residents inflamed about the immanent and daily devaluation 

of the national currency. 

In due time, the swallow capital left in search of new and fresh niches,

174 


the financial system collapsed, and the economic crisis turned into a political 

and social one. Any resemblance to what has happened in other 

countries is not just a coincidence. Poverty passed the 80% mark, we hit 

rock bottom, and now we’re trying to lift ourselves up and advance as 

rapidly as possible towards increasing productivity levels. Only by increasing 

the productivity of businesses, workers, and the nation will we 

be able to confront the challenges of international markets, and this will 

not be possible without simultaneously working to increase peoples’ 

standard of living. 

It is imperative to absorb a new economic and social category that reflects 

the rapid contemporary changes: competitiveness. This basic concept, 

which comes from managers and those who seek quality and excellence, 

expresses the close relationship between productivity and wellbeing. 

It speaks to the link between the degree of productivity that a company 

or a nation can reach while still being able to improve workers’ 

standards of living. 

One factor that will be discussed in a new light is the relationship between 

the the gross operating surplus (GOS) and workers’ compensation 

(WC). The crisis of 1998, 1999 and 2001, when we reached a 20% unemployment 

rate, got taken out on the backs of labor. The gross operating 

surplus for those years was 67%, 75% and 84%, respectively, while 

the proportion of workers' pay was 33%, 27% and 16%, respectively. 

The GOS in this period increased by 26% while workers’ compensation 

diminished 53%. A crisis administered that way turns out to be a good 

deal for a few people, and this was a starting point for changing the 

political actors in Ecuador. 

Another issue that we should consider is training and education, 

which will be pillars of these processes, but will do so, above all, within a 

new image of the contemporary era that gradually assimilates the patterns 

of globalization, modernization, and regionalization, and is linked to the 

appearance of the era of information, knowledge, and more aware social 

participation. 

In the face of current social needs, people in Ecuador have become 

ever more aware of their rights and duties. They recognize that the law 

can be a “limit on their rights” that expands with their active participation 

and mobilization. As a result, their demands can only be resolved 

through real responses based on scientific research, technological innovation, 

and entrepreneurship. There is a profound feeling in the nation that 

there is emerging a new relationship between state, market, society, science, 

and technology that makes it possible, at the same time, to protect 

natural resources and generate the enormous financial resources to reduce 

massive gaps in services and significant social inequalities.


In particular, the sphere of influence of the technology park of the 

University of Guayaquil will include a watershed made up of ten of the 

25 provinces of Ecuador, with 27 sub-watersheds that cover an area of 

50,489 square kilometers, representing 18.7% of the total land surface of 

Ecuador. This area is home to nearly 5.5 million inhabitants, amounting 

to 40% of the total current population and has more than 1,200 companies 

on record employing about 100,000 workers and generating more than 48 

billion dollars in production, which represents about 50% of the country’s 

total GDP. 

One of many examples of potential of the UG technology park would 

be to use technical information gathered to develop an early warning system, 

which is the only way to prevent and mitigate the impacts of permanent 

flooding. Similarly, one might make use of the technology park to 

moderate the impacts of the drought seasons on the population located in 

this area. Sociology, together with other scientific disciplines, can and 

may seek connections with specific activities that support the development 

of a proactive awareness, particularly of the rural sector, applying 

and building upon community action methodologies. 

At the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000, one of the resolutions 

was to "Increase cooperation to reduce the number and impact of 

natural and man-made disasters." In Ecuador, natural disasters consistently 

have greater impacts on the most vulnerable sectors of society, who 

have an insufficient capacity to face disasters of this magnitude. The 

floods caused by the El Niño phenomenon in 1982-83 (in Guayaquil, the 

cumulative annual rainfall during those years exceeded 4,000 mm.) generated 

damage that exceeded $650 million US dollars, with important 

losses in the productive sectors (63%), infrastructure (33%), and the 

social sectors (4%), particularly among the most vulnerable and for those 

under the poverty line. The total damage caused by the El Niño phenomenon 

in Ecuador in 1997-1998, meanwhile, was estimated at $2.869 

billion US dollars. Economic losses in the latter years were more than 

four times those in 1982-1983, with reports of dozens dead, 3,700 evacuated, 

10,000 injured, and around 2,000 dwellings damaged. There are 

some communities where a high percentage of the population disposes of 

sewage into septic tanks or directly into their back yards, which makes 

such areas very vulnerable to disease transmission. The paradox is that 

the population of most of these communities do not even have potable 

water service. Only 9 towns (17%), 3 rural and 6 urban, have piped water; 

generally, water comes from wells.

176 


CONCLUSIONS 

Until just a few years ago in my country, at a meeting of the national organization 

for science and technology (Fundación para la Ciencia y Tecnología, 

FUNDACYT), people discussed the very existence of social sciences. 

Today, there is not a candidate or a traditional political party that 

does not use the category “social,” even if in name only, in its pursuit of 

the popular vote (and the battles in this new era will be primarily electoral). 

While this fact expresses the chameleon-like flexibility of the 

forces of the past that refuse to die, it also speaks to the importance of 

social issues in the contemporary environment. 

Today, at the international level, the social sciences play an increasingly 

prominent role in the prognosis of critical social phenomena, such 

as in the case of the consolidation of the European Union, whose emergence 

marked a step forward for social development. Likewise, sociology 

has taken information collected automatically from Internet servers 

to understand market demands, and it has contributed to the solution of 

health problems (pandemics and their relationship with life overall), nutrition, 

production in general, culture, and even art. 

In Ecuador, the constitution recently adopted by a vast majority vote 

includes various articles that expand the guiding force of social science as 

a tool for achieving social rights, equality, citizen participation, and environmental 

care and protection. In general, it is almost unanimous that we 

now have a more tolerant, less fundamentalist, more livable world than 

even just a half century ago. 

Globalization was demonized yesterday as unilateral, but today we 

can look at this multidimensional phenomenon in its highs and lows as a 

process that above all demonstrates progress towards a more dynamic and 

informed society. 

The nations of Latin America are coming together like tributary rivers 

in a great basin of impetuous and irrepressible social, economic, cultural, 

and ideological changes, but satisfying peoples’ just demands can 

only happen if we have a sufficient quantity and quality of resources. 

The concept of productivity is transforming itself and expanding to 

include a sociological character. The possibility of generating high productivity 

with a low quality of life is ever smaller. The new concept, 

competitiveness includes both faces of the same coin. The eras of Peter 

the Great or Pinochet, the latter only a few years ago, are now inconceivable. 

Social participation reveals patterns of more respect and tolerance 

in various spheres of sociological activity, which is now more prestigious 

and at the same time more demanding of creative approaches and “more 

achievable utopias.”


What can we say about the new science of thermodynamics - and its 

increasing updates - that closely links natural and social sciences Technology 

parks are part of this new type of interdisciplinary response. It is 

certain that there will occur an “era of transition,” where forces that identify 

more with the market coexist with those that emphasize the social 

sides of life. 

In Ecuador and especially in Guayaquil, its main port city, the latest 

elections of leaders at the national and local level, respectively, reaffirmed 

these two currents. Beyond the struggle that will emerge in the 

next five years, there is a common ground: people share the idea that the 

development of technology parks is a practical means to address regional 

needs. 

This era, full of changes and like no other before, deserves a paradigmatic 

system of self-renovation, feedback, and proactiveness that 

avoids, to the extent possible, or at least defers the natural expiration of 

the theoretical tools that have been unable to absorb the growing acceleration 

of the course of humanity towards excellence. By the end of this 

century, at a rate of growth of zero resulting from the natural decline in 

the overall rate of fertility, the planet will reach approximately twice the 

population we have today. Along with that, the world will reach its 

“adulthood,” which will release an extraordinary flow of financial resources 

to resolve problems and not only for growth but also for development. 

This will make it possible to produce cleaner energy to address 

the legacy of a more contaminated planet, which will condition the emergence 

of new forms of social conduct and new and more diverse sociological 

topics. 

For now, the role of technology parks and their contribution to the 

development of new universities, much more linked to the real task at 

hand, has put in place a cornerstone for creating more achievable utopias. 

Universities and organizations related to sociological work, such as 

the ISA, should foresee that this implies that they need to prepare the 

ground for sociologists to enter into new domains and acquire new expertise. 

Physics and math will be ever more distant from the analyses of our 

discipline. Programs that utilize hermeneutic processes, such as the Atlas.ti 

program for qualitative analysis, will emerge to grant us skills for 

qualitative analysis and to improve the environment in which our discipline 

develops. The “state of the art” must engage with the spirit of the 

age that encourages sciences, social science, and especially sociology to 

arise. 

Under these conditions, institutions linked to sociological work in 

high productivity countries can and must contribute to the takeoff of research 

in lower productivity ones, through policies, programs, projects,

178 


and special events arranged for this purpose, in order to attempt to resolve 

the challenges of an increasingly unequal world. A clear example of this 

is precisely this conference of the ISA, where we are gathered in the welcoming 

Taipei.

PART III: 

AFRICA

Practical Responses to the Challenges for Sociology in the Face of Global Inequality 181 

Practical Responses to the Challenges for 

Sociology in the Face of Global Inequality 

Layi Erinosho, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria 1 

This paper will attempt to provide (a) an overview of the historical responses 

of sociology to global inequality and (b) a preview of sociology 

in Africa in the context of global discourse. The paper will conclude by 

challenging sociologists at both the global and local (i.e., African) levels 

to appreciate a return to grand theory or theorizing in order to understand 

and explain social inequality and inequity as well as to reclaim their relevance 

in world scholarship. 

OVERVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY 

The principal goal of Western sociology is the quest for social order in all 

contexts of human existence. This overarching concern prompted the 

founders of the discipline to articulate an all-inclusive theory that is anchored 

in the assumption that orderliness in modern societies depends on 

the capacity of their constituents units (i.e., individuals, social groups, 

social institutions) to relate to one another as well as to function optimally. 

No society, in the opinion of the founders of Western sociology, 

can sustain social order if its constituent units fail to perform their assigned 

functions optimally. 

However, the inadequacy of the classical theories of Auguste Comte 

(2003) and Herbert Spencer (1887) on the interplay between a sustainable 

social order and social inequality in modern societies prompted the rejoinder 

from Marx and Engels (1969). Sustainable social order in modern 

societies, according to the Marx, does not necessarily depend on the 

effective performance of the customary functions by its constituents but 

on a revolution that redresses perceived and/or real disparities or inequality 

among two major subgroups: the owners of the means of production 

and workers. The determination by each of these subgroups to pursue 

1 Layi Erinosho is the President of the African Sociological Association. He can be 

reached at c/o Department of Sociology, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, 

Ogun State, Nigeria, or at laierinosho@yahoo.com or erinosho@skannet.com.

182 

Layi Erinosho 

and/or protect its interests could, according to Marx, lead to a revolution 

that would bring about a classless society. 

One of the critical elements in the contest between the free marketers 

and the Marxists is over the scope and limits of the power of the state in 

social engineering. While the former were of the opinion that a free market 

economic system engenders rapid economic growth and the flowering 

of human spirit, the latter claimed that such sentiments are unrealizable 

unless the state plays a commanding role in economic affairs. 

Western social thought prior to the collapse of the former Soviet Union 

was crafted in the context of this debate about the most effective 

strategy for tackling social inequality in modern societies. The contest on 

how best to organize modern societies and also mitigate social inequality 

continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union, which spearheaded the 

Marxian position. 

The collapse of the former Soviet Union signaled the end of the debate 

and also vindicated the protagonists of free market. Most Marxist 

scholars melted away or now grudgingly accept the free market theoretical 

paradigm as the key to rapid economic growth and the flowering of 

human spirit. The Russians have now embraced the market while the 

Chinese are gradually itching towards that paradigm. 

One of the unanticipated outcomes of a unipolar world order is the 

decline of interest in grand theories and the proliferation of middle-range 

sociological theories which appear to dull the relevance of the contributions 

of sociologists to the analysis of social order and inequality. Sociology 

has veered towards post-modernism and applied research, and the 

discipline is today about everything and anything. Some sociologists 

conduct small-scale studies or propound theories of limited utility, some 

work as applied scientists, others cast their role more or less as social 

workers, and quite a number theorize on key aspects of human behavior, 

groups, and societies. This trend has led to the emergence of a more diffused 

sociology that fails to address a key problematic in a globalizing 

world: social inequality. 

SOCIOLOGY IN AFRICA IN THE CONTEXT OF 

GLOBAL SOCIOLOGY 

Social anthropology pre-dated sociology in Africa because the latter 

emanated from the colonial enterprise. However, sociology gathered 

greater momentum than social anthropology due to the commitment of 

African nationalists and scholars to de-colonizing curricula. Social anthropology 

fell into disrepute in the eyes of nationalists and scholars be-


cause it sought to define or perceive non-Western societies as primitive, 

in contrast to sociology, which is presumably bereft of value in the study 

or classification of human societies. It is therefore not surprising that 

sociology departments span the institutions of higher learning in all parts 

of Africa today, in contrast to social anthropology. 

This notwithstanding, a few sociology departments have sought to integrate 

social anthropology courses into their programs or combine the 

two. Even then, the emphasis has always been on sociology rather than 

on social anthropology in such departments. Besides, a significant feature 

of sociology is the interest in social administration and social work, 

resulting in the tendency to offer or integrate these disciplines (i.e., social 

administration and social work) into sociology degree programs in places 

like Lesotho, Swaziland, and some institutions in Nigeria. 

There are a little over 350 universities and innumerable polytechnics 

and colleges of education in Africa, the largest numbers in the populous 

countries in the continent, namely, Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa. 

Other countries with a sizeable number of institutions that offer sociology 

include Cameroon, Kenya, Ghana, and Senegal. 

The deregulation of the higher education sector in Africa created a 

window of opportunity for the private sector to open universities and 

polytechnics (Varghese 2004). Consequently, African countries now 

boast both public and private universities. The number of private universities 

is higher than the number of public ones in Uganda, Ghana, and 

Kenya, and it is about equal in Nigeria, Tanzania, and Senegal. 

The demand for degree programs in the social and management sciences 

is great, and sociology appears to be one that enjoys high enrollment 

by students. Thus, sociology is offered at the undergraduate and 

postgraduate levels in many institutions in Africa. The most developed 

programs are available in South Africa, Nigeria, Egypt, and Kenya, 

where large number of bachelors and a handful of doctorate degree holders 

are produced annually. Sociology is also offered as an ancillary subject 

in polytechnics and colleges of education while the curricula of professional 

disciplines like medicine, engineering, architecture, and agriculture 

also accommodate relevant sociology courses. 

Strands of Western and Arab sociologies traverse the continent. 

While the institutions that are south of the Sahara embrace Western sociology, 

those in North Africa are inclined to regard Ibn Khaldun as the 

founder of the sociological enterprise (Baali 2003). Thus, there is a remarkable 

difference between the curricula for sociology north and south 

of the Sahara. Generally, the courses that are offered can be sub-divided 

into the following core areas: history of social thought, including sociological 

theories (both classical and contemporary, especially in the con-

184 

Layi Erinosho 

text of Western sociology); research methods (both qualitative and quantitative); 

and the various thematic areas in sociology. Of critical interest 

among the thematic areas are those dealing with industry and development, 

crime and law, race and ethnic relations, health, gender, population 

studies, family, youth, ageing, etc. 

The greatest challenge to African sociology is in the indigenization of 

social theory or theories. Pioneer African sociologists were preoccupied 

with the contest between the social system/structural functionalism on the 

one hand and the Marxian and neo-Marxian theorizing on the other, prior 

to the collapse of the former Soviet Union. Others sought to situate 

change that has characterized the social structure and life in Africa in the 

context of the impact of colonialism. However, some scholars argued for 

the domestication of theories and the social sciences in International Sociology 

more than a decade ago (Akiwowo 1986; Loubster 1988; Sanda 

1988; Lawuyi and Taiwo 1990). Overall, vast numbers of works by most 

African sociologists seek to apply extant Western theories to understanding 

their continent, are applied, and/or are generally descriptive. 

By and large, sociology in Africa is characterized by a declining interest 

in theories and theorizing due to the perceptible drift towards applied 

sociology or public sociology. This orientation has largely been 

influenced by the expanding support of international foundations, bilateral 

and multilateral, for social research on socio-medical problems like 

HIV/AIDS, child abuse, gender discrimination, environmental degradation, 

ethnic conflict, identity and citizenship crises, etc. Consequently, a 

wide range studies by African sociologists is descriptive rather than analytical. 

The aim is to demonstrate the relevance of sociology and how it 

can be used to solve the problems of development. Therefore, the trend is 

towards problem-solving studies that are bereft of theory and theorizing 

but whose outcomes are, however, presented in a lucid manner (with 

graphs, bar charts, etc.). The reports from such studies usually contain 

ample policy recommendations that are meaningful for funders, policy 

makers, and program managers. It is generally believed that this shift towards 

applied sociology or public sociology underscores the credibility 

and relevance of the discipline in the “eyes” of wary publics, policy makers, 

and program managers. 

One could therefore surmise that there is a convergence between 

what is happening at the global and local (i.e., African) levels in sociology. 

Sociologists and sociologies, whether around the world or in Africa, 

have drifted towards applied or public sociology in order to demonstrate 

their relevance for the public, policy makers, and program managers.



One of the principal reasons for the current worldwide economic crisis is 

the pursuit of self-interest regardless of its negative impact on the public 

good. 2 Another worldwide problem today revolves around conflicts and 

wars within and between nation-states that exacerbate social inequality. 

Economic meltdown, conflicts, and wars are ostensibly motivated by 

non-rational pursuit of individual, group, and/or national interests. The 

world is poorer due to the economic meltdown and certainly not safer 

because humankind is experiencing all sorts of conflicts and wars 3 that 

have resulted in carnage, physical and social dislocation of large populations, 

misery, poverty, etc. 

These trends inevitably lead to the following questions, which 

deserve serious sociological analysis: 

a. What new insight, by way of theorizing, can sociologists bring to bear 

on the seemingly non-rational behavior patterns of individuals, groups and 

nation-states that are exacerbating social inequality in modern societies 

b. Can the current economic meltdown provide a template for understanding 

human behaviors and societies If yes, how, and if not, why not 

c. Is there a common trend that sociologists can pinpoint underlying these 

wars 

d. Can sociology regain/reclaim its voice, force, and relevance as the medium 

for understanding humankind and societies 

The sacred assumption that human beings are sufficiently rational 

and will presumably behave in manner that will not undermine the public 

good is now in doubt. Similarly, it is doubtful whether sociologists have 

sufficiently interrogated the basis of social conflicts and wars. In view of 

the foregoing, it is vital for sociology to reclaim its relevance in discourse 

on human behavior and societies through a return to grand theory and/or 

theorizing. This will, in the author’s view, be one of the practical ways 

by which sociology can respond to challenges in the face of global inequality. 

Such efforts could also provide the anchor for worthwhile applied 

research on poverty reduction. 

2 An example is the behaviour of bankers who are inclined to extend credit to the 

undeserving and/or claim generous bonuses regardless of their untoward impact 

on the economy. 

3 No one could have imagined the scale of human carnage in the wars in the former 

Yugoslavia (in Europe), Chechnya (Russia), Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, 

Rwanda, Darfur in Sudan and also Southern Sudan, Spain, Democratic Republic 

of the Congo, etc. in the past 25 years.

186 

Layi Erinosho 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Akiwowo, A.A. “Contributions to Sociology of Knowledge for an African 

Oral Poetry.” International Sociology 1 (1986): 343-358. 

Baali, F. The Science of Human Organization: Conflicting Views of Ibn 

Khaldun’s 91332-1406) llm-al-umran. Lewiston, New York: Edwin 

Mellen Press, 2003. 

Comte, A. Positive Philosophy, Part 1. Translated by Harriet Martineau. 

New York: Kessingner Publishing, 2003. 

Lawuyi, O.B. and Taiwo, O. “Towards an African Sociological Tradition: 

A Rejoinder to Akiwowo and Makinde.” International Sociology 5 

(1990): 57-73. 

Loubser, J.J. “The Need for the Indigenisation of the Social Sciences.” 

International Sociology 3 (1988): 179-187. 

Marx, K. and Engels, F. Manifesto of the Communist Party. Moscow, 

USSR: Progress Publishers, 1969. 

Sanda, A. Muyiwa. “In Defence of Indigenization of the Social Sciences.” 

International Sociology 3 (1988): 189-199. 

Varghese, N.V. Private Higher Education in Africa. International Institute 

for Educational Planning, 2004. (external link: http://www. 

unesco.org/iiep). 

Spencer, H. The Factors of Organic Evolution. London: Williams & 

Norgate, 1887.

Social Sciences in Egypt 187 

Social Sciences in Egypt: The Swinging 

Pendulum between Commodification and 

Criminalization 

Mona Abaza, American University in Cairo, Egypt 1 

“I am an agent of social change.” -- Saad Eddin Ibrahim 

Specialists who have closely observed the evolution of the fields of sociology 

and anthropology in Egypt seem to agree that there are insurmountable 

paradoxes that continue to loom in the professional and academic 

sphere due to the intricate relationship between intellectuals and 

the long history of the authoritarian military state. 

The retired professor at the American University in Cairo, Saad Eddin 

Ibrahim, (jailed twice between the years of 2000 and 2003 2 for “tarnishing 

Egypt’s reputation” along with several other charges that will be 

tackled further 3 in this paper and who is currently in exile 4 ), the late 

French Arabist Alain Roussillon and the contemporary “doyen” (Dean) of 

“indigenous” national sociology in Egypt, Mohammed Al Gohari, 5 all 

have brilliantly traced in different ways the genealogy of the birth of so- 

1 I would like to thank Dina al-Khawaga for sharing her ideas and time with me. 

As program officer at Ford she also facilitated the task of providing me with all 

the material available. This paper would not have been written without our intensive 

discussions. Barbara Ibrahim, has been very generous in letting me use the 

extensive documentation that the Ford Foundation has compiled on the trial of 

Saad Eddin Ibrahim. I warmly thank her as well as Nicholas Hopkins who commented 

carefully on the paper. 

2 Saad Eddin Ibrahim was jailed for approximately three years and put on trial 

four times. Over the past two years, he was charged for multiple trials while he 

continues to be in exile. 

3 See Appendix I on the court ruling. 

4 Yet Saad Eddin Ibrahim continues to publish in leading opposition newspapers 

in Egypt such as al-Dustur and al-Masry al-Yaum. Recently, he has started to 

publish his memoirs on a weekly basis in al-Dustur newspaper. His wife Barbara 

Ibrahim is highly influential in the English-speaking world in development 

research and foreign funding in Egypt. Barbara Ibrahim ran for a year the Population 

Council in Cairo and today runs the expanding Philanthropy Gerhart Center 

at the American University in Cairo. 

5 For the three essential articles on Egyptian sociology see Ibrahim (1997), 

Roussillon (1999) and al-Gohari (1990).

188 

Mona Abaza 

ciology in Egypt, its evolution and the external influences that have 

shaped its dominant discourses. Interestingly, all these scholars agree that 

although sociology in Egypt emerged at about the same time as other departments 

of sociology in several European universities, Egyptian sociology’s 

development and evolution seems to have been stifled by the fact 

that it was largely saturated with the discourse of reform, often tainted by 

conservative overtones. Al Gohari insists that the field of sociology 

mostly was confined to offering its services to the then emerging postcolonial 

state for the purposes of “social engineering” (interview with Al- 

Gohari, May 24, 2008). In his analysis of the post-colonial generation of 

Egyptian sociologists of the 1950s and 60s, such as ‘Abdel ‘Aziz ‘Ezzat, 

Ibrahim found that ‘Ezzat mostly praised the then young military regime, 

and even dedicated his book to Gamal Abdel Nasser; this illustrates the 

extent to which ‘Ezzat’s central mission was to offer his knowledge for 

the service of the prince, i.e. the military (Ibrahim 1997: 550). An offer 

which ironically, was repeatedly made by Ibrahim himself and in doing 

so, Ibrahim managed to remain close to the regime for many years until 

the establishment turned against him. It seems that for both Ibrahim as 

well as for the fifties/sixties generation of sociologists, advising the 

“princes” turned into a bad experience. Time and again it seems that sociology 

failed to emancipate itself from the discourse of “state building 

and “scientism”. Overall, it failed to create a critical independent school 

of sociological investigation. 

Other observers have pointed to the fact that sociology in the Arab 

world has been recurrently referred to as being in state of perpetual “crisis”—a 

crisis stemming from a serious absence of theorizing (Ghazalla 

and Sabbagh 1986: 373). Furthermore, it was understood as lacking any 

reflection about the applicability of Western methods in a different local 

context. Several authors pointed to the fact that Arab sociology has 

turned into an insipid mimicry of Western sociology. Arab sociology has 

basically been restricted to translating and copying without much original 

analysis. 6 Sociology was “disfigured by the political institution… it was 

an impossible practice.” 7 Up until the mid-eighties, some even argued 

that sociology had yet to emerge (Ghazalla and Sabbagh 1986).This also 

explains why, at the time, in the mood of decolonizing sociology, the 

claims of “indigenizing” the field as a counter-project to Western hegemony 

extended first to “Arabizing” sociology during the phase of Arab nationalism 

and later on to “Islamizing” sociology with the rise of Islam- 

6 This critical stance is clearly expressed in the writings of Mohammed al-Gohari, 

Saad Eddin Ibrahim and Iman Ghazalla and Georges Sabbagh. 

7 Al-Kanz cited by Iman Ghazalla and Georges Sabbagh, p. 379.


ism. 8 But the discourse of “crisis” has been in fashion for a while. For 

many intellectuals, the state of “crisis” refers to their struggle to articulate 

a shifting and blurred identity with the advent of modernity, reform and 

with the constant and painful encounter with the “Other” colonial and 

post-colonial West. The Moroccan historian Abdallah Laroui has brilliantly 

theorized on this very struggle. 9 The discourse of “crisis” has also 

refered to the attempt to decipher the ambiguous relationship of the intellectuals 

and the literati to the state. This relationship has oscillated between 

two different extremes: either the intellectual’s oppression by the 

state and extreme violence against this oppression or his/her cooption and 

submission to the state whereby the intellectual is transformed into the 

producer of culture as an “enlightened”, official government intellectual. 

In the latter situation, the intellectual also seems to have adopted a simplistic 

technophile perspective entailing a blind adoration of science. 10 

This paper explains the culmination of “criminalizing sociology” 11 

through the cause célèbre of the trial of the sociologist Saad Eddin Ibrahim, 

who was charged with allegedly spying, spreading false information 

and tarnishing the country’s reputation. The gathering of empirical data 

and the practice of sociology as a profession have a long history of eliciting 

distrust from the regime. Ibrahim’s case can be read as a logical continuation 

of a “public culture” produced by a long history of clashes with 

an authoritarian state that neither needed nor understood why sociological 

investigation should exist. 

With Egypt’s entrance into the global market, the pervasiveness of 

corporatist culture was strongly felt in many spheres including the academic 

one. However, it is necessary to be mindful of Egypt’s specificity 

as a Third World country that receives massive development aid from the 

North. For example, Egypt has never before witnessed a flowering of private 

research centers as what has occurred today, a flourishing that coincided 

with the privatization of research and academia with a strong reliance 

on foreign funds. Paradoxically, in interviews conducted by al- 

Ahram Weekly with university professors, most interviewees stated that 

these research centers play a insignificant role as think-tanks influencing 

politicians (el-Ghitany 2005). 12 And yet one wonders about the extremely 

8 On this point, see Morsy, Nelson, Saad, and Sholkamy (1991) 

9 See Laroui (1977). 

10 See Salvatore (1991) for one of the most interesting works on the discourse of 

“crisis” and Arab intellectuals. I borrow the idea of the “technophile intellectual” 

from Laroui (1977). 

11 The term has been used by several sociologists such as Mohammed al-Gohari 

and Hania Sholkamy. 

12 According to the Cairo University professor of political science Mustafa

190 

Mona Abaza 

poor academic sociological production that has barely any impact or 

readership. One can only agree with Sari Hanafi’s observations about the 

pervasive impact of the foreign donors in settings the research agendas 

and how the prioritizing of consultancy has hurt scholarship. Interestingly, 

Hanafi refers to the currently much debated 1990 conference organized 

by Saad Edin Ibrahim’s Ibn Khaldun Center for Development 

Studies on the Copts as a minority. The conference was strongly attacked 

by several intellectuals not only because it was supported by foreign 

funds, but also over the question of whether or not the Copts should have 

been designated as a minority. The conference was then used by Hanafi 

as an example to pinpoint that there are clashing interests between local 

and foreign research agendas (Hanafi 2009). 

In addition to the opposition from other intellectuals, Ibrahim faced 

hostility from the government because he brought public attention to the 

violent confessional events taking place at the time in the village of al- 

Kush in Upper Egypt. Importantly, in a book he later published on the 

question of minorities (Ibrahim 1992), 13 Ibrahim starts with the following 

premise: namely, that the Arab-Israeli conflict did not produce as many 

victims as ethnic and confessional conflicts in the Middle East. He argues 

that the Arab-Israeli conflict produced 150,000 deaths, whereas civil wars 

in only three Arab countries—Iraq, Lebanon and Sudan—produced half a 

million victims; the same could be said, Ibrahim claims, about the financial 

costs of such conflicts which far surpassed those of the Arab-Israeli 

conflict. 14 

The book starts with the simple question: why did Arab unification 

fail The cleavages amongst Arab countries were in fact exacerbated. According 

to the book’s argument, nationalist ideology failed to grasp the 

Arab reality and its complex material and psychological intricacies. It 

failed to understand the spirit of the nation. Arab unity was hampered by 

its elites, who failed to understand existing structural contradictions. That 

nationalist thinking did not address the social roles of these ethnic entities. 

Ibrahim is obviously right in this claim; however, many were troubled by 

the premise that the Arab Israeli conflict was secondary in human and 

financial cost to Arab civil wars. 

Kamel El Sayyed, there are 30 research centers specializing in political and strategic 

studies. 

13 He also published an extensive volume of some 950 pages, titled al-milal wal 

nihal. (See Appendix II). In this study, Ibrahim explains that he had great trouble 

in publishing it because of the uproar the conference produced. It is nevertheless 

a thorough historical and sociological survey of minorities in the Arab world. 

14 Suzan Mubarak is thanked in this work over and above in the thick volume of 

al-millal wal nihal for having been his faithful assistant.


However, let us return to the issue of the neo-liberal agenda in academia. 

The liberalization of the sphere of education has led to an explosion 

of lucrative private foreign and local universities that cater to the 

better-off classes. Seeking education has turned into a consumption experience. 

One can choose between German, American, Canadian, French, 

and British systems of education, and comparing university fees and 

technical trainings that could open up opportunities in the overseas labour 

market and in international companies located in Egypt, has become a 

national sport. 

I borrow Michael Burawoy’s concept of “Third Wave Marketization” 

to argue that in our part of the world, the effects of marketization and the 

commodification of sociology have become extremely pervasive (Burawoy 

2007). In particular, this has been the case with the intervention of 

development agencies, and funding for causes related to democracy, civil 

society or poverty. With the case of Saad Eddin Ibrahim case, I wish to 

show the limits and problems faced by social scientists when wavering 

between market forces—that is, foreign funding and set research agendas—and 

political activism, within the confines of a complex relationship 

with an authoritarian state which denies any function for the social sciences 

apart from disciplining the unruly. And yet, there is a growing 

market for a “scientistic”, quantitative market-oriented sociology. 15 

DOUBLE LANGUAGES AND PROFESSIONS 

“Western educated”, well-trained Egyptian social scientists are today 

more than ever in demand in the market for development. In fact, they 

seem to be overworked and are doing well. I know from my colleagues 

that they are often over-solicited by foreign donors to conduct research on 

poverty, peasantry, education and other acute problems. Often, a capable 

social scientist has become a rarity in high demand. However, this tells 

only one side of the story and discards the thousands of jobless graduates 

of Egyptian universities, who can hardly start any career with their training 

and who in the past have ended up as translators and foreign language 

teachers. Anthropologist Hania Sholkamy (1999) writes the following 

about the state of anthropology in Egypt today: 

Anthropology has been ‘born again’ in Egypt. National policy makers 

and international donors working in Egypt (and perhaps elsewhere) 

15 Hania Sholkamy argues that today, qualitative research as well as research 

oriented towards focus groups are experiencing a boom in Egypt.

192 

Mona Abaza 

have an increasing awareness of the contribution that anthropology can 

make to social research and human understanding. In fields as diverse 

as health sciences and medicine, demography, and other population sciences, 

ecological and environmental research and advocacy…anthropologists 

who had barely been humoured previously are 

now sought and heard. But on closer inspection one finds that anthropology 

has been born again as a collection of qualitative methods………Quasi-anthropological 

techniques are in demand, not anthropology 

with its precepts and concepts. (119) 

One also needs to differentiate between the English language production 

for international consumption and the Arabic market. Each market 

targets a different readership and different concerns. Hania Sholkamy 

addressed the issue of the crisis in Egyptian sociology in terms of readership 

and consumption, concluding that Arabic readers and consumers do 

pose a serious problem in the reception of critical sociological imagination, 

since critical findings can be disturbing and perceived as insulting 

(Sholkamy 1999). Thus many of us are faced with the dilemma of wanting 

to communicate with readers and colleagues that are far from ready to 

accept our findings. This could then explain why many of us find ourselves 

in a situation of double discourses according to the language we 

are using. If we write in English we certainly aspire to target the international 

community where we are much less likely to face restrictions and 

censorship. Because he publishes in several different languages, Saad 

Eddin Ibrahim has been recurrently attacked by his enemies for maintaining 

multiple discourses. Addressing different audiences often meant 

maintaining nuanced views, and perhaps also different vested interests. 

Since there is neither a significant academic audience, nor a large readership 

for sociological production in the Arab World, let alone, specialised 

academic Arab journals, it is not a coincidence that academics resort to 

using the media and the press in order to communicate with wider Arab 

audiences. They end up writing in lay language and using the populist 

style that appeals to the press. These academics are invited to talk shows 

on al-Jazira channel or the dozens of other successful Arab channels. 

Equally, be it journalists or academics at local universities, writing for the 

press has become an important way of earning one’s living. 

It is possible to argue that the public figure has quickly replaced the 

academic. One can make a bet that most of the bestselling books published 

by the leading Egyptians intellectuals and academics in Egypt are 

basically newspapers articles that turn to be compiled in volumes. The 

style is easier and quicker to publish.


SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM 

CONNECTING THE MARKET WITH POLITICAL ACTIVISM. 

“One does not play with wolves.” -- Mohammed al-Gohari 

When Saad Eddin Ibrahim was taken to jail for the first time in 2000, he 

was a tenured, internationally known professor at the American University 

in Cairo. He was well-published in Arabic and English and had a 

long list of edited volumes. The fact that he holds a double Egyptian- 

American nationality, which implied benefits and privileges, was repeatedly 

mentioned in the press as a disadvantage, as if he had troubled double 

loyalties. When Nasser stripped him of his Egyptian nationality in the 

sixties, he was a student in the US. Ibrahim was punished by the Nasser 

regime after having expressed strong disappointment with the military 

regime. For some nationalists and leftists, this has been seen as yet again 

another suspicious incident. The status of such a private institution of 

learning as the American University in Cairo is noteworthy: it is considered 

an oasis of privilege compared to the national system of higher education. 

Indeed, the university’s higher salaries (competitive with overseas 

standards), the high quality of its research facilities, its sophisticated library 

and the bookshop holding abundant English speaking publications 

on the region are all reasons to speak of two higher education systems: 

one elitist and foreign influenced versus the less privileged national education 

system. These are all reasons why Ibrahim was not only resented 

by national sociologists but also regarded by them as an outsider who did 

not need to play the internal power games of the Cairo, Helwan and Ain 

Sham Universities. Perhaps, because he did not really care about following 

the hierarchical chain of the transmission of sociological knowledge, 

Ibrahim was labeled as arrogant. 

It is important to be reminded that Ibrahim was one of the most successful 

sociologists in obtaining large (foreign) funds for organizing conferences 

and research. He was a tycoon in the world of research and development. 

16 For many, his success was a source of envy, because he 

16 In the early eighties al-Ahram al-Iqtissadi weekly opened fire about the impact 

of foreign funding on research and in particular the role of the Ford Foundation. 

At the time, the Foundation funded projects at Cairo University and al-Ahram 

Center for Strategic Studies concerning Egypt’s foreign policy options and the 

role of the Egyptian bureaucracy. According to Ann Lesch, who was the officer 

of the Ford Foundation from 1977-1984 and in Cairo from 1980 to 1984, Saad 

Eddin Ibrahim was receiving funds at the time from the World Bank. Nonethe-

194 

Mona Abaza 

tackled many daring problems such as the ones related to the Coptic “minority” 

and the confessional sedition, democracy, and civil society. Furthermore, 

he has been very prolific in publishing in Arabic in both the 

press and the academic field. In earlier times he was amongst the first 

sociologists to work on the perceptions of Arab nationalism, on urban 

problems and he became famous through his work on militant Islam. 

Ibrahim was one of the most intelligent and up-to-date sociologists of his 

generation. The Ibn Khaldun Center published significant and novel data 

about political violence, showing that among those killed, there were far 

more terrorists who died than police officers. The publications of the center 

provided valuable information on the state of politics and society and 

they were solicited by numerous international donors. 

Saad Eddin Ibrahim has stirred many controversies not only amongst 

government circles but even more so within the Egyptian intelligentsia, 

particularly amongst leftist and nationalist circles. In fact, many would 

argue that his unpopularity and the fact that his jailing neither produced 

an outcry nor general support from intellectuals is bewildering. Is it that 

the civil society he aspired to cultivate, turned out to be totally marginalized 

Is it that civil society is itself conservative and well-indoctrinated 

with the propaganda produced by regime machinery Is it the fact that 

Ibrahim played on too many dangerous registers including showing 

strong support for the Americans Was this a major factor that led a large 

section of intellectuals to draw back their support for him Or was the 

ambivalence simply driven by the fact that he was a tycoon in the world 

of research A tycoon who accumulated obvious material capital, fame 

and international attention. A tycoon who managed a center and organized 

successful conferences, talks and publications and employed numerous 

research assistants and whose academic enterprise involved a lot of 

money. A tycoon, who held a monopoly over the donor and funding 

scene. A tycoon who was brilliant in speaking the language of the West: 

the language of democracy, of human rights and of civil society. But in 

the Marxist-nationalist worldview, tycoons do not necessarily work that 

well together with the discourse of justice and equality. Many saw private 

interests, fame, media attention and the accumulation of wealth as the 

prime motive behind Ibrahim’s actions. When he compared himself to 

Nelson Mandela, many intellectuals expressed anger, feeling that the 

comparison was inappropriate. Some would recall that when Ibrahim first 

published his empirical findings on the militant Islamic groups in the 

less, he wrote an article criticizing foreign funding in Egypt, which undermined 

his credibility (Personal communication with Ann Lesch, May 2, 2009).


eighties, 17 he had stirred the resentment of the project’s co-members who 

had helped him conduct intensive interviews in jail. The project on Islamic 

militants was originally meant to be conducted by a collaborative 

research team sponsored by the national Center for Sociological and 

Criminological Research. Apparently, Ibrahim appropriated the findings - 

and he was the only sociologist - or rather he was credited as being the 

first sociologist to publish on Islamists in English at that time. 18 The clash 

between Ibrahim and Ahmed Khalifa, the director of the Center for Sociological 

and Criminological Research at the time, exploded, making 

national newspaper headlines. Here, again, Ibrahim’s American citizenship 

was brought up in reference to the question of how far the state 

could allow information gathering about imprisoned Islamists. It seems 

that at the time, Ibrahim had already collaborated with the Ford Foundation 

in Egypt, which again raised questions about the role of foreign funding. 

Still, however, do these previous events in Ibrahim’s history constitute 

a sufficient reason for his jailing and public humiliation in the nineties 

It’s unclear to me why Ibrahim’s unpopularity continued well after 

his release. 19 But one thing is clear: Ibrahim’s case did not produce much 

support from nationalists and left-wing intellectuals. There were a few 

exceptions, however, including Said al-Naggar, Kamal Abul Magd and 

Abdel Moneim Said, all of whom presented their testimonies at trial. Late 

Mohammed Sid Ahmed, a journalist, Mohammed al Sayyed Said, a researcher, 

late al-Wafd deputy Ibrahim Abaza, and former Ambassador 

17 See Ibrahim 1996. In addition, his article entitled “Anatomy of Egypt’s Militant 

Groups: Methodological Notes and Preliminary Findings,” first appeared in 

the International Journal of Middle East Studies, volume 12 in 1980. Furthermore, 

the reader which he helped compile with Nicholas Hopkins, Arab Society 

in Transition, Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1977, formed many 

generations of AUCians who are regarded as today’s political and cultural Egyptian 

elite. 

18 Although he does acknowledge in Ibrahim (1980) that his findings are part of 

team research. 

19 However, Egyptian regional and international human rights organizations expressed 

protest and defended Saad Edin Ibrahim. See for instance, the statement 

of the Arab Program for Human Rights Activists (APA) issued on 24/5/2001. 

The statement raised several important questions, including: What is the significance 

of the trial precisely at that point Does the government want to punish a 

“big man to frighten the small people” Does it wish to silence all human rights 

organisations Or does the trial have something to do with Ibrahim’s double nationality 

and therefore is it a way for the state to publicly express its authority to 

imprison Americans in Egypt Or is the trial a way to prepare the ground for 

passing a new law to further harass the activities of NGOs and human rights activists

196 

Mona Abaza 

Hussein Ahmed Amin defended Ibrahim. Most importantly, Issam al- 

Aryaan, a leading figure in the Muslim Brothers, strongly defended Ibrahim, 

having himself been incarcerated for several years. However, Ibrahim’s 

unpopularity in intellectual circles continues into today. 20 The 

skirmishes between opponents of the regime and Ibrahim still continue. 

This reveals that his image in Western media as “championing democracy” 

is much more nuanced in reality. It is not astonishing that several 

“leftist” intellectuals did align themselves with the government against 

Ibrahim because they considered American intervention in his favour as a 

form of American imperialist bullying in local affairs. For example, when 

75 members of the US Congress petitioned against the jailing of Ibrahim, 

Al-Usbu’ newspaper characterized it as an insolent interference in national 

affairs, an argument praised by leftists and nationalists. The congressmen’s 

petition was again reported as yet another pro-Israeli Lobby 

campaign (Al-Usbu’, July 9, 2001). The government played the nationalist 

card several times. Thomas Friedman also defended Ibrahim by publicly 

stating that the trial was a “sham” and a “travesty” (El Magd 2001). 

Instead of tarnishing Egypt’s image, Americans “should be” proud of 

Ibrahim. In short, it looked like an ongoing war between the biggest superpower 

in the world and its second largest aid recipient and ally in the 

region. 

Saad Eddin Ibrahim went to Israel and received invitations to give 

talks there. This move was considered a major betrayal of Egypt for some. 

Others saw it as typical of Ibrahim’s eccentricity to include, for example, 

in his most recent tour before his exile, Sheikh Nasralahh, the leader of 

Hizb Allah. Ibrahim argued that change could not be generated from inside 

because society was stagnant and devoid of dynamic agents of 

change. Thus, he believed that the American invasion of Iraq would trigger 

a wave of democratization and shake the Arab regimes out of their 

state of inertia. This is an argument that has been promoted in recent 

years by new liberals in the Middle East. Others saw the change-fromoutside 

argument as a familiar Marxist stance similar to the conclusion 

that colonialism brings its own contradictory seeds of destruction. However, 

for many, this position was taken as a great betrayal of the Middle 

20 The Marxist philosopher Mahmud Amin al ‘Alem, and the novelist Mohammed 

al-Bussati expressed strong antipathy towards Ibrahim. They praised the 

government for taking a firm stance against Americans who arrogantly interfere 

in Egyptian politics (al-Mussawar, January 6, 2001). Those who expressed antagonistic 

sentiments against Ibrahim included Sayyed Yassin (the former director 

of the center for Strategic studies, and who worked closely with Ibrahim for 

years in Jordan), Nader Fergany (economist) and Mohammed Abul Ghar, (a 

leading figure in the opposition national Universities movement of 9 th of March.)


East and a sign of full-fledged support for the Bush neo-imperialist administration. 

The fact that neo-cons in Iraq consulted Ibrahim was yet 

again reason to attack him. 

For many years, Saad Eddin Ibrahim was close to the Egyptian regime. 

He had close friendships with several high officials and ministers 

21 who studied with him in the US. His book (1992a) on Anwar al-Sadat 

is crucial in understanding his rapport with the power structure. A few 

month before Sadat´s assassination, Ibrahim was approached by Sadat’s 

wife, Gihan al-Sadat who Ibrahim described in his book as a witty, bright 

and attractive lady. She obviously organized the meeting with Ibrahim in 

hopes of soliciting his help in creating a reconciliation between the intelligentsia 

and Sadat, but her plan clearly failed. Ibrahim wrote again a 

highly controversial book on Sadat, published ten years after Sadat’s 

death, in which Ibrahim describes the only two memorable encounters 

with the late president. The first encounter was when Ibrahim was still 

studying in the US in 1966. Already in this perioda, Ibrahim was highly 

disturbed by Sadat’s high admiration of the US, even though he was visiting 

the country as member of the revolutionary council. Ibrahim had then 

predicted that if Sadat were to come to power, he would be the strongest 

promoter of a pro-American policy. Ibrahim’s second encounter with Sadat 

happened in August 1981, (barely two months before the assassination) 

when Sadat apparently wanted to learn more about the Egyptian 

opposition and about Ibrahim’s critical writings against the regime. According 

to Ibrahim, it was clear that Sadat was not at all happy with Ibrahim’s 

political analyses regarding the Islamic opposition. It was also clear 

that Sadat felt threatened by the opposition. Accordingly, Sadat wanted to 

take violent measures, which he conveyed to Ibrahim in an unpleasant 

manner. Nevertheless, Sadat wanted to still test his popularity or rather 

unpopularity amongst the Egyptian intelligentsia with Ibrahim. 22 It seems 

that Sadat wanted Ibrahim to organize negotiations and dialogues between 

the oppositional Arab intellectuals and himself. Just a month after 

this encounter, in September, Sadat jailed nearly 1,500 intellectuals (including 

Muslims, Copts and leftists). Sadat’s action revealed that he 

21 One can mention here Ali Eddin Hilal, a former professor of political science, 

who closely collaborated with Ibrahim in earlier times and became Minister of 

Youth during Mubarak’s rule. 

22 Among the jailed were feminist Nawal Al-Saadawi, known Nasserite journalist 

Hassanein Haykal, former Minister Ismail Sabri Abdallah, Marxists like Lutfi 

al Khuli and Amina Rashid, members of the Islamic groups, Pope Shenuda, as 

well as many other public figures. Perhaps I am wrong but Ibrahim seems to 

minimize the effect of the “autumn of wrath” as a major political event that followed 

his meeting with Sadat.

198 

Mona Abaza 

hardly intended to create a dialogue with his opposition. At the time, 

many jokes were made about how no intellectual managed to escape incarceration. 

Luckily, Ibrahim was not jailed. 

Ibrahim narrates that he waited approximately ten years before he decided 

to publish the book, because he wanted to avoid both those who 

either falsely praised or cursed Sadat. The book then attempts to reinstate 

Sadat, who has been portrayed as either merely a traitor because he 

signed a peace deal with Israel, or a hero. Ibrahim then attempts to compare 

and draw criticisms of both Nasser and Sadat’s regimes by emphasizing 

how these long years of military rule erased any possibility of dialogue 

and objective evaluations. 

In fact, in his recently published memoirs, Ibrahim does not hide that 

he asked Suzan Mubarak to help place his relative in the military academy, 

tellingly illustrating how he himself profited from the favouritism of 

the system. For many years, Ibrahim was perceived as belonging to the 

establishment. Also, he was amongst the first to propose to the regime the 

rehabilitation of repentant terrorists into society. Whenever an American 

delegation was visiting Cairo, the Ibn Khaldun Center took them for a 

tour in the popular quarter of Imbaba to meet the rehabilitated Islamists 

who worked with him. Suzan Mubarak did her Masters degree in sociology 

at the American University in Cairo under his supervision. Furthermore, 

Ibrahim was for several years the advisor to Crown Prince Hassan 

of Jordan. He had created an institutional cultural and publication project 

with the Kuweiti Princess Suad al-Sabbah and some other writers and 

intellectuals who became known for its troublesome termination. His 

close contact with several highly placed politicians and well known figures 

such as Sheikhah Moza 23 has been subject to many attacks by several 

intellectuals, years before the case exploded. It is not a coincidence that 

in the two books he has published on minorities in the Middle East, Ibrahim 

has thanked Suzanne Mubarak, his student, for having helped him in 

gathering data (Ibrahim 1992b). 

Another crucial work (2000) by Ibrahim that is worth mentioning in 

this context is The Thinker and Power. Ironically, read with a contemporary 

lens, it could be perceived as a soothsaying for what followed for 

Ibrahim. The book opens with a play of two words that sound alike—“albaheth 

wal mabaheth”—meaning the researcher and the internal security 

forces, to explain the differences and similarities between these two pro- 

23 Sheikhah Moza of Qatar is portrayed as a promoter of gender equality and a 

philanthropist sponsoring advanced technology. She is known for having 

launched the Doha debates which were inspired by the Oxford Union. Moza has 

been advertised recently by the Ibn Khaldun Center as a pioneer of democratization. 

See Ibn Khaldun Center (2009).


fessions. Al-Baheth (the researcher) wal-mabaheth (the internal security 

employee) both bear similarities in their search for truth. Both search for 

documents and information. Both start with premises from which they 

reach conclusions; however, the difference is that the researcher exposes 

his conclusion to the public in conference, articles and studies. His main 

goal is to seek knowledge whereas the mabaheth (internal security employee) 

keeps his information for himself and his main aim is “security.” 

The researcher publishes his sources and publicizes the ways in which he 

collected his information. Moreover, the committed researcher is often 

interested in conducting research in sensitive areas, like religious fanaticism, 

class conflict and religious intolerance, which often raises suspicion. 

But the researcher‘s central concern is to create and disseminate knowledge. 

The irony is that precisely such an introduction to counsel rulers did 

not spare Ibrahim from being attacked later for being a traitor and an “informant” 

to foreign states. The chapter titled “Narrowing the Gap between 

the Prince and the Intellectual” could be read as yet again a repletion 

of the same idea, namely, “how to advise regimes” on how to manage 

and integrate in the system the growing militant opposition. Ibrahim 

refers to the Japanese reformists of the 19 th century to argue that change 

was brought forth via the alliance of the intellectual and the ruling elites. 

The Fabians in England played a similar role in public life. 24 

Additionally, Ibrahim is a “mediatic” figure. He is very often sought 

out to give talks on television, and is well cited in the American press 

such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. 25 After his release, 

he relied heavily on the American press to continue putting pressure 

on the Egyptian regime to the point that US aid to Egypt became 

associated with his trial. He is jet-setting scholar, from whom Arab politi- 

24 The rest of the book consists of a collection of articles, published earlier in al- 

Ahram, al-Ahram al-Iqtissadi, and Civil Society, and dialogues that took place in 

Arab Thought (Muntada al-Fikr al-‘Arabi), Amman, Jordan. The articles are 

mildly critical of Mubarak, but in general they seem to be supportive of him, if 

not in praise of him. The vindictive tone and personal attack of the President can 

be traced to period after Ibrahim’s imprisonment. 

25 See for instance the article on Ibrahim’s imprisonment by Mary Anne Weaver 

(The New York Times Magazine, June 17, 2001). Weaver’s article provided a 

strong criticism of the regime’s authoritarian politics and its tendency to jail its 

biggest opposition group, the Muslim Brothers. The article produced a strong 

resentment in Egyptian official circles. The regime took it as an affront precisely 

when Ahmed Maher, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was preparing his visit to 

the US. He then issued a statement that “Egypt will not allow any interference in 

its internal affairs. Nobody should imagine that pressure can be put on us” (al- 

Hayat, June 18, 2001). See also Amany Radwan’s article, “Having the last 

Laugh: A Wise-Cracking article may have triggered the arrest of a leading Egyptian 

Human Rights Activist” (Time, May, 21, 2001).

200 

Mona Abaza 

cians and the American establishment constantly solicit advice. The 

memorable encounter with Bush during the past few years was one reason 

why he was then advised to stay in exile after his release from jail. 

It is true that during the trial the yellow press played a devastating 

role in smearing 26 Ibrahim’s reputation, making him out to be a spy and 

an agent of foreign powers. But that is not the whole story. To many, his 

personality and his tendency to constantly resort to Western media became 

bothersome. The Marxist intellectual Farida al-Naqquash, and a 

member of the leftist-Nasserite coalition party the Tagamu’, together with 

the leader of the 9 th of March protest movement, Mohammed Abul-Ghar, 

recently opened fire on Ibrahim. Both characterized him as the region’s 

“man of the Americans” and an unconditional admirer of the American 

system. Ibrahim himself narrated this attack. In addition, he challenged 

Abul-Ghar by arguing that although they had not met personally, Ibrahim 

had read Abul-Ghar’s works and was very well informed about his activities, 

which he held in high esteem. However, Ibrahim insisted that Abul- 

Ghar merely repeated populist false ideas about him. Ibrahim then dedicates 

the rest of his article to demonstrating how he others had misunderstood 

him and how he has always been critical of Americans (al-Dustur, 

February 18, 2009). These settling of accounts, however, with the leftist 

nationalist intelligentsia were taking place in the opposition newspapers 

of al-Masry al-Yaum (February 21, 2009) and al-Dustur. Ibrahim decided 

to publish his memoirs in al-Dustur on a weekly basis; by doing 

this, it seems that Ibrahim is responding to the allegations that the American 

Embassy had intervened directly in the case, by putting pressure on 

the Egyptian legal system. Moreover, talk circulated that the US would 

halt aid to Egypt because of Ibrahim’s exile. Ibrahim recalled precisely 

which Ambassador visited him in jail and the exact number of times he 

was visited. He then emphasized that he warned the American Ambassador 

to reduce the frequency of his visits so as to not exacerbate the situation. 

The appearance of these memoirs coincide with other front page 

newspapers statements that Obama has been recently putting pressure on 

Mubarak to release political prisoners including the founder of the 

banned party al-Ghad, Ayman Nur (jailed nearly four years ago for presenting 

himself as a presidential candidacy) and allowing the return of 

Ibrahim as a way of reinstating democracy (al-Shuruq, February 21, 

2009). 

26 Al-Usbu’ newspaper was the most ferocious in its attacks, as well the tabloid 

weekly Rosa al-Youssef, which cheaply lumped together former actresses and 

belly dancers who reconverted to Islam and wore the headscarf, fanatic preachers, 

together with Saad Eddin Ibrahim. See Rosa al-Youssef (September 6, 2001).


FAILED PROMISES OF EGYPTIAN SOCIOLOGY 

“As a formal academic discipline, sociology was first offered in the 

newly established (1908) secular Egyptian University in 1913 only 20 

years after the University of Chicago (1892), 7 years after the University 

of Paris (1906), and 6 years after the London school of Economics and 

Political Science. Indeed, Cairo’s Egyptian University introduced sociology 

ahead of most Western European Universities, which did so only after 

World War I. Scandinavian universities had no professorships of sociology 

until after World War II” (Ibrahim 1997: 547). 

All social scientists working on Egypt tend to express disappointment 

about how the field of sociology could have turned into a wonder, but 

failed to do so. All also agree that sociology in Egypt could have been on 

par with Western traditions when we are reminded of the significance of 

the presence of Saint Simonians in Egypt as early as the 1820s. They 

seemed to have influenced the grand transformations that led up to the 

creation of modern Egypt under the rule of Mohammed Ali (1776-1849). 

We are told by Ibrahim again that it was the Saint Simonians who were 

behind the massive reform projects in irrigation, public health and infrastructure. 

Mohammed Ali was inspired by Comtian notions of “order” 

and “progress” which led him to send students to France and implement 

systems of discipline and rule (Ibrahim 1997). There is much debate 

amongst historians on whether Saint-Simonians were successful in Egypt. 

One thing however is clear: according to the French historian Ghislaine 

Alleaume, the Saint-Simonians played a crucial role in forming the first 

generation of engineers and technicians. They clearly influenced one of 

Egypt’s first technocrats and modernizers, Ali Mubarak, by shaping his 

vision of public works. They also played a pervasive role in creating 

polytechnic and artillery schools (Alleaume 2002). 

Alain Roussillon and Saad Eddin Ibrahim insisted that the first generation 

of Egyptian sociologists were mainly influenced by Emile Durkheim 

and his nephew Marcel Mauss when they were students in Paris. 27 

One of the most well known students was the blind Azharite Taha Hussain 

who wrote his PhD thesis on Ibn Khaldun with Emile Durkheim. 

Roussillon made the observation that the pioneers of Egyptian sociology 

including Mansur Fahmi and ‘Abdel ‘Aziz ‘Ezzat, were all trained in 

France. But from the moment of its birth, sociology was tainted by reformism; 

teaching sociology at the then young Cairo University had to 

play a cohesive role in society. It was understood as merging of interests 

of the palace and nationalist forces by redefining a national identity in a 

27 Ibrahim mentions that Marcel Mauss taught in Cairo in the thirties.

202 

Mona Abaza 

colonial context. According to Roussillon, Egyptian sociology’s very reformist 

premise was one reason why sociology remained entrapped in a 

linear vision of progress. Sociology was then understood as a science that 

would help narrow the gap between two worlds—the European and 

Egyptian societies—through the application of sociological laws. 

Mohammed al-Gohari is another sociologist who sees that the field’s 

problems today can be traced to the conservative worldview of the early 

generation of sociologists of the twenties. Clearly, social engineering was 

enforced through a claim of objectivism. According to al-Gohari, ‘Abdel 

‘Aziz ‘Ezzat often told his students at Cairo University that they had to be 

social engineers in the literal sense of the word (intum mohandessin 

ijtima’iin). Al-Gohari remarks that compared to contemporary Egyptian 

philosophers who were much more able to raise fundamental questions, 

the sociologists of the time remained conservative because they insisted 

on an “artificial understanding of objectivism.” 28 

Al-Gohari insists the social sciences were most damaged by the 1952 

revolution when a law was passed decreeing that any researcher wanting 

to undertake research had first obtain permission from CAMPAS (Central 

Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics) which was run by an 

officer under the Egyptian military regime. This was the moment that 

marked the beginning of the “criminalization of collecting data and conducting 

research.” The revolution instituted a law making it illegal to 

gather information that could harm the state. The law also put restrictions 

on fieldwork and the collection of statistics. The researcher could only 

gather information that was limited to 50 units (or 50 persons) per research 

proposal. All questionnaires had to be approved by the government. 

According to al-Gohari, this law, passed in the 1950s was what 

initial triggered the association of sociological investigation with spying 

and information-gathering for the “enemy”—in other words, Israel. 29 All 

in all, the law meant the criminalization of the profession and from which 

we continue to suffer today. This was yet again part and parcel of the authoritarian 

system’s efforts to silence protesting voices. As a result, several 

Egyptian PhD candidates at American Universities experienced a lot 

of trouble while doing their field research in Egypt. Their field notes were 

confiscated (at times during their flight to the US to complete their PhDs), 

and returned only after they were reviewed by highly-placed government 

officials. 

28 It is unclear what really Gohari meant by this statement. 

29 We should remember that the state of Israel was already created by this time. 

The 1948 war and the memory of British colonialism were reasons why the military 

felt threatened.


Nearly half a century after this law was passed, Hania Sholkamy 

(1999) today writes the following: 

To obtain a research permit in Egypt, a researcher is required to apply 

at the Center for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAMPAS). Applications 

must include some basic documentation and a variable sum of 

money for processing. Those who can obtain a cover to do research, in 

the form of an official or official-looking letter, generally avoid the 

procedure. However, doing fieldwork without the requisite license is a 

public crime. Part of the documentation required is a written questionnaire. 

This document is given priority since it is supposed to reflect the 

intentions of the researcher and research. Obviously it is not an impossible 

request. Many myself included, who have had no intention of using 

a questionnaire have made up a mock one to satisfy this requirement. 

(127-128) 

Al-Gohari argues that the system institutionalized the suppression of 

information, even when the government commissioned these studies. Scientific 

investigation lost all value as a consequence. This was clear when 

the government commissioned several sociologists to undertake research 

on the state of the army after the 1967 defeat. When the government realized 

that the findings were too critical of the regime, they ordered the disappearance 

of thousands of questionnaires and valuable documents. Al- 

Gohari remarked how demoralised the team was when they realised that 

long years of work had been thrown away; nothing has been published on 

the army since then. A study on poverty sponsored by the National Institute 

for Planning (Ma’had al-takhtit al-Qawmi) is another example cited 

by Al-Gohari. After this study was completed, Minister al-Ganzuri called 

upon the responsible researcher and reproached him: the study’s finding 

that 36% of the population lived under the poverty line could not be published. 

After negotiations with the government, the government statistic 

ended up stating that the poverty level was only at 19 %. Al-Gohari concludes 

that sociologists are constantly negotiating over scientific scales 

and facts, in an effort to adapt their findings to the national level political 

reality (tafawud siyassi litakhfid nisba ‘ilmiyya). 

Al-Gohari considers himself to be “a man of the regime.” Even as a 

highly placed state functionary responsible for coordinating research in 

all Egyptian universities and as a former President of Helwan University 

and Dean of the Faculty of Literature at Cairo University, on several occasions, 

the regime has clearly conveyed to him that his knowledge is 

ultimately useless. For example, when peasant rebellions spread in the 

early nineties with the new law tenancies, al-Gohari offered to study the

204 

Mona Abaza 

relationship between landlords and tenants. He even proposed to the government 

alternative peaceful solutions for the implementation of security 

measures. His research was never taken into consideration. Every sociologist 

who approached the regime with projects and solutions or in 

hopes of working in the official state apparatus was rejected. All of them 

obtained a clear rejection and their research was either discarded or confiscated. 

This might explain why social scientists often missed out on opportunities 

to provide critical analyses of major issues. The most obvious 

example was when the National Research Center for Social Research undertook 

a study on the sexual behaviour of women in Egypt conducted by 

a group of distinguished psychologists and anthropologists. The research 

was strongly attacked by the official press because it was debunking taboos. 

The government ordered the project to be halted; the study was 

only rescued as a result of Gihan al-Sadat’s intervention. A retired professor 

of sociology, Nicholas Hopkins, who has lived in Egypt for almost 

three decades, has a different opinion, however. According to him, the 

failures of Egyptian sociology have less to do with state interference and 

more to do with the nature of the field itself: he finds the discipline to be 

insufficiently analytical. Hopkins argues that sociology has tended to focus 

on society as a totality rather than looking at different parts in contrast 

to each other. This can equally explain why class analysis has not 

prospered, according to him. If Marxism was applied, it was done so in a 

mechanical popular way. Thus sociologists who took up subjects like 

communities or ethnicity or gender were then suspected of trying to divide 

the country. However, the major drawback is really “the absence of 

a forum for intellectual discourse, whether about social problems or 

social theory.…. There is no real criticism of methods and approaches, 

much like there is no systematic review of work and projects so that the 

good is encouraged and the bad eliminated” (Personal communication 

with Nicholas Hopkins, March 3, 2009). 

THE CONTINUED CRIMINALIZATION OF SOCIOLOGY 

The real reason behind Ibrahim’s incarceration was that he crossed the 

line when he provided the media with sardonic statements about the farcical 

nature of political succession in the Middle East. Ibrahim spoke of 

the emerging regimes of Gumlukiyya (a joint word between jumhuriyya, 

republic and malakiyya, meaning royalty) i.e. the return of a generation of 

royalties as offspring of (military) republics. 

Ibrahim argues that he made a comparison between two royal regimes, 

Morocco and Jordan, with five republics to conclude that while


these republics started with promising revolutions, they have aged badly. 

Over time, these regimes have become increasingly more authoritarian 

and corrupt (al-Hayat, January 20, 2004). 

Furthermore, he appeared frequently on American media with highly 

acerbic criticism of the Egyptian regime. In The Wall Street Journal, 

Ibrahim portrayed Mubarak as the Pharaoh keen on maintaining an image 

of himself as healthy. Ibrahim mockingly stated that Mubarak and the rest 

of his ageing cabinet were in fact dyeing their greying hair. These remarks 

were made when the president fainted during a speech he was delivering 

in parliament. 30 Ibrahim thought he was immune, but he was 

wrong. Others have mentioned Ibrahim’s arrest was motivated by his attempt 

to monitor the parliamentary elections whose results were found to 

be fraudulent. Right in the middle of the trial another charge was filed 

against Ibrahim for allegedly instigating the violent confessional killings, 

which had occurred in the village of al-Kush in Upper Egypt. The argument 

was that Ibrahim inflamed public opinion with false information 

both in the country and in international forums about the mistreatment of 

the Coptic minority. 

CONCLUSION 

What lessons can we draw from Ibrahim’s case concerning the future of 

sociology in a third world country like Egypt First, the media’s smear 

campaign against Ibrahim reinforced the systematic association between 

espionage and sociological investigation. As a result, in the popular 

imagination, sociology has become synonymous with spying. In 2008, 

another charge was filed against Ibrahim for being a “traitor” and for his 

alleged collaboration with foreign forces. Following the same chain of 

associations, although the privatization of research undermines agendasetting, 

foreign donors should not be radically condemned. Given the declining 

budgets for university research worldwide, given also the sad 

working conditions in Egyptian national universities and the lack of concern 

for research, these foreign donors are still one major alternative for 

academics to buy time and dedicate themselves to research. The nationalists 

have tended to often demonize all foreign funding. In particular, 

funds from the Ford Foundation are held with suspicion and assumed to 

come from an institution with a hidden agenda, given its history. Unfortunately, 

this viewpoint dismisses the fact that the institution’s policies 

30 The article was reproduced in the issue of Civil Society and Democratization 

in the Arab World, July 2004, vol. 10, issue no. 116.

206 

Mona Abaza 

regarding whom they fund and for what purposes has significantly 

changed over the past two decades. Indeed, in the last few years, the Ford 

Foundation has funded several interesting cultural, artistic and academic 

projects which have little to do with the world of consulting and development 

agencies. Unfortunately, however, a simplistic understanding of 

“good” versus the “evil” exists in reference to foreign funding. Second, 

the press raised many concerns among academics who felt alarmed by the 

implications of Ibrahim’s trial on academic life. For instance, during the 

trial, Ibrahim was reproached for having presented papers dealing with 

sensitive political issues in international conferences. Participation in 

such conferences and the exchange of knowledge more generally was 

framed as “selling information” as though the expression of critical ideas 

overseas automatically meant compromising Egypt’s “national interest.” 

There was also concern expressed about foreign scholarships for PhD 

candidates. We all know that these scholarships are crucial for students 

who wish to study overseas and they are considered to be a form of aid to 

developing countries. Would this be yet another excuse for the establishment 

to exercise control over PhD holders who they suspected of spreading 

“false information” through their theses 

Third, the press claimed that Ibrahim was guilty of having undertaken 

research and received funds from the European Union without having 

obtained government permission. Ibrahim’s defenders responded with the 

argument that such bureaucratic measures only applied to NGOs whereas 

the Ibn Khaldun Center was registered as a private company (Cairo 

Times, June 7-13, 2001). Time and again this is the same old story repeated 

since the 1952 military rule. Gohari who testified on behalf of 

Ibrahim and who defended him as one of the most prominent sociologists 

in the court, argued that Ibrahim could not be considered guilty for this 

reason, since nearly 80% of all research in Egyptian universities are foreign 

funded (Hafiz 2002). The prominent researcher and journalist at al- 

Ahram Center for Strategic Studies, Abdel Mon’em Said, defended Ibrahim 

by arguing that the state-owned al-Ahram newspaper and research 

center get 30% of its funds from abroad. The case further revealed how 

dependent NGOs are on the authority of the military and the state. According 

to The Cairo Times, a 2002 court ruling decreed that NGOs as 

well as the acceptance of unauthorized foreign funding can be forbidden 

by military decree (Cairo Times, December 27-January 2, 2002). This 

reveals one important point: namely, the ironic pairing of “ultra nationalistic” 

rhetoric of the government concerning foreign funds with the fact 

that Egypt is the second largest US aid recipient in the Middle East after 

Israel. The regime seems to want to maintain a double discourse to cope 

with its complete material dependence on the West by punishing one of


its most clever interlocutors with the West. Ibrahim’s case nicely illustrates 

how despite the era of globalization and the withering away of borders, 

there is a revival of primordial sentiments. 

An alternative reading of Ibrahim’s case is one that emphasizes the 

regime’s willingness to sacrifice one of its men as soon as he challenged 

the regime’s limits. This brings us to an argument made by the late political 

scientist Ilya Harik regarding Ibrahim’s case: that guided despotism is 

unjustifiable (al-Hayat, May 23, 2001). Ibrahim was for a long time regarded 

as an establishment intellectual. But his case revealed once more 

the complete absence of a public vision amongst the political and intellectual 

elites regarding injustice and oppression. The most dangerous sign 

for civil society is when elites are submissive to the establishment and 

opportunistic regarding the justification of despotism. 

According to the classical argument justifying Mubarak’s guided authoritarianism, 

many intellectuals support the government in its struggle 

against the Muslim Brothers, who are portrayed as dangerous and uninterested 

in public opinion. Harik insists that for many intellectuals, the 

Ibrahim case was confusing. It was perceived by intellectuals as a stupid 

move on part of the government, even though Harik concluded neutrally 

by arguing that civil society was reluctant in defending Ibrahim. This can 

also mean that civil society can be more conservative than the ruler—a 

problematic issue if one associates democracy with civil society. 

One last question still remains. Bridging the gap between the intellectuals 

and princes have so far proven to be a royal failure. Ibrahim’s case 

reveals that the margin for protest and contestation is very thin. Perhaps, 

Ibrahim miscalculated his influence by imagining that the Americans and 

the international community would rescue him. In the end, they did rescue 

him: although he was sentenced to seven years in jail, he was released 

after only a couple of years. 

Others saw it as yet another internal power struggle of the regime. 

Ibrahim came out of this case as a media star in the West, but having created 

more enemies among leftist-nationalist intellectuals. The harsh settling 

of accounts between Ibrahim and these intellectuals and between 

Ibrahim and the government continues to be documented by the Egyptian 

press. But the story has not ended. After all, who knows if Obama will be 

able to push for Ibrahim’s return to Egypt.

208 

Mona Abaza 

APPENDIX I: COURT RULING IN IBN KHALDUN CASE 31 

First defendant 

1.Received donations without permission from the appropriate authority, 

Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Ibn Khaldun Center for Development 

Studies, the sum of 145.00 Euros, and in his capacity as Treasurer 

of the Egyptian Women Electors Fund, affiliated to Ibn Khaldun Center, 

the sum of 116,000 Euros from the European Union, without prior permission, 

nor subsequent notification of the appropriate authority. 

2. As an Egyptian national he deliberately propagated false information 

and vicious rumours abroad, dealing with some internal conditions in the 

country which would weaken State’s prestige and integrity. He announced 

several bits of information abroad dealing with vote rigging in 

any elections that take place in the country as well as the existence of religious 

persecution in the way elaborated in the investigation. 

3. Managed, by way of swindling, to seize the amounts indicated in the 

investigation, which belonged to European Union. He made the EU believe 

in the existence of a false project and forged facts. He concluded 

with a deal to fund Ibn Khaldun Center for development Studies and to 

spend the money in the way defined by the grantor. He issued illusive 

cheques alleging that they covered the salaries of the staff at the said center. 

He fabricated 60,000 election cards for Egyptians, and bills of false 

charges and expenses as the cost of obtaining those cards. Through such 

swindling, he could seize grantor’s money. Pp. 2-3. 

The Court 

And since the court has been convinced by what came in the case and felt 

satisfied with the investigation and the information extracted from the 

documents which resume in that the first defendant, Saad Edin Mohamed 

Ibrahim sought to establish and create the Ibn Khaldun Center, apparently 

to act as a center for development studies, information was received from 

Major Nasser Mohammed Mohieddin, of the State Security Investigation 

Service, advising that the said Professor in his capacity as Chairman of 

the Board of trustees of Ibn Khaldun Center, was using such activity as a 

31 This is an informal translation of the court ruling (August-September, 2002), 

reproduced here from Ford Foundation Documents, Courtesy of Barbara Ibrahim 

and the Ford Foundation.


cover up for undermining the country’s prestige and inventing false matters 

against Egypt touching all its elements, Government, people, material 

and moral foundations, in order to do harm to its integrity through suspicious 

activities. 

And as the officer continued his investigation to check the information 

he received, the information, followed by the investigation, showed 

that the first defendant concluded an accord with the EU under which the 

latter funded a so-called Project of Political Education and Orientation of 

Electors. It also provides to assist the Egyptian Women Electors Support 

Service. In his pursuit to procure such funding, he propagated abroad 

false information and vicious rumours about some internal conditions in 

the country, pertaining to forging any elections that took place in the 

country and the existence of religious persecution in it. He resorted to 

swindling action vis-à-vis the EU, in collaboration with defendants 

Nadia… 

On checking such cards against the lists of electors at Security Services, 

they were found to be forged. They also wrote statements about 

getting election cards and bills involving charges and expenses due for 

citizens in some Governorates, contrary to fact, and issued cheques of 

illusive sums alleging to have paid them to staff at the center, but they 

countersigned them and deposited the money in the personal accounts of 

the first defendant, who sent the documents to the EU to make it believe 

that effort was made and required funding. Through such swindling, he 

managed as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Ibn Khaldun Center, to 

seize from the EU the sum of 145,000 Euros, and in his capacity as 

Treasurer of the Egyptian Women Electors Service, to get 116,000 Euros, 

without prior permission from the competent authority, nor did he subsequently 

advise such authority about that. P. 5-6. 

APPENDIX II: WORKS OF SAAD EDDIN IBRAHIM 

IN ARABIC LANGUAGE 

Itijahat al-ra’i al-‘aam al-‘arabi nahw mas’alat al-wahda, dirasa maydaniyya 

(Trends in Public Opinion Regarding Arab Unity, a Field 

Study). Beirut: Marquaz dirasat al-wahda al-‘arabiyya, 1982. 

Ta ‘amulaat fi mas’ alat al-aqualliyyat (Reflections about the Question of 

Minorities). Marquaz Ibn Khaldun, 1992. 

I’aadat al- i’ tibar lil ra’ I al-Sadat (Reconsidering, (or) Reinstating 

President Sadat). Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1992.

210 

Mona Abaza 

Al-milal wal-nihal, humum al-aqualliyaat fil watan al-‘arabi (The Concern 

about Minorities in the Arab World) Cairo: Ibn Khaldun Center, 

1994. 

‘Ilm al-nakabat al-‘arabiyya fi idarat al-siraa’ al-‘arabi al-israili (The 

Science of Disasters or Defeat in Administering the Arab-Israeli 

Conflict). Cairo: Ibn Khaldun Center, 1998. 

Al-muffakir wal sulta (The Intellectual and Power). Cairo: Dar Qabaa’ lil 

tibaa’ wal nashr, 2000. 

Azmat al-Muthaquafin wal thaquafa al-‘arabiyya (The Crisis of Intellectuals 

and Arabic Culture). Cairo: Marquaz Ibn Khaldun, 2006. 

Edited Volumes 

Masr wal ‘uruba wa thawrat yulyu (Egypt, Arabism and the 1952 July 

Revolution).Beirut: Marquaz al-Wahda al-Àrabiyya, 1982. 

Azmat al-dimuqratiyya fil watan al-‘arabi (The Crisis of Democracy in 

the Arab World). Beirut: Marquaz dirasat al-wahda al-‘arabiyya, 

1987. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alleaume, G. “L´économie politique saint-simonienne et les élites 

techniques de l´ègypte moderne.” In Ètudes Saint-Simonienes, edited 

by Philippe Régnier, pp. 305-334. Lyon: Presses Universitaires de 

Lyon, 2002. 

Al-Gohari, M. “Qira’a naqdiyya fi tarikh ìlm al-ijtima (A Critical Reading 

in the History of Social Sciences).” In al-majalah al-‘ilmiyyah, 

Jamiyat al-Qahira, Cairo, 1990. 

Al-Gohari, M. May 24, 2008. Garden City, Cairo. 

Al-Nimnim, H. “Hal kaan al hukm qaassiyan” (How Tough Were the 

Charges). 

Al-Mussawar, January 6, 2001. 

Al-Usbu’. July 9, 2001. 

Burawoy, M. “The Future of Sociology” Sociological Bulletin of Indian 

Sociological Society 56, no.83 (2007): 339-354. 

Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies. Civil Society and Democratization 

in the Arab World: 2004 Annual Report. 

(http://www.eicds.org/english/publications/reports/annualreport05/egy 

pt.htm). 

El Ghobashy, M. “Speaking too soon.” Cairo Times, June 7-13, 2001, p. 7.


El-Ghitany, M. “What’s in a Center” Al-Ahram Weekly, January 6-12, 

2005: issue 724. 

El Magd, N. A. “On the Next Chapter” Al-Ahram Weekly, May 31, 2001. 

Retrieved June 6, 2001. (http://weeklyahram.org.eg/2001/536/eg5.htm). 

Ghazalla, I. and G. Sabbagh. “Arab Sociology Today: A View From 

Within.” Annual Review of Sociology 12 (1986): 373-99. 

Hafiz, A. A. “Muhakamat Saad Edin Ibrahim” (The Trial of Saad Eddin 

Ibrahim). Cairo: Rosa al-Youssef, 2002: p. 261. 

Hanafi, S. “Donor Community and the Market of Research Production 

Framing and de Framing the Social Sciences.” Presented at the conference 

of the Council of National Associations, March 23-25, 2009, 

Taipei, Taiwan. 

Harik, I. “Haalat saad eddin ibrahim mithalaan ala fassaad maqullat alistibdad 

al-rashid” (Saad Eddin Ibrahim’s case as an example of the 

hollowness of the Notion of Guided Despotism). al-Hayat, May 23, 

2001: p. 16. 

Hopkins, N. Personal communication. March 3, 2009. 

Hopkins, N. and S. E. Ibrahim, eds. Arab Society in Transition: A Reader. 

Cairo: The American University in Cairo, 1977. 

Ibrahim, S. E. “Hard Birth of a New Arab Leadership.” Ibn Khaldun Center. 

(http://www.eicds.org/english/publications/saadarticles/2004/hardbir 

h.htm). 

Ibrahim, S. E. “Anatomy of Egypt’s Militant Groups: Methodological 

Notes and Preliminary Findings.” International Journal of Middle 

East Studies 12(1980). 

Ibrahim, S. E. L’aadat al- i’ tibar lil ra’ I al-Sadat (Reconsidering (or) 

Reinstating President Sadat). Cairo: Dar al-Shuruq, 1992a. 

Ibrahim, S. E. Ta’amulaat fi mas’ alat al-aqualliyyat, (Thoughts about 

the Question of Minorities). Cairo: Marquaz Ibn Khaldun, Ibn 

Khaldun Center, 1992b. 

Ibrahim, S. E. Egypt, Islam and Democracy, Twelve Essays. Cairo: The 

American University Press, 1996. 

Ibrahim, S. E. “Cross-eyed Sociology in Egypt and the Arab World.” 

Contemporary Sociology 26, no. 5 (1997): 547-551. 

Ibrahim, S. E. Al-muffakir wal sulta (The Thinker and Power). Cairo: Dar 

Qabaa’ lil tibaa’ wal nashr, 2000. 

Ibrahim, S. E. “Fiqh al-gumlukiya al-‘arabiya” (In the Interpretation of 

the Arab jumlukiyya). al-Hayat, January 20, 2004. 

Ibrahim, S. E. “The Memoirs of Saad Edin Ibrahim.” Al-Dustur, February 

18, 2009: p. 17.

212 

Mona Abaza 

Ibrahim, S. E. “Hiwar al-yaum ma’ a mohammed abul ghar wa farida alnaqqash” 

(Daily Dialogue with Mohammed Abul Ghar and Farida al- 

Naqquash). Al-Masry al-Yaum, February 21, 2009. 

Laroui, A. L´idéologie arabe contemporaine. Paris: François Maspero, 

1977. 

Lesch, A. Personal communication. May 2, 2009. 

Morsy, S., C. Nelson, R. Saad and H. Sholkamy. Anthropology and the 

Call for Indigenization of Social Sciences in the Arab World, edited 

by E.l. Sullivan, J.S Ismail. Alberta: University of Alberta Press, 

1991. 

Roussillon, A. “Durkheimisme et Réformisme, Fondation identitaire de la 

sociologie en Egypte.” Annales, Histoires, Sciences Sociales 6 (1999): 

1363-1394. 

Saleh, M. “‘an khalfiyyat quadiyyat saad eddin ibrahim” (On the Background 

of Saad Eddin Ibrahim’s Case). al-Hayat, June 18, 2001. 

Salvatore, A. Islam and the Political Discourse of Modernity. UK: Garnet 

Publishing and Ithaca Press, 1991. 

Sholkamy, H. “Why is Anthropology So Hard in Egypt” In Between 

Field and Text: Emerging Voices in Egyptian Social Science, edited 

by Seteney Shami and Linda Herrera, pp. 119-138. Cairo Papers in 

Social Sciences 22, no. 2 (1999). 

Weaver, M. A. “A Trial in Mubarak’s Egypt.” The New York Times 

Magazine, June 17, 2001. (http://www.nytimes.com). 

“Shocked Again.” Cairo Times, December 27-January 2, 2002.

South African Sociology 213 

South African Sociology: 

Current Challenges and Future Implications: 

A Review and Some Empirical Evidence 

from the 2007 National Survey of Sociology 

Departments 

Mokong Simon Mapadimeng, University of Johannesburg, 

Johannesburg, South Africa 1 

Sociology as a social scientific discipline is not new to debate, especially 

among sociologists themselves, and this has also been so in South Africa 

(SA). Featuring strongly as key contributors to a debate on South African 

sociology are Groenewald (1991), Jubber (1983), Grunding (1994), Sitas 

(1996), Crothers (1998), Webster (1985), Webster and Hendricks (2001), 

Burawoy (2003 and 2004), and Uys (2004). The central concern in this 

debate has been and remains to establish an understanding of the outlook 

and role of SA sociology, its state at different historical points, its 

historical evolution in SA, and, most importantly, its future role and 

position in the post-apartheid globalization period. In the last 13 years of 

democratic administration in SA, the debate has increased in intensity, 

whereby the latter concern, i.e., the future role and shape that sociology is 

taking in SA, has been the main concern. The debate found expression 

mainly through the podium provided by the South African Sociological 

Association (SASA) and in its journal formerly known as Society in 

Transition (now renamed South African Review of Sociology), in which 

keynote addresses on this topic where published. Still other publications 

of the debate occurred through the journals of the International 

Sociological Association (ISA), to which SASA is an affiliate, and 

especially in its journal Current Sociology. 

In this article, I provide a review of this debate in a way that 

synthesizes key views held on SA sociology. This is done with the view 

1 Mokong Simon Mapadimeng is a Research Associate at the Centre for 

Sociological Research, University of Johannesburg, South Africa. He is also a 

member of the National Arts Council of South Africa and the President of the 

South African Sociological Association.

214 

Mokong Simon Mapadimeng 

to deciphering from the debate the current state of SA sociology, its role 

and challenges, as well as its future prospects as a discipline. In doing so, 

attention will also be paid to the outcomes of the recently conducted 

national survey of the sociology departments in SA, whereby issues such 

as staff profiles, student numbers, student: lecturer ratios, and research 

activities were investigated. The survey was conducted by SASA with 

financial support from the National Research foundation (NRF). The 

article starts with a review of the debate and an examination of the 

empirical survey data and then proceeds to outline observations made 

from the review. On the basis of these, some concluding remarks are 

then made on the role, challenges, and future prospects of sociology in 

the post-apartheid, democratic South Africa. 

A REVIEW OF THE DEBATE ON SOUTH 

AFRICAN SOCIOLOGY 

The debate on SA sociology takes into account the history of sociology as 

a discipline and field of study and practice, whereby it is traced to as far 

back as the early twentieth century. As Webster (2004; 2007) and 

Burawoy (2004) point out, during this period, sociology formed part of 

social work programs, with its main preoccupation being its contribution 

to social administration and social policy. Its main concern was clientwelfare 

agencies and government (Webster 2004; 2007). In the later 

period of the 1950s and 1960s, the discipline underwent changes, as some 

of the leading sociologists, notably Professor Cilliers of the University of 

Stellenbosch, sought to professionalize the discipline and give it a sense 

of autonomy from social work through the injection of the Parsonian 

functionalist theoretical framework (Burawoy 2003; Webster 2004; Uys 

2004). The result was a break away from social work, giving rise to an 

independent growth of the discipline of sociology in SA. What was 

promising to become an independent, vibrant discipline, however, came 

to be bedeviled by racial and ethnic divisions under the apartheid regime, 

very much in line with the racially-based separate development 

government policies that sought to promote and uphold white racial 

supremacy. This saw sociology growing as a divided discipline in 

different universities, taking different directions in terms of its role and 

interventions in the society. In the English-speaking universities, 

Webster (2004) speaks of what he refers to as the emergence of 

“oppositional sociology,” opposed to apartheid, while in Afrikaansspeaking 

universities it was labeled “Afrikaner sociology,” serving the 

apartheid system. In black universities, sociology was only introduced in


the 1960s, developing a strong Marxist thrust against apartheid (Webster 

2004: 28-29). 

Racial divisions within sociology in SA also manifested themselves 

at the organizational level when the South African Sociological 

Association (SASOV) was created as exclusively white sociological body 

for largely Afrikaans-speaking universities, only later to be challenged 

through the establishment of much more liberal, non-racial counter body 

in the form of the Association of Sociology in Southern Africa (ASSA). 

While SASOV was uncritical of the apartheid system, ASSA openly 

struggled against and condemned the system (Uys 2004; Webster 2004). 

The two associations were later merged to form the present-day South 

African Sociological Association (SASA) in 1993, in order to 

appropriately locate the community of sociologists in the post-apartheid 

democratic SA and ensure that it plays a constructive role for the 

advancement of the democratic system. 

In the late 1970s, sociology had, according to Webster (2004), 

developed into a critical, vibrant discipline, with New Left intellectual 

influences which began, through the ASSA congresses, to engage 

critically with the SA society’s problems, like racial inequalities and 

racial domination. This was followed in the 1980s by sociologists’ 

engagement with these issues through “dialogue with social movements 

struggling against apartheid” (Webster 2004: 30). 

This historical evolution of sociology in SA up to the 1990s, Webster 

argues, in agreement with Burawoy (2004), is consistent with and is best 

explained by the latter’s model (see table 1 below) which he developed to 

make sense of the sociology as a discipline worldwide. 

Table.1. Burawoy’s Model: The Discipline of Sociology 

Instrumental 

Knowledge 

Reflexive 

Knowledge 

Academic Audience 

Professional Sociology 

Critical Sociology 

Extra-Academic 

Audience 

Policy Sociology 

Public Sociology 

Based on the above model, different sociologies are said to have 

characterized and dominated in different historical periods of the 

evolution of the discipline in SA. These are described as professional, 

policy, public, and critical sociology. Professional sociology is,

216 


according to Burawoy (2004), practiced mainly in universities with the 

aim of generating “abstract knowledge, seeking scientific legitimacy, 

accountable to a community of peers,” while policy sociology is 

concerned “with concrete knowledge, legitimated by its effectiveness, 

and accountable to a client …” (19). This, he argues, is in contrast with 

critical sociology, as the latter “rests on foundational knowledge, rooted 

in moral vision accountable to a community of intellectuals.” Public 

sociology, on the other hand, is considered by Burawoy to be dialogic 

and “relevant to the public to which it is answerable” (19). Beyond these 

differences, Burawoy sees all the four typologies as dependent on each 

other, and this is best reflected in his argument quoted below: 

Critical sociology is the conscience of professional sociology, 

uncovering the assumptions and values upon which it rests and by so 

doing always suggesting alternative foundations. Critical sociology 

discloses the connection between sociology and the world it studies, 

demystifying claims to pure science, demonstrating the futility of a 

completely self-referential system of knowledge. With its interest in 

values, critical sociology lays the basis for public sociology’s 

engagement with the audiences beyond the academy. However, critical 

sociology is first and foremost an academic sociology, nurtured by a 

community of intellectuals that might span several disciplines, whose 

raison d’être derives from an ingrown professional sociology (17). 

These sociologies, Burawoy argues, are relevant to different 

categories of audiences, i.e., academic and extra-academic audiences, and 

they lead to the production of different knowledges, i.e., instrumental 

knowledge, which is concerned mainly with orientations of means to 

specified ends, and reflexive knowledge, which promotes discussion of 

those ends and values (18). 

The debate on sociology not only provides insights into the historical 

evolution of the discipline in SA but also helps in understanding two 

other vital aspects pertaining to sociology in SA, i.e., the definition of the 

nature of the discipline and the challenges facing it in the present period. 

As far as the former aspect is concerned, Burawoy’s model and 

contributions from SA sociologists help in clearly defining sociology and 

its role. In her defense of sociology as a discipline, especially in the light 

of propositions such as Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1998) that efforts should 

go into promoting the culture of social sciences as opposed to disciplinespecific 

cultures such as sociology, Tina Uys (2004) identifies defining 

features that distinguish sociology from other disciplines. In doing so, 

she makes reference to Goran Therbon’s (2000) “three spaces of


identity,” i.e., a space of discipline, of everyday practice, and of 

imagination and investigation. What makes sociology distinct, Uys 

argues, is “its sociological imagination, it emphasis on unmasking 

deceptions and illusions, and its commitment to improving the world we 

live in,” and furthermore that it “has always been associated with social 

intervention and social action” (9). This understanding of sociology and 

its role both reinforces Burawoy’s models, according to which the four 

types of sociologies are mutually dependent on each other, and points to a 

general consensus on the understanding of the role and nature of 

sociology. For instance, the late Chachage (2004), in his assessment of 

the future of sociology in Africa, argues for the need to rethink the object 

of sociological study beyond a rather ambiguous view that sociology is 

simply concerned with the study of society. For Chachage, sociology 

should continue on its rich tradition of being primarily concerned with 

seeking to generate a body of knowledge around contemporary and 

relevant social problems and social movements which have always been 

critical to the stimulation of the sociological imagination. This is clearly 

captured in his argument pertaining to African sociology, as quoted 

below: 

Given the problems facing Africa – civil strife, ethnicity, racism, 

corruption, terrorist governments … unemployment, land and natural 

resource disputes, famine, economic hardships, etc., it is about time 

sociology in Africa rethought the whole question of the state 

(administrative power) and its relation to the civil society; military 

power and war; democracy and democratic forms; gender, nation, race 

and ethnic relations, and many others (60). 

Hence, in his view, “Our sociological knowledge will have to reflect the 

social conditions of struggles through which men and women 

simultaneously transform their circumstances and themselves” (60). 

Challenges facing sociology in SA today and in the future are, as can 

be deduced from the debate in SA, varied and complex. Among these 

challenges are those of an institutional nature. Webster (2004) noted that 

there has been a significant change in the institutional landscape and 

context in which sociology is practiced in SA, as a result of the overemphasis 

on the need for SA to become globally competitive. Notable 

institutional changes include: 1) the strengthening of policy research 

through transformation of and increased support for the Human Sciences 

Research Council (HSRC) which conducts policy research; 2) the 

creation of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) with the 

main aim of developing a vocationally-oriented educational system; 3)

218 


the creation of the National Research Foundation (NRF) for a single 

science-funding system as well as to promote interdisciplinarity; 4) and 

the trend towards commercialization and/or corporatization of 

universities whereby the emphasis is on producing graduates with 

marketable skills, thus seeing students as clients (Uys 2004; Webster 

2004). While these present opportunities, according to Uys and Webster, 

they also pose some serious threats, which could see a move away from 

public sociology towards more professional sociology, whose emphasis is 

on publishing in professional journals. These changes impose pressures 

that could see a balance between different sociologies and their 

complementary roles being distorted and lost. They also could have a 

negative impact in terms of inhibiting creativity and innovations in 

sociology. 

Other challenges and constraints facing sociology in SA that could 

further exacerbate the negative consequences on the discipline’s growth 

and development were unearthed through the survey conducted in 2003 

in 15 South African universities. Uys (2004) noted from this survey a 

number of challenges to the discipline ranging from race (white 

dominance) and gender (male dominance) imbalances in terms of levels 

of seniority and numbers to inequalities between the historically black 

and white universities in terms of research activities and publications 

output. Uys also found other constraints to innovative and creative 

sociology, such as heavy teaching loads and greater reliance on text 

books produced in the West, as well as low teaching staff: student ratios 

of 1:71 (7). During the time of the survey, only 7,400 students were 

registered for sociology, with only a few for the postgraduate studies, i.e., 

107 for honors, 222 for master’s degrees, and 79 for doctoral degrees (7). 

Notwithstanding these constraints and challenges, Uys (2005) ended with 

optimism, arguing that SA sociology is responding creatively to the local 

challenges and problems and hence is ideally suited “to make reasoned 

judgments and engage in actions aimed at promoting the well-being of 

human beings,” while not abandoning analytical knowledge (episteme) 

and technical know-how (techne) (9). Basically, here, Uys refers to the 

ability of SA sociology, despite the challenges it is confronted with, to 

still strike a balance between Burawoy’s four sociologies. Part of the 

reason for Uys’s optimism is what she finds to be a positive trend 

amongst the SA sociologists marked by a move beyond past tendencies to 

choose either quantitative or qualitative methods, towards adopting an 

integrated multi-strategy approach that combines different methodologies. 

However, the findings of the recent 2007 survey of SA sociology 

departments conducted with the SASA’s mandate by its recent past 

president, Johan Zaimaan, with the financial support of the NRF, presents


a picture that both supports and challenges this optimistic assertion by 

Uys. The findings show a significant improvement in students enrolled 

for sociology courses. The 7,400 number of the 2003/4 academic year 

more than tripled to 22,968 registered undergraduates and 1,364 

registered postgraduates in the 2007/2008 academic year. Of the 1,364 

registered at postgraduate level, 656 are for honors degree (which has 

tripled); 557 for master’s degree (which has doubled) and 133 for PhD 

degree (which has almost doubled). While this augurs well for the future 

capacity within sociology, although not all undergraduates will 

necessarily proceed with the major in sociology or even to the 

postgraduate level, there is a downside. Staff: student ratios are still 

unimpressive. The recent survey found that throughout the country, 

universities have a total of 170 full-time staff members and 11 part-time 

staff members working out to a staff: student ratio of 1:143. 

This implies low capacity for both teaching and supervision or 

coaching, especially in view of the increased number of postgraduate 

students. As open interviews with staff in various universities revealed, 

staff are heavily loaded with teaching and supervision, leading to a 

compromise not only in quality in teaching and supervision, but also and 

importantly imposing constraints on ability and time to conduct research 

and publish. The implications are negative for development of a strong 

professional sociology needed for effective critical, public, and policy 

sociologies. This may explain the survey’s findings that staff complained 

about the low quality of students and that, in the context of heavy 

teaching loads and poor salaries, it is becoming increasingly difficult to 

retain staff, especially black academic staff who are in huge demand both 

in the private and government sectors, which happen to pay at market 

rates and offer attractive fringe benefits. The point about the quality of 

students is consistent with the assertion once made by Tom Lodge (1999), 

a prominent political scientist, that the new generation of students are not 

interested in ideas but only in certificates as passports to employment. 

The above scenario is even graver within the historically black 

universities (HBUs). Although staff: student ratios in both the HBUs and 

the historically white universities (HWUs) are more or less similar and 

are therefore almost equally overloaded with teaching, the difference lies 

in the fact that while most of the HBUs have no more than four staff 

members, most of the HWUs have at least 13 staff members each. This 

implies that within the HWUs, there is a relatively larger community of 

scholars creating a vibrant, dynamic, and competitive intellectual 

environment with numerous intellectually challenging and exciting 

activities, such as seminar series in which staff and senior students are 

able to present and discuss their ongoing research. This helps to cushion

220 


the impact of heavy teaching loads and constraints imposed on reach 

productivity. This point was noted in previous research such as that by 

Webster and Mosoetsa (2001: 73). Another plus for the HWUs but 

missing in the HBUs is that amongst the former’s staff, there are several 

senior/full professors and scholars who provide intellectual and academic 

leadership as chairs and heads of disciplines. This is generally missing 

within the HBUs, where more often than not, academic leadership is left 

in the hands of staff in the middle levels of their careers, i.e., either 

without doctorates or currently registered for doctorates, and with lower 

scholarly standing and poor publishing records. The result is the 

overstretching of those in these levels within the HBUs, creating further 

strain on getting them to complete their doctoral degrees and get into 

becoming productive in terms of research and publishing. 

This set of people, which is referred to as the “missing middle,” 

characterized by higher loss of staff at this level, is indeed bound to 

continue for a long time to come, as predicted by Alexander and Makhura 

(2006). The implications for the development of sociology, not only to 

ensure that racial equity is achieved but also that diversity of sociological 

perspectives, viewpoints, and voices that reflect the socially and 

culturally diverse nature of the SA society are heard in knowledge 

development endeavours, are serious and negative. Also likely to 

continue to be inadequately represented within the sociological writings 

in SA are works on the issues affecting the rural sector by scholars based 

in rural areas, and how this sector links with urban sector issues and 

complexities. This is especially so because most of the HBUs are 

situated in the former homelands and Bantustans, and we know by now 

that within these universities, the research output has always been low. 

Furthermore, the above implies that the contribution to knowledge 

development by sociologists will continue to be dominated by white 

scholars, reinforcing the fear expressed by Alexander and Makhura that, 

in the light of evidence that shows insignificant improvement of 

publications by black sociologists in the last decade and a half, we still 

have a long way to go in terms of addressing racial imbalances. Even 

more serious is that the current situation, marked by over-dependence on 

outside sociology textbooks and other reading materials (mainly from 

Western countries), is likely to continue. The current low research 

productivity, especially in the HBUs and among black sociologists, could 

be worsened by the poor conditions of service under which they are 

working as well as low remunerations. Already, researchers have seen 

university-based sociologies, pressured by institutional and financial 

factors (e.g., corporatisation of higher education, reduced funding, and 

de-motivating rating systems), opting to spend more time on


commissioned policy-type research that is funded and owned by the state 

and the private sector, dealing a heavy blow to production of scholarly 

research meant to advance sociological knowledge needed for 

development of other sociologies, i.e., public, policy, and critical. 

CONCLUSION 

It is clear from the review above that the future of sociology rests on 

ensuring a healthy balance between the four types of sociologies with 

their different audiences, to make them mutually enriching and 

reinforcing. It is, however, even more clear that for both public and 

policy sociology to be strengthened and made meaningful, they require 

strong university-based sociologies, i.e., professional and critical 

sociologies. I argue here that while sociology in South Africa in the past 

was marked by divisions, mainly racial and ideological, as well as 

fragmentation with various historical eras characterized by the 

domination of certain sociologies, the situation in the post-apartheid 

period is much more complex. This complexity suggests that there are 

both opportunities to strike a balance in the development of different but 

complementary sociologies as categorized by Burawoy (hence, Uys’s 

optimism that Chachage’s vision of the role of sociology in Africa is 

possible) and challenges and/or constraints that could stifle the 

achievement of this balance, possibly resulting in continued historical 

divisions and weaknesses. 

Opportunities suggesting great prospects for SA sociology can be 

seen from the increase in the numbers of students, which could result in 

improvement in the numbers of sociologists to boost the current situation 

of only 170 full time employed sociologists in the academic sector. 

While the increased number of students could be seen as a sign of 

optimism, it is, however, off-set by the current low number of academic 

staff/sociologists, implying heavy teaching and supervision loads, with a 

subsequent negative impact on the quality of teaching and training. Other 

points of concern include the disparities between the HWUs and the 

HBUs. The former boast large communities of sociologists with a good 

number of senior scholars providing the highly needed academic 

leadership and inspiration to those at entry level in the discipline as well 

as those in the middle of their careers within the discipline. On the 

contrary, the latter (HBUs) are seriously lacking in this regard. The 

implications, as I have mentioned already, are negative for not only the 

strong development of sociology in the HBUs but also in the entire 

country, especially from the point of view of knowledge development

222 


that adequately reflects the diverse nature of the SA society and has 

relevance to a wide range of complex realities and problems facing the 

country. This scenario is likely to perpetuate the racial divisions and 

inequalities within SA sociology as inherited from the past. This implies 

that the SA sociology is unlikely to respond creatively and innovatively 

to and engage critically with what Alexander and Makhura (2006) call 

“the post-modern agenda,” drawing from Patel’s view of globalization as 

creating the need for “The possibility, of reconnecting fields of 

knowledge: joining political economy and culture, far away places and 

hidden social forces with local problems and new identities, and structure 

with agency and possibilities for social change” (as quoted in Alexander 

and Makhura 2006: 19). 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Alexander, P. and P. Makhura. “Sociology Research in Contemporary 

South Africa.” Paper presented at the South African Sociological 

Association (SASA)/National Research foundation (NRF) Workshop, 

Johannesburg, 2006. 

Burawoy, M. “Public Sociology: South African Dilemmas in a Global 

Context.” Society in Transition 35, no. 1 (2003). 

Chachage, C.L.S. “Higher Education Transformation and Academic 

Exterminism.” Globalization and Social Policy in Africa. African 

Books Collective, 2004. 

Crothers, C. “Sociology and Social Research in South Africa.” In 

Gathering Voices: Perspectives in the Social Sciences in Southern 

Africa, edited by T. Silva and A. Sitas. Madrid: International 

Sociological Association, 1998. 

Groenewald, C. “The Context of the Development of Sociology in 

Southern Africa: A Reply to Visser and Van Styaden.” South African 

Journal of Sociology 22, no. 2 (1991). 

Grunding, A. “Structures for Sociologists: A Historical Perspective on 

the Association for Sociologists in South Africa (1967-1991).” In 

Social Theory, edited by N. Romm and M. Sarakinsky. Johannesburg: 

Lexicon, 1994. 

Jubber, K. “Sociology and its Sociological Context: The Case of the Rise 

of Marxist Sociology in South Africa.” Social Dynamics 9 (1983). 

Lodge, Tom. Daily News, April 16, 1999. 

Sitas, A. “The Waning of Sociology in South Africa.” Society in 

Transition 28 (1996).


-----. “The African Renaissance Challenge and Sociological 

Reclamations in the South.” Current Sociology 54, no. 3 (2006). 

Therbon, Goran. “At the Birth of Second Century Sociology: Times of 

Reflexivity, Spaces of Identity, and Nodes of Knowledge.” British 

Journal of Sociology 51, no. 1 (2000): 37-57. 

Uys, T. “In Defense of South African Sociology.” Society in Transition 

35, no. 1 (2004). 

Wallerstein, Immanuel. “The Time of Space and the Space of Time: The 

Future of Social Science.” Political Geography 17, no. 1 (January 

1998): 71-82. 

Webster, E. “Competing Paradigms: Towards a Critical Sociology in 

Southern Africa.” Social Dynamics 11, no. 1 (1985). 

-----. “Sociology in South Africa: Its Past, Present and Future.” Society 

in Transition 35, no. 1 (2004): 27-41. 

----- and F. Hendricks. Transforming the Discipline: The State of 

Sociology in South Africa. Pretoria: National Research Foundation, 

2001.

224 

Tina Uys 

Resistance to Rating: Resource Allocation, 

Academic Freedom and Citizenship 

Tina Uys, University of Johannesburg, South Africa 

Since the early eighties universities worldwide have been confronted with 

the need to adapt to the pressures of marketisation. They have become 

‘knowledge factories.’ The traditional role of the university (as espoused 

in the middle ages) as ‘the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake’ has 

been replaced by the ‘pursuit of useful knowledge’ (David 1997: 4). This 

pursuit is characterised by the fact that scientific research is often 

transformed into technology, due to the demands of externally 

determined research agendas (Wasser 1990: 112). 

Marketisation is not the only factor which impacts negatively on the 

academic’s time for reflection and ‘…the freedom to pursue research and 

excellence in conditions of security’ (Miller 1991: 124). Under the guise 

of the demands of globalisation, governments are placing pressure on 

universities to make a contribution to increased international 

competitiveness. This represents a strengthening of links between the 

university and industry (Kaplan 1997: 69). Thus, knowledge is used for 

commercial purposes and the focus is on short-term, applied research 

aimed at developing marketable products (Orr 1997: 47). 

Research is increasingly undertaken in order to make a profit, which 

leads to a greater emphasis on knowledge as private property and the protection 

of intellectual property rights. Free and open dissemination of 

knowledge is a thing of the past in the market university. The traditional 

unity of research, teaching and study or scholarship is increasingly being 

eroded with the development of more and more teaching-only or research-only 

institutions (Orr 1997: 50-59). Wasser (1990: 121) argues 

that the university is evolving from the traditional into the entrepreneurial; 

governments favour research that has an economic benefit along with 

vocationally orientated courses. 

The development of the entrepreneurial university is often referred to 

as “academic capitalism.” Ylijoki (2003: 308) defines it as consisting of 

“both direct market activity, which seeks for profit, such as patents, licences 

and spin-off firms, and of market-like behaviour, which entails 

competition of external funding without the intention to make a profit, 

such as grants, research contracts and donations. In both senses academic

Resistance to Rating 225 

capitalism promotes market-orientation and competition in university 

research.” 

In South Africa higher education is experiencing what Webster and 

Adler (1999) call “a double transition.” A new curriculum (Curriculum 

2005 or so-called outcomes-based education), and the South African 

Qualifications Authority was introduced , which were supposed to increase 

the mobility of students between campuses, promote transformation, 

reduce or eradicate duplication and ensure the ‘delivery’ of graduates 

with marketable skills who would be productive members of society. 

This was to be achieved by the development of so-called programmes 

focused on equipping students with the necessary skills to operate successfully 

within a particular work context. At the same time “the restructuring 

of the higher education landscape” (Jansen 2003: 304) took place. 

This entailed the merging of universities and technikons (the South African 

term for technical colleges which provide post-school vocational 

training) in order to achieve the supposed ideal number of 21 institutions 

of higher learning. 

All of these sorts of transformation initiatives are undertaken at the 

behest of the Minister in charge of the Department of Education. The 

Higher Education Act of 1997, and subsequent amendments, has empowered 

the Minister in significant ways. Not only is institutional autonomy 

on the decrease, but state interference has increased. For example, the 

Minister has to approve loans for sound and financially unsound universities. 

In this way, financial flows are controlled by the State, and not by 

the institution in question. Moreover, the Department of Education claims 

that mergers took place so as to help economically inefficient higher education 

institutions to become less so when joined with more efficient institutions. 

However, it is clear that the mergers were politically efficient, 

in terms of an attempt to regulate equity imbalances, as opposed to the 

bottom line. In this way, the state’s transformation agenda has been politically, 

rather than economically driven (Moja, Cloete and Olivier 2002: 

36-46). 

Considering the above, role-players in South Africa have to deal with 

a double-edged sword, wherein global economic pressures and local political 

concerns intersect. On the one hand, they need to transform universities 

to address the legacies of the past, and on the other they need to 

consider the role of the university as producers of ‘useful knowledge.’ 

This represents a juggling act whereby universities enrol more students 

from previously disadvantaged communities, transform councils, senates 

and academic staff to reflect the demographic realities of South Africa, 

participate actively in community upliftment, but also, due to increased 

financial constraints, need to consider their own viability. This viability is

226 

Tina Uys 

addressed in terms of attracting state funding but also private sector donations, 

which, in turn, can compromise the ‘independence’ of the university 

under consideration. 

The rapidly changing socio-historical context has also made an impact 

on the way in which state funding for research is structured and 

managed. Academic freedom in research is no longer simply the freedom 

of academics “to speak their own minds, to teach in accordance with their 

own interests, and to develop those interests according to their own research 

agenda” (Nixon 2001: 175). It has become entwined with accountability 

and international competitiveness. This paper explores the 

system of evaluation and rating introduced by the South African National 

Research Foundation for researchers in the social sciences and humanities 

in 2002. In particular, the resistance amongst sociologists in terms of the 

impact of the system on resource allocation, collegiality and the freedom 

of sociologists to determine their own research agendas is considered. In 

so doing, attention will be paid to the ways in which state resource 

allocation and transformation agendas impact perceptions of academic 

freedom, and how it is being navigated. 

THE HISTORY OF STATE FUNDING FOR RESEARCH IN 

SOUTH AFRICA 

Support for research in universities in South Africa has a long history 

dating from 1942 when General Jan Smuts, initiated the idea of 

establishing a national research body in South Africa. As a result the 

Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was founded in 

1945 through an Act of Parliament. An important item on the agenda of 

the first council meeting was the promotion of research in universities 

through grants and bursaries (NRF 2005: 3). 

In the early 1980s a concern developed among researchers at 

universities with regard to the absence of clearly defined and generally 

accepted criteria for the allocation of funds. After an investigation the 

CSIR Foundation for Research Development (FRD) was formed in 1984, 

tasked with the awarding of research grants and bursaries to applicants in 

the natural sciences. The FRD became an independent body in 1990 

(NRF 2005: 3). 

Until the late nineties the social sciences and the natural sciences in 

South Africa operated in totally separate enclaves as far as research in the 

higher education sector was concerned. While funding and research 

support for the natural sciences was administered through the FRD, the 

social sciences received their funding and research support through the


Centre for Science Development (CSD), a division of the Human 

Sciences Research Council (HSRC). In both cases support entailed 

grants for conducting research as well as bursaries for students. The FRD 

also made funding available for equipment and research infrastructure. 

From 1982 the FRD developed an evaluation and rating system for 

natural scientists which was implemented for the first time in 1984. This 

rating system made the following distinctions: A-rated scientists 

(Leading international researchers), B-rated scientists (Internationally 

acclaimed researchers), C-rated scientists (Established researchers) and Y 

ratings (Promising young researchers). 

The National Research Foundation was established in 1999 through 

the National Research Foundation Act, Act 23 of 1998. The new 

organisation entailed the amalgamation of the FRD and the CSD into a 

new funding body charged with the promotion of and support for research 

across all fields of the humanities, social and natural sciences, 

engineering and technology. Significantly this new agency was based at 

the CSIR, the previous home of the FRD. 

From 2002 the NRF extended the evaluation and rating system 

previously in place for the natural sciences to the social sciences and 

humanities. This paper describes the review process and considers the 

strengths and weaknesses of such a system of individual evaluation and 

rating for the social sciences in general and for sociology in particular. 

THE AIM OF THE EVALUATION AND RATING SYSTEM 

The main aim of the evaluation and rating system is to provide an 

objective determination of the quality of the research output of individual 

researchers in higher education based on their recent track record and 

outputs in research by means of peer evaluation. The definition of 

research used for by the NRF for this purpose is reflected in Table 1. 

The following criteria are used to perform the peer evaluation: 

• The quality of the research outputs of the preceding eight years 

• The impact of the applicant’s work in his/her field and how it has 

impacted on adjacent fields. 

• An assessment of the candidate standing as a researcher in the field in 

terms of a South African as well as an international perspective. 

In order for the peer evaluation to be conducted the candidate needs to 

submit a research portfolio listing research outputs in particular books of 

scholarship, chapters in scholarly books, peer-reviewed journal articles

228 

Tina Uys 

and research-based publications such as refereed conference publications 

and edited books. Other evidence of research proficiency such as book 

reviews, editorship of journals, official positions in professional 

associations, and the impact of higher degree supervision on a reseach 

programme, visiting professorships, staff development and researchbased 

improvements of the quality of higher education are also 

considered. Apart from keynote or plenary addresses conference papers 

seem not to carry much weight in the peer review process. 

Table 1 Definition of research 

For purposes of the NRF, research is original investigation undertaken to gain 

knowledge and/or enhance understanding. 

Research specifically includes: 

• The creation and development of the intellectual infrastructure of subjects 

and disciplines (e.g.) through dictionaries, scholarly editions, 

catalogues and contributions to major research databases); 

• The invention or generation of ideas, images, performances and artefacts 

where these manifestly embody new or substantially developed 

insights; 

• Building on existing knowledge to produce new or substantially improved 

materials, devices, products, policies or processes. 

It specifically excludes: 

• routine testing and analysis of materials, components, instruments and 

processes, as distinct from the development of new analytical techniques. 

• the development of teaching materials and teaching practices that do 

not embody substantial original enquiry. 

Source: National Research Foundation (2005: 8). 

It is clear from the above that the evaluation and rating system 

focuses nearly exclusively on the promotion of professional sociology as 

defined by Michael Burawoy (2004). It is also an individualistic system 

that rates single authorship ouput more highly than collaborative efforts. 

As a special incentive to apply for rating researchers who have received a 

rating are allowed to apply for five-year funding for a project from the 

NRF’s Focused Areas programme as opposed to the two years for nonrated 

researchers. Once the programme of rating has been running for a 

few years non-rated researchers will not be allowed to apply for research 

money from the NRF as a project leader at all.


THE PROCEDURE OF EVALUATION AND RATING 

Applications for evaluation and rating are open to all full-time, part-time 

or contract researchers based at South African higher education 

institutions (HELs), museums or any other NRF recognised research 

institution. An NRF recognised research institution is one 

• that conducts basic research or applied research, 

• of a pre-competitive nature, 

• promoting the long-term knowledge base, 

• within the declared NRF focus areas. 

• It should have a research training component leading to master’s 

degrees and doctorates, while being committed to equity and redress. 

The research portfolio must be submitted via the research office of the 

institution that the applicant is based at and needs to be supported by the 

research office. After screening by the Evaluation Centre acceptable 

applications are sent through to the appropriate specialist committee for 

the appointment of peer reviewers. 

There are presently 21 such specialist committees of which 11 are for 

the social sciences and humanities. The eleven specialist committees for 

the social sciences and humanities are the following: 

• Anthroplogy, Development Studies, Geography, Sociology and Social 

Work 

• Communication, Media Studies and Library and Information Sciences 

• Economics, Management, Administration and Accounting 

• Education 

• Historical Studies 

• Law 

• Literary Studies, Languages and Linguistics 

• Performing and Creative Arts, and Design 

• Political Sciences, Policy Studies and Philosophy 

• Psychology 

• Religious Studies and Theology 

Each of these committees consists of three to six respected members of 

the South African research community in each of the fields of research. 

As is clear from the above sociology is grouped together in one 

specialist committee with anthropology, development studies, geography 

and social work. It is interesting to note that this specialist committee 

includes the widest array of disciplines of all the social science and

230 

Tina Uys 

humanities committees. Education, historical studies, law, psychology 

and religious studies each have their own separate specialist committee. 

The specialist committee appoints the peer reviewers, evaluates their 

reports and allocate a rating. At least six reviewers are appointed of 

which at least half are from prestigious institutions abroad. Reviewers 

are not informed about the previous evaluation or rating of applicants, or 

about the rating categories that are used by the NRF. Provision is made 

for an appeals process. 

Three categories of ratings are used. The first category deals with 

researchers who have established themselves in their field. The following 

distinctions are made: 

• A – Leading international researcher: judged world leaders in their 

field 

• B – Internationally acclaimed researcher: has considerable international 

recognition as an independent researcher 

• C – Establised researcher: demonstrates a solid body of research which 

reflects an ongoing commitment in their field 

The second category distinguishes between two kinds of ratings that are 

awarded to young researchers, normally younger than 35 years with a 

doctoral qualification of less than 5 years. 

• P – NRF President’s Awardee: are recognised internationally as having 

the potential to become leaders in their field in the future. 

• Y– Promising young researcher: showing the potential to become 

established reseachers within a five-year period after evaluation. 

Provision is also made for those researchers, normally younger than 55 

years who have shown promise or ability as researchers in the past but 

have been prevented from developing this ability because of the absence 

of a research environment, time spent in industry or family 

responsibilities. 

Finer distinctions are also made in the rating in terms of A1, A2, B1, 

B2, B3, C1, C2, C3, Y1 and Y2. A more detailed explanation of the 

ratings that can be awarded is reflected in Table 2.


Table 2: Definitions of rating categories and research 

Category 

A 

Definition 

Researchers who are 

unequivocally 

recognised but heir 

peers as leading 

international scholars in 

their field for the high 

quality and impact of 

their recent research 

outputs. 

Subcategory 

A1 

Description 

A researcher in this group 

is recognised by all 

reviewers as a leading 

scholar in his/her field 

internationally for the high 

quality and wide impact 

(i.e.) beyond a narrow field 

of specialisation) of his/her 

recent research outputs. 

B 

Researchers who enjoy 

considerable 

international 

recognition by their 

peers for the high 

quality and impact of 

their recent research 

outputs. 

A2 

B1 

A researcher in this group 

is recognised by the 

overriding majority of 

reviewes as a leading scholar 

in his/her field 

internationally for the high 

quality and impact (either 

wide of confined) of his/her 

recent research outputs. 

All reviewers concur that 

the applicant enjoys 

considerable international 

recognition for the high 

quality and impact of his/her 

recent research outputs, with 

some of them indicating that 

he/she is a leading 

international scholar in the 

field. 

B2 

All or the overriding 

majority of reviewers are 

firmly convinced that the 

applicant enjoys 

considerable international 

recognition for the high 

quality and impact of his/her 

recent research outputs.

232 

Tina Uys 

Category 

C 

Definition 

Established researchers 

with a sustained recent 

record of productibity in 

the field who are 

recognised by their 

peers as having: 

Produced a body of 

quality work, the core 

of which has coherence 

and attests to ongoing 

engagement with the 

field 

Demonstrated the 

ability to conceptualise 

problems and apply 

research methods to 

investigating them 

Subcategory 

B3 

C1 

C2 

C3 

Description 

Most of the reviewers are 

convinced that the applicant 

enjoys considerable 

international recognition for 

the high quality and impact 

of his/her recent research 

outputs. 

While all reviewers concur 

that the applicant is an 

established researcher (as 

described), some of them 

indicate that he/she already 

enjoys considerable 

international regonition for 

his/her high quality recent 

research outputs. 

All or the overriding 

majority of reviewers are 

firmly convinced that the 

applicant is an established 

researcher (as described). 

Most of the reviewers 

concur that the applicant is 

an established researcher (as 

described). 

Category 

P 

Definition 

Young researchers 

(normally younger than 

35 years of age), who 

have held the doctorate 

of equivalent 

qualification for less 

than five years at the 

time of application and 

who, on the basis of 

exceptional potential 

Subcategory 

Description 

Researchers in this group 

are recognised by all or the 

over-riding majority of 

reviewers as having 

demonstrated the potential 

of becoming future leaders 

in their field, on the basis of 

exeptional research 

performance and output 

from their doctoral and/or


Category 

Y 

L 

Definition 

demonstrated in their 

published doctoral work 

and/or their research 

outputs in their early 

post-doctoral careers are 

considered likely to 

become future leaders in 

their field. 

Young researchers 

(normally younger than 

35 years of age), who 

have held the doctorate 

of equivalent 

qualification for less 

than five years at the 

time of application, and 

who are recognised as 

having the potential to 

establish themselves as 

researchers within a 

five-year period after 

evaluation, based on 

their performance and 

productivity as 

researchers during their 

doctoral studies and/or 

early post-doctoral 

careers. 

Persons (normally 

younger than 55 years) 

who were previously 

established as 

researchers of who 

previously demonstrated 

potential through their 

own research products, 

and who are considered 

capable of fully 

Subcategory 

Y1 

Y2 

Description 

early post-doctoral research 

careers. 

A researcher in this group is 

recognised by all reviewers 

as having the potential 

(demonstrated byresearch 

products) to establish 

him/herself as a researcher 

with some of them 

indicating that he/she has 

the potential to become a 

future leader in his/her 

field. (Applicants on the 

borderline between P and Y 

should be rated at this 

level.) 

A researcher in this group is 

recognised by all or the 

over-riding majority of 

reviewers as having the 

potential to establish 

him/herslef as a researcher 

(demonstrated by recent 

research products). 

This category was 

introduced to draw an 

increased number of 

researchers with potential 

from disadvantaged 

backgrounds as well as 

women into research. It 

also caters for persons 

previously established as 

researchers who have

234 

Tina Uys 

Category 

Definition 

establishing or reestablishing 

themselves 

as researchers within a 

five-year period after 

evaluation. Candidates 

should be South African 

citizens or foreign 

nationals who have been 

resident in South Africa 

for five years during 

which time they have 

been unable for practical 

reasons to realise their 

potential as researchers. 

Candidates who are 

eligible in this category 

include: 

• black 

researchers 

• female 

researchers 

• those employed 

in a higher 

education 

institution that 

lacked a 

research 

environment 

• those who were 

previously 

established as 

researchers and 

have returned 

to a research 

environment. 

Subcategory 

Source: National Research Foundation (2005: 7-8). 

Description 

returned to a research 

environment after periods 

in industry or elswehere. 

Applicants must 

demonstrate that they could 

not realise the potential or 

sustain their research ability 

by virtue of a lack of a 

research environment, or 

time spent in industry, or on 

maternity leave, or raising a 

family. For candidates to 

qualify for this category the 

employing institution must 

have demonstrated its 

financial commitment 

towards a development 

strategy for the staff 

member concerned


After the initial rating have been awarded researchers at recognised 

research institutions who have been rated A, B, C, P, Y or L are invited to 

submit documents for re-evaluation in approximately five-year cyles. 

Should a researcher choose not to respond to this invitation, his/her 

rating will lapse and will affect funding cycles. Applicants who have not 

been awarded a rating have to wait three years before they may apply for 

re-evaluation. They may apply for special re-evaluation sooner if the 

relevant authority of the employing institution believes that the applicant 

has made sufficient progress since the precious rating that it warrants reevaluation. 

A new application then has to be sent to the NRF other with a 

motivation indicating why a special re-evaluation is justified. 

THE RESPONSE FROM 

THE SOCIAL SCIENCE COMMUNITY 

The number of applications for rating received by the specialist 

committees for the social sciences and humanities as well as their success 

rate at receiving a rating are reflected in Table 3 below. It is clear that the 

rating system was not received with great enthusiasm by the social 

science community. Furthermore, if anything, the slight inital enthusiasm 

dwindled rapidly from 380 applications in 2002 to 113 in 2003, 81 in 

2004, 100 in 2005 and 82 in 2006. In 2007 only 274 applications were 

received which includes applications for re-evaluations for those who 

applied for the first time in 2002. The average success rate over the five 

year period is 68% and 64% of ratings awarded are as Established 

researchers (C). In 2006 only 513 (32%) of the 1606 rated researchers 

were from the social sciences and humanities (NRF 2007: 7). 

Table 3: Applications and ratings 2002-2006 in social sciences and humanities 

Year Applications 

Success % Ratings received 

A B C P Y L 

2002 380 269 71 6 59 175 5 16 8 

2003 113 81 72 1 17 52 1 7 3 

2004 81 43 53 2 9 26 0 2 4 

2005 100 72 72 1 7 43 3 11 7 

2006 82 48 59 4 0 31 0 7 6 

Total 756 513 68 14 92 327 9 43 28 

Source: National Research Foundation (2007: 5-7).

236 

Tina Uys 

It is also of interest to consider the spread of rated researchers across 

specialist committees in the social sciences and humanities as is reflected 

in Table 4. 

Table 4: The spread of rated researchers in the social sciences and humanities - 

2006 

Specialist committee – the social sciences and 

humanities 

Rating 

A B C Total 

2 9 37 48 

Anthropology, Development Studies, 

Geography, Sociology and Social Work 

Communication, Media Studies & Library and 0 2 15 17 

Information Sciences 

Economics, Management, Administration and 0 7 46 53 

Accounting 

Education 1 6 38 45 

Historical Studies 2 12 19 33 

Law 2 15 57 74 

Literary studies, Language and Linguistics 5 21 58 84 

Performing and Creative Arts and Design 0 10 16 26 

Political Studies, Policy Studies and Philosophy 0 7 18 25 

Psychology 0 6 28 34 

Religious Studies and Theology 2 5 20 27 

Total 14 100 1 352 466 

Source: National Research Foundation (2007: 11). 

The lack of interest from sociologists is particularly evident when 

their participation is considered. In 2006 only 13 sociologists were rated 

where 8 had an established researcher rating (C), two an internationally 

acclaimed rating (B), two a promising young researcher rating (Y) and 

only one had managed to achieve a leading international researcher or A 

rating. The absence of sociologists among the rated scientists is largely 

due to the fact that South African sociologists are generally very resistant 

to the system. During workshops held by Webster and Fakier (2001: 13- 

14) the participants raised six problems foreseen by South African 

sociologists with extending the rating and evaluation system to 

researchers in the social sciences and humanities. 

1 Some researchers are linked to more than one specialist committee


The first problem was related to an important difference between the 

natual sciences and the social sciences, namely that of the diversity in 

approaches and orientations within the social sciences in general, and 

sociology in particular. This diversity, it was argued, makes it 

problematic to obtain consensus on the criteria that should be used for 

any ranking of social scientists as well as for the actual ranking in terms 

of a simple hierarchy. 

Secondly, it was argued that sociologists consider their subject matter 

to be inextricably linked to finding solutions for social problems over 

which there is no agreement. Most sociologists find it impossible to 

“divorce their own views as citizens from their work as sociologists” 

(Webster & Fakier 2001: 13). This lack of basic agreement among 

sociologists in different societies with regard to the way in which 

judgements of intellectual work should be conducted, makes the ranking 

of sociologists on the basis of their international standing highly 

problematic. 

A third problem with the rating system is “that the social sciences and 

the humanities are grounded in a particular geographical and historical 

context” (Webster & Fakier 2001: 14). In particular scholars working in 

Area Studies, where their focus is on a specific region, such as in the case 

of African Studies, cannot easily be ranked together with scholars 

working in a specific discipline in terms of one inclusive ranking system. 

The fourth problem has to do with the generalist nature of sociology. 

The sociological community in South Africa is relatively small, which 

makes it difficult “to find sufficient numbers of scholars who are familiar 

both with the substantive focus and the method of investigation of a 

researcher” (Webster & Fakier 2001: 14). The review process is 

therefore inherently susceptible to all kinds of errors of judgement, while 

consensus building among practitioners is difficult to achieve. 

The fifth problem identified by participants is related to the 

indvidualistic nature of the rating system. South African sociologists 

generally prefer a more collective approach where a department or 

research centre is evaluated rather than an individual. The feeling is that 

research is centred on team work and that the achievements of researchers 

as a team should be evaluated. 

Lastly, inadequate recognition of the need for capacity building of 

researchers is considered a flaw, especially the fact that insufficient credit 

is given to applicants for the contribution they are making in this regard. 

These concerns were identified in 2002 before the present rating 

system was extended to the humanities and social sciences. It was 

therefore necessary to revisit the views of South African sociologists after 

the process had been in operation for five years.

238 

Tina Uys 

RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS 

In collaboration with Bronwyn Dworzanowski-Venter, an electronic survey 

of South African sociologists was conducted in 2007/8 in order to 

explore how they understand ‘academic citizenship,’ and how, if at all, it 

is experienced and/or practised. As part of the electronic questionnaire 

that was sent to a cross-section of sociologists they were asked to express 

their views of the current NRF-rating system. We received a total of 38 

responses from eight universities. 

The biographical characteristics of the respondents are reflected in 

Table 5. 

Table 5: The biographical characteristics of the respondents 

Race Black – 5; Coloured/Indian – 5; White – 28 

Gender Men – 20; Women – 18 

Age


plied for rating as they received pressure from the university to do so. 

Moreover, there was a strong sentiment that the NRF would part with 

funds more easily to rated scientists and that their university-employers 

would be sure to advance more research funding upon the achievement of 

rated status. A number of universities provide incentives to rated scientists 

such as an amount of research funding being provided depending on 

the level of rating achieved as well as funds for the appointment of a research 

assistant. 

Having established the linkages between the NRF, rating and research 

funding, we considered why the vast majority of our respondents 

chose not to apply for rating. Their responses were as follows: 

• do not qualify for rating 

• qualify for rating, but choose not to apply for rating 

o object in principle to the rating system and process 

o will not apply as able to access more funds elsewhere 

o will apply for rating once more research work has been completed 

(i.e. these respondents qualify for rating, but feel it is 

too early in their careers to be rated) 

o was going to apply for rating but decided that it was too late in 

one’s career to do so 

Although the respondents generally acknowledged the central role of 

peer review in determining the quality of research work, they questioned 

the principle on which the present system is based as well as the 

legitimacy and structure of the process by means of which a rating is 

achieved. A senior rated sociologist expressed his concerns as follows: 

It is a misguided attempt to imitate a dubious practice in the natural sciences. 

It is a flawed idea in the humanities that you can rank academics 

along nine different levels. We do not have such a consensus in our disciplines 

and it open to abuse by those who have powerful networks. 

Above all, I think it leads to a narrow preoccupation with publication – 

especially in international journals - at the expense of our core business, 

which is teaching and building the new generation. This responsibility 

is absolutely central in a country and university such as mine where we 

are desperately trying to follow Harvard and Oxford at the expense of 

building our own timber. 

This view is supported by another unrated middle-level respondent who 

argues:

240 

Tina Uys 

In the last while I have not been following debates on the NRF very 

closely, but my sense is that this is an ambitious, but deeply flawed 

process. While I do understand part of the logic to expand the rating 

system used in the natural sciences to the social sciences, because it is 

seen to confer some prestige to this Cinderella of the academy, this is 

not an international practice, partly because there are deep and substantial 

differences in research practice and the nature of the knowledge 

generated in these two parts of the academy. In addition, the South African 

research community is simply way too small to allow for the kind 

of bureaucratic indifference and distance in which a fair and relatively 

undamaging (to the individual applying) process of evaluation can 

flourish. 

In particular the NRF rating system is viewed as interference by the state 

in the determination of research agendas. One respondent expressed a 

strong view in this regard: 

I see it as a an attempted form of state control over tertiary research 

agendas (as these are predetermined to a large extent) where the honour 

of being rated is exchanged for monetary “rewards” in the form of 

research funds to be allocated and administered within University context 

by the rated scientist on behalf of the NRF. 

Another respondent indicated a similar view, although less explicitly: 

I have not submitted to it as I think it is another of those externally 

originated and imposed structures that erode autonomy, professionalism, 

integrity and ownership of one’s work. Philosophically, there are too 

many problems to evaluating sociological work to have confidence in 

any ranking of outputs and hence rating of scholars. A sense of injustice 

and illegitimacy is thus unavoidable. 

Respondents also view the university management as being complicit in 

the undermining of academic freedom as is clear from the following quotation: 

I also hold the view that universities undermine the conditions of 

autonomous and critical scholarship to the extent that they overtly or 

covertly coerce academics to apply for rating. The system and the practices 

are rendered particularly invidious to the extent that such coercion 

is attached to – or veiled by – material inducements. The imposition of


a monopolistic arbiter of academic quality and dispenser of material 

largesse is in itself destructive of scholarly values. 

A further problem expressed is related to the fact that the rating 

system as presently conducted favours specialisation rather than cutting 

across disciplines. Those scholars involved in interdisciplinary work are 

therefore disadvantaged when it comes to the determination of a rating by 

a more narrowly focused research committee. Two respondents 

expressed this sentiment in the following way: 

The current NRF-rating system does not allow one to be regarded as a 

good generalist (i.e. academic/scientist that has made high quality research 

contributions in one’s field). The more specialized one is, the 

better. I think that this is a bit restricting. 

Many university-based SA scholars in the social sciences are compelled 

to be generalists – which seems to be undervalued by NRF criteria. 

Concerns are also expressed about the way in which the academic capitalism 

engendered by globalisation impacts on the expression of academic 

citizenship and collegiality: 

In the broadest sense corporate globalization which promotes individual 

competitiveness and materialism which implies concentrating on one’s 

own career and undertaking research on behalf of the powerful and the 

privileged who can pay for it. In the immediate context the rating system 

which is built on vanity, egoism and competitiveness rather than 

sharing and co-operation. 

Moreover, the NRF rating system does not give recognition to the 

academic citizenship displayed by applicants. In a developing society 

such as South Africa it is very important that scholars should be willing 

to devote some of their time to building up the various institutions within 

which research work is conducted, such as their departments, national 

journals and professional associations. The amount of work that is done 

in this regard should be considered in awarding the eventual rating that a 

particular researcher receives. 

A serious concern is the fact that the rating system as presently 

conducted and the link that it has to the possibility of being awarded 

research funding by the NRF could give rise to the so-called Matthew 

Effect, namely that those who have received more opportunities in the 

past at doing research, are more likely to receive them in the future

242 

Tina Uys 

(Laudel 2006: 377). This is especialy the case as no consideration is 

given to the working conditions at the particular institution of the 

researcher or the extent to which they provide a disabling or enabling 

environment for conducting good quality research. 

Finally, the NRF is viewed as giving inadequate recognition to the 

sociohistorical context within which the rating of South African social 

scientists is taking place. As one senior sociologist expressed it: 

The NRF criteria place too much emphasis on “international recognition” 

(in apparent ignorance of the political and social structures of 

knowledge hierarchies in the academic world), [and associated with the 

above] indicators such as citation indexes reflect, for the most part, both 

the geographical concentrations of scholarship and the density of paradigmatic, 

research tradition and thematic communities (which are often 

exclusivist and difficult to penetrate) which are not easily accessible to 

SA scholars – and which perforce subject their work to scrutiny by assessors 

that may be relatively ignorant of a particular field of specialisation. 

In particular, the emphasis the NRF rating places on the applicant’s international 

standing directs South African social scientists towards ensuring 

that their research has a sufficient international flavour so that it would be 

of interest to sociologists elsewhere. 

In order for an applicant to achieve a high ranking (A and B), most of 

their reviewers must be convinced that the applicant’s research has a 

considerable international reputation. This system is prejudiced against 

any applicant who studies a society outside Western Europe and North 

America. The reason for this is the colonial nature of social science. 

Whereas the subject matter of physicists or chemist remains the same 

the world over, South African sociologists are obliged to study South 

African society rather than British society. No matter how pathbreaking 

and excellent, a study of South African society would have no impact 

on debates about British society. The colonial character of social science 

is such that only studies of Western European and US society are 

considered ‘international’. So, for example a study of social class in the 

US would be considered a key contribution to debates about social class. 

A study of class in South Africa would be considered relevant only to 

South Africa or maybe Africa or the developing world. On these terms, 

it is therefore much more difficult for social scientists to achieve ‘considerable 

international recognition.’


CONCLUSION 

The value and functioning of the NRF rating system is debated within 

and without the social sciences in South Africa. This is clearly reflected 

in the responses obtained from our cohort of sociologists. The fact remains 

that even the harshest critics of the rating process choose to resist 

in absentia, rather than taking on the state and the NRF in a more direct 

way. 

In conclusion, it could be argued that although the rating system as 

implemented in South Africa at present, is flawed in many ways, it also 

has distinct advantages that could be retained through a thorough rethink 

of the system. It is the only way in which we can benchmark ourselves to 

our colleagues nationally as well as internationally. As far as could be 

determined, this system of peer reviewing is unique in the world. It 

provides some objective mechanism, however imperfect, of comparing 

the research ability of scholars with each other. The feedback that is 

provided by the NRF to the individual researcher makes an important 

contribution towards improving the quality of his/her work. At the very 

least, completing the research profile that is required forces researchers to 

consider what they are doing and why they are doing it. It is a system 

that should be improved and refined rather than being rejected altogether 

as many South African sociologists presently are inclined to do. 

Sociologists should actively engage the NRF, the state and university 

managements rather than withdrawing. In this way we would acknowledge 

our acceptance of the basic academic principles of peer review and 

benchmarking. However, the principles and the process of rating should 

be revisited, making it transparent and open to input from all stakeholders. 

In particular, there should be recognition of the collective nature of the 

research enterprise through the rating of departments rather than individuals. 

An appreciation for the importance of the academic citizenship 

role of researchers and the redefinition of international recognition should 

form an important part of the reconstitution of the evaluation of research 

quality in South Africa. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Buchbinder, H. “The Market Oriented University and the Changing Role 

of Knowledge.” Higher Education 26, no. 3 (1993): 331-347. 

Burawoy, M. 2004. “Public sociology: South African Dilemmas in a 

Global Context.” Society in Transition 35, no. 1 (2004): 11-26.

244 

Tina Uys 

David, P. “The Knowledge Factory.” The Economist 345, no. 8037 (1997) 

supplement. 

Jansen, J. “The State of Higher Education in South Africa: From Massification 

to Mergers.” In State of the nation: South Africa 2003-2004 

edited by J. Daniel, A. Habib, and R. Southall, pp. 290-311. Cape 

Town: HSRC Press, 2003. 

Kaplan, D. “Universities and the Business Sector: Strengthening the 

Links.” Social Dynamics 23, no. 1 (1997): 68-76. 

Laudel, G. “The ‘Quality Myth’: Promoting and Hindering Conditions for 

Acquiring Research Funds.” Higher Education 52 (2006): 375-403. 

Miller, H. “Academics and Their Labour Process.” In White-Collar Work: 

the Non-Manual Labour Process edited by C. Smith, D. Knights and 

H. Willmott, pp. 109-37. London: Macmillan, 1991. 

Moja, T., N. Cloete, and N. Olivier. “Is Moving from Co-operative Governance 

to Conditional Autonomy a Contribution to Effective Governance” 

CHET report, 2002. 

National Research Foundation. Workshop with Convenors of Assessment 

Panels and members of the executive evaluation commitee. 

Unpublished document. Pretoria: NRF, 2004. 

National Research Foundation. Rating Brochure: The Evaluation and 

Rating of the Research Performance of Researchers in South Africa 

through the National Researach Foundation. Pretoria: NRF, 2005. 

-----. Evaluation and Rating: Facts & Figures. Pretoria: NRF, 2007. 

Nixon, J. “‘Not Without Dust and Heat’: The Moral Bases of the ‘New’ 

Academic Professionalism.” British Journal of Educational Studies 

49, no. 2 (2001):173-186. 

Orr, L. “Globalisation and Universities: Towards the Market University.” 

Social Dynamics 23, no. 1(1997): 42-67. 

Wasser, H. “Changes in the European University: From Traditional to 

Entrepreneurial.” Higher Education Quarterly 44, no. 2 (1990): 110- 

22. 

Webster, E. and K. Fakier. Evaluating research performance: the need 

for a developmental approach in sociology. Unpublished report. 

Johannesburg: SWOP, 2001. 

Webster, E. and G. Adler. “Toward a Class Compromise in South 

Africa’s ‘Double Transition’: Bargained Liberalization and the 

Consolidation of Democracy.” Politics and Society 27, no. 3 (1999): 

347-385. 

Ylijoki, O-H. “Entangled in Academic Capitalism A Case-Study on 

Changing Ideals and Practices of University Research.” Higher 

Education 45, no. 3 (2003):307-335.

Poverty Fighters in Academia 245 

Poverty Fighters in Academia: 

The Subversion of the Notion of Socially 

Engaged Science in the Mozambican Higher 

Education System 


University of Cape Town, South Africa 1 

This paper is a free-ranging discussion of several issues that arose for me 

in the course of public debates I was involved in on universities, academics’ 

engagement with society (Serra 2007a), the appointment of vicechancellors 

by the head of state, and the role of universities in society, for 

example in the alleviation of absolute poverty (Ali 2005), that are taking 

place in Mozambique and elsewhere. It is intended neither as a focused 

commentary on these debates, nor as a systematic analysis of their arguments 

and evidence. The aim here is to raise certain issues that emerge, or 

are presupposed, in discussions of the role of universities and academics, 

as well as the limits of political discourse within the academic space. 

Specifically the paper contests the emergent conceptualisation of the university 

in Mozambique as an instrument for addressing government socioeconomic 

agenda, in this case, fighting absolute poverty. 

The ongoing instrumentalization of the university in Mozambique is 

consistent with a number of notions of socially engaged science. Scholars 

have promoted “Mode-2 science” (Gibbons et. Al 1994), “mandated science” 

(Salter 1988, 2003), “postacademic science” (Ziman 1996, 2000), 

and “socially robust science, or science in the agora” (Nowotny et al. 

2003). These scholars have developed an all-encompassing body of 

knowledge with slightly different nuances, but that preaches and agitates 

for a socially engaged approach in science. This new approach is mainly 

characterized by accounting for the fundamental changes in the relationship 

between science, higher education (universities), and the exogenous 

world (particularly industry), in what has been called a third “mission”— 

or “triple helix”—of the university (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 2000). 

1 The author can be reached at patricio.langa@uct.ac.za.

246 

Patrício Langa 

Overall, this notion has been promoted as an approach to academic practice 

that is aimed at contextualising both teaching and research for optimal 

social intervention. It is argued that this approach to science has implications 

for the relationship between the state and the university, especially 

with regards to the values of academic freedom, institutional 

autonomy, and knowledge production. 

Globally, higher education systems, and universities in particular, 

come in a remarkable variety of forms, including in their basic relation to 

the state and the political economy (Du Toit 2006). Thus, notions such as 

“institutional autonomy,” “academic freedom,” and “accountability,” for 

instance, need clarification and need to be contextualized before attempting 

any kind of analysis. Claims about the absence or presence of “academic 

freedom” may have different meanings according to the nuance 

these notions take in a particular context. A historical background of the 

higher education system is thus crucial in order to contextualize the use 

of the term “academic freedom” and “institutional autonomy” for the 

purposes of this paper. 

Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are important conditions 

for the development of science (Mamdani and Diouf 1994). Academic 

freedom comprises the freedom to operate in line with an individual 

and institutional teaching and a research agenda that is not directly 

linked to immediate political objectives. I acknowledge that academics 

would be within their right to pursue scholarship that is linked to immediate 

political objectives. However, there is the risk of compromising the 

establishment and pursuit of an academic project that contributes to 

(qualify) science. Therefore, academic freedom relying on “swing agendas” 

of the politics of the day is worthless to pursue. This is also valid for 

institutional autonomy. As I understand it, the concept of autonomy entails 

the institutional power to decide on the mission, vision, and objective 

of the institution within the broader lawful framework of the state. 

This paper is organized into four sections. I start by providing a brief 

historical background of the Mozambican higher education system. In the 

second section, I look at some theoretical remarks on the issue of socially 

engaged science and present the problem in question. In the third section, 

I provide some evidence from the Mozambican experience. The fourth 

section is the conclusion.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF MOZAMBIQUE’S 

HIGHER EDUCATION 

This section provides a brief socio-political and historical overview of the 

Mozambican higher education system and its evolving features. For purposes 

of this analysis, the country’s history of higher education is divided 

into three phases. 

Phase One: Colonial Higher Education 

The first phase covers the period from 1962 to 1975. In 1962, the Portuguese 

colonial government established Mozambique’s first higher education 

institution, the General University Studies of Mozambique (EGUM), 

for the children of Portuguese settlers (Mário et al. 2003: 7; Beverwijk 

2005: 15; Langa 2006: 15-16). In 1968, EGUM was granted the status of 

a full university and changed its name to University of Lourenço Marques 

(ULM). The ideology prevailing at that time conceived higher education 

as an exclusive privilege of a certain category of individuals: the sons and 

daughters of the Portuguese settlers. Thus, indigenous Mozambicans 

were excluded from the country’s higher education system (Mondlane 

1997). Social engagement of the university – if at all discernible at this 

stage – merely strengthened and perpetuated the colonial divide between 

settler and native. The sole university was merely a branch of a Portuguese 

university on colonial territory. 

Phase Two: A Socialist Experiment 

Covering the period from 1975 to 1986, the second phase is marked by 

the experiment of the socialist regime that followed the country’s independence 

in 1975. In 1976, the sole university left by the Portuguese was 

transformed into a national university and named after Eduardo Mondlane, 

the assassinated first president of the Mozambican Liberation Front 

(FRELIMO), the ruling party since independence. In 1977, the FRE- 

LIMO government adopted Marxist-Leninist ideology with single party 

rule, which led to a centrally planned higher education system with clear 

prescriptions regarding mission, curriculum, staff, students, and the entire 

infrastructure (Beverwjik 2005: 15). It was the task of the Ministry of 

Education to centrally plan and establish the number of students to enrol 

in primary, secondary, and tertiary education, decide on the location and 

the kind of institutions to be opened every year (Resolução 8/79 de 3 de 

Julho de 1979; Mário et al. 2003; Gonçalves 2007: 614). The university 

thus stood at the forefront of the socialist revolution attempt and the con-

248 


struction of the new nation-state with science being regarded as the tool 

to liberate the people by its first president Samora Machel (Machel 1974a, 

1974b, 1976). There was no space to even consider issues such as autonomy 

and academic freedom at the time; these were non-issues. 

According to Mayntz (1998), one of the basic structural characteristics 

of the science system in socialist countries has been the concentration 

of state-financed, basic, and problem-oriented research in national academies. 

While in the Western tradition, academies were primarily, and 

have largely remained, learned societies, the term signified large research 

establishments of national scope in socialist countries. Here, the notion of 

a socially engaged science and university gains some relevance, since the 

state defines science and higher education as a developmental tool for the 

country (Drori et al. 2003). It was with this approach that two more universities 

that are public were subsequently established. In 1985 and 1986, 

respectively, the government created the Higher Pedagogical Institute 

(ISP) and the Higher Institute for International Relations (ISRI). The 

former was responsible for training secondary school teachers. In 1995, 

ISP was granted full university status, becoming Pedagogical University 

(UP), without a major mission shift. Former president Joaquim Chissano 

while in charge of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs instigated the establishment 

of ISRI. Its mission was to train diplomats at a higher level 

(Mário et al. 2003; Langa 2006). Later on, I will explore the implications 

of this historical legacy, highlighting that it determines the role of universities 

and academics even today. 

Phase Three: Transition to Democracy and Market Oriented Economy 

This phase covers the period from 1986 to date. During this period, the 

country experienced a transition from socialism to democracy and market-driven 

economy with implications for higher education. The most 

important change within the higher education system was the introduction 

of a new law (No.1/93, and revised in 2002) (Mário et al., 2003:10; 

Beverwijk, 2005: 15; Langa, 2006: 18). This new law marked the beginning 

of a new era of multiple suppliers of higher education including private 

ones. Importantly, the new law lays particular emphasis on the notion 

of autonomy. It describes “autonomy” and “academic freedom” as 

follows: 

Autonomy is the capacity of higher education institutions to exercise 

their powers, perform the necessary obligations, to pursue academic 

freedom at an administrative, financial, patrimonial and scientific-


pedagogic level, according to the institutions’ objectives, strategies of 

the sector, policies and national plans (MESCT 2003: 3). 

The new law had a number of major consequences. The most visible 

one was the mushrooming of new privately owned higher education institutions. 

From three public universities in 1993 the number of higher education 

institutions increased to more than 30 institutions, both private and 

public (Langa 2006: 108). 

The first private university to open was the Higher Polytechnic and 

University Institute (ISPU), followed by the Catholic University (UCM). 

Both were established in 1995. ISPU and UCM were followed in 1998 by 

the Higher Institute of Science and Technology of Mozambique (ISC- 

TEM), and by the Islamic Mussa Bin Bique University (UMBB). In 2000, 

the Higher Institute of Transport and Communication (ISUTC) was also 

established. Currently, the higher education system in Mozambique comprises 

a diverse and differentiated constellation of institutions (Beverwijk 

2005; Langa 2006: vii). 

At the systemic level, it is considered that the introduction of the new 

law aimed to reduce the level of direct government intervention. For public 

universities, government would be restricted to paying staff and maintaining 

facilities and equipment. Decision-making rested with the respective 

public universities (Beverwijk 2005). Berverwijk also notes that the 

advisory role assumed by the vice-chancellors to the government on 

higher education policy is a sign of substantive freedom in terms of institutional 

management. For instance, vice-chancellors of public universities 

would negotiate funding for their institutions directly with the Minister of 

Planning and Finance. These are some of the indicators of a changing 

system, increasingly focusing on the “autonomy” of its institutions. 

Overall, recent developments in the Mozambican higher education 

system display a process of expansion, differentiation (public and private). 

From one institution located in Maputo, higher education institutions 

were established almost in each of the 11 provinces in the country, in 

what could be considered one of the most rapid processes of expansion. 

THEORETICAL REMARKS AND THE PROBLEM 

In recent years, universities have been experiencing mounting pressure to 

contribute to the economic, social, and environmental well-being of the 

regions in which they are situated and to establish closer links with the 

regions (Harding et al. 2007). As higher education institutions strive to 

survive in times of fundamental changes and financial constraints, a new

250 


character of the institutions and new attitudes of academic staff emerge. 

An example of such emergent institutional characters is what Slaughter 

and Leslie (1997) describe as “academic capitalism” or the involvement 

of colleges and faculties in market-like behaviours. 

This newly evolving discourse of socially engaged science as opposed 

to traditional ways of producing science and running universities, 

is arguably responsible for the emergent subversion of the core business 

of universities, undermining the very “raison d’être” of that distinctive 

institution. This subversion occurs when social engagement is pursued in 

advance of a well-established scientific base or disciplinary oriented 

knowledge (Muller 2000). Muller argues that Mode 2 (problem-solving 

base science) knowledge production depends on Mode 1 (disciplinary 

base science) knowledge production. Thus, it is indispensable, as a first 

step to strengthen and consolidate Mode 1 in the institutions; Mode 2 development 

would then follow. Mode 2 does not have to be created since it 

is market-driven: it has to be facilitated, or encouraged to develop, and 

regulated (Muller 2000: 45). This point is suggestive because from what I 

have observed in Mozambique, the political discourse of fighting absolute 

poverty is driving institutions to prematurely move from Mode 1 to 

Mode 2 whilst Mode 1 remains very underdeveloped, as I will attempt to 

demonstrate. 

Historically, universities have developed an academic culture 

grounded in a fundamental belief in academic freedom, institutional 

autonomy, as well as the unity of research and teaching. In stark contrast 

to these underlying principles, Mozambican politicians have resorted to 

the notion of social engagement (fighting poverty) as legitimation for 

their interference in the business of universities. The increasing importance 

ascribed to universities in the context of globalisation and knowledge 

economy, has propelled governments all over the world, and particularly 

so in developing countries, to regulate universities in order to 

transform them into instruments of social change and economic and technological 

development (Kellermann 2007; Boulton and Lucas 2008). 

As argued by Boulton and Lucas (2008: 5), public policy sees universities 

as vectors of the contemporary skilling of an increasing segment 

of the population and as providers of innovation that can be translated 

into advantage in a fast changing global economic environment. Yet they 

also stress that, whereas universities help to create an environment sympathetic 

to and supportive of innovation, especially where it is associated 

with high quality and internationally competitive research, innovation 

itself is predominantly a process of business engagement with markets in 

which universities can only play a minor role. The essential aspect of this 

argument is that universities’ commitment to education in the deepest


sense—knowledge for its own sake—remains to its exploration of the 

limits of human understanding. While the narrow view of higher education 

frequently focuses on science and technology—as I will attempt to 

demonstrate later with the case of the dismissal of the social sciences in 

Mozambique as useful disciplines to fight absolute poverty—it is the social 

sciences and humanities that are more prepared to the describe the 

“topography” of society as suggested by Macamo (2005). 

The social sciences and humanities can be concerned with issues that 

are fundamental to the constitution of poverty as social phenomena, not 

with the preached teleological belief of its eradication. They can provide 

a framework to understand why and how poverty presents itself as a reality 

as well as how it is constructed and experienced differently by different 

individuals, groups, and cultures. Such forms of understanding prevents 

poverty to be regarded as a technical problem of a malfunctioning 

society seeking technical solutions from science and technology or from 

the one-size-fit-all prescription and programmes of development and poverty 

eradication of the development aid industry (e.g. World Bank, 

International Monetary Fund, Millennium Development Goals) (Sachs 

2005). 

As Elzinga (2002) has convincingly argued in his critique of 

Mode 2 and Triple helix, 

the projection of new research policy models fixes only on a small cluster 

of areas in a broad and variegated tapestry of modern science, which 

includes all kinds of sites and institutions. They largely take events in 

areas like biotechnology and microelectronics and now also increasingly 

research into advanced industrial materials as their main reference, 

areas where the promise of commercial profits is strongest. We hear 

nothing about changes in astronomy, natural history museums, language 

laboratories or departments of archaeology and musicology. 

Thus, the new models are fostering a new particularism while claiming 

generality. Furthermore, they conflate technical characteristics of semiautomation 

in knowledge production at the science-society interface. 

Consequently, the new images of scientific knowledge production have 

a social epistemology that is rather limited in scope. They are ideologically 

coloured totalizations of another segment of the knowledge production 

landscape. (19) 

The misconception of the role and limits of universities to solve social 

problems leads to the use of regulations and incentives, especially 

financial, to obtain forms of behaviour in universities that provide outcomes 

defined as desirable within a short-term frame of reference. The

252 


general attitude of the Mozambican government that underlies its policies 

towards higher education, for instance, is based on some serious misunderstandings 

of the role and function of higher education, particularly 

those of the universities. The Mozambican government under president 

Armando Guebuza regards the higher education system as no more than 

an army, whose soldiers should fight for economic development and poverty 

eradication. It should be noted that while soldiers are expected to 

unquestionably follow the orders of their commander, in academia, 

scholars are expected to be independent thinkers seeking understanding 

through research analysis and rational argument. The political discourse 

about the role of the university derives not only from a flawed and reductionist 

understanding of the role of the university, but also undermines its 

very foundations and capacity to socially engage meaningfully. 

Universities in Africa particularly, but elsewhere as well, are under 

pressure to become more responsive to exogenous demands and pressures 

(Cloete et al. 2006; Muller 2001). There is pressure to produce applied 

research as opposed to basic research (Glaser 2001); socially “relevant” 

and policy-driven and problem-solving research (Gibbons et. al 1994). It 

is argued that knowledge needs to be “socially robust” as its validity is no 

longer determined solely by scientific communities, but increasingly by 

much wider communities of engagement, comprising knowledge producers, 

disseminators, traders, and users (Nowotny et al., 2003; Gibbons 

2001, 2006; Hall 2008). There is also mounting pressure to increase the 

number of graduates from programmes that are market-oriented as well 

as areas that are considered to increase production. 

Even though there may be different approaches in accounting for 

these pressures, it is also true that most higher education systems are going 

through changes that are strongly marked by global trends and pressures 

(Maassen and Cloete 2006). How higher education institutions are 

responding to these pressures is a matter that concerns various academics 

in their research (Rip 1997; Muller 2001; Gumport 2000). It has become 

customary to say, that the “republic of science” is turning into the “entrepreneurial 

university” (Slaughter and Leslie 1997) because it has lost the 

autonomy upon which it was built (Rip and van der Meulen 1996; Delanty 

2001). 

Current debates on the function of universities tend to consider two 

kinds of challenges universities face in contemporary society: on the one 

hand, it is considered that society presents itself with a new and growing 

demand for higher education, while on the other, the state at the same 

time applies increasingly restrictive policies to the funding of its activities 

(Conceição et al. 1998: 203). Gumport also suggests that “if one uses the 

lens of “social institution” to examine the institutional imperatives for


public higher education, one sees educational organizations devoted to a 

wide array of social functions that have been expanded over time: the 

development of individual learning and human capital, the socialization 

and cultivation of citizens and political loyalties, the preservation of 

knowledge, and the fostering of other legitimate pursuits for the nationstate” 

(Gumport 2000). Castells distinguishes four major functions on the 

theoretical level whose specific weight in each historical era defines the 

predominant role of a given university system and the specific task of 

each university within the overall university system: firstly, the generation 

and transmission of ideology; secondly, the selection and formation 

of the dominant elites; thirdly, the production and application of knowledge, 

and fourthly, the training of the skilled labour force (Castells 2001: 

206-10). 

Some of these perspectives may sound quite problematic, such as 

Castells’ four functions, as they are more normative in nature than actually 

describing the functions of universities. Consider, for instance, the 

function of “generation and transmission of ideology” or that of “selection 

and formation of elites.” They are so normative that anyone could 

identify them in any university system as long as he or she is inclined to. 

However, in fulfilling some of these functions, higher education institutions 

need to maintain a functioning relationship, for instance, with both 

the state and the market without becoming a willing tool of either, as 

suggested by Weiler (2008). For, as Weiler maintains, universities are 

marked by a profound ambivalence in their quest for a clear and unambiguous 

role in society. This seems to be the case with the Mozambican 

higher education system, where public institutions struggle to maintain a 

clear and consistent identity when it comes to their role in society. 

Public universities are being asked to become more locally relevant, 

connect aggressively with the productive sector and promote “useful” 

knowledge, graduate more students than their installed capacity and so 

forth. Academics, on their part, are being urged to engage directly in projects 

that will contribute to poverty alleviation. The fact that the government 

always find a way to impose its agendas on public higher education 

institutions is not new; however, the manner in which this is being conducted 

in Mozambique (discussed in the subsequent section) raises some 

pressing concerns. The struggle against absolute poverty is becoming a 

serious threat to academic freedom in the country today. This struggle, 

which was placed on top of the political agenda by the ruling FRELIMO 

party and its president Armando Guebuza upon his election in 2004, appears 

to be constraining academics in their ability to formulate the issues 

relating to poverty in strict observation of scientific criteria. The instrumental 

view of academics as social engineers with professional skills to

254 


fix all social problems is driving academics away from their main “raison 

d’être”: to formulate problems scientifically in ways that allow decisionmakers 

to take action according to their own political priorities. My claim 

here is that academics are being confronted with ethical responsibilities 

as opposed to a research agenda. 

This problem, however, is not limited to Mozambique, but pertains to 

the entire continent. In October 2008, the e-forum on African - US e- 

consultation formulated the vision that universities in Africa should, if 

they were to receive any financial support, pursue strong links with the 

productive sector and increase the number of graduates in areas considered 

strategic for the production of basic needs and goods (MacGregor 

2008a). Country leaders, international donors, and other social agents 

influencing the life of universities in Africa constantly reinforce this idea 

of the university on different occasions. Because of this, and as will be 

demonstrated below, academics are stranded in their space of limited legitimacy 

by the poverty fighters in academia. 

Concluding this section, I should highlight that the challenge for public 

universities in Mozambique lies in maintaining their integrity by keeping 

core institutional features intact, while at the same time pursuing 

these new approaches under the mounting political pressure from government. 

This may appear to be a “mission impossible” given that the 

“political discourse,” more so than the discussed epistemological “ideologies,” 

seems to be the main force constraining the lawfully established 

autonomy of higher education institutions. In the next section, I will attempt 

a characterization of the academic environment and the relationship 

between academics and politics in Mozambique. 

FROM POLITICS OF RELEVANCE TO RELEVANCE 

OF POLITICS 

In the subsequent discussion, I attempt to illustrate the instrumentalisation 

of the university in Mozambique and how political imperatives are 

interfering in the determination of research agenda and institutional 

autonomy. 

Role of Academics 

In Mozambique, the pressures on public universities to socially engage 

with their communities became more visible with the introduction of the 

poverty eradication agenda by Guebuza’s government beginning 2005. 

Indeed, it appears as though academics are following in the steps of the


freedom fighters of the liberation struggle and have become “poverty 

fighters.” At every opportunity, the president and members of his cabinet 

address public universities and they emphasise the vital role academia 

should play in the fight against poverty. In this process, the complex relationship 

between higher education and development as well as poverty 

eradication risks being overlooked. 

In fact, academics are no longer suspicious of the problematic relationship 

between their role in academia and the edges of social and political 

engagement. A major consequence of this trend is the subversion of a 

genuine “academic culture” marked by academic values and practices 

such as the production of knowledge for its own sake, academic peer reviewed 

publications, and conferences concerned with the progress of disciplinary 

knowledge, to mention just a few. By pursuing these values, 

academics would be in a better position to formulate scientific problems 

in a manner that positively informs policy. 

While pursuing the political agenda of fighting poverty, Mozambican 

academics are lagging behind in every aspect that concerns the values and 

culture of conventional science and “academic culture.” If we take scientific 

publications for instance, Mozambique’s contribution is appallingly 

insignificant. According to a forthcoming article in the journal Scientometrics 

on the state of science and technology across the continent, African 

researchers produce only 1.8% of the world’s total scholarly publications 

– half the figure of Latin America and substantially less than India. 

South Africa and Egypt produced half of all of Africa’s internationally 

recognised publications between 2000 and 2004, while 88% of inventive 

activity was concentrated in South Africa (MacGregor 2008b). 

Mozambique does not make it onto the list, as their figures of scientific 

publications are not worth mentioning. The country occupies the penultimate 

position in a ranking of 32 countries on the bibliometrical performance 

profiles of African countries (Mouton 2008). 

If a research project does not somehow state as its central purpose its 

contribution to the eradication of absolute poverty, it is likely to be regarded 

as irrelevant. If we take a quick glance at the projects that are eligible 

for funding from the National Funds for Innovation (NFI) of the 

Ministry of Science and Technology (MCT), we will soon notice that 

every single project has its virtue mostly based on how the ultimate goal 

of eradicating poverty is articulated. Here, there is no need to mention 

that the social sciences are entirely excluded from eligibility for such 

funds seeing as they are considered (utterly) irrelevant. Out of 42 grants 

for research and innovation projects approved by the NFI in 2007/2008, 

only one went to education and none to social science. In fact, social science 

ranked at the bottom of the top priority areas of research (Alsácia

256 


2008). There is no doubt that the main criteria of relevance here is political. 

A research project has to be “politically correct,” i.e. focus on fighting 

poverty, even if its scientific claims would make the least qualified 

scientific board raise their eyebrows. This is the context in which public 

universities are being urged to socially engage. What we can therefore 

infer from the current academic environment is that the “politics of scientific 

legitimacy and relevance” are being overthrown by “politics of social 

engagement, legitimacy, and relevance.” 

This means that whereas the former is compatible with the scientific 

determination of priorities concerning social engagement by virtue of the 

fact that academics themselves set the agenda, the latter inevitably leads 

to the political determination of public universities’ priorities and ethical 

responsibilities. 

Law, Autonomy and Academic Freedom 

In the following, I present specific articles of the new law on higher education 

to draw attention to the discrepancy between the provisions of this 

law and the lack of practical implementation of its progressive objectives. 

The new Law (2003) of higher education stipulates in Article 5 with regard 

to the notion of autonomy that the institutions themselves are to decide 

on what is relevant for the university in Mozambique. The autonomy 

attributed to higher education institutions in conformity with their objectives 

and national policies and plans, particularly regarding education, 

science, and culture, encompasses the following powers: (1) defining the 

areas of study, plans, programmes, scientific, cultural, and artistic research 

projects; (2) teaching, lecturing, and researching according to the 

convictions of the academic staff and without any form of coercion; (3) 

creating, suspending, and discontinuing courses (programmes); (4) designing 

the course curriculum and developing the respective plans (programmes) 

in collaboration with the labour market; (5) approving academic 

regulations; (6) creating or disestablishing units such as academic 

departments, schools, and faculties, and defining the respective statutes; 

(7) recruiting, promoting, discharging, and exercising disciplinary actions 

against the academic staff, researchers, administrative staff, and students 

in accordance with the law; (8) availing of the infrastructure in accordance 

with the applicable law; (9) generating the necessary income for its 

activities in observance of the applicable law; (10) managing the budget 

transparently in accordance with applicable law; (11) and establishing 

cooperation agreements in scientific, teaching, and extension (services) 

domains with national and international entities. As the listed stipulations


clearly show, this law appears to be highly progressive as it lays down the 

major principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. 

Progressive laws, however, do not necessarily entail a progressive 

implementation. The gap between what the law preaches and its implementation 

is a separate story. In the case of Mozambique, the public political 

discourse of poverty eradication brought about by Guebuza’s government 

is eager to set the agenda for public universities and therewith 

undermines academic freedom. The president constantly stresses what he 

considers ought to be the role of higher education in his plan to “fight 

absolute poverty.” At any given opportunity, he reiterates the role that 

technical, professional, and higher education should play in job creation, 

the promotion of health and hygiene, and in promoting production which, 

in turn, will lead to the reduction in prices. In a recent interview with a 

journalist, he stated that “we cannot eradicate poverty without university 

and technical education, because it is at these universities and schools 

that people learn the strategies for attacking poverty [my emphasis]” 

(Guebuza 2008). 

Theoretically, while universities and academics may have the capacity 

to distinguish between the political discourses of state politicians and 

party officials and the rights granted to them by the new law, the remnants 

of socialist forms of authority and obedience to the leader or party 

officials seems to tacitly creep into the university environment and undermine 

the academic power to criticise. For instance, the surreptitious 

reinstitution of party cells (a small organisational structure of the ruling 

party that gathers regularly in specific areas) within public offices including 

the universities is creating a suspicious environment within academia 

and is regarded by some academics as a means to control their activities 

and minds. While party structures and activities are not necessarily unwelcome 

in the academic environment and not even against the law, they 

may pose a serious threat to academic freedom and institutional autonomy 

in cases like Mozambique due to its recent communist past. 

As Clarke (1983: 152-154) acknowledges, in developing countries, 

particularly where communist rule strengthened explicit political forms of 

coordination by means of the dual and interpenetrating dominance of a 

single political party and the one-party regime over all, there is a deepening 

involvement of politics in education. Politicians tend to see education 

as a basic sector for nation-building efforts, ranging from the training of 

essential experts to the building of national culture and consensus. They 

often feel—and this seems to be the case in Mozambican higher education—that 

they must intervene so as to ensure the system’s relevance to 

pressing practical problems (regarding poverty, land use, and industrialization, 

for example) and which politicians feels professors might other-

258 


wise ignore in their pursuit of the academic models they know best but 

which are imported from highly developed societies. Therefore, politicization, 

in the most primary sense, is frequent and intense in developing 

societies in the contemporary period, often producing bitter struggles between 

state officials and academics. 

Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune 

The “politics of social engagement, legitimacy, and relevance” in the 

struggle against poverty pervades higher education in Mozambique and 

subverts the logic of “politics of scientific legitimacy and relevance.” In 

this section, I provide some evidence for this form of subversion with a 

few examples of recent appointments of new vice-chancellors at public 

universities by the president. Quotes from the inaugural lecture delivered 

at EMU in 2005 by the current Minister of Education and Culture will 

shed some light on my argument. 

The president’s discourse of “fighting absolute poverty” is mostly 

echoed by senior members of government, particularly the Minister of 

Education and Culture as well as by the recently appointed vicechancellors 

of public universities. It is important to mention in this context, 

that it is the president, who appoints the vice-chancellors of the public 

universities in Mozambique. In this regard, he is not compelled to appoint 

the nominees that come out of the internal—“democratic and 

autonomous”—selection process that takes place within the universities. 

This is another legacy of the former socialist regime (as the status of vicechancellors 

was equivalent to that of deputy-ministers), which has been 

left untouched. That means universities can engage themselves in an internal—“democratic 

and autonomous”—process to select three nominees, 

one of whom the president then appoints as vice-chancellor. However, he 

can simply skate over the internal selection process, dump these names, 

and appoint someone totally unrelated to a particular university. 

This happened recently when the president appointed the current 

vice-chancellors of three public universities: Eduardo Mondlane University 

(EMU), Pedagogic University (PU) and the Higher Institute for International 

Relations (ISRI). For instance, the current vice-chancellor of 

EMU Filipe Couto is the fifth since independence in 1975. Until his 

nomination in 2008, he had no connections whatsoever with EMU. Even 

though he has a background in education management, as he was the 

former vice-chancellor of the Catholic University of Mozambique. His 

strong links with the ruling party (he was a freedom fighter) are commonly 

said to be the reason behind his nomination (MediaFAX 2007).


This is not the only case of an “academic outsider” being appointed 

as vice chancellor based on his political connections. EMU’s former 

Vice-Chancellor Brazão Mazula held office for nearly twelve years. Former 

President Joaquim Chissano appointed him after he had served as the 

president of the National Electoral Commission (NEC) from 1992 to 

1994 and organized the first general democratic elections in 1994. Chissano 

won these elections. More so than his academic credentials, it was 

the reputation he gained from conducting what was considered a successful 

electoral process for a country that had just emerged from 16 years of 

“civil” war. Apart from the recently deceased Fernando Ganhão, appointed 

as the university’s first vice-chancellor in 1976, only Narciso Matos, 

a chemical engineer and the third in the list, was from the university. 

The second vice-chancellor, the Jurist Rui Baltazar, used to be Minister 

of Finance. After Narciso Matos follows Brazão Mazula from the NEC, 

as I have mentioned earlier. This situation has led some academics (Serra 

2007b; Langa 2007, 2008) to question the existence of an internal selection 

process for nominees, seeing that the president, another outsider, can 

simply appoint whomever he considers the appropriate vice-chancellor. 

The current vice-chancellor of EMU has adopted the political catchphrase 

of the president’s “manifesto”—fight against absolute poverty— 

and made it his main task to implement at the university. In his first interview 

with the press following his appointment, the vice-chancellor issued 

the following statement commenting on what he would consider the main 

priorities of the university. 

Increase EMU participation in the fight against absolute poverty by 

strongly engaging with the districts, 2 training graduates of high quality 

and extraordinary visions to create their own jobs. This role should not 

be regarded as ‘undermining’ the institution, but as an important contribution 

to the national cause [my emphasis]. This role should to be pursued 

in partnership with different state institutions. As EMU is huge, 

these tasks should be decentralized, where my collaborators should 

have a more active and incisive role. (…) another important point is the 

establishment of a firm collaboration with state institutions, where essential 

subjects such as Agronomy, Veterinary and Genetics should be 

matter of co-operation between UEM and the state. (Couto, quoted in 

Filimone 2007: 3) 

2 In Mozambique, the district is the local level of the state administration. It is a 

subdivision of the supreme level of the local administration of the state above the 

province. The district is then subdivided into administrative posts and these in 

turn into localities, the lowest hierarchical level of state administration division 

in Mozambique.

260 


The example of EMU very much resembles the current situation at 

other Mozambican public higher education institutions. The new vice 

chancellors’ views are in tune with the slogan “fight absolute poverty,” 

that the government has declared as its main priority. The saying “who 

pays the piper calls the tune,” therefore, certainly rings true for the current 

state of the relationship between politics and academics in the context 

of higher education in Mozambique. 

Useful and Useless Sciences 

The Minister of Education and Culture, whose former cabinet adviser was 

the current vice-chancellor of EMU, reduced the practical utility of social 

sciences and humanities by considering them useless for the “honourable” 

national duty to “fight absolute poverty.” In an inaugural lecture at 

EMU, he voiced his concerns about the current structure of the curriculum 

and programmes of universities, which graduate more students enrolled 

in these programmes (social science and humanities) than in natural 

sciences (see table 1): 

Areas such as Economy, Social Sciences and Law are important to 

build our society, for management enhancement and the development 

of a state of law. Nonetheless, in order to meet the millennium development 

goals, and to strengthen the action plan for absolute poverty reduction, 

it is important to strengthen training areas directly related to 

production, health care, and education. (Ali 2005: 5) 

Table 1: Students enrolled, graduated and admitted by scientific area 

University 

Students 

2005 2006 

Scientific area Registered Graduated 

New 

Admissions Registered Graduated New 

Admissions 

Public 

Education 1522 293 526 16860 1202 

9036 

Arts and 

Humanities 

Social sciences, 

management, 

law 

Natural 

sciences 

2723 585 938 1019 116 308 

5868 629 1422 4113 414 1338 

3547 337 1339 3224 281 832


University 

Students 

2005 2006 

Scientific area Registered Graduated 

New 

Admissions Registered Graduated New 

Admissions 

Engineering, 

Industry and 2242 134 336 2790 304 584 

Construction 

Agriculture 1071 126 142 1237 140 252 

Health and 

welfare 

1115 47 254 1280 51 265 

Services 775 143 301 794 83 285 

Unspecified 

areas 

… 243 … 764 201 589 

Sub-total 18,863 2,537 5,258 32,081 2,792 13,499 

Source: Ministry of Education and Culture, Mozambique. 

The Minister’s speech had public resonance and raised a controversial 

debate on the role of social sciences for development in the country. 

The speech had a number of implications, some of them “bizarre,” including, 

for example, the introduction of scientifically ambiguous programmes 

christened “fight against poverty.” This shows how political 

discourse and slogans can interfere with the academic environment that is 

highly permeable. Studies of this form of political interference and the 

relationship between academics and politics are still rare in Mozambique. 

Criticising the inaugural lecture, the Mozambican sociologist, Macamo 

(2005) said the following: 

It takes a considerable amount of imagination to suppose that the existence 

of medical doctors, agronomists and professors necessarily implies 

the successful struggle against disease, starvation and ignorance 

(illiteracy). There is a deep gap separating these things, the topography 

of which needs to be described. (Macamo 2005: 1) 

Macamo argues that social science is, in fact, the discipline, which 

rightfully claims the capacity to undertake a description of that topography. 

When medical doctors, engineers, agronomists or even professors 

are capable of doing so, it is because they receive subsidies from the social 

sciences. 

The arguments and discourses, to which Macamo is reacting, have infiltrated 

the university at various levels. From the top management of the 

university down to the departments and even the students, the mantra 

“fight absolute poverty” reverberates. There are no studies that look at 

how and why students choose their final mini-dissertation research topics;

262 


the same is valid for academic staff and researchers. My own experience 

as a lecturer has shown that commonly most students write about the social 

representation of HIV/AIDS and themes related to the fight against 

poverty agenda. I presume that declaring the fight against absolute poverty 

the ultimate objective of one’s research project makes a strong politically 

correct argument. This shows the extent to which the political discourse 

has come to permeate the university system and academia in Mozambique. 

If this is correct, it would be appropriate to warn against the “politics 

of social engagement, legitimacy, and relevance” as represented in the 

political discourse of the struggle against poverty that implicates the subversion 

of the university for political purpose, constraining academic 

freedom and institutional autonomy. As I attempted to demonstrate with 

the selected examples from the role of academics, the new law of higher 

education and nomination of vice-chancellors, politics of relevance are 

downplayed by the relevance of politics. 

INCONCLUSIVE CONCLUSIONS 

My claim in this paper is that academics are being confronted with ethical 

responsibilities rather than a research agenda. I distinguish between 

“politics of scientific legitimacy and relevance” and “politics of social 

engagement, legitimacy, and relevance.” I have argued that whereas the 

former is compatible with the scientific determination of priorities concerning 

social engagement by virtue of the fact that academics themselves 

set the agenda, the latter inevitably leads to the political determination 

of the priorities of public universities and academic ethical responsibilities 

for political purposes. Some may argue that this is a radical position; 

however, none of this is to say that the idea of socially engaged universities 

is either indisputably good or bad. The more conventional modern 

science still has a role to play in many places and is not without its 

bright satanic virtues. There is, however, a mounting pressure to assume a 

partisan position, supporting new kinds of science unequivocally against 

usual science. In Mozambican higher education, there is no open forum 

for discussions on issues such as university engagement and conventional 

science, which has left academia more vulnerable to political meddling. 

The subversion of the notion of socially engaged science entails that academics 

appear to be constrained in their ability to formulate issues in observation 

of academic criteria that for instance are related to poverty alleviation.


In concluding, I acknowledge that there remain a number of questions 

that strike me when I think of the invasion of academia by “poverty 

fighters.” If we consider for instance, the assumption that it is possible to 

eradicate absolute poverty as Jeffrey Sachs unpersuasively advocats, what 

would academics do in a world without poverty What if they could solve 

all social problems, what would then be their next “honourable” cause for 

social engagement Would they return to conventional science, i.e. science 

as the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake Certainly, none of 

these questions derives from a socially robust programme of the philosophy 

of science. What is wrong if someone does not want to be a “poverty 

fighter” In fact, whichever model of science we choose to practice, one 

thing can likely be agreed upon: universities face great exogenous pressure 

and challenges in these times, not only in terms of the depth and 

width of the questions they are expected to address, but in the dialectic of 

what seems to be simultaneously greater public trust in science and 

greater scepticism about its costs and benefits. However, I am not sure 

whether socially engaged and robust science is the solution or part of the 

problem. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

AIM. “Guebuza Stresses Education in Fight against Poverty.” 2008. 

http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200804251056.html (retrieved 

April 26, 2008). 

Ali, B. A. Os Desafios do Ensino Superior e da Universidade Eduardo 

Mondlane no Desenvolvimento de Moçambique. Oração de 

Sapiência. Ministério da Educação e Cultura, Maputo, Mozambique, 

2005. 

Alsácia, A. “Balance das Actividades do FNI: Promovendo a Educação 

Ciêntífica e Desenvolvimento Tecnológico.” IIIo Conselho Coordenador 

da Ciência e Tecnologia. Pequenos Libombos, August 6-8, 

2008. 

Beverwijk, J. The Genesis of a System: Coalition Formation in Mozambican 

Higher Education, 1993-2005. Czech Republic: CHEPS/UT, 

2005. 

Boulton, G. and C. Lucas. “What are Universities For” 2008. 

http://www.leru.org (retrieved November 2008). 

Castells, M. “University as Dynamic Systems of Contradictory Functions.” 

In Challenges of Globalisation. South African Debates with 

Manuel Castells, Vol. 4, edited by J. Muller, N. Cloete, and S. Badat,

264 


pp. 206-223. Cape Town, South Africa: Maskew Miller Longman, 

2001. 

Clark, B. R. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in 

Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California 

Press, 1983. 

Conceição, P., M. Heitor, and O. Oliveira. “Expectations for the University 

in Knowledge-based Economy.” Technological Forecasting and 

Social Change 58 (1998): 203–214. 

Drori, G. S., J. W. Meyer, O. F. Ramirez, and E. Schofer. 2003. Science 

in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. 

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2003. 

Du Toit, A. “Institutional Autonomy, Academic Freedom and Public Accountability. 

Towards Conceptual Clarification: A Thought Experiment.” 

CHE Colloquium. Working Paper. University of Cape Town, 

South Africa, 2006. 

Elzinga, A. “The New Production of Particularism in Models relating to 

Research Policy. A Critique of Mode 2 and Triple Helix.” 2002. 

http://www.csi.ensmp.fr/WebCSI/4S/download_paper/download_pap 

er.pdf. (retrieved February 2009). 

Etwkowitz, H. and L. Leydesorf. “The Endless Transition: A ‘Triple Helix’ 

of University-Industry Government Relations. Introduction.” Minerva 

34, no. 3(1998): 203–208. 

Filimone, H. 2007. “Padre Filipe Couto: Um Reitor que já foi um Grande 

Sapateiro.” Notícias, March 9, 2007, Maputo, Sexta-Feira. 

http://www.clubofmozambique.com/solutions1/solutions/mozambiqu 

e/personalities/Padre_Filipe_Couto.pdf (retrieved November 2008). 

Gibbons, M. “Engagement as a Core Value in a Mode 2 Society.” Paper 

Presented at the Community Engagement in Higher Education Conference, 

September 3-5 2006, Cape Town, South Africa. 

-----.“Engagement as a Core Value for the University: A Consultation 

Document.” 2001. 

http://www.acu.ac.uk/policyandresearch/research/engagement.pdf. 

(retrieved April 26, 2008). 

Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. 

Trow. The New Production of Knowledge: Dynamics of Science and 

Research in Contemporary Societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 

1994. 

Glaser, J. “Limits of Change: Cognitive Restrains on ‘Postmodernization’ 

and the Political Redirection of Science.” Social Science Information 

39, no. 3(2000): 439-465.


Gonçalves, A. C. P. “A Concepção de Politecnica em Moçambique: 

Contradições de um Discurso Socialista (1983-1992).” Educação e 

Pesquisa 33, no. 3(2007): 601-619. 

Gumport, J. P. “Academic Restructuring: Organizational Change and 

Institutional Imperatives.” Higher Education 39, no. 1(2000): 67-91. 

Hall, M. 2008. “Community Engagement in South African Higher Education.” 

NRF/CHE Workshop on Research on Community Engagement: 

A Discussion Forum, CSIR Convention Centre, Pretoria, South Africa, 

August 23, 2008. 

Harding, A., A. Scott, S. Laske, and C. Burtscher, C., eds. Bright Satanic 

Mills: Universities Regional Development and Knowledge Economy. 

Hampshire, MA: Ashgate, 2007. 

Kellermann, P. 2007. “The University as a Business Social Division of 

Labour and the Commodification of Knowledge and Science.” 2007. 

http://www.euresearch.ch/fileadmin/documents/events2007/ESSRHA 

07/Kellermann__Paul.pdf. (retrieved November 2008). 

Langa, P. “De Novo a Nomeação de Reitores para Universidades 

Publicas.” 2008. 

http://www.circulodesociologia.blogspot.com/2008/08/ de-novonomeao-de-reitores-para.html. 

(retrieved November 25, 2008). 

-----.“Rogério Utui Sucede a Carlos Machili na UP.” 2007. 

http://oficinadesociologia.blogspot.com/2007/02/cientistasemgajados-ou-desengajados-1.html. 


-----.“The Constitution of the Field of Higher Education Institutions in 

Mozambique.” Master’s thesis. University of Cape Town, South Africa, 

2006. 

Maassen, P. and N. Cloete. “Global Reform Trends in Higher Education.” 

In Transformation in Higher Education: Global Pressures and Local 

Realities, edited by N. Cloete, P. Maassen, R. Fehnel, T. Moja, T. 

Gibbon, and H. Perold. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta, 2006. 

Macamo, E. “Outros Tipos de Pobreza.” Working Paper. Maputo, Mozambique, 

2005. 

Machel, S. A Classe Trabalhadora Deve Conquistar e Excercer o Poder 

na Frente da Ciência e da Cultura. Maputo, Mozambique: Universidade 

Eduardo Mondlane, 1976. 

-----.1974a. Fazer da Escola a Base para o Povo Tomar o Poder. FRE- 

LIMO. Carderno.n6 (Colecção Estudos Orientais). 

-----.1974b. Estudemos e Façamos dos nossos Conhecimentos um 

Instrumento de Libertação do Povo. Maputo, Mozambique: Departamento 

do Trabalho e Ideologia da Frelimo, n8 (Colecção Palavras 

de Ordem).

266 


MacGregor, K. “Africa: Relevance: Financial Support, Says E-Forum.” 

2008a. 

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.phpstory=20081123 


-----.“AFRICA: Researchers Lag in Science and Technology.” 2008b. 

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.phpstory=20081120 


Mamdani, M. and M. Diouf, eds. Academic Freedom in Africa. Dakar, 

Senegal: CODESRIA, 1994. 

Mário, M., P. Fry, and A. Chilundo. Higher Education in Mozambique: A 

Case Study. Oxford: James Currey, 2003. 

Mayntz, R. “Socialist Academies of Sciences: The Enforced Orientation 

of Basic Research at User Needs.” Research Policy 27 (1998): 781– 

791. 

“Padre Filipe Couto: O Homem do Presidente em frente da UEM.” MediaFAX. 

Maputo, February 26, 2007, No3730. 

MESCT. Nova Lei do Ensino Superior. Maputo. Republica de 

Moçambique, 2003. 

Mondlane, E. Lutar por Moçambique. Lisboa, Portugal: Sá da Costa, 

1977. 

Mouton, J. “Regional Report on Sub-Saharan Africa: Study on National 

Research Systems. A Meta-review.” Presented at the Symposium on 

Comparative Analysis of National Research Systems, January 16-18, 

2008, UNESCO Headquarters in Paris, France. 

Muller, J. “Responsiveness and Innovation in Higher Education.” Commissioned 

Paper: University of Cape Town, South Africa, 2001. 

-----.Reclaiming Knowledge: Social Theory, Curriculum and Education 

Policy. London: Routledge Falmer, 2000 

Nowotny, H., P. Scott, and M. Gibbons. “‘Mode 2’ Revisited: The New Production 

of Knowledge, Introduction.” 2003. http://www. 

prescott.edu/faculty_staff/ faculty/scorey/documents/ 

NowotnyGibbons2003Mode2Revisited.pdf. (re-trieved: April 26, 2008). 

Rip, A. “Cognitive Approach to Relevance of Science.” Social Science 

Information, 36, no. 4(1997): 615- 640. 

Rip, A. and B. J. R. Van Der Meulen. “The Post-modern Research System.” 

Science & Public Policy 23 (1996): 342-352. 

Sachs, J. The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. London: 

Penguin, 2005. 

Salter, L. “Science and Public Discourse. History of Intellectual Culture.” 

2003. 

http://www.ucalgary.ca/hic/website/2003vol3no1/articles/2003%20p 

df/salterpdf.pdf (retrieved February 28, 2008).


Salter, L. Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of 

Standards. Holland: Kluwer Academic Publications, 1988. 

Serra. C. “Cientistas Sociais: Engajados ou Desengajados.” 2007a. 

http://oficinadesociologia.blogspot.com/2007/02/cientistasemgajados-ou-desengajados-1.html 


-----.“Reitores: Endogenia, Eleições e Mandatos.” 2007b. 

http://oficinadesociologia.blogspot.com/2007/02/reitores-endogeniaeleies-e-mandatos.html 


Slaughter, S. and L. L. Leslie. Academic capitalism: Politics, Policies 

and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore and London: John 

Hopkins University Press, 1997. 

Weiler, H. N. National Unification, Global Competition and Institutional 

Reform: The Dynamics of Change in Higher Education. Cape Town, 

South Africa: CHET, 2008. 

Ziman, J. Real Science: What It Is, and What It Means. Cambridge and 

New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 

-----.“‘Postacademic Science’: Constructing Knowledge with Networks 

and Norms.” Science Studies 9 (1996): 67–80.

268 

Ifeanyi P. Onyeonoru 

Challenges of Doing Sociology in a 

Globalizing South: Between Indigenization 

and Emergent Structures 

Ifeanyi P. Onyeonoru, University of Ibadan, Nigeria 1 

As sociology emerged from the womb of the industrial revolution in 

Europe and the challenges of the anomic socio-economic environment, 

the concern of its founding fathers naturally gravitated around Western 

ideologies and challenges. The modernization paradigm facilitated the 

hegemonic ascendancy of Western sociology in the South until the recent 

ideological impasse, when the South began to grope for fresh insights. 

Currently, attention is still being drawn to the sociological significance of 

emancipation from systemic inequality created by social structural variables 

in the development process globally but particularly in poorer countries. 

This study, therefore, draws from Professor Peter Ekeh’s (1983) 

“Colonialism and Social Structure” and his (1975) theoretical statement 

on the two publics to highlight the consequences of uncritical engagement 

in the Periphery with the sociology of the Core, the importance of 

agency in post-imperialistic thinking in sociology, and the implications 

for repositioning sociologists in the South for the task of a more creative 

local engagement with globalizing ideologies that are integral to mainstream 

sociology in the North. The paper also highlights the roles of international, 

regional, and national associations such as the International 

Sociological Association (ISA), the African Sociological Association 

(AFSA), the Nigerian Sociological and Anthropological Association 

(NASA), and the Council for the Development of Social Science Research 

in Africa (CODESRIA) in setting the agenda. 

1 Ifeanyi Onyeonoru is the Secretary General of the Nigerian Anthropological 

and Sociological Association (NASA) and a member of the Department of Sociology, 

University of Ibadan, Nigeria. He can be reached at 

ifyonyes@yahoo.com or ip.onyeonoru@mail.ui.edu.ng

Challenges of Doing Sociology in a Globalizing South 269 

INTRODUCTION 

The development of sociology and anthropology in Nigeria can be divided 

into three broad but related periods as follows: the colonial to immediate 

pre-independence period, characterized by foreign domination 

and utilization of academic research; the period of indigenization efforts 

from 1959 to the 1980s; and the period of systemic crisis and neo-liberal 

globalization from the 1980s onward. Many of the major works cited in 

this paper were part of the proceedings from the first conference of the 

Nigerian Anthropological and Sociological Association held in 1971. 

The theme of the conference, “Sociology and Anthropology for Nigeria: 

What For” was a reflection of the concern among Nigerian scholars at 

that time about the domestication of the discipline. Here I highlight the 

works of anthropologists and sociologists that strove for the indigenization 

of social scientific knowledge. I also reflect on the crisis period in 

the Nigerian university system characterized by unwholesome expansion 

beginning in the 1970s and the twin dictatorship of the market and the 

military that paved way for a rather irresponsible state relationship with 

the Nigerian academia within the framework of neo-liberal globalization - 

what I regard as the second incorporation. Mention is also made of rescue 

attempts by a number of institutions, including NASA. 

THE PERIOD OF FOREIGN DOMINATION OF 

SCHOLARSHIP 

The initial activities in sociology and anthropology in Nigeria were 

founded on foreign interests and ideology as well as external experience. 

Little or no effort was made to integrate borrowed knowledge with local 

experience or generate indigenous theories that explained the postcolonial 

African or Nigerian social structure. Hence, at the onset of social 

sciences in Nigeria, working in the area of sociology and anthropology 

was characterized by foreign control of ideas and research. The 

process was driven by colonial and imperial institutions and a number of 

establishments including the Nigerian Institute of Economic and Social 

Research which supported research scholars most of whom were expatriates 

funded by charitable academic foundations with their own political 

and economic agendas. The establishment of the Faculty of Economics 

at the premier university in Nigeria - the University of Ibadan - did not 

improve the situation, because it was headed by an Irish Professor who 

had little regard for Nigerian scholars (Nzimiro 1971).

270 


The pioneer anthropologists, in particular, worked as the intellectual 

arm of the colonial masters. Some of them were establishment anthropologist 

whose commitment to their work was to support the colonial 

government so as to ensure the effective political domination of Nigeria. 

For instance, such anthropologists guided numerous district officers who 

wrote over two hundred intelligence reports on the Igbo people after the 

1929-3 Women Riots. Since the above institute and its new faculty were 

controlled by expatriate scholars, they made little or no intellectual contribution 

to the changing Nigerian society (Nzimiro 1971). Their commitment 

to Nigeria was marginal, since they concentrated on conducting 

research, gathering materials, and going home to publish in journals 

abroad, on the basis of which they were branded experts in particular Nigerian 

tribes or aspects of a particular branch of social science (Otite 

1971). Similar trends were observed in Australia (Connell 2007). 

In the post-independence era, according to Nzimiro (1971), foreign 

scholars funded by American foundations such as Rockefeller and Ford 

whose allegiance was more to these benevolent donors became Africanists 

(so-called) and lecturers in various American Universities, where 

they established African centres in such places as Boston, UCLA, Columbia, 

Howard, Northwestern, and Wisconsin. In Nzimiro’s (1971) 

words, “The field of studies that come within our discipline has been 

dominated by these establishment scholars most of them serving the interests 

of imperialist governments, but camouflaged as scientific objective 

studies” (4). 

Otite (1971) similarly observed that in this process of academic 

scrambling, social anthropologists carved out “territories” for themselves 

through a glorification of exclusive symbols and relationships founded on 

some kind of grand theories based on these symbols. The colonial system 

of indirect rule tended to consolidate the socio-cultural units marked out 

by these anthropological and quasi-anthropological investigations. Relating 

Western-dominated social science to imperialism, Ake (1971) stated, 

“When Western scholars turned their attention to the study of Africa and 

other Third World regions, they did so not by inventing new analytical 

tools, but by using the tools already in vogue, especially those which 

were conducive to the comparative study of Western countries and Third 

World societies” (127). 

While it is not necessary to assume a conspiracy to or consciousness 

of serving imperialism among Western scholars working on Africa and 

other parts of the Third World, the foregoing nevertheless suggests that 

the practice of sociology and anthropology in the colonial period in Nigeria 

were rarely founded on a passion for the development of Nigerian society 

but on an exogenous agenda designed to meet the hegemonic colo-


nial and imperial project motivated by the desire for external control of 

the emergent Nigerian state. 

THE INDIGENIZATION EFFORT 

A couple of events that tended to modify the above scenario towards the 

indigenization of sociological and anthropological work are noteworthy: 

the founding of the Nigerian Economic Society in London in 1959 by 

Nigerian scholars (including sociologists); the establishment of the Nigerian 

Journal of Economic and Social Studies (NJESS) that provided publication 

opportunities for Nigerian social scientists; and the founding of 

the Nigerian Anthropological and Sociological Association (NASA) in 

1971 and the Nigerian Journal of Sociology and Anthropology that 

served as the publication outlet for sociologists and anthropologists in 

Nigeria. As used above, “indigenization” broadly refers to the contextualization 

of sociological theory and methods to account for the peculiarities 

associated with neo-colonial structures and features of underdevelopment 

in non-Western societies like Africa. It implies a re-orientation 

of sociological research towards the development of Africa through the 

generation and application of endogenous concepts (not necessarily language) 

to illuminate indigenous social reality. It involves an effort to 

explain emergent social patterns in the neo-colonial situation, some of 

which have no equivalent in the West. Emphasis is placed on a guarded 

application of social theories and methods emanating from Western experiences 

onto non-Western situations. 

The above development provided a platform for a more indigenous 

explanation of social reality in Nigeria. Prominent among these was 

Akiwowo’s (1971) work titled “Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge 

From Oral Poetry.” The work stimulated debates on the issue of indigenous 

sociology (See Akiwowo 1971; 1983; 1986; Connell 2007; 

Adesina 2000; Otite 2008). Indeed, in his presidential address to the First 

Conference of NASA in 1971, Akiwowo emphasized the need for the utilization 

of sociology for the development of Nigerian society, stating, among 

other things, that NASA should give strong moral support to the development 

of social indicators for the measurement of societal growth comparable 

to the economic indicators used by economists (Akiwowo 1974). The 

United Nations Development Programme accomplished this in the 1990s. 

Professor Peter Ekeh, on his part, contended that there was a significant 

distinction between civil society in Western society and that found in Africa. 

He observed that unlike civil society in the West, which has one public 

realm mediating between the state and the individual or the family, there is

272 


no single public realm in Africa. Instead, the heritage of the post-colonial 

social structure in Africa has produced a non-homogenous public realm 

divisible into two: the civic public and the primordial public. Contrary to 

the situation in Western society, where the public realm and the private 

realm are defined by a common underlying societal morality, there is no 

monolithic public realm in Africa enjoying common morality with the 

private realm. Instead, the public realm is divided into two. One is a 

primordial public within which the social behaviour of individuals is guided 

by norms defined by societal morality and is therefore bound to the private 

realm. The other is a civic public that is devoid of any claims to morality 

and hence amoral. Colonial engagement with Africa, therefore, bred a 

duality of moral perspectives in the new states, generating two broad 

spheres of moral and amoral behaviour, as distinct from the moral and the 

immoral typical of Europe. 

It is, for instance, the institutionalization of amorality as a principle of 

social existence in the colonial and neo-colonial state that may explain the 

manipulation of ethnic groups by class identities in Africa – in the socioeconomic 

and political interests of the latter (Ekeh 1975; 1992; 1996). The 

civic public is also the realm of contests for political, economic, and social 

resources with competing ethnic groups, both at the collective and 

interpersonal levels. In this sphere the moral content of competition is 

considered insignificant and this tends to promote corruption at various 

levels of society in Africa. Passing philosophies like “it depends,” 

underpinned by a free rider attitude, tend to define the struggle for power 

and wealth in the civic public realm. Hence, as Ekeh (1992) puts it: 

There are in European nations single consolidated public realms, which 

effectively offer common platforms for the activities of the state and the 

public behaviors of individuals. Here on the contrary there is 

segmentation of the public realm. There is a civic public realm over which 

the state presides and over which the ordinary man (or woman) does not 

feel that he is part-owner of this realm. When he is wronged in it he 

withdraws from it to his own primordial public realm whose ownership he 

asserts vigorously. (198) 

Ekeh’s thesis on the two publics in Africa is enhanced by his position 

on the nature of African social formation in colonialism. The first form is 

the “transformed pre-colonial indigenous institutions.” These consist of 

traditional structures, which in their transformed states operate within the 

new meanings and symbols of colonialism and in a widened new sociocultural 

system and framework. Ekeh (1983) explains, “The moral and 

social order which formally encased the pre-colonial indigenous institutions


is burst by the social forces of colonialism and they seek new anchors in the 

changed milieu of colonialism” (11). Sometimes, such a transformation is 

the product of a process of dynamic social adjustments in the emergent 

plural and competitive social environment. 

The second is “migrated social structure and constructs.” These are 

Eurocentric institutions, models, principles, ideologies, and institutions that 

were almost literally parcelled or imported wholesale from the imperial 

West and uncritically grafted onto the new colonial situation. Bureaucracy, 

rational organization, federalism, and the modern military are examples 

(Ekeh 1983). 

The third form is the “emergent social structures” which are neither 

indigenous to Africa nor imported from outside. They are peculiar social 

structures that developed from the space and time of colonialism, with a 

logic of their own - distinct sociological entities with remarkable complexity. 

Although they may have similarities in the West and elsewhere, these 

emergent social structures have a logic all their own, and their peculiar 

situation in colonialism marks them out as distinct political and sociological 

structures, sometimes of baffling complexity. They grew with colonialism 

and in colonialism; these emergent social structures are generated by 

colonialism itself. They emerged to meet societal needs that indigenous 

social structures and the migrated social structure could not fulfill in the new 

colonial environment (Ekeh 1983). 

Emergent structures present enormous explanatory challenges to 

scholars engaging with neo-colonial Africa’s social formations. Unlike the 

first two types of social formations in colonialism, emergent social 

structures are difficult to discern for two major reasons. First, while the first 

two represent formal aspects of the colonial and post-colonial situations, the 

emergent social structures represent the informal elements of colonialism. 

Second, "The emergent social structures are very often consciously smeared 

with tradition or modernity, to give them the appearance of ultra-tradition or 

ultra modernity" (Ekeh 1983: 20). An example of this is also the ethnic 

group. Nigerian ethnic groups have their socio-political meaning only in 

terms of the development of Nigeria. For our work, this has implications for 

ethnic configurations and class composition; the shifting social boundaries 

and coalitions constructed by primordial/ethnic groups and other plural 

identities in Nigeria; the dynamics of class structuration of ethnicity and 

conflicts; the social processes involved; as well as the nature of morality 

thrown up. Ekeh's thesis on the two publics was put forward as a general 

theoretical statement applicable to various social scientific analyses. 

Meanwhile, two things are noteworthy from the foregoing. First is the 

fact that social life in Africa is characteristic of Ekeh's emergent structures 

and constructs. Second is the fact that the morality and loyalty of the

274 


average African is rooted in the primordial public in contrast with the civic 

public. According to Ekeh (1992): 

In most of Africa, historically, the civic public was seen as the property of 

the imperial European rulers. In the post colonial period, it is owned by 

their successors - the soldiers and personal dictators who have ceased its 

power. When a frustrated Nigerian exclaims, "Nigeria is not worth dying 

for", he is complaining that he has no share in the control of the civic 

public realm. But he would be ready to fight and die for his primordial 

realm - which is managed and owned by his own ethnic group. (198) 

The foregoing corroborates the Nzimiro’s (1971) observation that 

every Nigerian traditional community is founded on the lineage structure 

or the line of descent through which the individual derives his social attachment. 

Nationality is, therefore, a structure that has grown from the 

lowest descent unit, the clan and sub-clans, and emerged into a wider 

group: a nationality, an ethnic group. Although the sizes of these nationalities 

vary, each nevertheless has cultural indices in common. Colonial 

domination brought these nationalities together under the modern influence 

of European civilization. The new institutions of the colonial regime 

exposed all Nigerians to new norms, values, and cultures of the 

West. These new norms were generated by the new institutions – 

political, economic, educational, and religious, - and these norms became 

the new binding forces that brought all the ethnic nationalities together. 

The colonial domination which brought Nigerians together under the 

modern influence of European civilization also exposed them to the 

values of new nationhood and impregnated them with the ideals, concepts, 

and values of Western economics. Nigerians were taught to accept the 

profit motive and the selling of labour power in the labour market, be it 

the labour market controlled by voluntary agencies, by commercial 

enterprises, or by government institutions. Nigerians came together 

under these various economic institutions and worked under the 

directions of the British, who controlled most of these institutions. 

The complexity of what is described above has implications for doing 

sociology in Nigeria: the Nigerian sociologist and anthropologist, the social 

scientist for that matter, should be committed to understanding the 

dynamics of social changes related to the emergent social structure and 

constructs in their society. They should pay less attention to marginal 

research and investigating aspects of the society that are not intrinsically 

vital to the development of the nation. This follows from Nzimiro’s observation 

that the pioneers of social science and sociology were men 

committed to searching for solutions to the social problems of their coun-


tries. They were not just doing that out of intellectual curiosity alone. 

They had a sense of history, and they influenced social change through 

their ideas. They were both deeply involved in the affairs of their fatherland 

but, as social scientists, were also detached enough to analyze social 

facts. There was no contradiction between their involvement and detachment. 

There was no false idea of “objectivity” devoid of participation. 

Both were synonymous to them. As Nzimiro (1971) noted: 

No social scientist of note can operate if he or she is ignorant of the 

structure and functions of our society. This understanding is his first intellectual 

weapon. He can understand it if he knows the structure and 

functions of our traditional society before he can understand the intricacies 

of the changing modern society. The tasks of the anthropologists 

and sociologists are crucial, and here I must state that the sociologists 

who limits himself to the understanding of the modern European societies 

without studying the social structure of our society in its traditional 

setting has not yet completed the picture of his image of our society. It 

becomes imperative that he must know both if he is to operate scientifically. 

(9-10) 

The heterogeneity and complex nature of present African society in 

its traditional setting, internal conflicts, and contradictions should attract 

more endogenous investigation in focus and design that would not simply 

impose functionalist regularities on the system. In Nigeria and much of 

Africa, for instance, the functionalist consensus, order, and structuring of 

the parts to sustain the whole are rarely applicable. More visible are social 

tensions and disorder associated with allegiance to ethnic and ethnoreligious 

groups to the detriment of the nation-state as well as primarily 

self-interested political elites and the parasitic ruling classes, whose attitudes 

are antithetical to the public interest. In all of this, the character of 

the parts is in contradictory relation to the whole, suggesting difficulties 

in the application of the Western-dominated sociological paradigm for 

explaining and interpreting emergent structures in Africa. Given the lack 

of explanations in the specific case of Nigeria, such trends have come 

under the mythical term “the Nigerian Factor.” African social reality is 

not quite the same as that of Europe, and this should inform the application 

of classical sociological theory in the region. As Horowitz (1994) 

observed in a related argument, the beauty of theory is the explanation of 

specific events, while the curse of theory is the use of the same, overgeneralized 

explanations to interpret unlike events. Also important for 

our discourse is Horowitz’s (1994) view that, “The function of sociological 

theory, in contrast to ideological posturing, is to put into full view the

276 


nature of the specific paradox that divides people along class, religious, 

gender, racial and ethnic lines … to show the forces at work in moving a 

specific paradox to resolution or dissolution” (185). 

CRISIS OF THE 1980s AND BEYOND: TOWARD THE 

SECOND INCORPORATION 

Beginning in the 1970s, educational policy in Nigeria emphasized that the 

greatest investment the nation could make for the development of its economic, 

political, sociological, and human resources was in education. 

The development of universities, therefore, followed the trajectory of 

rapid expansion: government control of curricula, admissions quotas and 

policies; free tuition and minimal other charges; and government dominance 

of provision and funding of university education. To ensure firm 

government control, a National Universities Commission (NUC) was established 

in 1962 to regulate the establishment of new universities, distribute 

government grants to universities, and approve programmes. 

By 1982 the number of universities had risen to 28, and student enrollment 

exceeded 120,000. This led to a dramatic increase in student 

intake with a nearly 120% increase between the 1974/75 session and the 

1979/80 session; the NUC on its part received less than 30% of its requirement 

for the university system. Since this rapid expansion occurred 

at a period of economic decline, it resulted in inadequate funding of the 

universities (Onyeonoru 2000). The decline in funding became worse 

over the years; 1996 and 1997 total recurrent grants were, for instance, 

only half the levels of 1988. The effect on remuneration was frustrating 

for academia, and it resulted in a brain drain, both internal and external. 

By internal brain drain, I refer to the fact that the social reproduction of 

sociologist was impeded by pull factors accounted for by better remuneration 

in the private, formal sector of the economy. First class graduates 

were drawn away from the university system to the corporate world 

by better conditions of service, posing a problem for capacity-building 

through mentorship. The second aspect of the brain drain had to do with 

the out-migration of sociologists and other members of academia to the 

West, America, and Southern Africa. This affected teaching and learning 

standards in Nigerian universities. 

In these circumstances, there was little systemic capacity for creative 

work that could contribute or advance the initial effort at indigenization 

of sociology or indeed doing sociology at any level. This was particularly 

so with the constraints engendered by the non-availability of local 

research grants and funds for conferences, both local and international.


External funding continued to reinforce the hegemonic scholarship of the 

West and of the external funders. Atomization of research efforts and the 

lack of databases for researchers and their work hampered opportunities 

for collaborative scholarship, intellectual development, and the harnessing 

of synergies in the system. 

The crisis period accounted for the moribund state in which NASA 

found itself between 2000 and 2007. Of particular note was the ascendancy 

of neo-liberal globalization within the framework of the twin dictatorship 

of the market and military rule. The state “rolled back” much of 

its funding responsibility while increasing its administrative strangle hold 

on the university system, denying the system autonomy and academic 

freedom (Onyeonoru 2004). The likes of the World Bank and the International 

Monetary Fund became the policy dictators, while sociologists 

and other Nigerian scholars and their research findings were confined to 

the four walls of the universities. Two parallel knowledge/policy tracks, 

therefore, seemed to be in operation: one for academics derived from research, 

the other, which informed policy in practice, for the government, 

imposed by the World Bank and IMF. Benefits accruing from the mutual 

relationship between town and gown were, therefore, compromised. The 

situation has not really improved in the current dispensation. 

Challenges facing teaching and learning sociology in Nigeria include 

environmental, infrastructural (poor physical structures, poor libraries/current 

teaching and learning materials, and the digital divide), and 

due to embassy aggression (visa refusals). Several strikes embarked upon 

by the university staff unions 2 to compel Nigerian governments to pay 

adequate attention to the crumbling structures and poor remuneration of 

university workers did not succeed in making the reward system a matter 

of concern for the government. Given the struggles for economic survival, 

members could not meet their financial obligation to NASA until 

the resuscitation effort by scholars in Ibadan in 2007. 

The erratic power supply, though only one example of a wider infrastructural 

problem in Nigeria, deserves special mention. Power generation 

in Nigeria has declined from 30.61 Kilowatts in 1996 to about 15.58 

Kilowatts in 2007. This was grossly inadequate for the country’s more 

than 140 million people. It translated to about 0.06 kilowatts of energy 

consumption per million people behind Ghana’s 0.43 (International Energy 

Agency 2007). 3 By 2009, power generation further declined to 

about 10.00 Kilowatts (National Bureau of Statistics 2007). The frustra- 

2 Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), Non-Academic Staff Union of 

Universities (NASU), and Senior Staff Association of Nigerian Universities 

(SSANU). 

3 See http://www.eia.doe.gov/.

278 


tions arising from this scenario have negatively affected teaching and research. 

Electricity, water, telephone lines, and Internet access all raise 

productivity, but they are also severely inadequate in Sub-Saharan Africa 

(World Bank 2009). 

A combination of emphasis on the private sector within the framework 

of neoliberal economic globalization and the poor state of infrastructure 

in public universities in Nigeria tend to make private universities 

the preference of the elite class. The issue of quality assurance is 

however, a major concern. 

Meanwhile, on the issue of the digital divide, it is noteworthy that in 

six short years (1992-1998), the number of Internet host computers 

worldwide increased from less than 1 million to almost 30 million. But, 

the core of the information society still resides in the developed countries. 

For instance, one quarter of American households use the Internet on a 

daily basis (less than one-tenth of academics do in Nigeria), and more 

than half of all Internet users live in the United States or Canada. The 

information revolution has not gained a foothold in most developing 

countries, including Nigeria, because they lack the basic infrastructure: 

phone lines, electricity, and literacy. The digital divide between people 

who are Internet-empowered and those who are not is wide and real. 4 

A most critical issue for Internet access in Africa is the poor infrastructure 

and ridiculous bandwidths in a large portion of countries. The 

number of African Internet users is somewhere between 1.5 to 2 million 

out of a continental population of about 750 million, and most of these 

(about 1.5 million) reside in South Africa. As of 2002 in Africa each 

computer with an Internet or e-mail connection usually supports between 

3 and 5 users. This puts the number of users of Internet in Africa at 

around 5-8 million. The figures represent about one user to every 250- 

400 people compared to a world average of about one use for every 15 

people and a North American and European average of about one in 

every 2 people. Internet in Africa is characterized by low connectivity 

density and very little local or indigenous African content, even among 

institutional users who have direct Internet access. Even when they have 

access to email, government ministries and research centers rarely have 

web sites; where Internet is used, email predominates, or websites with 

relatively poor contents and education. Sciences and community development 

sites have the least content. 5 The low Internet support relates 

with the fact that many university teachers and researchers from the 

South utilize Yahoo email, which is often treated as “insecure” and hence 

4 See http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreach/spring00/article.asp. 

5 See http://demiurge.wn.apcorg/africa/afstat.htm


not accepted by several websites in the North. This also limits the rate of 

international interaction by Southern scholars, with implication for exclusion. 

The above situation has negatively impacted the level of scientific 

production (Nwagwu 2005) and visibility of African scholars in the 

global scientific community. 

STABILIZING EFFORTS: CODESRIA, AFSA, AND NASA 

The Council for the Development of Social Science Research in Africa 

(CODESRIA) has been at the vanguard of capacity building among African 

intellectuals. This is evident in the following programmes of the 

Council: the Multinational Working Group (MWG) on Youth and Identity; 

the Transnational Working group (TWG) on Africa and its Diasporas; 

future research in collaboration with the African Futures Institute; South- 

South Comparative Research Workshops; National Working Groups 

(NWG); Programmes on Gender, Humanities, and Transnationalism; 

Comparative Research Networks and Working Groups; and South-South 

Research Collaboration. 

The magnitude of the capacity building challenge for teaching and 

learning in Africa is reflected in CODESRIA’s observation in 2006, with 

reference to its TWG, that only a few of the proposals came from scholars 

residing in Africa and even fewer from second, third, and fourth generation 

diasporan Africans. Thus a conscious attempt was made to enrich 

the composition of the group with researchers drawn from both recent 

and distant African diasporas around the world (including Asia, Melanesia 

and Polynesia, Australia, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle 

East, Europe, and North America. 6 

The African Sociological Association (AFSA) had its debut conference 

on July 15-18, 2007 at Rhodes University in Grahamstown-iRhini, 

South Africa. The theme, “Sociology: the African Challenge,” was a reflection 

of the concern to make sociology in Africa relevant to regional 

needs. The conference witnessed the participation of a large number of 

African scholars. The association has been very active, among others, in 

providing information on opportunities for capacity building for African 

academics. 

6 See http://www.codesria.org/Links/Home/annual_report06.

280 


CONCLUSION 

Doing sociology in Nigeria has passed through various challenging periods. 

Currently, the most pressing challenge for sociologists in Nigeria, 

and indeed Africa, is to develop a critical capacity not only for explaining 

and interpreting African social reality, enhanced by endogenous models 

that capture the nature of the paradox and tensions in the emergent social 

structure, but also the character of agency thrown up by such a process. 

To achieve this, we need a paradigm shift, perhaps towards the sociology 

of everyday life. These pose a challenge for NASA and AFSA as professional 

associations. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Adesina, J. O. “Sociology and Yoruba Studies: Epistemic Intervention or 

Doing Sociology in the ‘Vernacular’” Journal of the Nigerian Anthropological 

and Sociological Association, Special Edition (2000). 

Ake, C. Social Science as Imperialism: The Theory of Political Development. 

2 nd ed. Ibadan: Ibadan University Press, 1972. 

Akiwowo, A. “Presidential Address: Association for What” The Nigerian 

Journal of Sociology and Anthropology 1, no. 1 (1974). 

-----. “Ajobi and Ajogbe: Variations on the Theme of Sociation.” Inaugural 

Lecture Series 48. Ife: University of Ife Press, 1983. 

-----. “Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge From an African 

Oral Poetry.” International Sociology 1, no. 4 (1986). 


Social Science. London: Allen and Unwin, 2007. 

Ekeh, P. P. “Colonialism and the Two Publics in Africa: A Theoretical 

Statement.” Comparative Studies of Society and History 17, no. 1 

(1975). 

-----. “Colonialism and Social Structure: Inaugural Lecture at the University 

of Ibadan.” Ibadan: University of Ibadan Press, 1983. 

-----. “The Constitution of Civil Society in African History and Politics.” 

In Democratic Transition in Africa, edited by B. Caron, A. Gboyega 

and E. Osaghae. CREDU Documents in Social Sciences and Humanities, 

1992. 

-----. “Political Minorities and Historically-Dominant Minorities in Nigerian 

History and Politics.” In Governance and Development in Nigeria: 

Essays in Honour of Professor Billy J. Dudley, edited by O. 

Oyediran. Ibadan: Agbo Areo Publishers, 1996.


Horowitz, L. L. The Decomposition of Sociology. New York: Oxford 


International Energy Agency. World Energy Outlook 2007: China and 

India Insights. Paris: OECD/International Energy Agency, 2007. 

National Bureau of Statistics. National Accounts of Nigeria 1981-2006. 

Abuja: National Bureau of Statistics, 2007. 

Nwagwu W.E.E. “The Open Access Movement: Interrogating I.T.’s Potentials 

for Inserting Africa in the Global Scientific Information 

Chain.” Ibadan Journal of the Social Sciences 3, no. 1 (2005). 

Nzimiro, I. "The Social Scientists and the Challenge of our Civilization." 

Paper Presented at the First Annual Conference of the Nigerian Anthropological 

and Sociological Association, ABU, Zaria, December 

16-18, 1971. 

Onyeonoru, I. “The Nature and Management of Students’ Conflicts in 

Nigerian Tertiary Institutions.” Annals of the Social Science Academy 

of Nigeria 12 (Jan-Dec 2000). 

-----. “University Autonomy and Cost Recovery Policies: Union Contestation 

and Sustainable University System.” Paris: UNESCO, 2004. 

Otite, O. “Anthropological Responsibilities in Nigeria.” Paper Presented 

at the First Annual Conference of the Nigerian Anthropological and 

Sociological Association, ABU, Zaria, December 16-18, 1971. 

-----. “Four Decades of Sociology in Nigeria.” Keynote Address Presented 

at Conference to Celebrate Four Decades of Sociology, Faculty 

of the Social Sciences, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, October 16, 

2008. 

World Bank. World Development Report 2009: Reshaping Economic 

Geography. Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 2009.

282 

Abdul-Mumin Sa’ad 

Globalization, Sociological Research, and 

Public Policy in Nigeria: A Critical Analysis 

of the Relevance of Socio-Legal Research to 

the Development Needs of Nigeria 

Abdul-Mumin Sa’ad, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria 1 

Globalization as a process and phenomenon remains an issue whose discussion 

is entangled in its own complexity and in the controversy generated 

by the widely polarized positions held in regard to it. For this reason, 

this paper will examine the concept by looking at some “myths” about the 

concept. Here, myth is defined as a collection of stories or ideas we use 

to understand and interpret our life-worlds. These stories and ideas do 

influence, on the one hand, the kinds of research we do as scientists (social 

and/or natural), and, on the other hand, the kind of policies that are 

rolled out by governments. Again, these public/government policies may 

be informed by scientific research being conducted or may not at all. The 

position of this paper is that because of the myth of globalization, the 

government and the public tend to perceive some disciplines as more important 

and relevant than others, especially with regards to their contributions 

to a nation’s development. Contrary to that myth, this paper demonstrates 

the relevance of socio-legal research to development in a Third 

World nation such as Nigeria. 

WHAT IS GLOBALIZATION 

The concept globalization, both as a process and phenomenon, is better 

understood now than in the 1980s. However, the concept still remains an 

issue whose discussion is entangled in its own complexity and in the controversy 

generated by the widely polarized positions held in regard to it. 

For this reason, we feel the concept can better be understood by looking 

1 Abdul Mumin-Sa’ad is a Professor of Sociology (Criminology) in the Department 

of Sociology and Anthropology at the University of Maiduguri, Borno 

State, Nigeria, and he is a member of NALC. He can be reached at 

amsaadj@yahoo.com.

Globalization, Sociological Research, and Public Policy in Nigeria 283 

at some “myths” about it. Myth here does not refer to an untruth or a 

simple fiction. Rather, the myth of globalization, like any other myth, is 

a collection of stories or ideas we use to understand and interpret our lifeworlds. 

Myths are therefore as much about the present as they are about 

the past and the future. Through repeated re-telling of stories, the imagination 

of each storyteller adds its own distinctive shade, each story becoming 

a history of its perpetual formation and deformation as each teller 

imbues the story with his or her own language of the ideal and the real. 

First Myth of Globalization: The “Radical Rupture” 

Globalization is considered part of the postmodern era, and one theme 

that runs through almost all postmodernist theorizing is the declaration of 

a radical rupture or break between modernism and postmodernism. The 

irony here, of course, is that modernity also saw itself as a radical break: 

the processes of industrialization and the machine age replacing and 

transforming all previous modes of production. In this sense, postmodernity 

can be viewed as a disruptive child that has renounced its parents, 

modernity. 

At this stage, we can argue that a death-drive haunts and motivates 

postmodern and/or globalization theory: a denial of the past, of the parental 

and the symbolic, in favour of forcing onto the world a new symbolic 

code. Here, as rightly observed by Adams (2002), postmodern and globalization 

theory are part of a wider current in Western philosophy that 

privilege death over birth. The privilege accorded to death, according to 

Adams, is part of “the encoded fear of non-existence, of nothingness after 

the end, and the desire for mastery and control over the inevitable” (14). 

Second Myth of Globalization: “The Transformative Power of ICTs” 

Today, we are being made to believe that Information and Communication 

Technologies (ICTs) will transform the world and make it a better 

place through instant communication across spaces, times, and cultures 

over the Internet. We are told that we live increasingly in a “network society” 

and that the winners in this society are the semiotic workers who 

decipher the information flows to the masses and make life easier for all. 

This is a myth in the sense that evidence from the developed countries, 

especially the West and America, indicates exactly the contrary. Just as 

building new roads tends to lead to new traffic jams, as computers and 

information networks have increased in power, the pressure and stress of 

the workplace has increased; the pressure to multitask in order to handle 

all the data flows increases. In other words, far from being inherently

284 


transformative, advancement in ICTs is increasingly used to legitimate 

and reinforce market capitalism and new variants of wage slavery. 

To expose this mythic dimension of technology is not to deny that 

new technologies do have some transformative power, but rather, simply, 

to assess critically the idea that technology is inherently transformative. 

In short, just like all other inventions of ICTs throughout history (paper, 

the printing press, the radio), new technologies can be liberating and 

transformative as much as they can become the instrument of oppression, 

domination, and propaganda. 

Third Myth of Globalization: “The End of the Nation State” 

Undoubtedly, the world economy today is dominated by market forces 

and transnational corporations that have no consideration for the sovereignty 

of nation-states, national economies, national cultures, or territorial 

borders. In other words, transnational corporations increasingly relocate 

anywhere in the world in order to gain market advantage, without loyalty 

to their country of origin. This “flow” and “flexible mobility” is believed 

to be due to technological advances, which are supposedly in the interest 

of all, irrespective of nation-states. The myth here is the failure to 

recognize imperial power as it rears its ugly head again; factories of 

production may be located in so-called developing nations, yet the 

financial gains continue to be circulated via the economies of the 

developed world. The money market operates through and for the benefit 

of rich countries or through the country whose currency is used as the 

international reserve currency. 

Fourth Myth of Globalization: “Competition” 

The myth here is the idea that the “liberalization” of markets and the 

wonders of “free trade” are responsible for the phenomenon of globalization. 

On the contrary, however, subsidies are increased to the maximum 

to protect Western agriculture and industry, while the old command or 

order to continue to open up markets to imports is sent out to the developing 

countries. Closely linked to this myth are the importations of such 

concepts as “good governance,” “liberalization,” and “democratization.” 

On the surface, these concepts reverberate as good ideas. The object appears 

to be about how to get Africa or the African leaders to stop the endemic 

corruption at all levels of society; to involve civil society in the 

democratic process; to stop the orgies of violence that have become part 

of daily life on the continent; not to engage in self-destruction; and so on. 

However, without a critical approach to these issues we are at risk of be-


lieving the myth that though the developed world/West has introduced 

the concepts, we can make them meaningful to our situation and radicalize 

them, which then prevent us from making the connection between the 

rhetoric of good governance, liberalization, and democratization and the 

need to penetrate largely untapped African markets. 

Undoubtedly, it is very good to promote good governance and 

democratization, but we also need to ask how serious its promoters are, 

given the fact that key national services and institutions have been eroded 

and undermined by market forces, that the employed and marginally employed 

worker is expected to work for 12 hours or more a day for a miserly 

amount, and that the presence of minimum wage and trade unions is 

seen as unfavorable to potential investors. 

Fifth Myth of Globalization: “The Erosion of Local Cultures” 

One of the most popular myths of globalization is that Western or American 

cultural is increasingly homogenizing the experience of the rest of the 

world. The so-called “McDonaldization effect” means that the American 

consumer can travel wherever she or he wants and not feel too far from 

home. She or he can eat burgers, drink Coca Cola, and remain semiimmersed 

within the same brand environment (Nike, Tommy Hilfiger, 

etc.). While McDonaldization is undoubtedly taking place, we must also 

know that the relationship between the global and the local involve more 

complex processes. While so-called global culture is having an impact 

on the local, the local is also appropriating global culture in its own peculiar 

ways. In other words, the global is in fact very many syntheses of 

different forms of locality. In short, the global is an abstract concept that 

doesn’t exist in reality anywhere, whereas the local is concrete and existent. 

In the African village, one finds, for example, an American product: 

Coca Cola. Here, the “global brand” is in reality a miniature of American 

culture set afloat from its origins, and in this African village the Coca 

Cola drink will not have the same cultural meanings it has in America. 

What is therefore missing in the globalization-homogenization thesis is 

the power of places, which are not simply physical locations but also configurations 

of language, need, aspirations, desires, and a set of moral 

boundaries. Global flows do have the ability to modify these configurations, 

but it is equally true that local places themselves have the ability to 

reconfigure the global flows.

286 


THE RELEVANCE OF SOCIO-LEGAL RESEARCH TO 

THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF NIGERIA 

It is common knowledge that among the disciplines being taught in Nigerian 

universities, some are regarded as more relevant than others by the 

government to the development needs of the country. The various myths 

of globalization discussed above are partly responsible for this prevailing 

situation. Generally, the entire set of natural and physical sciences are 

considered more relevant than all the arts, the humanities, and the social 

sciences. More specifically, among natural and physical sciences, medicine 

is regarded as the most important and relevant. Among the arts, humanities 

and social sciences, law is regarded as the most relevant. In fact, 

the government does not even consider political science, which is more 

directly concerned with the institution of government, relevant to development 

needs of Nigeria, and much less other social science disciplines 

like sociology and sociology of law, which is “just” a branch of the latter. 

The immediate past president of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo, once stated 

publicly that courses such as sociology should not be taught in our educational 

institutions. Such disciplines are branded “rhetoric,” “academia,” 

“theories” or “inexperience” (Usman 1979). Thus, if we keep screening 

the various disciplines being taught in our universities in Nigeria, we 

shall in the end find that most of them are considered to be irrelevant or 

not so relevant to development needs of the nation. This is why these 

days a student is more likely to receive government sponsorship to study 

medicine than social sciences such as sociology and political science. 

If one reflects upon the prevailing situation in Nigeria in terms of the 

so-called globalization thesis, it will appear neither strange nor miraculous 

that both the government and the lay person have this unfortunate 

conception. The importance of the natural and physical sciences like 

medicine and engineering and disciplines like law, accounting, and economics 

can be seen clearly by almost everybody, because their so-called 

important contributions to development appear obvious, since they are in 

material form. We so value human medicine, because we value our lives, 

to which we feel only diseases and injuries constitute threats. Therefore, 

we think human medicine alone will reduce the probability of these 

things causing an untimely loss of our lives. We value engineering because 

we so value and need houses, cars/lorries, ships, trains, planes, express 

roads, rails, bridges, tall buildings, electric power, atomic and nuclear 

power, and so on. 

We value accounting and economics as disciplines, because we value 

money and wealth. We value law as relevant to Nigerian development 

needs, because we value social order as an important element for devel-


opment. So, like Comte, the government and people of Nigeria see society 

as both “static” and “dynamic” (Coser 1971: 23-24), which are actually 

incompatible. It is therefore not terribly surprising if a discipline like 

the sociology of law, whose contribution is not in material terms, is conceived 

of as irrelevant to the development needs of Nigeria. In fact, the 

sociology of law is even conceived of as a threat to law, which, to the 

government, is an instrument of social order concomitant with the 

nation’s development. However, rather than destroying the law, 

sociology in general and the sociology of law in particular aid the law. In 

the analysis of crime and delinquency, for example, the juvenile courts in 

the United States have long recognized that unaided by such disciplines 

like biology, sociology (including sociology of law) and psychology, the 

law is incompetent to decide what is the adequate treatment (Steward 

1978: 11). 

Actually, the importance of disciplines like the sociology of law is 

not easily observed by people, because their contributions to national development 

are not material but social. Unlike the law, their emphasis is 

not social order as such, which human nature tends to cherish but which 

is not necessarily the essential element for progress or development. 

However, if we have a wider understanding of development which goes 

beyond the material, then the sociology of law is very relevant to the development 

needs of any society especially Nigeria. At this juncture we 

need to pose such questions as: What is development Why development 

Development for whom To truly do justice to these questions even peripherally, 

we shall hear ourselves answering thus: Development means 

advancement in both material and social conditions of human beings. We 

should promote development so that we are free from all problems – social, 

political, cultural, and material. A viable development of a nation 

should be reflected in every citizen of the nation or the country. So, for 

the government to think that such disciplines like the arts, humanities 

(other than the law), and social sciences (including the sociology of law) 

are irrelevant to the nation’s development because they are not materially 

oriented is for it to say that development is essentially material, which is 

false. It also tantamount to a bundle of contradictions to the first three 

and last of Nigeria’s five national objectives, which are basically not economic, 

yet the government itself saw them as worthy of doing. 2 Again, 

one would ask, is it surprising for a government such as that of Nigeria’s 

2 The five national objectives are: i) a free and democratic society; ii) a just and 

egalitarian society; iii) a united, strong, and self-reliant nation; iv) a great and 

dynamic economy, and v) a land of bright and full opportunities for all citizens 

(Federal Republic of Nigeria 1977: 4).

288 


to contradict itself After all, contradictions are characteristic of a capitalist 

socio-political order. 

To the extent that it is obvious that development is never complete 

and viable if it is only material and not also social, the sociology of law, 

whose contributions to the nation’s development are socio-legal, is as 

important as any discipline being taught in Nigerian universities, as we 

are going to substantiate below. In the rest of the paper, we demonstrate 

the relevance of the sociology of law to the development of Nigeria 

through various socio-legal research approaches and methods. But, to 

begin with, we are going to give a brief definition of the sociology of law 

in terms of its tasks, since it is from its tasks that we shall be able to see 

its relevance to the development needs of any society that is ready, unlike 

Nigeria, to make use of the discipline. Podgorekki (1974) defined the 

task of the sociology of law as follows: “Its task is not only to register, 

formulate, and verify the general interrelations existing between the law 

and other social factors (law could then be viewed as an independent or 

dependent variable), but also to try and build a general theory to explain 

social process in which the law is involved and in this way link this discipline 

with the bulk of social control” (32). 

The sociology of law is a discipline more recent in origin than sociology, 

to which it constitutes an essential branch. This lag in the development 

of the sociology of law was mainly because of the conflict between 

sociology and jurisprudence, which was the result of narrowness and aberrations 

in the conception of the object and methods of the respective 

disciplines (law and sociology). But, by the development of both sociology 

and jurisprudence, sociology and law have finally met, and the meeting 

place is the sociology of law (Gurvitch 1973: 1-2). Since then, sociology 

of law has developed through three consecutive stages, namely: the 

problematic stage; the empirical stage; and the engagement in policymaking 

stage (Podgorekki 1974: 261). This last stage that the discipline 

has reached makes it all the more important and very relevant to the development 

needs of any nation. At this last stage the sociology of law is 

not speculative or philosophical. It is scientific and empirical. It employs 

various social scientific and empirical methods to discover regularities 

in law and society and translate them into the language of concrete 

advice. In other words, it uses social scientific methods to make functional 

studies of law, of legal mechanisms, of social causes of legal rules, 

of the divergence between laws and their administration, of the effects of 

legal rules, and comparing the law and mores and practice of a society. 

With the above studies, the sociology of law will therefore be able to provide 

policy makers with concrete advice on the social consequences of 

legal rules; the general understanding of how different kinds of legal sys-


tems work; the enforceability of legal rules, etc. All these, to be sure, 

will be very useful indeed to the development needs of a nation sociolegally 

if the nation is willing to use the fruitful knowledge accruing from 

sociology of law just as it is willing to use knowledge accruing from 

medicine, engineering, and other natural and physical sciences. 

SOCIOL-LEGAL RESEARCH, PUBLIC POLICY, AND 

THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS OF NIGERIA 

Now let us see how sociology of law is relevant to the development needs 

of a nation like Nigeria by the discoveries it makes or can make through 

the various scientific methods at hand like historical-descriptive methods, 

ethnographic-comparative methods, methods for e analysis of legal materials, 

experimental methods, and survey methods. 

The Historical Descriptive Method 

In the sociology of law, the historical method assumes the diachronic approach 

in research, reaching back into the past. Traditionally, when applied 

to law, the method was supposed to describe this or that legal enactment, 

statute, or institution in its unique historical perspective. The 

modern version tries to compare types of social systems and the legal systems 

corresponding to them. This new version offers a far-reaching theoretical 

perspective and makes clear the fact that there are not only “technical 

innovations” but also “social innovations” (i.e., legal ideas and constructs). 

Thus, some nations adopt legal systems just as they adopt technologies, 

because they are needed; they are functional and in accord with 

new socio-economic trends. Through this method, therefore, the sociology 

of law will lead us to better understanding of the direction of and reasons 

for the flow of legal innovations and the unexpected by-product of 

these exchanges (Podgorekki 1974: 33-34). Undoubtedly, therefore, this 

method, if properly applied to the Nigerian situation by socio-legal scholars, 

will help in discerning or discovering the negative by-product of the 

English legal system imposed upon the country by the colonialists and 

discard them immediately. This will also help the nation to adopt a new 

legal system based on real principles of need. Thus, Nigeria will not 

adopt the legal system of a country such as the US simply because it 

wants to “develop” like the US.

290 


The Ethnographic Comparative Method 

This method has been useful in identifying the limited validity of a generalized 

definition of law (i.e., there is hardly any single definition that 

applies to all societies) and its limited influence on human behavior 

(Podgorekki 1974: 35-36). With regard to the latter, it can also contribute 

to the development of Nigeria socio-legally and economically if policy 

makers are ready to consider this definition and repeal laws that are ineffective. 

This will help to reduce unnecessary costs and also to avoid the 

creation of secondary crimes, criminal self-images, and criminal subcultures 

in the country. This is because there are limits to what one can do 

with the law, since it has been found that the main source of social control 

is internalized group norms and interpersonal pressures, rather than 

formal regulatory forms. Arguments to substantiate this are: 1) there are 

extreme difficulties in maintaining control in interpersonal relations 

through law. For example, only diplomacy, economic aid, and bargaining 

are used. 2) In the area of commercial contacts, it appears most parties 

prefer settling disputes through other means. As rightly noted by 

Aubert (1969), “You can settle a dispute [better] if you keep the lawyers 

and accountants out of it” (200). 3) The pain-pleasure penal principle is 

inadequate. The death penalty for armed robbery in Nigeria, for example, 

does not seem to reduce the rate of armed robbery in any way. This adequately 

substantiates the socio-legal argument that “if mores are adequate, 

law is effective, if inadequate law is ineffective” (Podgorekki 1974: 13). 

4) Crimes known as “victimless,” such as abortion, gambling, drug abuse, 

adultery/fornication, etc., are created by laws that are designed to affect 

or enforce private morality. 5) Two types of laws in particular have 

failed: i) those that are used as means of providing social services in the 

absence of other public agencies, such as the family non-support laws to 

assist a needy family in obtaining support from a deserting spouse, and ii) 

those that are used as a disingenuous means of permitting the police to do 

what the law forbids them to do directly, such as disorderly-conduct and 

vagrancy laws. While the behaviors that most of these laws are trying to 

affect are due to poverty, they make it appear as if poverty itself is a 

crime. 

It need not be overemphasized that the above socio-legal problems 

constitute a hitch to the development of Nigeria. That the problems could 

have been avoided if the importance of socio-legal studies and research 

was recognized early enough by the government and citizens of Nigeria 

and a large turn over of graduates in socio-legal studies from universities 

into the public services had been encouraged. Nigeria would have realized 

early enough that the law is futile in bringing about certain changes


in society and therefore should be limited: that it should not interfere in 

the private life of the individual; that it cannot be effective in stopping 

social problems which are not its creations but the creation of the prevailing 

social, political, and economic orders in the country; that although 

law can be used as an instrument of change, there are conditions under 

which that is the case (Aubert 1969: 96); and that such conditions should 

therefore be discovered to guide more rational social and legal policies. 

Could all these be said to be unimportant and irrelevant to the development 

needs of Nigeria 

The Method for Analysis of Legal Materials 

The method for analysis of legal materials that is utilized by socio-legal 

scholars also reveals very fruitful empirical information about the legal 

systems that a nation like Nigeria needs if it is to develop socio-legally. 

This method analyzes materials that are stored in legal documents. Such 

materials are usually indicators of legal behaviors that are possible or that 

in fact took place. Since what really counts in socio-legal studies is the 

legal behavior itself, this method is very valuable (Podgorekki 1974: 38). 

In Nigeria, for example, one needs only to visit one of the magistrate’s 

courts in action for a day or two without even analyzing materials stored 

in legal documents to understand that the magistrate court system in Nigeria 

is unfamiliar to most plaintiffs. 3 

It is no wonder, therefore, that many people in Nigeria appear to 

prefer settling disputes amongst themselves at homes, and when they 

have to go to court at all, as much as possible they avoid the English type 

of courts in favor of customary and alkali (Shari’a) Courts (Sa’ad 1994; 

1991; 1988; Ajomo and Okagbue 1990). Undoubtedly, therefore, 

through analyses of legal materials, socio-legal scholars can illuminate 

the need for overhauling our court procedures and actions so that every 

Nigerian can feel at home in the court and thus become encouraged to 

turn to the law for protection of their interests. But, at the moment, Nigerians 

believe winning or losing a case depends only on whether you have 

a good or bad lawyer (Sa’ad 1994; 1988; 1991; Ajomo and Okagbue 

1990). In other words, Nigerians do not see justice prevailing in the English 

type of courts, but then, as rightly pointed out by Aubert (1960), “It is 

3 Several socio-legal studies employing analysis of legal materials were conducted 

in Nigeria, and they revealed serious injustices in the English legal system 

operating in the country, especially on the masses of Nigerians. This is due 

primarily to this system’s economically, politically, and socio-culturally foreign 

nature. See for examples, Sa’ad (1994; 1991; 1988) and Ajomo and Okagbue 

(1990).

292 


in the offer of justice that the legal system makes its major output in exchange 

for the input of motivation to accept the court as a problem solving 

structure” (20). 

The Experimental Method 

This method can also be used by socio-legal scholars to support the development 

needs of Nigeria. It can be used, for example, “To study the 

law in force because of the binding value of equality before the law” 

(Podgorekki 1974: 40). Through this method, we can ensure that the 

laws about to be introduced and enforced really reflect and protect the 

interest of the larger society, rather than those of the few that make the 

law. This is particularly important in Nigeria, where legislators, judges, 

lawyers, prosecutors, and administrators of laws themselves are among 

the elite groups of society, and the laws are always imposed rather than 

experimentally tested before adoption. Given that law actually creates 

and elaborates on the rights and duties conferred on the various members 

of the society, there is no doubt that the law in Nigeria supports and 

maintains the status-quo, i.e., the unjust and non-egalitarian social and 

politico-economic order. Friedman (1979) means the same thing when he 

asserts, “Law is not a strong, independent force but responds to outside 

pressure in such a way as to reflect the wishes and powers of those social 

forces which are exerting the pressure” (4). 

The Survey Method 

Some laws are accepted completely and internalized, and they guide the 

behaviors of the individual. Some are accepted but not so strongly and 

internalized to convince people to behave in line with the law. Finally, 

some laws are only superficially and hypocritically accepted, so the individual 

behaves in such a way as to make people believe that she or he 

accepts the law but internally she or he does not (Podgorekki 1974: 40). 

Socio-legal scholars can, through the use of survey questionnaires and 

interviews, empirically distinguish between these laws in any given society. 

4 Surely, this must be very important and relevant to any nation 

which truly aspires toward “a just and egalitarian society; a free and democratic 

society,” knowing fully that acceptance of the law makes the 

law more binding and justifiable in society than just imposing it upon an 

4 I have conducted two such studies in Nigeria. The first study was on the Kilba, 

Mumuye, and Jukun in Adamawa and Taraba States (Sa’ad 1988: 157-226). The 

second was on the Gwoza Hills Dwellers of Borno State (Sa’ad 1994: 93-103).


unwilling populace. And, for those who are more concerned about monetary 

value, this is still very important because acceptance of law reduces 

the cost of law enforcement. 

One can go on and on demonstrating the importance and relevance of 

socio-legal research to the development needs of Nigeria enough to fill a 

full textbook. Clearly therefore, if a discipline like the sociology of law 

is regarded as less important and relevant than the natural and physical 

sciences or professions like law and accounting, which is far from being 

true, there must be underlying reasons for such misconceptions, especially 

in Nigeria. We have either explicitly or implicitly sought to bring 

these out clearly above. Some of these underlying reasons are discussed 

more clearly in the next section of this paper, with a view to offering possible 

solutions to the problems. 

REASONS FOR THE LACK OF IMPACT OF SOCIO-LEGAL 

RESEARCH ON PUBLIC POLICY IN NIGERIA 

As we have demonstrated clearly above, the sociology of law is very 

relevant to the public policy and development need of Nigeria. Its lack of 

real impact on the minds of Nigerians in general and on policy makers 

specifically as an important and relevant discipline to the developmental 

needs of Nigeria is predicated on extraneous factors that either directly or 

indirectly hinge on the myths of globalization we have explained above. 

Some of these extraneous factors are explained briefly in the following 

paragraphs. 

Narrow Perception of Development 

Like in any neo-colonial capitalist society, development in Nigeria is 

considered only in material rather than in social terms. Even in material 

terms, the dominant perception is limited to infrastructural development, 

such as the existence of good roads, high-rise buildings, the excess of 

vehicles plying dual carriage roads, lighted streets and apartments, etc. 

The technological and industrial aspects of material development, which 

are more fundamental, do not seem to be important. Most unfortunately, 

however, even the government places too much emphasis on infrastructural 

development. The social (particularly the socio-legal) aspects of 

development are ignored almost completely. This is reflected in the fact 

that none of Nigeria’s national development plans since independence 

touched on socio-legal problems as an area requiring concrete attention.

294 


Of course, over the years, the government seemed to realize the importance 

of social development as a prerequisite to material development by 

putting in place a number of programs directed at dealing with social 

problems in the country such as poverty, illiteracy, gender inequality, etc. 

Administrators’ Prejudice against Academics 

Policy makers and administrators have very deep-seated prejudice against 

academics, particularly those academics whose policy recommendations 

generate few contracts for the administrators. Such academics (including 

socio-legal researches) are considered by most administrators and policy 

makers to be out of touch with the realities on ground. Thus, policy recommendations 

based on well-researched knowledge from such academics 

are more often than not condemned as “theories,” “rhetoric,” or “inexperience,” 

especially when a good number of these recommendations appear 

to be against administrators’ vested interests. As rightly wondered 

by Odekunle (1981), “How do we expect judges, magistrates, and lawyerofficials 

in the ministries of justice to accept and implement a proposal 

which sees the legal profession for what it is and recommends the framing 

of laws in simple language and the adjudication of most criminal offences 

through lay neighborhood and community juries” (199). 

Inadequate and Inappropriate Media for Transmitting Socio-Legal 

Knowledge 

The major media of transmission of social science knowledge in the 

country are journals, research reports, conference/seminars/workshops 

attendance and/or proceedings, and classroom teaching. First of all, let us 

take journals. There is no single journal in the country devoted to publishing 

articles on socio-legal issues alone. Such articles are therefore 

published in more generalized social science and/or interdisciplinary 

journals scattered around the country, thereby making access to such articles 

very daunting to administrators in the relevant field. This problem 

would have been smaller if socio-legal scholars were to publish their 

findings and recommendations in newspapers and weekly or monthly 

news magazines. However, the criteria for promotion in academia require 

one to publish in reputable and recognized academic journals rather 

than in dailies and news magazines. 

Meanwhile, research reports are usually submitted to those that sponsored 

the research. These sponsors are usually foreign research foundations. 

The government hardly sponsors research to help it formulate and 

execute viable policies. At best, they sponsor and/or organize confer-


ences, seminars, or workshops. What’s more, only very few administrators 

attend such workshops, seminars, and conferences, and they, as 

rightly noted by Odekunle (1981) appear to be more interested in “the 

estacodes 5 of the trips and other allowances” than in the knowledge they 

will gain there and bring ideas back to their work and organizations (198). 

With regard to classroom teaching as a media of transmission, criminology 

is not taught in most universities and colleges in the country, 

much less sociology of law, which can be regarded as a branch of criminology. 

Thus, our policy makers and administrators who went through 

universities and colleges either before they became administrators or 

through in-service training hardly got exposed to criminology in general 

and sociology of law in particular. Consequently, the chasm between 

socio-legal scholars and policy makers remains, perpetuating narrowminded 

suspicion and mistrust between them. 

Lack of an Organized Body of Recipients of Socio-Legal Knowledge 

The only organized body in Nigeria for the government to receive sociolegal 

knowledge is the Law Reform Commission, whose activities are 

over-centralized and lack adequate publicity. What’s more, the personnel 

of the commission is dominated by legal professionals. The commission 

is therefore as good as non-existent. As a result, even if and when policy 

recommendations based on well-researched knowledge are made available 

in research reports, journal articles, conferences, seminars, workshop 

papers, and guest lectures, they, as rightly noted by Odekunle (1981), 

“Either remain on paper, are short-lived in terms of actual practice, or 

their execution is left to the whims and caprices of individual officers and 

officials” (198). 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

We have attempted in this modest paper to debunk the various taken-forgranted 

positive arguments for globalization and to establish the relevance 

of socio-legal studies particularly that of the sociology of law to 

the development needs of Nigeria. We have also attempted to clearly 

bring out the major impediments to real impact of socio-legal studies on 

policy and development in Nigeria that have to be removed if we are to 

move forward. In the following concluding paragraphs, we attempt to 

5 Estacodes are the allowances given to government officials for their travels 

either inside or outside the country.

296 


suggest some of the things that can be done to remove these identified 

impediments to the potential of socio-legal studies for real impact on policy 

and development in Nigeria. 

The first major impediment identified in this paper is the government’s 

narrow conception of development, which is partly due to its misguided 

understanding of globalization. It is high time the government 

and lay people of Nigeria realized that a well-rounded development goes 

beyond infrastructural, technological, industrial, and economic development. 

In addition to these material aspects of development, social aspects 

(including socio-legal aspects) are very necessary for a well-rounded development. 

It is only proper, therefore, that social aspects of development 

be given equal treatment with technological and economic aspects 

in our national development plans. The onus of making this possible lies 

partly on the Social Science Academy of Nigeria, which was established 

primarily to ensure that social sciences have a much needed impact on 

public policy in Nigeria. The council should also press for the establishment 

of an Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice, which would be 

responsible for promoting socio-legal aspects of development through 

teaching, research, and policy recommendations and/or plans for the government 

on socio-legal matters. 

The second impediment to real impact of the sociology of law on 

public policy is administrators and policy makers’ prejudices about social 

scientists in general and socio-legal scholars in particular. These prejudices 

are born out of ignorance. The lawyers, officials, judges, magistrates, 

police, warders, etc., usually condemn recommendations based 

even on research knowledge as theories, rhetoric, or inexperience, because 

such recommendations appear to run counter to their interests, 

when in fact they do not. The Hausa people say, “Gyara kayan ba sauke 

mu raba ba ne,” meaning that if somebody observes that a load you are 

carrying on your head is not properly placed and cautions you to place it 

properly, he is not begging for a share of what you are carrying. He or 

she merely wishes you well. In other words, recommendations by sociolegal 

scholars are usually meant to improve the legal system in general 

and the efficiency, effectiveness, and welfare of those working in the system. 

They are not meant to destroy the system. We think the best way to 

remove this prejudice is to reduce the communication gap between policy 

makers and administrators and socio-legal scholars and researchers by 

encouraging worthwhile, functional interactions among them. For example, 

the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice to be established 

should involve public servants in the relevant ministries and agencies as 

guest lecturers. The institute should be able to obtain funds from the


government, relevant ministries and agencies, and foreign research foundations 

for policy-oriented research, and it should involve public servants 

in the whole exercise of doing the research and making policy proposals 

and/or recommendations based on the research. On their part, the government 

or relevant ministries and agencies should, as much as necessary, 

involve socio-legal scholars from the institute in the implementation of 

their socio-legal policies. 

The third impediment to the real impact of socio-legal studies relates 

to media of transmission of socio-legal knowledge. We observed that 

these are limited in terms of both number and reach. In terms of number, 

they include only journal articles, research reports, conferences, workshops, 

seminars, and classroom teaching. In other words, they exclude 

popular media such as newspapers, magazines, radio, and television. 

With regards to journals, we observed that there is no single journal specifically 

devoted to publishing socio-legal materials. In terms of reach, 

we observe that socio-legal scholars are communicating only with each 

other, rather than with administrators and policy makers, through their 

limited number of media of transmission identified above. The reasons 

are that while on one hand academic media are not popular with administrators 

and policy makers, on the other hand the popular media (i.e., electronic 

and print) are not attractive to most socio-legal scholars because 

publishing in print media or giving radio and TV talks do not count much 

toward career development in academia. 

Four solutions suggest themselves here. First, there is a dire need for 

founding at least one viable socio-legal journal, namely “The Nigerian 

Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice.” 

Second, higher institutions of learning and research centers, particularly 

the Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice (ICCJ) that is to be 

established, should begin to highlight contributions in electronic and print 

media among their criteria for promotion. Socio-legal scholars, on their 

part, should endeavor to publish simplified versions of their journal articles 

in print media for a wider readership. 

Third, there is a need for would-be lawyers, judges, and magistrates 

to compulsorily take some key criminological courses such as law and 

society; comparative legal systems; legal psychology; psychiatry, crime 

and delinquency; sociology of crime and delinquency; sociology of punishment 

and corrections; etc., before they are finally called to the Bar. 

They can take these courses in universities that offer such courses or in 

the proposed Institute of Criminology and Criminal Justice; something 

similar to internships for medical students. As for police and warders, 

they should be taught these courses in their colleges or training camps by

298 


socio-legal scholars as guest or part-time lecturers if they cannot find 

qualified socio-legal scholars to employ on permanent basis. 

Finally, attendance at two to three day conferences, workshop, and 

seminars by public servants should be replaced by longer training workshops 

and seminars lasting between two and three months and involving 

tests at the end of the workshops or seminars and follow-up workshops 

and seminars for three weeks after about a year. In the follow-up workshops, 

participants should be made to report back what knowledge and 

skills they have been able to take back to their workplaces and organizations. 

This will make attendance at workshops and seminars by public 

servants less motivated by estacourts and other related allowances than 

by the value of the workshops or seminars themselves. The proposed 

ICCJ should serve as a center for such training workshops and seminars. 

The fourth impediment to the real impact of socio-legal studies on 

public policy identified in this paper relates to the recipients of sociolegal 

knowledge. We observed that there is only one organized body of 

recipients, namely the Law Reform Commission, whose membership is 

composed predominantly people of the legal profession and whose activities 

are over-centralized and not adequately publicized. There is therefore 

the dire need for the commission 1) to establish branches in all the 

states of the federation, including Abuja, and to expand its personnel to 

include not only legal professionals but also sociologists, particularly 

criminologists, and trained representatives of non-governmental organizations 

such as the CDHR, CLO, CSWS, FOMWAN, etc. The commission’s 

concern should be to assert “studied, documented claims for 

changes in legislation and in state or parastatal structures” (Dias and Paul 

1981: 376). In this regard, the commission should work hand-in-hand 

with the proposed ICCJ. 2) The commission should also, on its own, go 

to the people who have grievances in places and at times that provide 

frank, full, and uninhibited deliberation. It should then publicize the 

grievances and lobby for reform (Sa’ad and Mamman 1994: 11). In this 

regard, the commission should work hand-in-hand with pressure groups 

and organizations. 

The fifth and final impediment to the real impact of socio-legal studies 

on public policy as explained in this paper is the various myths about 

the benevolence of globalization and its processes. These myths are 

clearly identified in this paper, and the precautions required in dealing 

with them have also been pointed out in the relevant sections. Governments, 

researchers, and lay people in developing countries such as Nigeria 

need, therefore, to be alert to them.


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Ajomo, M.A. and L.E. Okagbue. Human Rights and the Administration 

of Justice. Lagos, Nigeria: Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal 

Studies, 1990. 

Aubert, V. Sociology of Law. London: Penguin, 1969. 

Coser, L.A. Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and 

Social Context. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1971. 

Dias, C.J. and J.C.N. Paul. “Lawyers, Legal Resources, and Alternative 

Approaches to Development” In Lawyers in the Third World: Comparative 

and Developmental Perspectives, Dias, C.J. et al, eds. Uppsala, 

Sweden: Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, 1981. 

Federal Republic of Nigeria. National Policy on Education. Lagos, Nigeria, 

1977. 

Gurvitch, G. Sociology of Law. London: Routledge, 1973. 

Podgorekki, A. Law and Society. London: Routledge, 1974. 

Sa’ad, A.M. “Justice in Borno State, Nigeria: An Assessment of Prisoners’ 

Experiences of the Criminal Justice Process.” Unpublished 

M.Phil. Thesis, University of Cambridge, UK, 1984. 

-----. “In Search of Justice for Nigeria: A Critical Analysis of the Formal 

and Informal Justice Systems in Gongola State of Nigeria.” Unpublished 

D.Phil. Thesis, University of Sussex, UK, 1988. 

-----. “The Courts and Protection of Human Rights: An Assessment of 

Plateau and Kano States.” Research Report submitted to the Social 

Science Council of Nigeria, Ibadan, 1991. 

-----. “Law and Justice among Gwoza Hills Dwellers in Nigeria: An Assessment 

of the Viability of Informal Justice in Democracy.” Research 

Report submitted to the Department of Public Administration, 

O.A.U., Ile-Ife and Centre for African Studies, Florida State University, 

1994. 

----- and P.T. Mamman. “Empowering the Rural People in Nigeria: 

Overcoming Legal Constraints.” Paper presented at seminar on the 

Crisis of Rural Development in Nigeria, Department of Political Science 

and Administration, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria, 1994. 

Steward, V.L. The Changing Faces of Juvenile Justice. New York: New 

York University Press, 1978. 

Usman, B. For the Liberation of Nigeria. London: New Beacon Books, 

1979.

300 

Feleke Tadele 

The Relevance of Sociological Studies 

and Training for Social Realities, 

Development Policy, and Practice 

in Ethiopia 

Feleke Tadele, Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, 

Social Workers, and Anthropologists, Ethiopia 1 

This brief paper seeks to investigate the relevance of sociological 

training and research and its contribution to social realities, development 

policy, and practice in Ethiopia. In the context of the successive social 

transformation process and the increased number of sociology students in 

the country, can sociology play a constructive role in development policy 

and practice in Ethiopia Given the protracted nature of social transformations 

and poverty in Ethiopia, can sociological studies and training 

contribute to a better understanding of social changes and structures 

The paper attempts to tackle these and other relevant questions. It begins 

with a brief historical overview of sociological training and research in 

Ethiopia. This is followed by the presentation of the relevance of sociological 

studies and training to development policy and practice in the 

country. Then the roles of the Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, Social 

Workers, and Anthropologists (ESSSWA) in linking sociological training 

and research are presented. Finally, the challenges to effective sociological 

training and research are highlighted, and recommendations for future 

courses of action are suggested. 

1 Feleke Tadele is the President of Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, Social 

Workers, and Anthropologists (ESSSWA). The views expressed in this paper 

are those of the author and they do not necessarily reflect or represent the opinions 

of either ESSSWA or the Department of Sociology at Addis Ababa University. 

The author can be contacted at bymref@gmail.com.

The Relevance of Sociological Studies and Training for Social Realities, Development 

Policy, and Practice in Ethiopia 

301 

SOCIOLOGICAL TRAINING AND RESEARCH IN 

ETHIOPIA: A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW 

Some studies indicate that sociology as a discipline began to be practiced 

at a tertiary level following the establishment of the then University College 

of Addis Ababa and the subsequent establishment of the Haile 

Selassie I University in the early 1950s (SOSA 2006; Admassie and Yntiso 

2006). In the relatively long period of time since then, sociological 

training has reportedly passed through three major historical periods. The 

first phase, covering the period between 1951-52 and 1978-79, was 

marked by the stage when sociological courses were offered as part of the 

general education program of the University College of Addis Ababa. 

This culminated in the establishment of the Department of Sociology and 

Anthropology as one of the departments under the Faculty of Arts. Another 

relevant development within the same period was the establishment 

of the School of Social Work in 1959, which initially offered a two year 

diploma program and was upgraded to a degree program in 1966. These 

educational units appeared to have some functional distinctions. While 

the sociological component of the training and research program was focusing 

on social change and “modernization” associated with urbanization, 

industrialization, and socio-economic development, the anthropological 

component was specializing in the study of cultures of different 

ethnic groups and nationalities. 

The second phase of training in sociology has coincided with the reorganization 

of higher education in the country following the socialist 

revolution in 1974. The restructuring and revision of curriculum has resulted 

in the merger of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology 

and the School of Social Work and the emergence of the Department of 

Applied Sociology (APSO) under the then-created College of Social Sciences 

of Addis Ababa University. The curriculum, which followed the 

reorganization, went into effect in the 1978-79 academic year and continued 

to offer undergraduate BA degree-level training in the combined 

fields of sociology, anthropology, and social work for about seven years. 

This period was also marked by ideological correctness and overloading 

of the discipline of sociology with Marxist-Leninist courses such as 

Marxian Sociology and Marxian Anthropology (Selassie 1986). 

A subsequent revision of the undergraduate curriculum was undertaken 

in 1985-86, which, once again, resulted in the renaming of the department 

as the Department of Sociology and Social Administration 

(SOSA). This revision has resulted in the dropping of redundant courses 

and introduction of new courses like History of Social Welfare, Social

302 

Feleke Tadele 

Administration, and the Application of Quantitative Procedures in policy 

formulation (Selassie 1986). 

The third phase of training in sociology was associated with the further 

renaming of the department as the Department of Sociology and Social 

Anthropology in 2002-3, which resulted in the offering of a balanced 

and unified training in sociology and anthropology at BA degree level 

and, to some extent, in social work at MA degree level. These arrangements 

are believed to have provided a solid foundation for specialized 

and independent sociological training at MA degree level since 2006. 

The MA courses include sociological theories like the history of sociological 

theory in the classical period; discussion of the nature and 

structure of contemporary sociological theories; rigorous and comprehensive 

examination of the main theoretical perspectives in contemporary 

sociology, including the macro-structural perspectives of structural functionalism 

and conflict theory as well as the micro-interactionist perspectives 

of symbolic interactionism, ethnomethodology, exchange, and rational 

choice theories; and more recent developments and debates in sociological 

theories, including the macro-micro and the structure-agency 

integration as well as the debate on modern versus post-modern social 

theories. 

Some of the development-related courses include an overview of urban 

and rural sociology as fields of study; social structure and social organization 

in a comparative and historical perspective; the crisis of rural 

livelihood in the Third World; rural and agrarian transformation in a historical 

and comparative perspective; paths of capitalist agrarian transition; 

political economy of the modern global food and agricultural system; the 

rise of giant agro-business transnational corporations (TNCs); the paradox 

of Third World food dependency; the paradox of food insecurity and 

famine in the midst of plenty; the food and agrarian crisis in Africa; the 

debate on sustainable food and agricultural systems; the environmental 

impact of the model of industrial agriculture, agro-biotechnology revolution; 

rural development in theory and practice; rural development policy 

and planning in a comparative perspective; the adoption and diffusion of 

agricultural innovations and technologies; and socio-cultural, institutional, 

and agro-ecological barriers and facilitators of development. 

Social policy and planning course that cover theories and policy 

processes include social policy planning principles and values; policy 

development, implementation and analysis in socio-economic and cultural 

contexts; conceptual and analytical skills for understanding the 

process and organization of social policy and planning issues. There are 

also courses on contemporary social issues through an open and flexible 

seminar course. This course has created the opportunity for the students



303 

to discuss and debate topical and important national and global social 

issues including gender, family, religion, social identity, crime, famine 

and food security, environment, and globalization (SOSA 2006). 

The Department of SOSA at Addis Ababa University further reports 

that its sociology graduates have strong theoretical, methodological, and 

practical competencies in the socio-cultural dimensions of the process of 

urbanization, industrialization, and socio-economic development as well 

as their ramifications at the local, regional, national, and global levels. 

They are reportedly trained to follow the rich sociological tradition in 

developing and transmitting critical thinking and understanding of issues 

of social change and continuity, consensus and conflict, social action and 

structure, as well as individualism and social solidarity that underline the 

challenges of rapid urbanization, industrialization, and economic growth. 

They are offered courses that expose students to various sociological perspectives 

and methods of investigation concerning the processes of 

urbanization, industrialization, and socio-economic development. The 

graduates are provided a broad range of sociological perspectives and 

skills in designing and implementing socially viable and sustainable development 

programs and projects. Through their thesis and term papers, 

graduates are encouraged to coordinate and lead quality, multidisciplinary, 

basic, and applied research projects that take into account and integrate 

social and cultural dimensions in the development process. 

As the Department of SOSA (2006) states, “The Graduate Program in 

Sociology has begun to contribute towards the development of the discipline 

of sociology in the country by training high caliber sociologists in 

advanced sociological theory and research methods. It also responded to 

the research and teaching staff needs of the Department of Sociology and 

Social Anthropology as well as those of other higher learning and research 

institutions in the country. It has produced professional sociologists 

capable of managing and administering social development programs 

in the public, private, and civil-society sectors.” 

Despite the continuous revision of the sociology curriculum, one can 

see uniformity in the patterns and the origins of the courses. They seem 

to have been dominated by the orientation towards “Western theories,” 

which present themselves as “universal” knowledge and global perspectives 

in influencing sociological thinking. Little effort was exerted on 

indigenous theorizing and introducing alternative perspectives through 

courses grounded in Ethiopian and African social thinking as well as 

“Southern” social theories and philosophical pursuits (Sumner 1998; 

Connell 2007). 

These courses have had little opportunity to explore the social thinking 

and social movement discourses that have emerged and developed in

304 

Feleke Tadele 

the “South,” the Islamic world, or even in Ethiopia in both oral and written 

culture. For instance, Nereri’s African Socialism, Nelson Mandela’s 

social reconciliation, Kwame Nkrumah’ s model of social change and 

pan-Africanism, and Bantu Philosophy have significant relevance to the 

study of sociology, and they were not given due considerations in the 

courses which have so far been designed by the department. Similarly, 

the 19 th and 20 th century noblemen, intellectuals, and statesmen from 

Ethiopia; the literary works of Gebre Hiywet Baykedagn and Afework 

Gebre Yesus; the social significance and co-existence of the Ethiopian 

Orthodox Church and the Muslim League; and the role of significant 

numbers of Ethiopian social institutions which have continued to shape 

and re-shape social change process in Ethiopia were not covered well in 

the courses taught at the department. Furthermore, social movements and 

social philosophy from Asia like Sayyid Jamal ad-Din (Afghanistan) and 

Mahatma Gandi’s and Nehru’s thinking (India) could be included as alternative 

sources for sociological thinking and research in Ethiopia. 

Therefore, I argue that the Department of Sociology, Addis Ababa University, 

has done little to theorize indigenous thinking and introduce alternative 

perspectives through sociological courses grounded with 

“Southern” social theories and philosophical pursuits. 

THE RELEVANCE OF SOCIOLOGICAL STUDIES AND 

TRAINING TO DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE 

Since the 1990s, the growing recognition of the importance of participatory 

and sustainable development approaches in Ethiopia has created a positive, 

enabling environment for development practitioners (working for both 

government and non-governmental organizations) to work proactively with 

their target communities and community-based organizations. This, among 

other things, has created the demand for professional sociologists. Accordingly, 

the sociology department has enjoyed a massive increase in student 

enrollment at Addis Ababa University, and a growing number of students 

are employed in development policy and practice in government and nongovernment 

offices. Some assessments (Tadele and Admassu 1996) indicate 

that there has been a growing demand since the 1990s for the engagement 

of sociologists in development practice. This has coincided with the 

growing number of employment opportunities, notably in the nongovernmental 

organization (NGO) sector, and the integration of participatory 

development approaches into technical government ministries such as 

the Ministry of Water Resources and the Ministry of Works and Urban Development, 

which used to be less interested in social science graduates.



305 

Based on the analysis of organizational assessment data of an umbrella 

organization for the NGO sector in Ethiopia, Tadele (2006) reported 

that sociologists comprise 38% of the top six professional labor 

forces in the NGO/CSO sector that promote bottom-up development approach. 

They are followed by accountants (34%), health workers (13%), 

economists (7%), agronomists (6%), and engineers (3%). These sociologists 

are assigned to work in occupational areas that include community 

development / social sector development, community-based project management, 

gender and development, social policy and advocacy, as well as 

social survey and diagnosis work. 

Interviews with sociology professionals in the above areas of work 

reveal that they have played significant roles in conducting community 

diagnosis and social surveys whose findings have been used to design 

socially appropriate and economically cost-effective programs for poor 

urban and rural people. They have served as program officers or program 

managers of development initiatives that were intended to facilitate social 

change with the most vulnerable and socially deprived groups. With 

emerging contemporary development issues and current development 

work (such as HIV/AIDS, climate change, rural livelihoods, social capital, 

and local economic development), most of the interviewed sociology 

graduates indicated that some of the social theory courses that they have 

taken during their stay in the university were less relevant or too obsolete 

to be applied in their development work. They expect the Department of 

Sociology or ESSSWA to create the platform for refreshing their ideas 

and perspectives on contemporary social issues, development policies, 

and practices. 

THE ROLE OF THE ETHIOPIAN SOCIETY OF 

SOCIOLOGISTS, SOCIAL WORKERS, AND 

ANTHROPOLOGISTS (ESSSWA) IN 

LINKING SOCIOLOGICAL TRAINING AND RESEARCH 

The Ethiopian Society of Sociology, Social Work, and Anthropology 

(ESSSWA) was founded in June 1996 as a professional society of sociologists, 

social workers, and anthropologists. It currently has over 400 

members, who are working in various organizations in the NGO sector, 

higher learning institutions and universities, government offices, UN organizations, 

and grass roots civil society organizations and communities. 

The primary goal of ESSSWA, among other things, is to promote 

professional competence and ethics in the discipline of sociology and the 

widespread application of the discipline in poverty reduction and devel-

306 

Feleke Tadele 

opment. It also strives to develop members’ professional competence and 

enhance their effective contribution to the country’s development in their 

fields of specialization. It assists Government, NGOs and the private sector 

and communities in translating the various development policies and 

strategies into action. ESSSWA also advocates for the creation of a more 

enabling environment and the development of a vibrant civil society in 

the country, and it actively engages in policy analysis, research, and advocacy 

with a view to nurturing pluralism and offering alternative options. 

A closer look into the operational and policy environment in which 

ESSSWA is currently functioning reveals some considerable accomplishments. 

It has conducted annual conferences, which are believed to 

have created opportunities for the exchange of ideas and experiences 

among members. It has promoted empirical and policy oriented research 

and debates in pertinent social development issues, particularly child development. 

In this regard, the national professional association has initiated 

capacity-building seminars and short-term training workshops to 

strengthen the capacities of its members, particularly in relation to children 

development and social policy issues. It has now begun to establish 

and maintain links with continental and international professional associations 

like the International Sociological Association. 

Nevertheless, the national professional association has encountered 

gaps and challenges in its endeavors. There is the challenging task of 

making a meaningful contribution to the ongoing global and national 

fight against poverty. A critical gap relevant to the association’s mission 

and role in this regard is perhaps its ineffectiveness in working towards 

the creation of a policy and institutional environment that could help address 

the social dimensions of poverty such as social exclusion, neglect, 

and abuse, as well as rising social evils and problems such as the disintegration 

of the family, beggary, prostitution, homelessness, streetism, 

crime, and substance abuse. 

This professional association is also faced with the daunting challenge 

of bridging the current gap between social education and social 

practice in the country. Discussions held in this regard with members of 

ESSSWA, including both development practitioners and academics, indicated 

the existence of a visible gap between the system of social education 

and the system of social practice in the country. The former is said 

to be, by and large, theory-driven and in most cases outdated. This calls 

forth the need to make interventions that aim at bridging the gaps, particularly 

in the area of enabling the system of education to catch up with 

the reality on the ground and to be as effective as possible in solving 

problem on the ground.



307 

CHALLENGES OF SOCIOLOGICAL TRAINING AND 

STUDIES IN ETHIOPIA 

As noted in section three of this paper, the professional study of Ethiopian 

societies had been dominated by foreigners such as Bahrey in the 

16 th century, Abu Rumi in the late 18 th century, and Liq in the early 19 th 

century. However, in the 20 th century there were some intellectual contributions 

by a few Ethiopian scholars such as Gebre Hiywet Baykedagn 

and Afework Gebre Yesus, who studied issues that have significant social 

importance. Despite the continuous revision of the curriculum of sociology, 

one can see uniformity in the patterns and origins of the courses. 

They seem to have been dominated by an orientation toward “Western 

theories,” which present themselves as “universal” knowledge and global 

perspectives in influencing sociological thinking. Little effort was exerted 

on theorizing indigenous thinking and introducing alternative perspectives 

through courses grounded with Ethiopian and African social 

thinking, as well as “Southern” social theories and philosophical pursuits 

(Sumner 1998; Connell 2007; Pankhurst 1996). Sumner’s (1998) recent 

book on African Philosophy was also a significant contribution to theorizing 

African social thinking and philosophy. Instead of building on 

these contributions, the sociological courses at the Department of SOSA, 

Addis Ababa University, trace little back to social knowledge grounded 

in indigenous perspectives. This is further evidenced by the limited capacity 

of the Department of Sociology to promote academic research and 

generating a theoretically-embedded, policy-relevant, and cumulative 

body of knowledge. 

Another institutional factor that has challenged the quality of the 

study of sociology is the high student to instructor ratio (currently over 

90), which is almost four times what it used to be two decades ago. 

While it is encouraging to note the ever-increasing demand for sociological 

courses by students, the university cannot cope with the increasing 

demand for teachers and reading materials necessary to train such numbers 

of sociology students. These factors, along with the massive admission 

of students, have continued to threaten the quality of training and 

research activities in sociology (Admassie and Yntiso 2006). 

Furthermore, the absence of financial and budgetary resources, as 

well as the lack of incentives for researchers, has negatively affected the 

quality of teaching and research in sociology. There are little time, resources, 

and publishing opportunities available to university teachers, 

who are overloaded with teaching, administrative work, and a shortage of 

books and reference materials (Selassie and Admassie 1989).

308 

Feleke Tadele 

The Department of Sociology does not seem to have proactive relations, 

systematic engagement, or continuous linkage and collaboration 

with relevant governmental, non-governmental, and international partners. 

The scholarly relations and collaborations with similar sociology programs, 

particularly with other African research institutions, seem to be 

limited. 

The policy-making environment in the country seems to have little 

appreciation for using expert views and sociological research findings for 

key decision-making purposes. 


After a journey of almost half a century, sociological training and research 

at Addis Ababa University in Ethiopia is in a better state, as manifested 

through the design of curricula at the BA and MA levels, the availability 

of increased number of training and research staff, as well as the 

supply of books and other resource materials. 

The department’s sociological training has produced professionals 

who are serving their nation in various capacities. The training has provided 

vitally needed human resources for various governmental institutions 

as well as non-governmental organizations. The post-graduate program 

in sociology has strengthened the local capacity for social research 

and publication and provided the basis for sustainable teaching staff in 

sociology. 

In spite of these positive contributions, the training and research efforts 

in sociology have remained challenged by budget constraints, the 

absence of academic research, high teacher-student ratios, and lack of 

research and training incentives for university teachers. 

Above all, few attempts were made during the revision of the sociology 

curriculum to construct or draw “epistemological schemes” that are 

deeply rooted in and informed by social and academic thoughts from 

Ethiopia, Africa, and Asia. 

As Ethiopia now enters into its new millennium, it is important for 

the Department of Sociology and other social science scholars to engage 

in special projects that help them to revisit the relevance of sociological 

training and research in light of constructing an epistemological scheme 

and knowledge foundation that would help Ethiopia create an independent 

sociological view of itself and its social horizon. 

The end.



309 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Admassie, Yeraswork and Gebre Yntiso. “African Sociological Review 

10.1.2006.” CODESRIA. Dakar, Senegal, 2006. 

Connell, Raewyn. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge 

in Social Science. Australia: Southwood Press, 2007. 

ESSSWA. Strategic Plan Document: 2006-2008. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 

2006. 

Pankhurst, Alula, ed. Bulletin of the Founding Workshop of ESSSWA, 

Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, Social Workers, and Anthropologists. 

Addis Ababa, 1996. 

Pankhurst, Alula, ed. Proceedings of the Second Conference of ESSSWA, 

Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, Social Workers, and Anthropologists. 


Selassie, Seyoum G. and Yeraswork Admassie. “The Teaching of Anthropology 

and Sociology in Ethiopia.” In Seyoum G. Selassie and 

ei-Wathig Kameir, eds. Teaching and Research in Anthropology and 

Sociology in Eastern African Universities. New Delhi: OSSREA, 

1989. 

SOSA. Curriculum of the Bachelor of Arts Program in Sociology and 

Social Administration. Unpublished Document. 2003. 

-----. Revised Curriculum of the Master of Arts Program in Sociology. 

Unpublished Document. 2006. 

Sumner, Claude. African Philosophy. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa University 

Press, 1998. 

Tadele, Feleke. “Diary of A Misunderstood Sociologist.” In Pankhurst, 

Alula, ed. Bulletin of the Founding Workshop of ESSSWA, the Ethiopian 

Society of Sociologists, Social Workers, and Anthropologists. 


----- and Anania Admassu. “The Contributions of Sociologists, Social 

Workers, and Anthropologists.” In Pankhurst Alula, ed. Proceedings 

of the Second Conference of ESSSWA, Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, 

Social Workers, and Anthropologists. Addis Ababa, 1999.

310 

Challenges for a Global Sociology

Challenges for a Global Sociology 311 

CONTENTS 

VOLUME ONE: INTRODUCTION, LATIN AMERICA AND AFRICA 

Preface 


PART I: INTRODUCTION 

1.Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology 

Michael Burawoy, University of California, Berkeley, USA 

2.Challenges Facing Human Society in the 21 st Century 

Yuan-Tseh Lee, Academia Sinica, Taiwan 

3.Sociology in Times of Crisis 

Michel Wieviorka, École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France 

4.The Imperative and the Challenge of Diversity: Reconstructing Sociological Traditions 

in an Unequal World 


PART II: LATIN AMERICA 

5.Revitalizing the Sociological View in Latin America 

Marcos Supervielle, Universidad de la República Oriental del Uruguay, Uruguay 

6.On the Internationalization of Brazilian Academic Sociology 

Tom Dwyer, State University of Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil 

7.The Dialogue between Criminology and the South’s Sociology of Violence: The 

Policing Crisis and Alternatives 

José-Vicente Tavares dos Santos, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil 

8.Challenges for and Practices in the Sociology of Work in Mexico: Between Global 

Paradigms and Local Development Paradigms 

Jorge Carrillo, El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (COLEF), Mexico 

9.Publishing Sociological Journals in Argentina: Problems and Challenges 

Alicia Itatí Palermo, Council of Professional Sociologists, Argentina 

10.Sociology, Technology Parks, Applied Research, and International Accreditation 

Napoleon Velástegui Bahamonde, University of Guayaquil, Ecuador 

PART III: AFRICA 

11.Practical Responses to the Challenges for Sociology in the Face of Global Inequality 

Layi Erinosho, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Nigeria

312 

Challenges for a Global Sociology 

12.Social Sciences in Egypt: The Swinging Pendulum between Commodification and 

Criminalization 

Mona Abaza, American University in Cairo, Egypt 

13.South African Sociology: Current Challenges and Future Implications: A Review and 

Some Empirical Evidence from the 2007 National Survey of Sociology Departments 

Mokong Simon Mapadimeng, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa 

14.Resistance to Rating: Resource Allocation, Academic Freedom and Citizenship 

Tina Uys, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa 

15.Poverty Fighters in Academia: The Subversion of the Notion of Socially Engaged 

Science in the Mozambican Higher Education System 


University of Cape Town, South Africa 

16.Challenges of Doing Sociology in a Globalizing South: Between Indigenization and 

Emergent Structures 

Ifeanyi P. Onyeonoru, University of Ibadan, Nigeria 

17.Globalization, Sociological Research, and Public Policy in Nigeria: A Critical Analysis 

of the Relevance of Socio-Legal Research to the Development Needs of Nigeria 

Abdul-Mumin Sa’ad, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria 

18.The Relevance of Sociological Studies and Training for Social Realities, Development 


Feleke Tadele, Ethiopian Society of Sociologists, Social Workers, and Anthropologists, 

Ethiopia 

VOLUME TWO: ASIA 

PART IV: WESTERN ASIA 

19.Donor Community and the Market of Research Production: Framing and De-Framing 

the Social Sciences 

Sari Hanafi, American University of Beirut, Lebanon 

20.A Critical Review of the Iranian Attempts at the Development of Alternative 

Sociologies 

Mohammad Amin Ghaneirad, National Research Institute for Science Policy, Iran 

21.Israeli Sociology's Position in International Sociology and the Challenges It Faces 

Sammy Smooha, University of Haifa, Israel 

22.The Center-Periphery Relationship between Turkish and Western Sociologies 

Aytül Kasapoğlu, Nilay Çabuk Kaya, and Mehmet Ecevit, Sociological Association of 

Turkey


23.Challenges for Sociology in Azerbaijan 

Abulfaz D. Suleymanov, Institute of Philosophy, Sociology and Law, Azerbaijan 

National Academy of Sciences, Azerbaijan 

24.Modernization of Sociology in Post-Soviet Armenia 

Gevorg Poghosyan, Armenian Sociological Association 

25.Challenges to Sociology in the Gulf States: A Case Study of Kuwait 

Fahad Al-Naser, Kuwait University, Kuwait 

PART V: ASIA-PACIFIC 

26.The Definition and Types of Alternative Discourses 

Syed Farid Alatas, National University of Singapore, Singapore 

27.Indigenization, Institutionalization, and Internationalization: Tracing the Paths of the 

Development of Sociology in Taiwan 

Mau-kuei Chang, Ying-hwa Chang, Chih-chieh Tang, Academia Sinica, Taiwan 

28.Are Asian Sociologies Possible Universalism versus Particularism 

Yoshimichi Sato, Tohoku University, Japan 

29.Doing Sociology in Native Languages in a Globalizing World: Thinking about its 

Significance and Difficulty in Japan 

Takashi Machimura, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan 

30.Antipodes: Australian Sociology’s Struggles with Place, Memory, and Neoliberalism 

Raewyn Connell, University of Sydney, Australia 

31.New Zealand Sociology in a Neoliberal Era: Strands of Political Economy in New 

Zealand Social Science 

Charles Crothers, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand 

32.Contesting Mainstream Sociology and Developing Alternative Public Sociologies in 

Indonesia 

Rochman Achwan and Iwan G. Sujatmiko, University of Indonesia, Jakarta 

33.Policy-Driven Research, Audit Culture, and Power: Transforming Sociological 

Practices in the Philippines 

Emma Porio, Ateneo de Manila University, Philippines 

34.Vietnamese Farmers Face the WTO: Implications for Sociology 

Vu Hao Quang, Institute of Public Opinion Research, Vietnam 

35.Sociological Enterprise at the Periphery: The Case of Sri Lanka 

Siri Hettige, University of Colombo, Sri Lanka 

36.Indian Sociology Faces the World 

Ishwar Modi, India International Institute of Social Sciences, Jaipur, India 

37.Fifty Years of Bangladesh Sociology: Towards a “Hybrid Sociology” 

Shaikh Mohammad Kais, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh

314 

Challenges for a Global Sociology 

VOLUME THREE: EUROPE AND CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 

PART VI: WESTERN, NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN EUROPE 

38.Diversity or Fragmentation in Europe’s Sociology: Lessons to be Learned 

Christian Fleck, University of Graz, Austria 

39.The Relevance of Relevance: Social Sciences and Social Practice in Post-Positivistic 

Society 

Pekka Sulkunen, University of Helsinki, Finland 

40.Mode 2 Sociologies in Denmark From Crisis to Stabilization in Times of Pressures for 

Policy-Relevant Research, 1980s-2000s 

Kristoffer Kropp and Anders Blok, Copenhagen University, Denmark 

41.The Increasingly Dominated Fraction of the Dominant Class: French Sociologists 

Facing the Challenges of Precarity and Middle Class Destabilization 

Louis Chauvel, Sciences Po, Paris, France 

42.The International Benchmarking of Sociology: The Case of the UK 

John Holmwood, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom 

43.Our (Scientific) Community and Our Society: Rethinking the Role and Dilemmas of 

National Sociological Associations:The Portuguese Case 

Luis Baptista and Paulo Machado, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal 

44.Facing a Globalizing World: Some Suggestions for a Global Sociology 

Marina Subirats, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Spain 

PART VII: EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE 

45.Sociology in Eastern Europe or East European Sociology: Historical and Present 

Janusz Mucha, AGH University of Science and Technology, Poland 

46.Internal and External Models in Hungarian Sociology 

Dénes Némedi, Eötvös University, Hungary 

47.Value-Free Sociology: Withstanding Political Pressures 

Georgy Fotev, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria 

48.The Role of Theory: Sociology's Response to the Bologna Educational Reform in 

Croatia 

Inga Tomić-Koludrović, University of Zadar, Croatia 

49.Changes and Problems of Russian Sociology 

Valery A. Mansurov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia 

50.Challenges to Teaching Sociology in Slovakia Posed by Entry into the European Union 

Rastislav Bednárik, Institute of Labour and Family Research, Slovak Republic


PART VIII: CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS 

51.Practical Responses to the Challenges for Sociology in the Face of Global Inequality 

Jan Marie Fritz, University of Cincinnati, USA 

52.Reflections on the ISA National Associations Conference on Sociology in an Unequal 

World 

Devorah Kalekin-Fishman, University of Haifa, Israel 

53.Facing an Unequal Sociology: Comments and Suggestions 

Arturo Rodriguez Morato, Universidad de Barcelona, Spain

Download the Complete Volume 1 - Academia Sinica

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?