Orientalist-Eurocentric Framing of Sociology in India

A Discussion on Three Twentieth-Century Sociologists

Datos Bibliográficos

ID20048035
AutoresSujata Patel (0000-0002-6785-5981, autor de correspondencia)
Año2013
Páginas105-128
Fecha de publicación2013-08-22
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoCHAPTER
RevistaDecentering Social Theory Political Power and Social Theory (SOURCE_BOOK)
EditorialEmerald Group Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1108/s0198-8719(2013)0000025010
OpenAlexW2475854531
ISBN9781781907269
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas7
Referencias citadas17

This chapter shifts contemporary debates on Eurocentrism from its focus on European social theory to an analysis of its moorings in non-Atlantic sociological traditions and especially those within ex-colonial countries. It discusses the sociological/anthropological visions of two first generation sociologists/anthropologists from India, G. S. Ghurye (1893–1983) and D. P. Mukerji (1894–1961), within Orientalist-Eurocentric positions and explores how these are reinvented in the work of contemporary sociologist T. N. Madan (1933–). It suggests that colonial processes and its institutions together with “derivative” nationalist ideas have played and continue to play important mediatory role in organizing these Orientalist-Eurocentric visions. The chapter presents three sets of arguments. First it suggests that in order to understand postcolonialism it is imperative to lay out the organic links between Orientalism and Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism and its mirror Orientalism mediated to frame social science language in terms of the binaries of universal (the West) and particular (the East). The particular was represented in India through the discipline of anthropology. The latter studied “traditions” through the themes of religion, caste, and family and kinship. When sociology emerged as a discipline in India in the early twentieth century, it continued to use the language organized by anthropology to analyze the particular cultural traditions of the country. Second, I suggest that these binaries also framed nationalist thought and the latter mediated in framing the sociological ideas of G. S. Ghurye and D. P. Mukerji which were embedded in Eurocentric-Orientalist principles. Third, I analyze the ideas of the contemporary social theorist T. N. Madan to indicate how his perspective continues to derive its positions from Orientalist-Eurocentric positions and ignores an engagement with critics who have questioned Orientalist Eurocentrism. Disregarding these arguments implies the legitimation of the latter perspective derived from the disciplines of sociology/anthropology. The chapter contends that a decolonized critique of colonial social science has existed in other regions of the world including India, and that this perspective needs to be retrieved by social theorists to reformulate the sociological discourse as a study of modern India. It also suggests that contemporary analysis of Eurocentrism needs to move out from within the circuits of knowledge defined by received colonial geopolitical enclaves in order to assess the way production, distribution, and consumption of Orientalist-Eurocentric perspectives have organized sociological traditions across the world including the Global South

Caste · Colonialism · Epistemology · Eurocentrism · Modernity · Nationalism · Orientalism · Political science · Politics · Social science · Sociology · Theology · Vision · Anthropological Studies and Insights · Anthropology · Gender Studies · History · Law · Philosophy · Race, History, and American Society · Religion and Society Interactions