1 Introducing the course and its perspective from sociological theory to social theory

Deblina Dey and Dev Pathak

Introduction

In the 19th century, several disciplines in the realm of social sciences, political science, economics, philosophy existed to explain different aspects of the society. The need for sociology as a distinct discipline required justifications, and it successfully proved itself unique in engaging with society by studying the „social‟ in a way that no other discipline did. The point of significance in this is that each discipline carved itself out and had unique focal points for studying social stasis and change. The gatekeepers of each discipline „policed‟ the domain of knowledge that each represented and specialized in (Massey 1999:6).

Sociology as we know of today is the methodologically formalized discourse that was instituted by the forerunners of the discipline, like Auguste Comte and Emile Durkheim among others. Embroiled with the historical necessity of the discipline was the need for a specific subject matter and its corresponding method to study that unique subject matter that would distinguish itself from all other academic disciplines. The pioneering work by Durkheim for instance, „The Rules of Sociological Method‟ (1895) laid down the foundation for a technical, formal, academic discipline of sociology.

This course deals with theoretical components of sociological knowledge and it‟s opening of the boundaries in the wake of the acknowledgment of plural knowledges. The latter does not necessarily belong to any of the clearly defined academic spaces, but accommodates alternate histories, plural existences, and culturally significant knowledges belonging to more lucid and transitory modes of engagement with society.This module is aimed at introducing the reader to the different modules under the heading of contemporary social theory, as one would notice, from more sociologically structured modules to include an understanding that sociology cannot be bound and contained within only university academic jargons and must consider the existence of voices and articulations from various locations, termed in the political discussions as „margins‟, „periphery‟ and „below‟. This change in nature of theorizing is evident from unit 6 onwards. Contemporary transformation of society towards a more global modernity or „liquid‟ (that is, fluid) modernity from a more compact, Eurocentric discourse on modernity (predicated on its universalistic character), necessitates that the critical mind notices this transformation and takes into account the growing body of work and theorizing from the erstwhile colonial countries. These departures from gand narratives to micro-narratives, from one mode of universalizing to another, were by and large anticipatedin the critical revisiting of the questions of social order, capitalism, and power-structure. This course with reference to various modules hint this amply.

Important to this module are the two critical moments or phases of transition that will be discussed in detail. At each of these moments the move away from the preordinaed mode of social theorising becomes all the more prominent. One is the period post Second World War in the 1950s. The second phase is the period post Washington Consensus, time period around the early 1990s which is identified as the period of globalization, liberalization and privatization. The first period is a critique of the utility of the grand overarching theories that classical sociology was aiming at developing. The second took that to a level at which the nature of modernity itself was transforming towards the „liquid‟ modernity, and social theories became all the more accommodative of cognitive pluralism.

Transformation in History and Early Sociological Concerns

Before venturing into the domain of the substantive notions of the two kinds of theories – the„ sociological‟ and the „social‟ theory, it is important for us to understand the historical trajectory over which the transition from sociological to social theories took place. The role of history in this transition makes it almost self-explanatory for understanding the difference between the two. Classical sociology tried to capture the social and political changes that were taking place in the late 18th and 19th century Europe. The theories and explanations about society were largely in the framework characterised by grandness. Whether about increasing rates of suicides by Durkheim, highly bureaucratic modes of existence in the industrial societies, of the state and other aspects of life as spoken about by Weber or the revolutionary route to overcome the alienation experienced by working class people in European capitalist societies as illustrated by Marx– all these were grand sociological theories. They aimed at capturing the nature of social changes that ensued after the various revolutions in Europe over the 18th and 19th centuries. American sociology, whose ascendancy was slightly different from European sociology, was not much different to the latter in nature of theorizing to the extent that it epitomized the scientific, universalistic approach to societal issues through grand theories. The best example is that of Talcott Parsons in the first half of the 20th century. The „sociological imagination‟ to link social realities to the theories seemed weak and the theories of this genre seemed much disconnected from empirical experiences (Mills 1959).

Till about the Second World War ended in 1945, sociology‟s concerns were primarily with theories that originated from the Western part of the globe. Histories of other cultures and peoples were sidelined and not considered important, as they were considered not capable of generating theories of their own (Spivak 2003). Sociological thinking was coloured by changes in the „modern‟ society and these were contrasted with the „traditional‟ societies; the latter generally coinciding with the various colonies of the European nations. The world existed in binaries and the implications were evident in the works of late 19th and early 20th century sociological thinkers. This polarized cosmos, however, soon came to terms with the undercurrents of the liberation movements and counter discourse everywhere in the mid 19th century. Around this time, several moments of resistances (physical and metaphorical) were taking place which questioned the validity of universal, grand theories.

The Role of Frankfurt School and Generation of New Ideas and Approaches

The transition from sociological to social theories signifies that moment in history where an impetus to interdisciplinarity within sociology arose and was to an extent inevitable because of the failure of universal models of sociological explanations to document reality adequately. It was the Frankfurt School (initially located in Europe, which after the extermination of Jews by Hitler in Nazi Germany was shifted to New York and finally was relocated to Germany in 1953) that brought forth a new vision or rather different visions of studying society. The contradictory events that were taking place in the West went against the predictions of the sociological theorists. For instance, capitalism was not „overthrown‟ by the proletariat revolutions. Instead of the working class revolting against the exploitative capitalist or bourgeoisie class, they were pacified in such a way so as to enable the continuation of the exploitative rule underpinning capitalist mode of production. Also, Frankfurt school pointed out the fallacy of reason and the eclipsed application of rationality and science to propagate racist ideologies.

One must note significant societal churnings that were in the process at the time roughly coinciding with the end of the Second World War. Firstly, as Delanty (1999) has observed, there was the disillusionment and thorough critique of the Enlightenment tradition and glorification of instrumental reason and the European experience of totalitarianism. There was an increasing recognition given to the role of culture which till then was seen as regressive, „decadent and irreversibly in decline‟ (Feagin and Vera 2001:43).

Also, the violence and brutality unleashed by the First World War was a blow to the „promise of Enlightenment‟ and upheld the belief that modernity (period which began with the Enlightenment) was approaching its end (Feagin and Vera 2001). Secondly, orthodox Marxism underwent a crisis moment in which the revolutionary potential was fizzling out and subsequently channelized into reformist agendas. Hence the rise of praxis philosophy which stressed the importance of sync between theory and practice arose in the neo-Marxist literature (See Unit 4). An urge to root out capitalism and bring about a counter- hegemonic system of and by the working class would take place only when theoretical Marxism was to be re-linked with ground exercises of revolts (Gramsci 1999). Toward this, „organic intellectuals‟ as Gramsci opines, articulate the needs of the working class people, comprehend the political and economic interplay of power and resources and prevent culture from being used as medium of domination and subjugation of masses. This shows the revisiting of the older concerns. Over the course of time, the „revival of social conflicts in many of the advanced capitalist countries eroded the credibility of the dominant sociological paradigm, U.S structural functionalism which stressed the integration and value consensus of societies. It also encouraged a revival of Marxist social theory, which had been marginalized in the “free world” with the beginning of the Cold War and perverted into the official state doctrines of Marxism-Leninism and “scientific communism” in the socialist countries. Marxism came back in a variety of forms, ranging from dogmatic orthodoxy to the Neomarxism of Yugoslav “praxis philosophy” or Frankfurt School “critical theory”‟ (Andersen and Kaspersen 2000:6).

The arrival of the neo-Marxists of the Frankfurt school, like Horkheimer, Althusser, Adorno, Habermas marked the scene in which explanations for the various phenomenon, for example the rise of authoritarian personalities, were sought from other disciplines like psychoanalysis, cultural studies and literature and history. The disciplinary boundaries were being unsettled and readjusted for the purpose of accommodating multiple views. Psycholoanalysis for example was used to study religion (Erich Fromm) rather than studying religion purely through sociological categories of time, space and social relations. Habermas brings Freud and Marx together in his work „Eros and Civilization‟. Likewise the other New Left thinkers did not belong to any one discipline. Their interests, mode of inquiry and writings about society reflected an overlapping matrix of multidisciplinary approaches. This period was marked by the rising sensitivity towards the futile attempts to restrict social science research to boundaries of „technical‟ sociology. What could be more illustrative of this claim than Horkheimer‟s inaugural lecture titled „The Present Situation of Social Philosophy and the Tasks of an Institute for Social Research‟. Horkheimerhighlightedfutility of disciplinary boundary and gave thrust to an interpenetration of ideas from the sciences and the philosophy, both of which were considered opposed in their nature. Philosophical ideas are often thought as „pleasant but scientifically fruitless enterprise‟ since it cannot be subjected to experimental control (Horkheimer 1931). Challenging this observation, Horkheimer enlightens us that there is a „dialectical penetration and development of philosophical theory and specialized scientific praxis. The relations between natural philosophy and natural science, as a whole and within the individual natural sciences, offer good examples of this approach. Chaotic specialization will not be overcome by way of bad syntheses of specialized research results, just as unbiased empirical research will not come about by attempting to reduce its theoretical element to nothing. Rather, this situation can be overcome to the extent that philosophy – as a theoretical undertaking oriented to the general, the “essential” – is capable of giving particular studies animating impulses, and at the same time remains open enough to let itself be influenced and changed by these concrete studies‟ (Horkheimer 1931). This aptly captures the pulsating need of relaxing the academic fencing and specializations in social sciences in the middle part of the 20th century. He also makes us sensitive to the importance of„ critical theories‟ as opposed to traditional-scientific theories, which overlook hierarchical relations and questions of power and inequality in society.

In their work „The Uncertain Science: Criticism of Sociological Formalism‟, Gurnah and Scott (1992) critique the excessive baggage of formalism that classical sociology carries with itself. They opine that „unless sociology rids itself of its formalism and once again turns to its historical and contextual project, our political ideas and moral outlook will lag behind international social and political struggles‟ (1992:11). This outlook was propagated in a discussion during the establishment of the Frankfurt School establishment. They point out sociology‟s capacity as a „liberative‟ science, with potential for struggles of emancipation, but the obsession with philosophical formalism disconnects it from the avenues of struggle and makes it limited in scope.

Thestrict academic formalism and a shift in the nature of social science theorizing came about through Neofunctionalism and Critical Theory of Frankfurt School. Unit 2 and Unit 3 discuss this transformation. Neofunctionalism, which was the successor of Parsonian functionalism acknowledged the importance of other methodologies of studying human phenomena, like symbolic-interactionism, ethnomethodology and phenomenology. Critical hermeneutics became an essential part of social theories. As Habermas notes„ meanings and understanding of meanings cannot be disassociated from relation of power and domination and the attempt to transcend them‟ (Andersen and Kaspersen 2000: 12). It is argued that critical hermeneutics gathers the strengths from the often contradictory approaches of individualism and holism, opposition between structure and agency, materialism and idealism – all these are not to be seen as„ fundamental meta-theoretical choices to be made once and for all at the beginning of the inquiry but as posing issues to be argued but in concrete terms, in relation to specific social situations located in time and space‟ (Andersen and Kaspersen 2000: 12). Hence it can be seen that contradictions in methods of doing research were also brought together, just as Horkheimer in his inaugural speech had spoken about.

Sociological and Social Theory: Continuation or Contradiction?

Moreover, any research proposal in sociology must defend its argument of what is distinctly„ sociological‟ in the topic of research chosen? What makes it different from any other discipline like political science, for example? The constant struggle to establish the formal boundary is, even in contemporary times, a matter of grave relevance to the academia. Such disciplinary priesthood often overlooks that questions around social phenomena could be better explained by an explanation from other social science disciplines as well. Sociology makes us see the society in a certain way. Social theory defies that singular perception of society and challenges classifications laid down by „formal‟ sociology (Gouldner 1971). Social theory enables one to look at the creative interplay between various sociological categories and other social science theories.

Andersen and Kaspersen (2000) in their book titled „Classical and Modern Social Theory‟ try to overcome like many of the late 20th century writers the sociological formalism of explanations. They valorise the term „social theory‟ in place of sociological theory and say that „we need a very broad term of this kind to refer to work which doesn‟t fall squarely within the boundaries of sociology or the other social sciences or of philosophy or any other single academic discipline‟ (Andersen and Kaspersen 2000:4). In this wake, sociology must take into account philosophies and thoughts from literature and history.

For instance, they opine that Sartre and Foucault though not „sociologists‟ per se, are vital to the growth of sociological thought. „Any account of contemporary sociology which did not address the contribution of such thinkers as these would be seriously incomplete (2000:4).Another example through which the widening of the scope of sociological theories can be illustrated is Mill‟s work „The Sociological Imagination‟ (1959). The title of the book itself became representative of the shifting method of studying society. Such „imagination‟ made sociology more elastic in the sense that it promoted the understanding of the network formed between the personal „troubles‟ and larger, societal, historical „issues‟. Thus, linking „biography‟ with the „history‟ depicted a novel way in which social theory was to explain phenomena without falling into the trap of methodological contradictions (for example, individual versus society debates).

In the period after the Second World War, the decolonization movements were a moment of challenge to dominant paradigm of structural-functionalism (of Durkheim, Radcliffe-Brown, Parsons). The classical sociologists engaged in understanding conflict from the perspective of „what makes order possible‟? The role of conflict was seen „as an aspect of “stable” societies, particularly in terms of how various forms of institutionalized conflict operated or “functioned” to help maintain the existing socio-political order‟ (Nordstrom and Martin 1992:21). However, the various liberation struggles that were taking place in several countries, made it necessary for social scientists to acknowledge the different conflicting interests of various groups and these could not be understood with respect to a singular „model of functional equilibrium and systems maintenance‟ (Nordstrom and Martin 1992:21). The work of Peter Winch titled„ Idea of a Social Science‟ (1958) was one of the early attempts to note the incompetency of the idea of a single form of Western rationality. Calhoun (1993) throws light on Winch‟s recognition of „plurality of standards of rationality‟ since according to the latter „it was irrevocably the case that different cultures had different standards of judgment‟ (Calhoun 1993:252). It was around the mid 20th century, as Power (2010) opines that „different theoretical paradigms began to form and there were many more sociologists to apply them, there was an explosion of work that bore fruit‟ (2010:246).

Thus, two things happened at the same time. Firstly there was a move towards incorporating different methods of studying the world and secondly, there was a move towards acknowledging pluralism in social theory, or „difference and diversity‟ (Andersen and Kaspersen 2000: 12). One can argue that social theory was not in contradiction to sociological theories, but transcended them and expanded the idea of the „sociological‟. Social theory was in continuation with the sociological and the latter had become more elastic in nature due to the historical changes taking place (as discussed before) in the global landscape which made it necessary to accommodate pluralistic viewpoints.

Unwinding Colonial Rule and Challenges to Universal Paradigms

The transformation of the nature of sociological analysiscan also be located in the way in which plural voices from the margins were recognized and a critical attitude was developed towards Eurocentric scheme of thinking in general, pertaining to development in particular. The belief that the colonies or the „ underdeveloped‟ countries would benefit if they followed the trajectory of development (through industrialization) as taken by the Western countries was being challenged. On the contrary, it was argued that the increased contact with the so-called developed countries was causing the „development of underdevelopment‟ (Frank cited in So 1990:97). Hence, as opposed to the Modernization Theories, the Dependency Theories of Samir Amin (1960s) and World Systems Theories of Immanuel Wallerstein (1970s) appealed to the academic imagination.Colonization and subsequent decolonization engendered a unique experience in the colonies. Decolonialization was itself a form of resistance and opposition to imposition of universalistic categories and predictions(of development) by the erstwhile colonial countries. One can take the example of Frantz Fanon‟s decolonialization theory, defensive of the concepts of social justice and human rights approach (dignity to all humans). Decolonization left the people of the colonies with certain crucial decisions to be made regarding violence. As colonialism was steeped in a culture of violence against the governed, decolonization asked if violence (which had become a part of the life-world of the colonies) was to be absorbed within the newly independent society, used against some of theirown, or if violence was to be used against the original perpetrators or the „First World‟ nations, post independence? Fanon‟s decolonization theory recognised the importance of the native populace to „take up his or her responsible subjecthood‟ and refusal to occupy the position of „violence- absorbing passive victim‟.There was recognition that in the sphere of knowledge production, there existed a dependency on concepts, which were centredon Western experiences. The call for autonomy from such academic dependency was being made at the same time (Alatas 2003). The critique of modernity and quest for other forms of modernities was being made.

In the wake of the historical churnings, from the mid decades of the 20th century, the nature of sociological reasoning and theorizing underwent a drastic change. Delanty highlights „that the historical model of transition from traditional society to modern society is no longer viable and social theory ought, instead, to focus on the dissolution of the modern from a single pattern into various trajectories‟ (Bhambra 2007:65). The crisis in sociological explanations peaked during the 1960s and 70s. Quoting Therborn, Himmelstrand writes, „the formative generational experiences, the turn in the Vietnam War, and the May events in France were unpredicted and arousing events which made the so-called sunshine sociologists of consensus, role differentiation and manifest and latent functions look somewhat less trustworthy than their academic credentials seem to warrant‟ (Himmelstrand 1986:3). The classical sociological tradition of functionalism, more popularly known as „structural-functionalism‟ and evolutionary perspective were losing their popularity. Society could no longer be seen as a linear progression from a condition of less development to that of higher development as in the Western countries. The rise of neo-Marxism around 1950s consolidated the Dependency perspective which viewed increased contacts with the developed West as a means of drain of wealth and source of impoverishment in the colonies or „peripheries‟ or „satellites‟ as they were called. They proposed that these newly independent countries should have very few contacts with the „core‟ or metropolis‟ that is, the industrial countries of the West.

In the 1970s, Wallenstein‟s work gave a further impetus towards inter-disciplinary studies. According to him the World System Perspective was „not a theory but a protest…against the ways in which social scientific inquiry was structured for all of us at its inception in the middle nineteenth century‟ (So 1990:171). Much in tune with Horkheimer‟s distinction between traditional-scientific and critical theory, Wallerstein also critiques the traditional theories of being overly determined by their subject matter. „The disciplines have organizations with boundaries, structures and personnel to defend their collective interests in the universities and in the research worlds‟ (So 1990:171). Wallerstein highlights that with evolution of societies, the lines between economic and political, primitive and civilized has become blurred and thus, he „rejects this artificial disciplinary boundary‟ (So 1990:174). Thus, the Dependency and World System Perspectives are in continuation with the critical theory and neo-Marxist perspective in their articulation of a single path to modernity as a problem.

Binaries and Beyond

In Edward Said‟s famous work Orientalism, he contends that„… the imaginative examination of things Oriental was based more or less exclusively upon a sovereign Western consciousness out of whose unchallenged centrality an Oriental world emerged, first according to general ideas about who or what was an Oriental, then according to a detailed logic governed not simply by empirical reality but by a battery of desires, repressions, investments, and projections….‟ (Ashcroft 2003:90). The modernization theory (which was to be succeeded by the Dependency and World System analyses) was predicated upon the clear ontological difference between the European superior culture and the „Others‟, or a dichotomy between the Occidental and the Oriental. It was the white man‟s burden to „civilize‟ the Orient, through showing the path to greater progress (which was to be of a material kind). As Patel remarks that „a notion of linear time affirmed a belief that social life and its institutions emerging in Europe from around the fourteenth century onwards, would now influence the making of the new world. In so doing, it “silenced” its own imperial experience and its violence, without which it could not have become modern. These assumptions framed the ideas elaborated by Georg W.F Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and the Encyclopaedists, and were incorporated in the classical sociology to a great extent. No wonder these theories legitimized the control and domination of the rest of the world through episteme of coloniality‟ (Patel cited in Jayaram 2014:58). It was the West which qualified as „modern‟ because it displayed all the characteristics of modernity (rationality, empiricism, individualism) and the East being different from the West, was hence „traditional‟. This polarity was created and hierarchy thus generated. The sociological theories were concerns of the troubled Western society, the issues being located primarily in processes, institutions and way of life gone wrong in the modern, industrial societies. With the modern project of colonialism, the traditional, non-modern was to be made modern for their society‟s own betterment.

However, soon after the nationalist struggles for freedom began in various parts of the colonial world, it was realized that various medium of knowledge, in the form of poetry, narratives, songs and various other congregational modes were used to reclaim spaces and articulate the desire to throw out the British administrators, for instance in India. Understanding of one‟s society was articulated by several thinkers during the nationalist movement in India. None of these thinkers and personalities were „sociologists‟ per se, however, their ruminations or contemplative explanations were about society. For instance, in Indian context, some wrote against the caste system and preached unity of all people, irrespective of religion or other ethnic differences. Gandhi, Periyar, Aurobindo, Ambedkar, Tagore cannot be bounded by any discipline. They are relevant to social thought as part of the larger cosmos of knowledge production. Postcolonial writers like Ashis Nandy and Partha Chatterjee are important in sociology and it would be unwise to not consult their works for understanding Indian society. Thus, the point of significance that can be made here is that it was around the same time when the Frankfurt school theorists were claiming an interdependent approach to research around the 1950s, Indian social thought (as one example of colonized country) was bustling with different kinds of expressions around important societal issues, which were culture-specific and not technically only sociological in nature. Interestingly, Patel (2006) tells us that sociology in India at its inception period was disconnected from the experiences of Indian people. What were taught in the beginning were concepts and processes that Indian students could not directly relate. Patel suggests that they were Western experiences. The popular social consciousness in India was linked with the felt needs of Indian society. Here we see a demarcation of social and sociological in the Indian context. What was „sociological‟ in the universities was notions propagated by the Western scholars. It was their constructions of binaries of the world that academia was interested in, then. A gradual process of „indigenizing‟ the knowledge stemmed from early sociologists like D.P Mukherjee and M.N Srinivas, who began exploring the Indian society and came up with an insiders‟ perspective (Patel 2006). One should remind here that there was an inherent danger in this initiative; it was that it could lead to essentializingindigeneity in a way so as to give into the tempting categories postulated by western sociology (Patel 2006). In short, quest for „alternative and different tradition‟ was in reaction to the binaries of western and eastern. To correct the course, Patel proposes for an international comparative position that could compare the subject positions and interconnections between the local and global levels (Patel 2006: 391).

The sociological imagination pushes us towards connecting the global events and changes with the local processes of change. The struggle for independence in India was not taking place is isolation. In terms of knowledge construction, the modernization theories and other meta-narratives which drew upon the polarity of the world into modern and traditional were problematized at two levels. The specificity of cultures and their historical complexes were being recognized. It was understood that ideas existed and generated from the colonized worlds. Secondly, methodologically, theories lost the charm of having sweeping, universal claims and the motive of theory became to look a singular issue holistically. The later units and thereof modules in this paper elaborate upon it with reference to an eclectic selection of thinkers.

The move towards social theories, and enhanced porosity of academic disciplinary fences, is also a result of „fluidity of identities and its different manifestations, which demands a fresh perspective to assess and examine the world; the complexity needs to be perceived through many prisms‟ (Patel 2010:1). While it is true that „globalization of sociological knowledge‟ has been a phenomenon since the very beginning of the initiation of the discipline; yet from the late 1980s onwards there has been a change in the structure of the world in a way that was hitherto unknown. As Patel writes, the move has been towards „global integration‟ with different kinds of „trans-border flows and movements‟ (2010:55). In the wake of transitions in 1980s, social theories began to recognise the existence of „multiple modernities‟ (Eisenstadt 2000) and „entangled modernities‟ (Therborn 2003) as opposed to a singular, Euro-American model of modernity. The various undercurrents of modernity are discussed in the latter modules of this paper. Claims of multiple modernities reached a new level in the 1980s and as Bhambra (2007) puts it very pertinently „Decolonization in the 1960s was followed by the fall of communism in Europe in the late 1980s and 1990s. The perceived seismic shift in the global order – in particular, globalization being seen as the creation of a world market after the break up of the Soviet dominated economic bloc – renewed sociological debates about the nature of the modern world leading to the development of a new paradigm, that of multiple modernities‟ (2007:57). The second turn in sociological thinking is roughly after the„ crisis in sociology‟ (Himmelstrand 1986) of the 1970s that we have already discussed above. In Unit 6 onwards we tread towards this second turn. Himmelstrand (1986) for instance observes that „the pluralistic confusion or simply blown-up complementary ideas was only the beginning of the crisis‟ (1986:3). The second turn, engendering multidimensional sociology, is identified as „late modernity‟ following Zygmunt Bauman, Ulrich Beck and Anthony Giddens. It alludes to a continuation of modernity in the global, capitalist societies in which erstwhile bonds of social relations and institutions are undergoing a significant structural changes and many existing only like „zombie institutions‟ (Bauman 2000: 6). The contemporary epoch underlines contraction of time and space, an era of „post panoptical‟ power game, where the physicality or territoriality of the parties (those governed and those governing from a certain place) are no longer assumed; the emergence of a „global elite‟ where states are not only being governed by a static body or institution located within the boundaries of nation but geopolitics is being played out at the global field. Cultural modes of existence, ideas, and ways of being are travelling the continents in a way like never before; suffice to say, this has been possible due to the enhancement of science and technology and economic and political reforms in different countries, which have opened up trade barriers. In this milieu of historical transformation one cannot overlook pluralities or diversities that exist within and among societies. This phase of transformation is associated with many factors; for instance, the critiques of the grand narratives, a belief in „plurality of heterogeneous claims to knowledge‟ (Giddens 1990:2), and none of the knowledge claims being either superior or inferior to the other (Patel 2010).

New forms of challenges in terms of identity dynamics, global relations and shifting of balance of powers, internal and external affairs of a nation-state, problems of global migration and new forms of violent conflicts over resources and religion and several issues brewing on a global scale are troubling questions for the sociologists, or let‟s say the social theorists. The sociological imagination needs to develop a new form of elasticity to engage with multiple notions of modernity of each nation-state. Patel (2014) pertinently asks if sociology today can deal with such novel situations and how? And elsewhere, Patel (2006) proposes that it is a time to go „beyond binaries‟.

There is a possibility for current sociological research to either restructure earlier binaries in a way so as to not disturb the structural relations of power or there is a scope that „global processes can distil and uncouple these binaries, thereby allowing for the play of plural perspectives, so that all traditions of doing sociology are placed at equal levels and given equal significance‟ (Patel 2006:381). There is not a a singular, universally accepted, notion of what would constitute a social theory. As Patel (2014) opines, there exists a „theoretical and methodological plurality‟. This is the understanding of theories aptly articulated in the works ofGiddens and Turner, pertinently titled „Social Theory Today‟ (1987). Patel (2010) also tells the sociologists of today to be mindful of the new developments in the global world order and shows us that sociology‟s boundaries are stretched further with this „new cosmopolitan[ism]‟ consciousness. Habermas‟ and Beck‟s sociologies are examples which take into account this new form of consciousness. However, a critical observation made by Patel (2010), which is important for sociology in non-Western countries, is that scholarly works by Western scholars (for example, idea of cosmopolization that Beck illustrates in his work) are rooted in the cultural milieu of European and American societies.

Their applicability and adequacy in the non-Western countries is yet to be proved. Theories by contemporary Western scholars depict the scene of societal transformation as occurring in their countries. In fact it also makes one ponder as to whether even in times of heightened consciousness regarding the permeability of sociological knowledge at all levels and all kinds of spaces, if or not, such knowledge as„ indigenous sociology‟ (Patel 2006) can sustain the challenges towards the universalizing tendency of sociological theories in general. To this Patel (2006;2010) calls for moving „beyond the binaries‟ to ascertain that there is a domain of social theorizing possible in which sociologies remain „diverse‟ or„ particularistic‟ as well as universal. Each nation by virtue of its own historical underpinnings and relations to the European/American sociological discourse charts out its own sociological trajectory. Patel (2010) recalls our attention to the fact that „sociological knowledge… is imbricated in the identity of the nation-state and within its politics‟ (2010:56). There is not only diversity and plurality of articulations among different nation-states but also multiple epistemologies exist within one nation (Patel 2010). „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‟ (Patel 2010:57).

Conclusion

This module attempted to portray the path and impediments to theorizing that sociology has faced since the mid 20th century and continues to face in contemporary times. The main objective of this course and this module in particular is to weave together the various forms that epistemologies and subsequent theorising about society ensued since the grand theories were realized to be insufficient in their explanation of different socio-historical phenomena. These meta-theorizing were couched in the observations and transitions that took place in the Western countries and most of them did not seem to any longer fit with events taking place in various other parts of the world and „marginal‟ societies. This called in for a greater inter-mingling of disciplinary knowledges along with an interface and interaction with plural voices from the non-academic players who produced myriad kinds of social thought. These other forms of social thinking challenged the strictures or dogmatic methodological and epistemological rule book of academic sociology, and threw open the futility of being bound by formalistic endeavours.

The notion of modernity was being questioned with a highlight on the existence of several different kinds of modernities. Sociological thinking assumed a pluralistic nature with the collapse of structural- functional school and veneration of neo-Marxists‟ theories in the 1950s. At the methodological level, many methods and many epistemological approaches have continued since then. Another turn, with the collapse of socialism in USSR and renewed glorification of capitalism in the 1990s brought about transition in the global landscape. It yielded newer questions of state, power, politics and domination at the transnational level. It needed a new lens of analysis. This was the time when social identities and relations underwent gradual changes and every society had a new experience of post Cold War period. It would not make sense had sociology been stuck with the typical categories (often in terms of polarization of the world into different levels of development) to explain phenomena. It needs to look at new equations that are being formed among different knowledge system generated at the local, regional levels and their interaction with the national and global discourses.

you can view video on Introducing the course and its perspective from sociological theory to social theory

References

Andersen, Heine and Lars Bo Kaspersen. Classical and Modern Social Theory. USA/UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
Ashcroft,Bill et al. The Post-Colonial Studies Reader.Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. Bauman, Zygmunt. Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000.
Bhambra, Gurminder K. Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Calhoun, Craig. “Culture, History and the Problem of Specificity in Social Theory”. Post Modernism and Social Thoery ed. Steven Seidman and David Wagner. USA/UK: Blackwell Publishers, 1993.
Feagin, Joe R. and Hernan Vera. Liberation Sociology. USA: Westview Press, 2001.
Gelanty, Gerard. Social Theory in a Changing World. UK: Polity Press, 1999.
Giddens, Anthony and Jonathan H. Turner. Social Theory Today. UK: Polity Press, 1987.
Giddens, Anthony. The Consequences of Modernity. UK: Polity Press, 1993.
Gouldner, Alvin W. The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. New Delhi: Heinemann Educational Books, 1971.
Gurnah, Ahmed and Alan Scott. The Uncertain Science: Criticism of Sociological Formalism. UK: Taylor & Francis, 2012.
Himmelstrand, Ulf. Sociology: From Crisis to Science, Volume I The Sociology of Structure and Action. London: Sage, 1986.
Hoare, Quentin, and Smith, Geoffrey Nowell. “Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci”. London: ElecBook, 1999. on URL http://www.walkingbutterfly.com/wp- content/uploads/2010/12/gramsci-prison-notebooks-vol1.pdf
Massey, Doreen. Negotiating Disciplinary Boundaries. Current Sociology 47, no. 4 (1999): 5-12. Mills, C.W. The Sociological Imagination. New York: OUP, 1959.
Patel, Sujata. Beyond Binaries: A Case for Self-Reflexive Sociologies Current Sociology 54, no.3 (2006): 381-395.
1. The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Tradition UK: Sage Publications, 2010.
2. The Imperative and the Challenge of Diversity: Reconstructing Sociological Traditions in and Unequal World. Taiwan: Institute of Sociology, Academia Sinica,
3. “The Challenge of Global Modernity for Sociology in India”. In Ideas, Institutions, Processes: Essays in Memory of Satish Saberwal ed. N.Jayaram. Delhi: Orient Blackswan,
Powers, Charles H. Making Sense of Social Theory: A Practical Introduction. UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2010.