26 Academic Dependency: Syed Farid Alatas

Gitanjali Joshua and Sujata Patel

1.  Introduction

Academic dependency is a theory about the state of the Social Sciences and the Humanities across the globe. This theory suggests that the foundations of our knowledge are biased and Eurocentric, and that scholars and academicians in the non-West are dependent at several levels on the intellectual traditions of the West. (Alatas. S.F., 2003).

Academic dependency theory is part of a body of work that highlights similar epistemic concerns – concerns with the nature and scope of knowledge. These concerns arose in the context of the critique of colonialism and an examination of its lasting effects (Post-colonial Studies). They centre around the structures of knowledge that developed through the colonial encounter between the West and the non-West. Some central concerns of this body of work include Orientalism, Eurocentrism, academic imperialism, imitation and the captive mind and of course, Academic dependency. Scholars who examine these concepts argue for a wide range of measures to combat these biases and inhibiting factors to original scholarship in the non-West. Measures like indigenization, endogenization, decolonization, creating an autonomous tradition and so on are often suggested as remedies and their merits and demerits debated.

Naturally, this kind of scholarship has been undertaken most often by scholars situated in the non-West. Academic dependency theory originated in Latin America around the 1950s. Proponents of the theory argued for Latin American scholarship to disassociate with the Social Science Powers of the West and create its own autonomous tradition. (Alatas. S.F., 2003: 602) One of the most noted theorists who has explored the concept of academic dependency is Syed Farid Alatas, an academician of Malaysian origin.

2.  Who is Syed Farid Alatas? 

Syed Farid Alatas is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the National University of Singapore. Before joining the National University of Singapore, he taught for a while at the University of Malaya in the department of Southeast Asian studies.

His key areas of interest are inter-religious dialogue, sociology of religion, historical sociology and sociology of social science. Much of his work focuses on non-Western scholarship and the creation of alternative discourses. He is particularly interested in the works of Ibn Khaldun as a foundation of sociology.

He acknowledges that much of his interest in the area of Academic dependency is due to his father, Syed Hussein Alatas’ work on imitative thinking and the ‘captive mind’. (http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/soc/faculty/sfalatas.html)

3. Related concepts: 

In order to explore Syed Farid Alatas’ theory of academic dependency, we need to understand the historical context which gave rise to this theory as well as a few other concepts, like those of academic imperialism and contemporary social science powers.

3.1 Historical context 

From roughly 1500 A.D, various nations of the Western world enlarged their empires through colonization  of the non-West. In most cases this expansion began as a trading exercise but soon changed into an exploitative relationship with Europeans gaining political dominion over other peoples in a bid to secure  their trade relationships. These exploitative colonial relationships ended roughly in the mid-1900s, with most of the colonies of Western nations claiming their independence from their colonial masters through various strategies. A combination of factors including the desire for self-determination which fuelled the agitations and struggles of the non-Western colonial subjects of colonial rule came together around the time of the second world war and resulted in these peoples gaining independence and forming new nation-states. Colonization involved economic and political exploitation of the colonized subjects, often indegenous populations, by their colonial masters. However, there were other aspects of the colonial enterprise which laid the foundation for the more lasting effects of colonialism. Systems of administration and later, of education were created by the colonizers in order to better govern their colonies. These systems, in particular the education systems were the beginning of what is now referred to as the colonization of the mind.

Colonial education systems were structured differently from indigenous systems. The knowledge they disseminated was based on a European understanding of the world. The history they taught was based on the Europeans view of history. Through this system local modes of thought and forms of knowledge were devalued and Western knowledge systems, especially modern science were presented as the only legitimate forms of knowledge(Alatas, S.H., 2006).

Though formal colonialism has come to an end, and the peoples of the non-West now inhabit their own independant nation-states, the colonization of the mind persists. This colonization of the mind is often hard  to detect as it is not directly imposed by visibly exploitative ‘other’s, but is embraced by the local populations (Alatas, S.H., 2006).

For one thing, most indigenous forms of knowledge ceased to exist during the colonial period. A few were revived after colonialism, but these are reconstructions of a past system based on an understanding of them that comes through Western forms of knowledge. Further, these are alternative spaces of intellectual engagment. The ‘mainstream’ spaces are the universities and institutes which function along the lines of Western universities and institutes. The curriculum that is taught in these spaces and the approach to knowledge itself is highly Eurocentric.

It is in this historical context that scholars of the non-West begin to be recognise manifestations of this insidious colonization of the mind.

3.2 Academic imperialism 

Academic or intellectual imperialism, according to Syed Farid Alatas is “the context in which academic dependency exists.” (Alatas, S.F., 2008: 4) He quotes Syed Hussein Alatas’ description of academic imperialism as the “domination of one people by another in their world of thinking” (Alatas. S.H., 2000: 24). Academic imperialism as per Alatas’ characterization of it manifests in two senses.

In the first sense, scholars and academicians directly or indirectly serve the interests of imperial or hegemonic powers. Alatas illustrates this idea in his essay “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences” by citing a project named ‘Project CAMELOT’ which was attached to the American University in Washington DC, but was funded by the US Department of defence. This project was an attempt to predict and influence political change in the developing nations of the world. It’s goals were framed in terms of recognising the potential of a society for ‘internal war’, identifying governmental action that might prevent such an ‘internal war’ and eventually prescribing characteristics for a system which would continue to deliver the first two goals. (The project was dropped before it took off fully, due to much criticism from academicians who had been approached to be part of the study on the basis of the imperialistic features of the study.) This gives us an idea of how scholars and academicians can be part of the framework of imperialism. They can be directly employed in research projects which serve hegemonic and imperialist interests. (Alatas, S.F., 2003)

The second sense of academic imperialism is indirect. Even if not directly employed in research projects which serve imperialist interests, scholars are part of a system of imperialist relationships within the world of academia, which parallel the imperialist relations in political economy. Their choices of research problem, methodology and even the medium of sharing their research are enmeshed in these structures of power. Syed Farid Alatas identifies six main traits of exploitation which structure this indirect sense of academic imperialism. They are “tutelage, conformity, secondary role of dominated intellectuals, rationalizing of the civilising mission, inferior talent of scholars from the home country specialising in studies of the colony.” (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 601)

Tutelage in academic institutions helps perpetuate imperialist forms of knowledge, as described. Young scholars conform to scholarship of this type, entrenching it further into the structures of knowledge production. Intellectuals from developing nations play a secondary role in the development of the academic discourse, as a result of this. They often also seek to rationalize the civilizing mission of their colonizers, which affects the quality of their work and their ability to think originally. Western scholars who specialize in the studies of these regions are often not as talented and original as their colleagues, leading to reperitive and unoriginal scholarship from the region. This contributes to the general climate of imperialism.

Alatas suggests that the second indirect sense of academic imperialism can be classified as academic neo- imperialism, drawing a parallel with the forces of economics and politics as they operate in the world today.

To better understand this subtle and insidious sense of academic imperialism, let us look at the contemporary social science powers. (Alatas, S.F., 2003)

3.3 Contemporary Social Science Powers 

Syed Farid Alatas recognises the United States of America, Great Britain and France as the social science powers of the contemporary world. Germany had been very influential in the social science world of Europe until the second world war and Spain had been the guiding light of the social science tradition for Latin America until recently, but neither qualify as contemporary social science powers in Alatas’ understanding. While it is true that hegemony in the world of thought and academic discourse is in some sense analogous to that in economic and political power, it does not run completely parallel. Countries like Japan and Germany, though greatly influential in the world economy, do not have the same level of influence in academic circles and are very peripheral in terms of their contribution to social science across the world. In a way Japan and Germany have opted out of the world system of knowledge production. Though they are influenced by developments at a global level, prestige and recognition in their scholarly community is gained through publication in their own language journals and other nationally recognized media. (Alatas, S.F., 2008)

There is a distinction to be made here between the global influence of a particular tradition of social science and the global influence of certain authors and works. Several German and other European authors and their works are regarded as seminal in their disciplines. However, this does not make their countries of origin contemporary social science powers.

Syed Farid Alatas uses four main criteria to identify contemporary social science powers. The first criterion is based on the output of social science research. Countries which produce a large volume of social science research, publish papers in a large number of peer-reviewed journals, books fulfil the first criterion to be contemporary social science powers. The second criterion concerns the reach of these works. It is not enought for a country to simply produce a large volume of work in these areas in order to qualify as a contemporary social science power. These works and the ideas and information contained within them must have a global reach and be accessible across the world. This leads us to the third criterion, that of influence  in the world of social science. Apart from having a global reach, these works have to be consumed by scholars across the global, so that the ideas contained in them imfluence social sciences across the world.  The final criteria that Syed Farid Alats suggests for a country to be considered a contemporary social science power is that of recognition. Countries whose contributions to the world of social science are widely recognised, valued and respected both in their home country and abroad fulfil this final criterion to be considered contemporary social science powers. (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 602)

As we can see, these features of contemporary social science powers give us a clear sense of how academic imperialism plays out. Syed Farid Alatas tells us in his article “Intellectual and Structural Challenges to Academic Dependency” that ‘today’s knowledge powers constitute a kind of “world system” of knowledge’. It is this world system which structures academic imperialism. (Alatas, S.F., 2008).

4.  What is Academic Dependency? 

“If in the colonial past, academic imperialism was maintained via colonial power, today academic neo- colonialism is maintained via the condition of academic dependency.” says Syed Farid Alatas in his article “Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences” (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 602). Through this he distinguishes the monopolistic control maintained by force during the colonial period from the far more insidious forms of control maintained through dependence in the period after colonialism.

Alatas speaks of academic dependency as a condition within the academic world where “the knowledge production of certain scholarly communities are conditioned by the development and growth of knowledge  of other scholarly communities to which the fromer is subjected.” (Alatas, S.F., 2008: 5) As we can see from this description, the relationship between the two scholarly communities is one of dependence. The scholarly communities of the contemporary social science powers can ‘progress’ in certain ways not available to the other scholarly communities (usually located in developing nations). Their ‘progress’ is contingent on and a reflection of the growth and development of the contemporary social science powers. Naturally this form of growth and development is unhealthy and detrimental to the creation of knowledge.

The psychological implications and dimensions of academic dependency have been explored through the concept of the ‘captive mind’ in the work of Syed Hussein Alatas (Alatas, S.H., 1974). Syed Farid Alatas focuses more on the social and epistemic dimensions of this phenomenon.

As we can see from the preceeding description, there is, in a sense, a centre-periphery relationship between the contemporary social science powers and the academic communities in developing nations or the non- West. There is also a third category of scholarly or academic community. This, Syed Farid Alatas refers to as the ‘semi-peripheral social science powers’. He uses this term to clarify that the centre-periphery divide does not correspond directly to the West and non-West divide. There are several western social science communities which do not qualify as contemporary social science powers. These communities are quite dependent on the social science powers for ideas. While they are dependent on the social science powers for ideas, and do not directly control the peripheral social science communities in the same way, they also exert some level of influence over these communties throught institutional mechanisms like funding bodies, conference organization and so on (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 604).

Academic dependency functions at two levels. These two levels are the level of ideas and the structural level. Syed Farid Alatas also lists six dimensions of academic dependency. The first, corresponds to the first level  at which academic dependency functions and the remaining five can be seen as dimensions of the structural level.

4.1 Dimensions of academic dependency

As mentioned in the previous section, academic dependency can be delineated through six dimensions that Syed Farid Alatas puts forward. The first dimension corresponds to the level of ideas, the first level at which academic dependency operates and the next five to the structural level. The dimensions, as put forward by Syed Farid Alatas, are as follows (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 604).

1. Dependence on ideas

2. Dependence on the media of ideas

3. Dependence on the technology of education

4. Dependence on aid for research as well as teaching

5. Dependence on investment in education

6. Dependence of Third World social scientists on demand in the West for their skills

4.1.1 Dependence on ideas

According to Syed Farid Alatas, dependence on ideas operates in metatheory, theory, empirical social science and applied social science. Research as well as teaching knowledge orignates in all these aspects from the contemporary social science powers. Although scholars in these academic communities repeatedly point out ethnocentrism on the part of academicians and theorists from the scholarly communities of the contemporary social science powers, a viable alternative to these theories is yet to be found. Autonomous traditions in the non-West have not yet begun to proliferate (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 604).

In terms of the dependence on ideas, Syed Hussein Alatas’ work is highly influential, as it speaks of the captive mind and imitative thinking. Syed Hussein Alatas was deeply concerned by the inability of scholars from communities outside those of the contemporary social science powers to develop original theories. Instead they remained trapped in this relationship of dependency, working with concepts which had originated in the specificities of Western cultural and historical contexts, unable to modify these concepts to fit similar phenomena in the non-West or create new concepts.

This dependency at the level of ideas colours every aspect of the research process, from the selection of the problem, its definition, description, analysis, explanation and generalization to its interpretation. It is perpetuated by the hegemony of captive minds in teaching and research, who teach and conduct their inquiry in Western paradigms, without interrogating them for specificities of context and modifying them accordingly to fit their own realities. The syllabus in universities, for instance, is usually highly Eurocentric. According to Syed Farid Alatas, it displays a characteristic feature of Eurocentrism, the subject-object dichotomy, with Europeans seen as subjects and other peoples as subjects. Thus Europeans are characterised as the originators of knowledge and their categories and concepts are seen to be legitimately dominant.

This subject-object dichotomy structures most basic social science text books with non-Europeans portrayed as nameless objects of study for European theorists. The history of social science is depicted with a focus on theorists like Marx, Weber and Durkheim, and imply through the absence of comment that non-Europeans were not similarly engaged in theorising and understanding their own societies and others. If mentioned, non-Europeans function merely as objects of historical interest, as is often the case with Ibn Khaldun. Their contributions to the discipline are rarely if ever emphasized. They are not seen as originators of legitimate and relevant social theory and methods of inquiry. Only recently have a few text books begun to consider the contributions of non-European theorists seriously and their influence on European scholars mentioned.

In this frame only the contemporary social science powers are recognised as the originators of ideas in the social sciences and the inter-connectedness of various parts of the world in the history of the disciplines is often not recognised. The domination of European ideas and concepts is naturally at the cost of non- European ideas and concepts. Even today while there is interest in recovering alternative traditions of inquiry in the social sciences and attempts are being made to recover and develop these traditions, like neo- Khaldunian sociology, these are seen as merely peripheral and marginal to teaching and research (Alatas, S.F., 2008).

4.1.2 Dependence on the media of ideas

This dimension draws attention to the media in which ideas are circulated, such as journals, books, conferences and their publications, online media and so on. All these media are owned and controlled,  usually by individuals and entities in the contemporary social science powers. Thus scholarly communities in the non-West or periphery are structurally dependent on the media through which ideas are disseminated which are largely controlled by contemporary social science powers (Alatas, S.F., 2003).

4.1.3 Dependence on the technology of education

Several well equipped resource centres and research institutes are set up in developing nations by Western embassies, foundations, charities and similar non-governmental organizations. These resource centres and institutes boast of technological resources which universities of the developing nations are unlikely to be able to provide their students. Computers, laboratories, information retrieval systems and so on do aid scholars  and academicians in these developing nations in their research. It is also true that without these facilities much data and knowledge would not be available to these scholars, and the scope of their work would be limited accordingly. However this does not mean that we can ignore the stuctures of power at work here. Information available to these scholars will naturally be dependent on the donors, thus steering the research along paths which originated from these social science powers (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 604).

4.1.4 Dependence on aid for research as well as teaching

Funding for projects, research grants, and attractive remuneration for teaching are often much more likely to originate from the social science powers than from within the countries of the peripheral social science communities. Naturally this kind of aid will shape research agendas, and promote only a certain kind of social scientific inquiry, which is relevant to and in follows paths familiar to the academic communities in the contemporary social science powers (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 605).

4.1.5 Dependence on investment in education

The social science powers often directly invest in education in the peripheral scholarly communities. Such investment is usually in the form of degree programmes offered by universities in the communities of the social science powers often in collaboration with universities in developing nations. Without such investment there would be fewer jobs in the tertiary education sector. Nevertheless we should remain aware of how  these structures of power help to maintain the relationship of dependency on the social science powers by the peripheral scholarly communities (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 605).

4.1.6 Dependence of Third World social scientists on demand in the West for their skills

The last dimension of academic dependency is often referred to as the ‘brain drain’. Outstanding  academicians from the developing world have become dependent on the West for demand for their expertise. These days, this need not even entail physical relocation of the scholars. Often research projects concieved of in the West use scholars and academicians from developing nations to carry out the research. This occupies the mental energies and creativity of these scholars in the service of the contemporary social science powers (Alatas, S.F., 2003: 605).

Parallels have often been drawn between academic dependence and global structures of economic and political power. Many inhabitants of developing nations hold optimistic views about the possibility of reversing the prevailing trends and bringing their own culture into dominance across the world with the acquisition of economic power. While this is a tempting hypothesis, as it is well recognised that the hegemony of European culture is the result of roughly two centuries of political and economic domination across the world, it is unlikely that this will come to pass. A case in point is Japan, which is a world economic power but not a social science power. Though Japanese social scientists measure their success against different criteria such as publication in Japanese-language journals and nationally recognised books and journals rather than international books and journals, it remains true that Japanese social scientists have not made much of a mark on global trends in social science. At the level of structure, therefore, Japanese intellectuals are not dependent on the world system. In fact they often exert their own influence through funding. However, at the level of ideas, they do not contribute much and are in a way dependent of Western concepts and ideas (Alatas, S.F., 2008).

4.2 Academic division of labour and its characteristics 

To better understand the structure of academic dependency, we can explore the division of labour in global knowledge production as put forward by Syed Hussein Alatas. He suggests that “This division of labour is historically a direct consequence of academic colonialism and dependency but also in turn functions to perpetuate academic neo-colonialism and dependency.” (Alatas, S.F., 606) It is a product of the colonial mode of knowledge production.

The characteristics of this division of labour include (Alatas, S.F., 2003):

1. The division between theoretical and empirical intellectual labour.

As this characteristic suggests, scholars from the contemporary social science powers engage in theoretical as well as empirical intellectual labour, while scholars from the peripheral communities are engaged mainly in empirical research.

2. The division between other country studies and own country studies

Scholars from the social science powers often study other cultures and countries. Their contemporaries from the peripheral communities of knowledge production usually tend to study their own cultures. This characteristic can be understood in the context of the subject-object dichotomy.

3. The division between comparative and single case studies

Following from the previous point, scholars from the centre of social science knowledge production engage in comparative projects while their contemporaries in the periphery confine themselves to single case studies.

Naturally, this division of labour contributes to academic dependency and by suppressing the creative faculties of the members of peripheral communities of knowledge production hinder the progress of the disciplines as a whole.

As we have seen, academic dependency is a result of a climate of academic imperialism and the colonial mode of knowledge production. It can be better understood through the six dimensions which Syed Farid Alatas used to delineate the concept. While academic dependency does parallel the global structures of political and economic power, this does not mean that a global shift in the locus of political and economic power will automatically cause the social science traditions of the peripheral social science communities to realign and give rise to academic discourse. Academic dependency is further structured and maintained through what Syed Farid Alatas refers to as the ‘academic division of labour’. Despite its foundation in colonial exploitation and domination which have now, at least formally ceased to operate, academic dependency will need several conscious, carefully considered strategies to be reversed.

5.  Combating Academic Dependency 

Attempts to combat academic dependency need to work at two levels: the administrative and the intellectual. While the two are hardly mutually exclusive, this distinction can be useful.

At the administrative level what is called for is a partial dismantling and restructuring of academic institutions, on the lines proposed below (Alatas, S.F., 2003):

1. A change in perspective regarding the social sciences is necessary. Rather than an instrumental approach which values the social sciences for their possible contributions to policy making and economic growth, they must be valued as disciplines. This will allow growth of not only the immediately ‘practical’ branches of the disciplines.

2. Various incentives including higher pay must be offered to intellectuals in the peripheral communities of knowledge production, especially by governments with more resources. A ‘critical mass’ of such qualified scholars must be attracted by their own universities. This will aid these nations in developing their own intellectual traditions.

3. The tertiary education sectors in the countries of the non-West must be developed in order to nurture a culture of creativity and originality in the social science community. This requires better quality control of research output, sufficient remuneration for scholars to remain with these national universities rather than seeking more lucrative employment and better facilities for research.

At the intellectual level, the history and develoment of the social sciences needs to be understood and scrutinized in order to address the philosophical and epistemological problems plaguing them. Possible measures to combat academic dependency at the intellectual level include (Alatas, S.F., 2001, 2003 & 2008):

1. A greater and more serious focus on the scholarship surrounding the critique of colonialism, with a particular focus on its lasting epistemic effects and the dangers they pose to knowledge production across the world. Concepts like Edward Said’s Orientalism, Samir Amin’s Eurocentrism, Syed Hussein Alatas’ captive mind and Syed Farid Alatas’ academic dependency, to name a few, need to be engaged with seriously in academic circles. Therefore, these concepts need to be taught as part of mainstream curricula, discussed in conferences and works on them need to be published in journals.

2. Each dimension of academic dependency must be engaged with. In order to combat academic dependency at the level of ideas, text-books need to be rewritten including the works of non- European scholars and contributors to their disciplines. In terms of the structural dimensions, developing nations must be more proactive in terms of publishing journals, organising conferences and so on. Similarly competitive remuneration must be provided to academicians.

3. Greater interaction between scholars of the non-Western world is crucial to combating academic dependency. To this end, active efforts must be made to organise conferences, cross-national research opportunities, associations and forums.

4. Writing and research towards building an alternative and autonomous social science tradition must be actively encouraged and pursued. Local historical and cultural practices need to be rediscovered and explored in order to create new philosophies and epistemologies. Alternative discourses need to be built with a view to different levels of universalization and universality that can be achieved. Syed Farid Alatas speaks of four levels: The simplest level where Western social theory would be applied cautiously to the local situation; a higher level where both indegenous and Western theory are applied to the local context; an even higher level where Western theory and theory indegenous to other parts of the world are applied to a local setting and finally the highest level, where these various traditions of theory are applied to non-local settings. Each level requires more creativity  and originality than the level before. Through this process of universalization, non-Europeans may be brought to the fore and the subject-object dichotomy broken down.

5. Teaching is another key weapon against academic dependency. Not only must the curriculum be redesigned, but the instructors themselves must bring non-European ideas to the mainstream, not as objects of historical interest.

6. Conclusion 

Academic dependency is a malaise that affects knowledge production in the world of contemporary social science. While there is much that must be done at the individual level in terms of engaging with the critique of this phenomenon and sensitizing oneself to it presence and prevalence, it is crucial that the effort not stop there. Students and scholars need to be sensitized to the need for creating alternative discourses. Further administrative and policy reforms are required to facilitate the changes required to combat academic dependency. Interactions between scholars of the non-West is also key to this endeavour.

7. Summary 

Academic dependency is a theory which speaks about the state of the Social Sciences and the Humanities across the world. It suggests that the foundations of our knowledge are biased and based on Eurocentric assumptions. It explains how scholars and academicians in the non-West are dependent on the intellectual traditions of the West.

Academic Dependency arises in the historical context of colonialism. It manifests itself most damagingly after a colonized nation has gained formal independence. It is perpetuated through the official structures of knowledge and education and produces scholars and thinkers whose minds remain colonized.

Contemporary Social Science Powers are centres of knowledge production which are disproportionately influential on world scholarship, such as Britain and France. These centres remain powerful thanks to the parallel between social and economic imperialism and Academic Imperialism. It is in this context of Academic Imperialism that Academic Dependency flourishes.

Academic Dependency can be explored on six levels. These are the levels of dependence on ideas, dependence on the media of ideas, dependence on the technology of education, dependence on aid for research as well as teaching, dependence on investment in education and dependence of Third World social scientists on demand in the West for their skills.

The structure of Academic Dependency can be better understood if we consider the Academic Division of Labour across the world. This division of labour is based on the division between theoretical and empirical intellectual labour, the division between other country studies and own country studies and the division between comparative and single case studies.

In order the combat Academic Dependency, we need institutional reforms that recognise the worth of social science research on its own terms, as well as sufficient remuneration and incentives for academicians in peripheral centres of knowledge production. At the intellectual level, scholars should focus seriously on the critique of colonialism, engage with the various dimensions of academic dependency, interact more with other scholars from across the world, actively encourage and engage with writing and research that contributes to an autonomous tradition and use pedagogy (syllabus as well as classroom interactions and exercises) to foster alternative and autonomous theoretical engagement.

References

1. Alatas, Syed Farid. ‘On the Indegenization of Academic Discourse’, Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, Vol 18, No.3 (1993).
2. Alatas, Syed Farid. ‘Academic Dependency and the Global Division of Labour in the Social Sciences’, Current Sociology (2003)
3. Alatas, Syed Farid. ‘Intellectual and Structural Challenges to Academic Dependency’, International Sociological Association, e-Bulletin, Number 9. (2008)
4. Alatas, Syed Farid. ‘Alternative Discourses in Southeast Asia’, SARI, 19. (2001)
5. Alatas, Syed Hussein. ‘The Captive Mind and Creative Development’, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 26 (4) (1974)
6. Alatas, Syed Hussein ‘Intellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits and Problems’, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28(1): 23-45 (2000)
7. Syed Farid Alatas, Faculty at NUS : http://www.fas.nus.edu.sg/soc/faculty/sfalatas.html

Web Links

1. Decolonising Universities – Syed Farid Alatas : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9we3ZNew_c
2. Read some of Syed Farid Alatas’ work (related to Academic Dependency) for free online: http://www.artsrn.ualberta.ca/courses/PoliticalScience/357B1/documents/AlatasAcademicDependencyan dGlobalDivisionLabourSocSci.pdf
3. http://www.isa-sociology.org/publ/e-bulletin/E-bulletin_9.pdf
4. http://www.ios.sinica.edu.tw/cna/download/proceedings/26.Alatas.Singapore.pdf

Further Reading

1. Kathinka Sinha-Kerkhoff and Syed Farid Alatas (editors). Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences, Structural Reality and Intellectual Challenges. ISBN 978-81-7304-894-4. Published by Sephis/Adri/Manohar 2010 (Image Source: http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no91100/academic-dependency-social- sciences-structural-reality-intellectual-challenges-edited-by-kathinka-sinhakerhoff-syed- farid-alatas)