32 Southern Theory

Anu K Antony

INTRODUCTION

Southern theory is a critically acclaimed book written by the Australian sociologist Raewyn Connell. The purpose of this book, according to Raewyn Connell, is “to propose a new path for social theory that will help social science to serve democratic purposes on a world scale.”(Connell, 2008: vii) ‘Southern Theory’1, criticizes Northern theory2 (which is taught as General theory) for presenting itself as universal while only embedding the perspectives and problems of metropolitan society. Northern theory represents the dominant genres of social science which portray the world from the point of view of “rich capital-exporting countries of Europe and North  America” (Connell, 2008: vii). This perspective completely ignores the realities of the diverse social world existing outside metropole – the periphery or south. ‘Southern Theory’ attempts to mark the absence of periphery in the metropolitan ‘general’ theory and remind us that rest of the world (South) does produce social theory. By alerting us to the fact that theoretical work from the South is absent in so called “general theories”, Connell is calling our attention to the power relations existing in knowledge production on a global level. (Connell, 2008).

A BRIEF NOTE ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE BOOK 

1  Southern Theory is the title of Raewyn Connell’s book. Note, it is also a theory which marks the intellectual traditions of South. In this module, the phrase Southern Theory is used to indicate the title of Connell’s book as  well as a theory. When it is used as a title, it is italicized.

2  Connell refers to the theories produced in the countries of North America and Europe (The Metropole) as

Northern Theory.

This book titled “Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science”, is divided in to four parts. The first part criticizes the false universal claims of Northern theory, by exploring its history. In this part she focuses on the general theory and traverses through the works of three prominent modern writers, Anthony Giddens, James Coleman and Pierre Bourdieu. She also looks in to the genre of globalization theories to understand the power structures in metropolitan theories which neglects the social world outside metropole. Here she talks about “Grand erasure” of the history and experience of periphery in the theories of North. The second part of the book is named as ‘Looking South’. In this section Connell, who is an Australian, is trying to understand the history and evolution of Australian academia. This section analyses the ambivalences of Social Science in Australia in a situation of cultural dependence, despite being a prosperous country. The third part of the book deliberates theoretical works produced in four different geographical locations of the South where the domination from the metropole is challenged. This includes India, Africa, Iran and Latin America. In the fourth part of the book, which is named as ‘antipodean reflections’, Connell explores consequences of Southern perspectives on a global level. In this part, she proposes certain ways in which the character of social scientific knowledge can be rethought from the intellectual traditions of global periphery. (Connell, 2008)

Raewyn Connell

(Access the image at: http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=8829 )

Raewyn Connell is an Australian sociologist best known for her concept of “hegemonic masculinity”. Raewyn is a Trans-sexual woman who is currently working as the professor emerita at university of Sydney. She is also a life member of National Teritiary Education Union in Australia. Her major works are Ruling Class, Ruling Culture, 1977; Class Structure in Australian History, 1980; Making the Difference, 1982; Teachers’ Work, 1985; Gender: in  World Perspective, 2002/2015;  Masculinities (1995, 2005); Southern Theory (2007). The concept of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ has been particularly influential and has attracted much debate.

(Access a detailed biography of Raewyn Connell at: http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/about- raewyn_20.html )

A CRITIQUE TO THE METROPOLITAN SOCIAL THEORY 

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE IDEA OF GLOBAL DIFFERENCE?

Connell traverses through the origin and history of sociology to understand the backdrop in which the theories of the metropole were formulated. As already mentioned, Connell notes that metropolitan Theory, ‘embodies a false sense of universality’. (Connell, 2008) The discipline of sociology focused on the concepts of scientific rationality, objectivity, empiricism, evolutionary understanding of social mechanisms and positivist logic, at the time of its origin. Connell points out that these social theories in its nascent phase understood the world with an ‘idea of global difference’. Sociologists of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century organized their understanding of Human history and societies with the idea of ‘global difference’. The idea of global difference explains the difference between the civilization of the metropole and the rest of the cultures across the world. The central aspect of this difference is the so called “primitiveness” of the periphery. This “idea of global difference” informs the formulation of Northern social theory which is presented as classical social theory. This is also conveyed through the discussions on “origins” and evolution. For instance, the concept of progress and development, the idea of the linear progression of history, and the entire conception of time and space in the Metropolitan theory carries “this idea of global difference”. Evolution theories portray evolution as a phenomenon of progress from ‘primitive’ to the ‘modern’. (Connell, 2008)

Arguing this, Connell explodes the myth of “founding fathers of Sociology” by noting the scant attention given to Marx, Weber and Durkheim during the period of institutionalization of sociology. (Arjomand, 2008) According to Connell, the trinity of classical sociology Marx- Weber-Durkheim, was a later construction by the scholars belonging to the generation of Talcott Parsons and there were diverse opinions regarding the most significant figures of the discipline during the actual time of its origin. She points out that Marx and Weber were not there in list when some of the then leading journals listed out most influential and decisive works of the time. Durkheim did appear in some of the lists, but was not that distinct a figure as we know him today. (Connell, 2008)

THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLASSICAL SOCIOLOGY

The metropolitan society of late nineteenth and early twentieth century saw the emergence of many works which analyzed human society. The mobilization  of European and American workers and women produced these intellectual stimulations3. Connell notes that an imperial gaze is evident in the works of sociologists of this time. The idea of global difference, as already mentioned, was present as a central point in sociological works during the time of institutionalization  of  sociology.  The  evolutionary theories  discussed  the concept  of  linear progress. Connell notes that “central proof of progress – and therefore the main intellectual ground on which the new science rested – was the contrast of metropolitan and colonized societies”. (2008: 10) The great wars and resistances to the violence of colonialism in early twentieth century ruptured the idea of social evolution and progress. The historical moments in the early twentieth century stimulated the production of diverse sociological works from different geographical locations. But sociology in 1920s and 1950s flourished the most in North America. The main focus of these works was on the questions of social differentiation and the social problems of the metropole. The construction of classical canon began during this period in the geographical location of metropole (specifically North America). The conceptual vacuum after the collapse of evolutionary frameworks led to the designing of pedagogy of classical texts, for the training programme of sociology students. Talcott Prsons, C.W.Mills, R. Merton, L. Coser etc are some of the scholars who contributed to this process. Accepting the collapse of Comtean ideas, Weber and Durkheim were received as classical thinkers and founding fathers in 1930s. Connell notes that Marx was added to this to form the trinity of founding fathers much later in 1960s. All the other  scholars who produced sociological works from geographical locations across the world were sidelined. By 1970s, this trinity was established through elementary text books of sociology. The countries across the world where sociology is practiced imported these text books North America, reconstructing their disciplines with the reconstructed founding stories. Arguing her point that classical sociology was a later construction of the metropole Connell presents her critique of modern metropolitan theories. The next few paragraphs will discuss Connell’s critique on modern metropolitan theories.

3 The American social science curriculum included sociology as a discipline in the 1890s.

WHAT DOES CONNELL MEAN BY THE “NORTHERNNESS OF MODERN GENERAL THEORY”?

“The most prestigious genre of work in sociology”, Connell says, is the general theory. This general theory in the curriculum of sociology is the theory of the North which claims to be general and universal. Deriving examples from three of the most influential modern theorists of general theory in sociology – James S Coleman, Anthony Giddens and Pierre Bourdieu- Connell discusses the problematic of what is taught as “general” theory. Modern Northern theory also completely ignores the social world outside the metropole and generalizes the social realities of the metropole as applicable to all cultures. The modern general theory taught in the universities across the world is hence not ‘general’ but Northern. Connell is illustrating this by analyzing the works of Coleman, Giddens and Bourdieu. Connell notes that they fail to acknowledge realities outside the metropole, even when these theories are considered to be general. She points out that all these thinkers are producing Northern theories, which cannot be taught as ‘general’. She notes four crucial trends in the works of these thinkers (which is also a feature of many more theoretical works from the North.) These are:

1. The false claims of universality

2. The conception of universal time

3. Gestures of exclusion and

4. The grand erasure.

1. The claim of universality: Works by the modern thinkers discussed by Connell repeatedly claim a universal relevance. It is assumed in these works that “all societies are knowable, and they are knowable in the same way and same point of view” (2008: 44). This claim of universality is not explicit but tacit, according to Connell. This claim can also be observed in methods, for instance while rewriting other social scientist’s works. This rewriting, according to Connell is not just a translation but a subsumption with a claim of universal relevance.

2. The Northern theory attempts to read social realities from the centre, assuming metropole as the centre. For instance, Bourdieu and Giddens focus on the antinomy of subjectivism versus objectivism. This is a classic problem for the metropole but not a central problem for the periphery. “A general social theory shaped around the objectivism/subjectivism problem necessarily constructs a social world read through the metropole – not read through the metropole’s action on the  rest of the  world.” (Connell, 2008: 45) This antinomy portrays metropole as the centre of the world in tacit ways.

3. Connell also identifies gestures of exclusions which exclude important references from the periphery even when such references are available and are crucial to be cited in their work. There is a notable absence of theoretical works from South in the references of metropolitan modern theory. At the same time, these theories include “exotic items” from the non-metropolitan world, where the periphery remains an object of exotic curiosity.

4. As mentioned above, Northern theory ignores the social world of periphery by deriving the empirical knowledge of research mainly from the metropole. For instance, Connell notes that “the inherently divided culture of colonialism cannot be modeled in Coleman’s derivations nor in Bourdieu’s reproductionism…the politics of colonial or post-colonial society cannot be modeled by depoliticized notions of power in Giddens and Coleman”. These theories erase the experience of post colonial societies at many levels. Connell invokes the concept of ‘Terra nullius’ which literally means ‘the  land belonging to nobody’, to explain this trend further. The metropolitans defined the colonized lands as terra nullius and distributed it among them creating their own laws, which ignored the ownership of indigenous people. This attitude, Connell argues, can be observed as a presupposition in social science theories too. The tendency to ignore  or erase the realities of the periphery, according to Connell, is dangerously present in northern theory which includes the works of Coleman, Giddens and Bourdieu. (Connell, 2008)

“Terra nullius, the colonizers dream is a sinister presupposition for social science. It is invoked every time we try to theorize the formation of social institutions and systems from scratch, in a blank space. Whenever we see the words ‘building blocks’ in a treatise of social theory, we should be asking who used to occupy the land”. (Connell, 2008: 47)

While this is the case of Modern Northern Theory, the recent extension of these theories, viz. globalization theories are no different. The era of globalization commenced by spreading new hopes of bringing different cultures together. It also offered a common platform to enable exchanges between the cultures across the world. Globalization theories attempted to specify and explain the newly formed unbounded society. It also criticized methodological nationalism in social science. But, Connell argues that the theories of globalization also continued with the trend of metropolitan general theory assuming that they were universal. Though the global/ local discussions were strong enough to make academicians view globalization as a new inclusive paradigm, the local in the global didn’t go beyond the local cultural tastes made available in international food chains. (McDonaldization for instance) The periphery continued as the same exotic world of fantasies for the Metropole. (Connell, 2008)

CONNELL’S CRITIQUE OF THE THEORIES OF GLOBALIZATION 

Connell notes that  the term ‘globalization’ first became popular in 1980s among business journalists, economists and management theorists. It generated research literature in economics which defined globalization as integration of capital markets. The term became a focus of sociological theories in the 1990s in the geographical locations of UK and the United States. The sociological theories on globalization replaced the idea of globalization as an economic strategy and understood it as a new form of society. They attempted to understand this ‘new kind of society’. The attempt was to understand the whole world as a single and abstractly connected ‘global society’, which includes the periphery. But Connell observes that, the idea of modernity spreading from metropole to periphery is the most widespread of all the views produced on globalization. Though these theories attempted to represent the whole world, they ended up making universals from the realities of metropolitan social world. In other words, the theories of globalization, though they claim to include and represent whole world, failed to represent the South. The central location of Globalization theories is the cluster of nation states that represented industrial society or post industrial society. The thinkers who were producing globalization theories neglected the fact that these locations constitute the global metropole. Connell highlights the three most prominent sets of antinomies which help to critically understand theories of globalization, the first being that of,

1. ‘Global versus local.’ This assumes the global and the local as two dynamically opposite categories. This binary, according to Connell, is derived from the business literature on globalization. This problem with the conception of global and local as dichotomous categories is that this makes it impossible to grasp the ways in which power structures of the globe design ‘globalization’, excluding the diversity of particular social worlds. The bodies of work which support globalization understand it as something which makes it possible for an Italian to watch an American channel in his television. Whereas as globalization has to be understood with more complicated tools of social theory, recognizing the problems of presenting it in binaries.

2. Homogeneity versus difference. Globalization theorists tend to assert the aspect of global homogeneity and take it for granted that cultures across world can be understood from the vantage point of the metropole. This logic foregrounds the assumption that the local can be integrated in to the global. This, according to Connell is a problematic antinomy since it fails to recognize ‘difference’ of cultures and the assumption that ‘local’ can be integrated in to ‘global’ indicates the power of metropole over the periphery (this is because, as already mentioned ‘global’ mostly represents the metropole and ‘local’ represents the cultures from the South.)

3. Dispersed versus concentrated power. The various sociological theories of globalization have disagreements in deciding the locus of social power. This is because the idea of global society is built on the idea of abstract linkage of world societies. The debates about the locus of power proceeds to understand ‘Power’ as 1) concrete and expressed through the authority of state, or 2) as scattered beyond the state with global locations. This disagreement, according to Connell is arising because of underlying problem- which is “constructing a model of the world from the  perspective  of the metropole, while imagining one is taking a global perspective”. (Connell, 2008: 59)

These antinomies, according to Connell, function as the founding bricks on which the imagination about the process of globalization and its contribution to cultures across the world, are built. This successfully hides the domination of the metropole’s logic in making the rest of the world an object of its needs and curiosity. These arguments are substantiated with emblematic images providing examples from various places across the globe. Connell states that the hegemony of metropole is successful because of the fact that very few works have attempted to analyze globalization theories beyond these antinomies and emblematic images. (see http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/intellectuals_20.html)

WHAT IS MEANT BY SOUTHERN THEORY? 

As mentioned above, Southern Theory is a significant work by Raewyn Connell which challenges the universal language of Northern Theory and reminds the global audience that scholars in the South also produce social theory. Connell is not trying to emphasis on sharply bounded geographical locations with the word ‘Southern’. Instead, she uses the word Southern to highlight the relations of power in Knowledge production. Connell states that she is attempting to “emphasize relations- authority, exclusion and inclusion, hegemony, partnership, sponsorship, appropriation- between individuals in the metropole and those in the world Periphery.” (Connell, 2008) Northern theory is taught even in universities of the South as ‘General Theory’. This theory doesn’t represent the realities in Southern societies and yet presents itself as ‘universal’ and ‘general’. Raewyn Connell notes that this process of knowledge production is not a democratic process. Southern Theory attempts to propose a democratic way of producing social theory. This implies that social thought happens in particular places in the same way it happens in metropole. The location and context from where social theory is emerging changes its language and content. It has to be noted that this book is not proposing a mere counter position to challenge or oppose Northern theory. The claim made here is rather that “colonized and peripheral societies produce social thought about the modern world 4 which has as much intellectual power as metropolitan social thought, and more political relevance.” (Connell, 2008) In other words Southern theory rejects the universal claims of Northern theory and states that theoretical works produced in the South is equally important. Connell is alerting her reader to the fact that theories from South are marginalized under the hegemony of North. This marginalization need to be recognized to understand power structures operating on a global level in the realm of knowledge production. Southern Theory fulfills its purpose by offering an elaborate critique of Northern  Theory simultaneously and presents some of the significant theoretical works from the South. Connell starts the discussion on Southern theories from her own doorstep – Australia. In the next paragraph we will briefly discuss Connell’s reflections on Australian academia and in the later paragraphs we will look in to the theoretical works from India, Africa, Iran and Latin America.

AUSTRALIA 

Connell revisits the history of the discipline of sociology in Australia to understand the complex structures of dependence and metropolitan domination. Australia is a country which has a long history of settler colonialism that exploited its indigenous peoples, known as the aboriginals, whose land it was. At the same time, Australia is an economically prosperous country which is today dominated by caucasians – mostly descendents of the original settler-colonialists. Australia is a country with its own peculiarities both geographically and culturally and in no way can be compared to the countries of metropole in this matter. Being a country with hopping animals, Christmas in summer, and a rich diversity of aboriginal culture, it was always a site of exotic curiosity for the Northern Intellectuals.

4  Which includes both North and South

The history of institutionalization of the discipline of sociology in Australia is not very different from that of any other colony. The establishment of the higher education system in Australia witnessed a high circulation of texts from metropole. The curriculum of colonial universities in Australia, as Connell observes, was initially a combination of classics and technical training. The social sciences were highly unstructured during that time and included a wide range of disciplines. Though many Australian scholars like W.E.Hearn produced a series of books on different topics, these too largely derived their data from the cities of Europe. The practice of ‘social science’ in Australia followed the changes happening in the universities of metropole.

Sociology appeared as an independent discipline in the Australian academia during the renovation of arts in the University of Sydney in the early twentieth century. Evolutionary theories from the metropole were significant in the sociology curriculum of Australian universities during this period. Native life in Australia was recorded by colonial settlers, travelers or officials. These records, according to Connell, “were simply tokens in the construction of a scientific fantasy of the primitive, which in turn validated a doctrine of social evolution.” (2008) Even Durkheim, the classical thinker of contemporary sociology talks about the aborigines of Australia in his Elementary Forms of Religious Life. His knowledge about the primitive religious practices of aborigines was from the book by Spencer and Gillen, ‘the native tribes of central Australia’. While using this information in Elementary Forms of Religious Life, Durkheim generalized the rituals and mythology of a single community to develop his sociology of religion which became a key text in this area.

This tendency started changing in the 1940s due to the acceptance gained by ethnographic studies. In 1950s social surveys became an important tool for social analysis. Still Australia remained subordinate to metropolitan academia in two ways: 1) they studied phenomena which were already defined in the metropole and 2) for which metropolitan paradigms of research were readily available. Australian academia, which was expanding, thus remained stuck in the hegemony of northern theories even when they started doing research about ‘our (their) own societies’. (Connell, 2008)

During the decades between 1950s and 1980s, Australian sociologists started publishing in metropolitan journals. This was viewed as a career success. But, to do this they had to speak about Australian society in a language which was familiar to the theorists of the metropole.

Australian society was understood as a society which had similarities with the metropole, more than differences during this time. After these formative years of Australian sociology, which imported theory and methodology from the metropole, it cannot be said that it has changed much. But Australian sociologists have started discovering newer possibilities in doing social science research. Connell highlights some of these works which have come from Australian academia very recently. They include works such as Chilla Bulbeck’s one world women’s movement and Vivien Johnson’s Radio Birdman (1990). Even though this doesn’t mean that these works can help in the making of a distinctive Australian school of sociology, it realizes certain new possibilities which are crucial in building a sociology independent from the hegemony of the metropole. (Connell, 2008)

Southern theory looks forward to a mutual exchange between the theories arising from the specificities of various parts across the world. It is an attempt to learn from each other without a false universalism that claims and projects one culture as superior to others. Reflecting on the history of  sociology in African academia, Connell  traverses  through significant theoretical attempts from Africa, Iran, Latin America and South Asia, which are capable of this mutual exchange. This can be possible only by appreciating and understanding theoretical works from the rest of the world other than metropole. (access http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/theory.html) In the next few paragraphs we will discuss about some of the significant theoretical attempts from Africa, Latin America, South Asia (mostly India) and Iran. (Connell, 2008)

THEORIES FROM AFRICA, IRAN, LATIN AMERICA AND INDIA

Connell discusses a significant paper written by Nigerian sociologist Akinsola Akiwowo, while looking at theoretical works from Africa. This paper by Akiwowo is published in the journal of International Sociology in 1986. The paper was titled ‘Contributions to the Sociology of Knowledge from an African Oral Poetry.’ This paper attempted to “contribute a general body of explanatory principles by demonstrating how some ideas and notions contained in a type of African oral poetry can be extrapolated in the form of propositions for testing in future sociological studies in Africa or other world societies”. (Akiwowo, 1986: 343-4) Akiwowo’s paper received a lot of criticism. Connell discusses two important criticisms by Moses Makinde and the Yoruba speaking writers Lawuyi and Taiwo. Connell notes that Akiwowo and his critics contradict each other while discussing the same oral poetry. These contradictions, according to Connell, limit the scope of indigenous sociology and its propositions, as produced by Akiwowo. Connell identifies Akiwowo’s attempt in developing an indigenous sociology from African idioms as a relevant one. But the indigenous sociology thus produced should be able to communicate with the rest of the cultures across the globe. Akiwowo fails to fulfill this inevitable requirement in his paper. (Connell. 2008)

The second scholar  whom Connell presents is the Beninese philosopher Paulin  Houtondji. Hountondji is a critic of ethnophilosophy which is highly Eurocentric. Ethno philosophy in Africa starts with the Belgian missionary Placide Tempels who was a critic of colonial violence but his works were paternalistic and Eurocentric. Connell notes that Hountondji was a critic of this ethno philosophy because it portrays African philosophy as not self consciously produced by Africans. For Houtondji, African philosophy is a set of texts produced by Africans. Houtondji explains that Africa has a rich literature of philosophy which was marginalized by the imperial gaze and Eurocentric perspectives. Hountonji also discusses the crucial phenomenon of academic dependency and stresses on the  need to produce knowledge which is endogenous and not outwardly oriented.

Looking at similar attempts from other parts of the world, Connell discusses three significant thinkers from Iran who developed approaches from outside the perspectives of the metropole. These works, Connell notes were produced in the backdrop of the 1979 revolution of Iran, which redefined the relations of the Muslim world with the metropole. The three thinkers whom Connell presents from Iran are al- Afghani, Al-e-Ahmad and Ali Shariati. According to Connell, their reinterpretation of religion is not anti scientific and carries the spirit of anti-colonialism.

Al-Afghani has written a book titled ‘The Refutation of the Materialists’ in 1880. He has also written many essays and newspaper articles during his life time. Connell highlights that Al- Afghani, being a practitioner of two cultures, the imperial and colonized, was familiar with the peculiarities of both. The refutation of materialism, Connell writes, is not against the imperial structures. Instead it was a defense of religion against non-religion. Connell notes that Al- Afghani’s work was a critique of the philosophy of materialism and understood it as a conspiracy against religion. He suggested that religion is required for the moral progress of a deteriorating society, the best being Islam because it is a rational religion. He argues that Islam is a religion capable of rationalizing, modernizing and leading any society to progress. Connell states that Afghani’s thoughts on religion are relevant as they challenge the domination of the metropole. Another thinker from Iran, Al e-Ahmed, prepared an uncensored version of his book in 1964, named ‘gharbzadegi’ which is best translated to English as ‘Westoxication’. Connell comments that his style of writing is messy and is popular among Iranian readers. Though his messiness makes it difficult for readers from other languages to follow it easily she observes that he is making a powerful point. It strongly identifies the “cultural dimension of neocolonialism” (Connell, 2008). This work, according to Connell carries a different approach and perspective and is hence worth discussing in this context.The third thinker is Shariati, who is remembered as a martyr who died in exile. He was arrested several times for his provocative oral teaching which helped him escape from censorship issues. Connell thinks that Shariati is the most important social thinker of 20thncentury. Connell highlights that, like the other two thinkers, Shariati also believed that Islam has the capacity of social renewal. His works are often transcriptions of his lectures which are polemic and anti-colonial. He interprets Islamic history as a history of social revolution and social justice. His texts, Connell notes, are Marxist in a loose sense of the word that he opposes the class structure of bourgeoisie society and class domination in the west. According to Connell, he was a radical thinker who believed in the potential of religion in achieving social renewal. The model of social theory which he developed was not really successful but created a strong impact. He was a powerful thinker whose thought was crucial in the context of Iranian social situations at that time.

While traversing through the significant works of Latin America, Connell notes that a great deal of work produced from this continent is Eurocentric. However, Latin America is a place from where some very significant social theories of dependency, autonomy and development have emerged. Connell discusses “The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principle Problems” by Raul Prebisch, which was actually an introduction to the statistical report of the Economic Commission for Latin America (CEPAL), as one of the most relevant works from Latin America. This text understands the complicated nature of economic dependency of Latin America. Connell points out that Prebisch strongly advocated the strategy of ‘import substituted industrialization’. According to Connell The Economic Development of Latin America and its Principle  Problems  is  an  intellectual agenda  as  a  policy  description.  Prebisch  argued  that industrialization is required as the increase in the standard of living of the masses cannot be achieved through improvement of agriculture alone. Connell observes that Prebisch makes a fundamental distinction between the economies of ‘centre’ and economies of ‘periphery’. This work received strong responses from various disciplines in social sciences, one among the notable being ‘Dependency and Development in Latin America’ by Cardoso and Faletto in 1971. Connell considers it as a radical alternative for Prebisch’s dependency theory. These books discuss the exploitative relationship existing between the ‘centre’ and ‘periphery’. They argue for a holistic view as different from Prebisch and this Connell argues, make it one of the most remarkable texts of 20th century. Cardoso and Faletto argue that development is not the opposite of dependency and development can construct new forms of dependency. This argument is highlighted by Connell as their most important contribution. Another notable book from Latin America is by Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart, ‘How to Read Donald Duck’ is an empirical study on the content of mass media and how social hierarchy and power relations are articulated through this content. Donald duck portrays the third world as an exotic world of fantasy and thus hides a consciousness about the realities of exploitation. There are other Latin American thinkers as well such as Martin Hopenhayn, who according  to Raewyn Connell produced powerful works which make use of innovative social analysis. Connell also notes the absence of female scholars in the Latin American academia. Quoting Sonia Monteccino Connell alerts one to the gender inequality in the process of knowledge production in Latin America. If one were to list the thinkers hailing from Latin America, the list would be enormous and only a few of the ones whom Connell handpicked have been mentioned here.

Another part of the world which shares the experience of dependence is South-Asia, particularly India. Ranajit Guha, Partha Chatterjee and Veena Das are the main thinkers whom Connell highlights while she is looking at the social theory from India. Ranajit Guha for his initiative in developing Subaltern studies, Partha Chatterjee for his elaborate engagements with the concepts of nationalism, democracy, modernity etc and Veena Das for her concerns on constructing social science based on Indian perspective.

Connell notes that papers published in the journal of subaltern studies, have developed a new way of writing which challenges the existing ways of historiography. These papers received enormous appreciation as well as criticism. Scholars like Sumit Sarkar criticized subaltern theory for the ways in which it is practiced. Connell arrays the subaltern debate, the responses it received and its limitation in the matters concerning gender. In doing this she traverses through many prominent thinkers from the Indian context. (Connell, 2008)

These works remind us that scholars from the periphery produce powerful theories. The hegemony of the North marginalizes these theoretical works and presents itself as universal.

A BRIEF NOTE  ON THE  CRITICISMS RECEIVED BY R. CONNELL FOR HER WORK SOUTHERN THEORY. 

The 25th volume of Political Power and Social Theory journal, which is published as a book titled Decentering Social Theory presents a discussion on Raewyn Connell’s Southern Theory. Four scholars – Mustafa Emirbayer, Patricia Hill Collins, Raka Ray and Isaac Ariail Reed – contribute to this discussion by engaging with Connell’s book. Mustafa Emirbayer states that Connell’s book is not a sociological guilt trip, but a disciplinary breakthrough. At the same time Emirbayer notes that there is “something a bit tendentious about Connell’s readings”, rejecting Connell’s criticism on Bourdieu. (Emirbayer, 2013: 133) Connell criticized Bourdieu for not reaching out to search for colonial voices. Mustafa Emirbayer reminds that Bourdieu closely collaborated with colonial voices (for example, Bourdieu collaborated with Abdelmalek Sayad while working on Algeria) and his sociology insisted on researchers particularizing the objects of their inquiry. Emirbayer notes that Connell is concerned more “with exposing the social unconscious of particular authors and approaches than it does with laying bare their disciplinary assumptions.”(2013: 135) Connell’s critique according to Emirbayer fell in to the groove of a pernicious binary by placing Southern Theory as an appealing opposite to Northern theory. (Emirbayer, 2013: 136)

Patricia Hill Collins on the other hand notes that Connell is attempting to embrace the legitimating practices of Western social theory to make Southern theory rise to the level of (Western) theory. Collins identifies two dilemmas confronted by the attempts of Southern Theory. The first dilemma concerns “how to negotiate the inequalities among multiple knowledges that have been created by unequal power relations” (Collins, 2013: 141). Collins notes that Connell falls in to “West and the rest” framework by positioning Northern theory at the centre and all other knowledges as its critique. The second dilemma, according to Collins concerns “Western epistemological standards that are used to legitimate social theory”. (Collins, 2013: 143) Connell handpicked a few intellectuals to ground the analysis of an entire canon of work from South. This pattern, Collins notes, is a standard epistemological practice within Western social theory. By doing this Southern Theory, according to Collins, neglects intellectuals from non elite national settings,. Collins also reminds that, the mutual exchange and communication between theoretical works from particular settings on a global level is not an easy achievement since knowledge production happens within multiple layers of power relations. One has to engage with the questions of ownership, vested interests and institutional actors involved in the process of knowledge production to understand these complicated power relations.

Another scholar Raka Ray states that Connell, through Southern Theory, initiated a dialogue between postcolonial theory and American sociology. Raka Ray notes that “Southern Theory is a direct critique  of the parochial nature of sociology in America, highlighting its method of addressing the issue of difference, and of the origin story that the discipline tells itself. The book serves as both a critique and a mission statement, for it wants to create a sociology that takes the interconnected history of the world more seriously than it does now… Southern Theory seeks in short to decenter American sociology in terms of its objects of research, its epistemologies and methodology, its theoretical interlocutors, and its need for reconcilable differences. And it does so with the idea that such a sociology is a better sociology.” (Ray, 2013:148-9) On the other hand, another scholar Isaac Ariail Reed criticizes Connell for not succeeding in developing an alternative for the metropolitan social theory taught as general. Reed notes that Connell is pursuing an intellectual  history of world philosophies instead of developing an alternative Southern perspective from the theoretical works from South. (Reed, 2013)

Connell’s response to the criticisms 

Connell replies to the criticisms raised by these four thinkers in the same volume of Political Power and Social Theory journal.Connell’s response is an elaborate re-articulation of what she was  attempting  to  achieve  through  Southern  Theory.  Connell  doesn’t  agree  with  Mustafa Emirbayer’s comment on how she presented Bourdieu in her book. Unlike what Emirbayer points out (mentioned in the previous paragraphs), Connell is aware of Bourdieu’s attempts to reach out to the voices from periphery.In response to Emirbayer’s criticism, Connell writes, “Southern Theoryitself points out the striking contrast between Bourdieu’s knowledge of Algeria and cooperation with Abdelmalek Sayad and the complete absence of colonial voices in his formulation of general problems of social theory. It is the reproductionist Eurocentric formulations that are the “Bourdieu” now most influential in mainstream sociology.” (Connell, 2013: 175) At the same time Connell agrees to Emirbayer’s criticism that she underplayed “the disciplinary mechanisms and institutional privilege that also shape Northern theory”. (ibid: 175) Connellalso replies toP. H. Collins’ critical commentthat sheis following the “West and the rest framework”,which fails to see the inequalities existing among various knowledges.

Connell responds that she is not placing northern theory at the centre; instead she has presented the critique of northern theory first and then proposed the need for various strong theories from the rest of the world to be deployed in the forefront. The theories from the South are not presented as a mere critique but as a strong alternative to the domination and hegemony of Northern theory. She also explains about the practicality and convenience in selecting a ‘few’ thinkers from South, as a response to Collins’ statement that Connell is handpicking a few thinkers to represent South. Collins had observed this as a Western epistemological practice. Connell alsoadds that a lot of what she presented as Southern Theory is activist knowledge,dismissing Collins’ criticism that Connell has a depoliticized approach. Connell stresses on the need for discussions on the postcolonial future of sociology, while engaging with Raka Ray’s comments.Connell agrees to Raka Ray’s statement that this work (Southern Theory) initiates an “epistemic shift”. Connell, addressing the criticism invites the reader’s attention to the various attempts which is happening along similar lines across the globe. Connell is very much aware that this work is not an answer for many significant questions on the power relations under which knowledge production happens across the globe. But Connell, like her critics, understand this as a crucial step to begin with.

CONCLUSION

Connell reminds the reader that the theories emerging from particular locations should communicate and exchange with each other on a global level. While discussing Southern theories, Connell is also reminding us that there are diverse cultures within the peripheral social world. The periphery also has economic inequalities. The theoretical work coming from an economically prosperous nation like Australia will be different from the theoretical work coming from Africa. Building a common platform tackling these differences is also a problem which is faced by the democratic attempts of social science. The book Southern theory is in short, an attempt which reminds us that each intellectual work is coming from diverse cultural settings and contingencies. It has to be understood along with its context while deriving general explanatory propositions from it. These propositions have to be communicated across cultures with a spirit of mutual sharing and exchange. ‘Southern theory’ is thus an attempt to understand the larger question of dependence and the ways in which its domination is reproduced. This book received enormous criticism as has already been mentioned, but regardless of all the criticisms it received, southern theory has to be understood as an important step towards more powerful attempts to create diverse and alternative ways of doing social theory.

REFERENCES

1. Arjomand, Said Amir. 2008. Southern Theory an Illusion. Arch Europ Sociol. Vol. XLIX (3). Pp. 546-549.
2. Collins, Patricia hill. 2013. Critical Interventions in Western Social Theory: Reflections on Power and Southern Theory. In Julian Go (ed.) Decentering Social Theory. Bingley: Emerald.
3. Connell, Raewyn. 2008. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
4. Connell, Raewyn. 2013. Under Southern Skies. In Julian Go (ed.) Decentering Social Theory. Bingley: Emerald.
5. Emirbayer, Mustafa. 2013. A Sociological Breakthrough, Not a Sociological Guilt Trip. In Julian Go (ed.) Decentering Social Theory. Bingley: Emerald.
6. Ray, Raka. 2013. Connell and Post colonial Sociology. In Julian Go (ed.) Decentering Social Theory. Bingley: Emerald.
7. Reed, Isaac Ariail. 2013. Theoretical Labours Necessary for a Global Sociology: Critique of Raewyn Connell’s Southern Theory. In Julian Go (ed.) Decentering Social Theory. Bingley: Emerald.
8. http://globalsocialtheory.org/thinkers/raewyn-connell/
9. http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/intellectuals_20.html

Further reading

•  Read more about Connell and her works in the following link:  http://globalsocialtheory.org/thinkers/raewyn-connell/ http://www.raewynconnell.net/p/intellectuals_20.html

• Access some of Connell’s lectures in the following web links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhJ_YL3_KNM
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl9GHLtMMWw
• Read Southern Theory by Connell and Decentering Social Theory edited by Julian Go.