1 Disciplinary Histories and Discipline in Making at University

Anurekha Chari Wagh

Table of Contents:

Introduction:

Section: 1. Conceptual Framework

c. Doing Disciplinary History

d. Methodological Challenges…

Section 2: Disciplinary History and Sociology in India

c. Institutionalising Sociology in India: The Disciplinary History in Bombay School

d. Influence on Sociology Department at University of Pune (Renamed s Savitribai Phule Pune University):

Conclusion

Disciplinary Histories and Discipline in Making at University Departments

Introduction:

It is important to examine the history of sociology in India as it provides its practitioners an understanding of the manner in which knowledge is produced and legitimated, the role that institutions such as state play in shaping what is recognized as knowledge and what are the institutionalised practices. Duncan (2009) argues that the historical study of social sciences is important as it helps us to recognize that social sciences stand at the nexus of power and knowledge, where on one hand universities and other research institutions- generate and incubate ideas and at the other end programmes of the state and non-state institutions design and implement social and political action programmes that play a crucial role in shaping the world we live in.

According to Duncan (2009), the institutional sites that could be analysed for developing disciplinary histories include; universities, research Institutes/laboratories, think tanks, government agencies and philanthropic foundations. Thus one crucial way in which to analyse the history of the discipline includes writing about disciplinary histories through analysing the ‘history of the university departments’ that offer degrees, conduct research and are dominant institutions that institutionalise what the ‘disciplines’ stand for through their teaching and research programmes. Further in the context of India, sociology through the mediation of colonialism was started within university departments and later became the main site for structuring the ways in which the discipline was shaped (Patel 2011)

This module is structured in the following manner: initially the conceptual framework for analyzing the departments will be examined and then the Bombay university department of sociology in India, will be examined: one to locate the larger structures that led to its institutionalization, two to examine what kind of perspective was institutionalised through its teaching and research interventions and three to know who are the scholars that framed the sociological discourse in India.

Section: 1 Conceptual Framework

e.  Doing Disciplinary History

Gieryn (1985) argues that while discussing about disciplinary histories, it is important to ask questions such as; who writes such histories?, what diverse functions are served by disciplinary histories?, what images of science emerge with regularity?, what are the connections between the written history of a discipline and the changing beliefs and practices of its scientist? These are, I believe, very important and critical questions that challenge the sociologist in us. Why, because it entails a process where, when critically examining the history it also pushes us to challenge ourselves. As Gieryn (1985), states it is important to recognize that who writes, the history is crucial. Why is this important? According to him, the location of oneself either as an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’, would have an impact on the manner in which history is written and constructed. Why is this? As students of sociology, one recognizes that all human knowledge is produced socially and is ‘bounded’ by society itself (Giddens 1971). Thus one’s standpoint would shape the way history is incorporated into the analysis and structure the framework. Thus as Gieryn argues the ‘insiders’ histories is legitimation, where the past is reinterpreted to justify today’s assertion. As Chaudhuri (2011) argues, writing and examining institutional histories are problematic and challenging, especially more so if the person writing is an insider, who is a part of the history in terms of its everyday life and recollection. For an insider writing history the challenge would be in terms of the contentious nature of history and the fact that ‘others’ will have a different story to the ‘history’.

The question is why should one write institutional histories? There are three important reasons: one, disciplinary histories through examination of institutions serve pedagogic functions, especially familiarizing students with their own disciplinary trajectories (Gieryn 1985). Such a perspective would help students to understand their own disciplines and important institutions within the historical context. Such location would facilitate the students to have a better understanding of the perspectives and gain insights into the way knowledge gets constructed and legitimised. Secondly, Chaudhuri (2011: 139) argues that ‘histories as discourses shape institutional directions’. Thus historically analysisng the past institutional history would help in constructing identities and provide insights into ways that structure the future of the discipline. As Patel (2011: xxvii) argues the ‘specific localized visions structures the distinctive practices of scholars, scholarship and learning in this context’. Finally, disciplinary histories completed and complicated by the study of the ‘histories of the global’- histories that are of multiple ways in which global politics (or aspects of it) has been conceptualized (Duncan 2009).

What is this study referred to as? Such an approach is conceptualized as ‘historical ontology’. Analysis of knowledge practices and complexes is what the philosopher Ian Hacking (2004) referred to as ‘historical ontology’. Such as approach which includes two aspects. One analysis of how certain institutional formations and modes of knowledge come into being and two, how scholarly identities are created and reproduced. In this context it becomes pertinent to question the creation and disseminations of global/national/regional order by the institutional development of the modern research university. It is important to understand that knowledge is a complex inter-linkage between institutions, networks and organizational structures. Through an assemblage of these, knowledge is facilitated, rendered intelligible and disseminated. Further it is important to recognize that there are various diverse sites of knowledge production and legitimation. Duncan (2009) discusses two main arguments that justify the writing of disciplinary histories. One, the endogenous arguments that stress on the intellectual benefit of the discipline under discussion would considerably improve the quality of contemporary scholarship of the discipline. Two, the exogenous arguments that emphasize a variety of political and intellectual purposes; such an endeavour would be a fascinating site for analysing the inter-linkages between knowledge, power and institutions.

Specifically within sociology there has been debate with regard to critically examining the university departments of sociology. To this end, Patel (2011) argues that within sociology, there is critical discussion of the critical intervention of the Chicago department, in the development of a new Chicago School, which played an important role in, the ‘reformulation of the discipline’. Jayaram (2011) emphasizing the importance of analyzing ‘departments of sociology’ argues that they are important, because in the post independence period the Indian nation state had pushed the departments to ‘create professional sociologists’, who would be able to examine the impact of ‘planned social change’ initiated by the state on the traditional social institutions defining the society in India. Thus in the initial years the emphasis of the university departments was research, which gradually changed over the years, with more focus on teaching. In this context I argue that in the neoliberal education system, the emphasis is back on ‘research’, but in the form of pressure on the faculty of the university departments to engage in seeking ‘funded research’, thereby generating revenue for the university and evaluations based on the ability of the faculty to bring in funding for the department and university. Patel (2011) argues, analysis of ‘schools’ and the role of departments has to be conducted within the macro context of the policy of higher education of the nation state.

The examining ‘disciplinary histories’ within the site of university departments are crucial to analysing the growth of the discipline of sociology in India. It is understood that through such analysis one could trace the development of sociology as a discipline and its institutionalization within the higher education structures of India. Further given the fact that sociology was introduced within university departments with other disciplines, such as Anthropology, Economics, History, Indology and the initial practitioners were trained in disciplines, other than sociology, needs to be analysed for historically locating disciplinary trajectories within university departments.

b. Methodological Challenges…

Chaudhuri (2011) states that as a researcher one has to be sensitive to the complexities involved in recollections and memoirs of scholars engaged in teaching and research in the departments. In this context the arguments of Duncan (2009), is relevant. He believes that analysis of social sciences needs to employ interpretative protocols and techniques that map the complex institutional terrain of modern universities/linkages to government and corporate actors- which are cognate sites of intellectual production. Based on his analysis of International relations as a discipline, Duncan argues that ‘analysing institutional origins must be located within the discursive context rather than assigning them slots in simplistic disciplinary growth’. In this context one has to be careful of ‘discipline defining myths’ (myths in this anthropological reading are highly simplified narratives ascribing fixed and coherent meanings to selected events, people and places), what do the disciplinary mythologies do? The mythologies generally perform the various legitimating functions, which includes; classifying some positions – product of intellectual progress, help to mark and police boundaries of the discipline and shape the self-understandings of scholars.

In similar questioning of the process of the endeavour to map the legacy of a school/department, Hedge (2011: 49) argues that it is important to ask the question, whether and to what extent is it possible to analyse legacies based on certain parts in isolation from the rest? Thus the context becomes crucial, where Jayaram (2011), in his analysis of sociology in Karnataka, argues that the biography of the discipline can be understood only in its institutional context. He argues ‘the institutional context is subject to the vicissitudes of change in its socio-economic and cultural milieu; so, it can be understood only sociologically’ (Jayaram 2011: 189). Thus in order to grasp the historical development of modern social sciences: we have to, one, map the history of concepts and arguments, two, analyse institutions and networks, and three, examine the complex nexus between institutions, agents and knowledge production. In order to understand the discipline it is important to understand the past contributions. A leading practitioner of the discipline of sociology once observed:

The problem with us is not that the small amount of good work done by preceding generations is unjustly criticized by succeeding ones, but that it is ignored and then quickly forgotten. In India, each generation of sociologists seems eager to start its work on a clean state, with little or no attention to the work done before. This amnesia about the work of their predecessors is no less distinctive of Indian sociologists than their failure to innovate’ (Beteille 2002: 224).

For embarking on the critical project of analysing the institutional biography of sociology, we need to undertake a ‘sensitive reading of sociology’s own biography’ (Jayaram 2011:189), where the institutions of sociology were located, the time period when it was established and grew and the scholars that defined the discipline through their research and teaching practices need to be examined. Rao (1974) contends that the four departments Bombay, Lucknow, Calcutta and Mysore formed the earliest schools of sociology and they reflected different trends due to their varied orientation and approach.

Section 2: Disciplinary History and Sociology in India

In this section I will focus on one important department of sociology in India and examine its role in institutionalising sociology in India. Beteille (1973: 216) states that it is important for the students of sociology to recognise that the first generation of sociologists in India, Radhakamal Mukherjee, G.S Ghurye and D.P Mukherji- were all university members in the proper sense of term, pioneers, because as far as sociology went, they were mostly self-taught. It includes the department of sociology in University of Bombay/Mumbai1, and examines its impact on the larger field of practices of sociology in India. The initial question is why the ‘Bombay Department’. Focusing on this department is important because of the following interlinking reasons:

1. The Bombay University is one of the first institutions of higher learning to be established by the colonial state in 1857 and it was the first teaching department of social

1. Bombay city was renamed as Mumbai officially in 1995, by the state government led by Shiv Sena. It is important to recognize that the ‘renaming’ is a process, that has interlinkages with issues of identity, history of colonialism and nationalism, regionalism and politics. For greater understanding please refer to Bombay Metaphor for Modern India (eds) Sujata Patel and Alice Thorner. Bombay and New Delhi. Oxford University Press. 1995/96/2000. anthropology and sociology. Dhanagare (2011) argues that along with Delhi and Lucknow, Bombay had a strong presence as one of leading centres of sociology.

2. The department housed two of the respected and recognized scholars Prof G.S Ghurye and Prof. A.R Desai who were seminal in shaping of sociology practiced in India. It is interesting to note that Prof. G.S. Ghurye and Prof. A.R Desai had distinct and opposing theoretical paradigms, methodological perspective and pedagogical practices and each in its own way shaped sociology practiced in the region and in India as a whole. Dhanagare (2011) argues that within disciplinary histories, one should be sensitive to the ‘personification of department’, as the historical process of development of sociology, is linked to academic activities of these scholars. Continuing this line Dhanagare states that personification of scholars was a strategy to carve out the identity of ‘sociology’ from within the dominant ‘sister’ disciplines such as anthropology and sociology. It also helps to fight for funds and helps to create a specialised identity of sociology as a ‘scientific discipline’.

3. A number of outstanding scholars of sociology, who through their engagement, research and publication have shaped the discipline, were trained in the department. Noteworthy among them are, M.N Srinivas (M.A 1938, PhD 1943), Irawati Karve (M.A 1928), I.P Desai (PhD. 1943) and Y.B Damle (Ph.D 1950).

4. Further, it is the sociology department at the Bombay university, that played a crucial role in the professionalization of the discipline of sociology, through the establishment of the Indian Sociological Society (ISS), the professional association of sociologists in India and the inception of its journal Sociological Bulletin, an outstanding journal maintaining the highest standards of academic rigour.

5. The analysis of the Bombay department based upon the analysis of D.N Dhanagare in context of its impact on university of Pune2 sociology department was interesting and it caught my imagination and curiosity as a sociologist. Studying and teaching at the department since 1997 to the present has made me an ‘insider’. Contextualizing my insider status while analyzing the institutional history of the discipline interested the sociologist in me to engage with the analysis.

6. Lastly, given the context that this is a limited word module and the complexity of the debate, it would be logical and practical to focus on one department, so that the students would understand, one, why the need to embark on critically examining

2.  The University of Pune has been renamed as Savitribai Phule Pune University since July 2014. disciplinary histories, two, through analysis of a specific department understand the structuring of the discipline and three, motivate them to reflect on their own departments and relate it to the sociology that they practice and engage with.

To analyse the disciplinary history of sociology in India, institutionalized within Bombay University sociology department I will examine the works of Manorama Savur and D. N Dhanagare. I would like to add that though the focus is on the department, the fact that it engages with one of the oldest department, also would throw light on the ‘institutionalising of sociology in India’, generally and the indological approaches of G.S Ghurye and Marxist perspective of A.R Desai specifically.

f. Institutionalising Sociology in India: The Disciplinary History in Bombay School

Savur focuses on the context, highlighting three issues, one, the role of the state, two, the administration especially the powers represented in the office of the senate and three, the individuals who direct and shape the vision of sociology through their research and teaching. An important aspect of Savur’s analysis was that it was based on archival research, of Bombay University Records, that gave her access to much valuable administrative documentation that shaped institutionalising sociology in the department. Savur (2011) argues that the nature of sociology institutionalised in Bombay University was a ‘conservative’ one, believed to have facilitated and continuation of status quoits sociology. The important question then is, how did a ‘conservative’ orientation of sociology get institutionalised in Bombay that which then shaped the sociology practiced in India? In order to address this question, it is important to focus on the role played by the colonial state that institutionalised sociology in the Bombay university department.

Three universities, Bombay, Calcutta and Madras set up in 1857, argues Savur was a defensive act to appease the aggravated middle class who helped the British and wanted the colonial state to award them by offering them work in the lower bureaucracy as clerks, especially in low administrative positions. By then the colonial state had realized that a number of higher administrative posts were taken away from the British by the Indian natives. As Savur argues,

“If setting up the three universities in India in 1857 (House of Lords, Second Report quoted in Basu 1982:8) was a defensive political act, ….. then introducing sociology during a wartime crisis cannot but be a panic reaction too (2011: 5)

What were the areas of concern for the colonial leaders? The colonial state realized that they had to have greater control over the university research and teaching, as they were growing concerned about the growing Nationalism, among Indian students in its various forms, including:

1. There were broad based religious revivalist movements, both within Hinduism and Islam in the late 19th century, which caught the imagination of the youth.

2. One could also see the rise of militant nationalism among the youth.

3. Thirdly, the colonial rulers believed that the Indian students learned about ideas of nationalism, civil liberties and constitutional literature, by reading works of British philosophers, leaders and social scientists.

Thus the challenge for the Colonial state was to draw the educated youth away from the new tide of Nationalism. One crucial way Savur argues would be to introduce a discipline that would help in keeping the students away from the ‘revolutionary ideas’ emerging in the country. Thus in 1917, (Report Montagu and Chelmsford of sociology recommending ‘limited rule’ to the Indians).

The interesting question is why sociology? Savur argues that we need to recognize that ‘academic sociology’ was a strong reaction to a powerful people’s movement, which culminated in the French Revolution. The fact that Auguste Comte, was recognized as the ‘father of Sociology’, institutionalised and legitimated the conservative perspective of ‘positive philosophy’, which was then taken forward by Durkeheim, who followed Comtian philosophy. Further, Savur argues that the academic sociology instutionalised in India was the conservative British brand of sociology, the larger idea being to instill conservative perspective among students that would not challenge the status quo. Peter Geddes was the first chair Professor of Sociology at Bombay university department of Sociology. Munshi (2007) argues that Geddes, though was a distinguished town planner and geographer, he was not very much interested in studying society in India and thus his work did not have much influence on Indian sociology.

The Legacy of Bombay University Department of Sociology: The Scholarship of G.S Ghurye:

How was this conservative perspective introduced? Savur states that G.S Ghurye, an outstanding scholar of Sanskrit was sent to England to train within the intellectual domain of Herbert Spencer, so as to develop an ‘apolitical’ sociological perspective. Herbert Spencer, believed in the organismic conception of sociology, and perceived society as a self- regulated system based on systemic patterns of interdependence. Savur argues that by focusing on Spencer, the sociological perspectives of Karl Marx and Max Weber, which was believed to be revolutionary and challenging the status quo, was ignored. Once in England, Ghurye trained in anthropology, in Cambridge, as it was believed that he was insensitive to Indian social contexts and to its history. Thus at the department of sociology at Bombay, Ghurye institutionalised the anthropological approach to sociology, as he believed that there is no need to distinguish between social anthropology and sociology (Ghurye 1956). Savur cites Ghurye (1973:45), ‘anthropological approach to Sociology is the most appropriate’ (Savur 2011: 17).

The question then is what kind of issues was engaged with and what could be referred to as the legacy of Ghurye? Savur (2011) and Dhanagre (2011) argue that it included areas of anthropological interest, such as narrative and descriptive studies of tribes, especially institutions such as marriage, family and rituals. Later Ghurye and his students did initiate research on changing urban scenario, especially the process of industrialization. Savur argues that it led to the formation of two new specializations, Industrial and Urban sociology in India. The students trained by Ghurye, within the indological approach, started teaching in different universities in India, teaching more often than not ‘anthropologised sociology’, which she argues led to a lack of analysis with the state, inequalities and no engagement with development. What was the impact of such an approach to sociology in India? Savur argues that the trajectory taken by sociology led to a permanent loss in the planning and development process. Dhanagare (2011) specifically argues that Ghurye’s pedagogic practices reveal that he never engaged with social realities and institutionalised a descriptive tradition of doing sociology in India. Such a history has led to lack of self-criticality among sociologists in India and impacted the growth of sociology as a scientific discipline, as sociology in India could never deal with social realities analytically.

Legacy of Bombay University Department of Sociology: The Scholarship of A.R Desai:

Savur (2011) argues that it was with the scholarship of A.R Desai, that ‘sociology came into its own’. With Desai’s background of Marxism and trade unionism, his work was based on historical materialism, engaged with issues such as economic recession and Naxalbari peasant movements that questioned India’s agrarian reform, established a liberal left tradition within the department. Savur (2011) and Dhanagare (2011) argue that the legacy of Desai includes, important practices within research and teaching. According to them, Desai made substantial changes in the curriculum, where he incorporated the works of Marxists and neo-marxists, and introduced new specializations. With the introduction of diverse courses, such as Theoretical Sociology – Introduction to European and American Theories, Sociology of Development, Sociology of Indian Society. Desai’s insistence on theoretical and analytical framework was extremely important, where the students were encouraged to analyse inequality by integrating theory and practices. Through emphasis on analytically linking the macro structures of state to micro experiences, within historical analysis, Desai was able to slowly disentangle from anthropology, thereby strengthening the analytical potential of the discipline.

Further, Desai introduced newer pedagogical practices, where he pushed the students to look beyond the classroom, department and library and interlink research, learning, teaching and activism. Desai, importantly, through insistence on theoretical and analytical framework pushed his students to think and analyse critically. Specifically, Savur argues that, Desai organized regular ‘open house meetings’, attended by students, teachers, scholars of various departments to discuss new books, concepts and thus ushered in a practice of interdisciplinary. Desai, through his emphasis on collaborative departmental research, encouraged research as a ‘collective activity and training’.

In this context the analysis of Jodhka (2009: 37) is relevant, where he states that one important aspect that gets reflected by analysing the practices of ‘sociology’ in India,- ‘the kind of people who came to occupy positions of in the university system and the kind of knowledge they produced about Indian society’. The collective legacy of Ghurye and Desai, Dhanagare (2011) argues include, a shared commitment to the discipline, meticulousness, methodologically rigorousness, intellectual integrity and importantly academic freedom to pursue studies or research according to one’s intellectual orientation. The last aspect is reflected on the fact that A.R Desai was the student of G.S Ghurye and they had completely different perspectives towards the practice of sociology in India.

g. Influence on Sociology Department at University of Pune (Renamed as Savitribai Phule Pune University):

Dhanagare (2011), analysis of the practice of sociology at this university, along with secondary analysis was also based on his ‘insider’ status, as he taught in this university. According to Dhanagare, it should be contextualized that teaching sociology in Pune, was started in 1949, almost two decades after post graduate research and teaching started in Bombay. The sociology practiced in Pune, was influenced by the two most eminent scholars Iravati Karve and Y.B Damle, students of Ghurye. It is also important to understand that when sociology was introduced it was within the already established anthropology department of the university.

The manner in which Iravati Karve organized the teaching and research focus of the department one could see the presence of G.S Ghurye, especially in terms of focus on ethnic complexity, structural institutions and social biology. Dhanagare (2011), argues that for a long time, social biology, with its focus on biological basis of human society, races and cultures and eugenics and euthenics was taught to the students of sociology. It is important to recognize that though Karve was influenced by the indological perspective of Ghurye, she differed from it, by acknowledging the non-brahmanical contributions to the diversities of Indian society.

Damle’s sociological work on the other hand did not see the influence of either Ghurye or Karve. Dhanagare argues that, Damle was much influenced by the theoretical perspectives of structural functionalism of Talcott Parsons and Robert Merton. Thus by focusing on areas such as social stratification, social change and sociological theory, especially systems theory, Dhanagare argues that Damle gave a new direction to the practice of sociology in India. Such a direction questioned the complacency of Indology, and pushed for a systemic analysis of the society.

What Damle carried forward, with the legacy of Ghurye and Desai, is the ‘legacy of intellectual freedom’, argues Dhanagare (2011: 144). By encouraging international collaboration, development of new courses by young colleagues, policy of non-interference in professional engagements, emphasis of rigour and methodology, Dhanagare argues, gave a ‘growth orientation to the discipline. Many of his students did exceptionally well, for example T.K Oommen, who did pioneering work in the area of sociology of social movements, by emphasizing on theoretical rigour and grassroot empirical data. The Bombay school which is one of the leading department, has through its theoretical rigourous perspective has created a substantive body of knowledge. Thus the important legacy of Bombay Sociology department include theoretical and methodological rigour and intellectual freedom, which are the core for nurturing critical analytical perspective within the practices of sociology in India.

Conclusion:

We started the module by asking the question ‘why institutional histories’ and argued that there are three reasons: one, pedagogic where the history familiarizes the students with their own disciplinary trajectories; two, to shape institutional directions, so that it would help in shaping the future trends of the discipline and three, to understand how global nexus of knowledge, power and politics construct and shape disciplines. Analysis of the Bombay department of sociology, has helped us to understand one, how the colonial history played a crucial role shaping and structuring the manner in which sociology was practiced in India, as it was the colonial state that introduced the discipline. Analysing the disciplinary trajectory in India also facilitated us to reflect on the manner in which the nexus between state power and knowledge are constructed and one could identify how and why certain perspectives become critical in particular times and particular spaces. Reflecting on the legacy of scholars associated with the department also helped us to think critically on the research and pedagogic practices institutionalised within the disciplines, that structure our world view and analytical frameworks.

References:

• Beteille, Andre (1973): Teaching of Sociology in India. Sociological Bulletin. Vol 22, No 2 (September), pp 216-233.
• Chaudhuri, M (2011): Looking Back The Practice of Sociology in CSSS/JNU in Sujata Patel (ed) Doing Sociology in India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
• Dhanagare, D N (2011): Legacy and Rigour: The Bombay School of Sociology and Its Impact in Universities in Maharashtra in in Sujata Patel (ed) Doing Sociology in India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
• Deegan, M J (2003): Textbooks, the History of Sociology and the Sociological Stock of Knowledge. Sociological Theory, Vol 21, No 3 (Sep), pp 298-305.
• Duncan, B (2009): writing the World: Disciplinary History and Beyond. International Affairs (Royal institute of International Affairs 1944-). Vol 85, No 1, International Order: Politics, Power and Persuasion (Jan), pp 3-22.
• Gieryn, T (1985): Review of Graham, L, Wolf, C and P. Weingart (eds): Functions and uses of Disciplinary History. Isis Vol 76, No 1 (Mar) pp 84-86 Hacking, I (2004): Historical Ontology. Harvard University Press: Harvard.
• Hegde, S (2011): Searching for Bedrock: Contending with the Lucknow School and Its Legacy in Sujata Patel (ed) Doing Sociology in India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
• Jayaram, N (2011): Sociology in Karnataka The Formation and Decline of a Discipline in SujataPatel (ed) Doing Sociology in India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
• Jodhka, S (2009): Review: The Plural Histories of Sociology and Social Anthropology Economic and Political Weekly Vol 44 No 17 (April 25- May 1) pp- 35-38
• Munshi, I (2007): Patrick Geddes: Sociologist, Environmentalist, and Town Planner in Patricia Uberoi, Nandini Sundar and Satish Deshpande (eds): Anthropology in the East. Permanent Black: New Delhi.

• Patel, S (2011): Introduction: Ruminating on Sociological Traditions in India in Sujata Patel (ed) Doing Sociology in India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
• (ed) (2011): Doing Sociology in India: Genealogies, Locations and Practices Oxford University Press: New Delhi.
• Rao, MSA (1974): A Survey of Research in Sociology and Social Anthropology Vol 1 A Project Sponsored by ICSSR, New Delhi. Popular Prakashan: Bombay.
• Uberoi, P, Sundar, N and Deshpande, S (eds): Anthropology in the East. Permanent Black: New Delhi

Weblinks

•       www.ramachandraguha.in/archives/the-ones-who-stayed-behind-economic-and- political-                             weekly.html

•       Caste- A Review of Literature on Caste Y.B Damle

•       http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/83016/14694880.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1

Professional Associations

•       http://www.insoso.org/bulletin.html Website of Indian Sociological Society

•       http://www.sociosite.net/associations.php Sociology Associations world wide….

•       http://www.isa-sociology.org/ website of the International Sociological Association