Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Today, the post-colonial reasoning has reached mainstream sociology. The main point of criticism is sociology’s focus on the modern “West” and its ignorance of non-Western societies as well as the universalistic claim of sociological theories developed in the North Atlantic. This produces hierarchies and power in knowledge production and ignorance of epistemologies and research on and in the Global South. It is sometimes overlooked that this debate is not entirely new. Western hegemony is a long-standing topic in Development Sociology and led to the fundamental post-development critique. Later on, Global Sociology focused on inequalities in the science system and the exclusion of non-Western theories and epistemologies. With this article we organise this academic field, reveal differences and overlaps between these intellectual traditions and identify their particular focus, including their claims for future sociological studies. In conclusion, we argue for an empirical turn in the decolonisation of sociology.

Keywords

sociology of knowledge universalisation Western sociology global sociology post-colonial studies post-development development sociology Global South

Introduction

In the 2000s, nearly 20 years ago, the post-colonial critique of Western domination (Bhambra, 2007; Connell, 2020) entered sociology. However, despite the growing literature, the bulk of sociological research and publications is still unaffected by this critical intervention, even though critical sociologists still demand the decolonisation of sociology (e.g. Go, 2013; Gutiérrez-Rodríguez et al., 2010; Hossen, 2023; Moosavi, 2020, 2023; Tinsley, 2022). At least some of the authors rediscover earlier arguments for the indigenisation of sociology with reference to Africa (e.g. Akiwowo, 1986, 1988), Asia (e.g. S.H. Alatas, 1972, 1974) or Latin America (e.g. Latin American Subaltern Studies Group, 1993; for an overview, see Dufoix and Macé, 2019). The main points of this critique are that sociology as a discipline was founded in the age of imperialism and colonialism, and that it uses universal concepts. Its focus was on the modern “West”, or more precisely the “North Atlantic”, and it claimed universality while ignoring non-Western societies and non-Western thinking. In the post-colonial or decolonial debate this is described as “epistemic violence” (Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2018: 3; Spivak, 1988: 288–289). The colonial heritage of Western dominance or hegemony and its impact on societies in Global South – which can be addressed as coloniality – is too often ignored in sociology. As a reaction, new approaches have been developed, such as “theories from the South”, “epistemologies from the South” (Connell, 2020), “global sociology” (Burawoy, 2008, 2015) or “connected sociology” (Bhambra, 2014), combined with demands to decolonise sociology (Boatcă and Costa, 2010) or with a post-colonial critical realism (Tinsley, 2022). This at least partly links with the older and still lively debate on post-development (Escobar, 1995; Klein and Morreo, 2019). Whereas large parts of mainstream sociology in the West struggle to address this criticism, in Latin America and Africa, and also parts of Asia, it has fallen on favourable ground (Kessi et al., 2020; Mignolo and Escobar, 2010; Quijano, 2000).

These terms and critical debates obviously do overlap. Some are linked to cultural studies and social science in general, where post-colonial or decolonial theories point to present-day world-wide power structures. They intersect with the more focused post-development debate in interdisciplinary development studies. The notion of “global sociology” refers to an inner sociological debate that overlaps with theories from the South. They all share some cross-cutting points, such as criticism of Western hegemony and the persistent inequality of the international science system. They all have an emancipatory impetus to overcome Western hegemony. They show up the advantages of taking the chance to learn from the South and find alternatives to Western capitalist modernity. Despite some overlaps the debates have different foci and different theoretical backgrounds. Hence, scholars who try to order this academic field argue that the peculiarities are still hard to find (Dufoix and Macé, 2019). It is surprising that in these debates there is hardly any reference to the sociology of development, which some decades ago addressed key points of the contemporary critique of the West, such as the dependency of the South, or colonialism and its legacy.

In a nutshell, there exist a multitude of concepts dealing with Western hegemony. Against this background, we pursue three goals. First, for those who have not taken part in these debates or have followed just one approach (post-development, post-coloniality, global sociology, development sociology), we will try to organise this academic field. We introduce the main intellectual traditions, reveal differences as well as overlaps and synergies between the debates, and identify their particular foci, including their suggestions for future sociological research.¹ Second, in presenting these intellectual traditions we will show their tensions and limitations. Third, we will argue that critical theoretical reflection dominates in this academic field and plead in favour of an empirical turn in the decolonisation of sociology. From our point of view, we need empirical studies (which are inherent to development sociology) that challenge the Western bias of sociological concepts and theories (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Overview of the debates and their relation to different concepts and disciplines.

The presentation of these intellectual traditions starts with the dominating critical debates on post-development and post-coloniality as part of interdisciplinary debates in the fields of literature, and the cultural and social sciences. Following a discussion of global sociology, we will take a look at development sociology as a part of interdisciplinary development studies, which includes area studies and anthropology. We conclude by showing some limitations and pitfalls of the intellectual traditions, and argue for an empirical turn in all debates engaging with the universalistic claim in sociology.

Before we start, we would like to draw attention to the limitations of the terms “Eurocentric”, “Western”, and “Euro-American”. Euro-American includes the Americas in general and also includes Eastern Europe. But neither Eastern Europe nor Latin America are part of the classic heartland of sociological concepts and theories. For this reason, we will use the term “North Atlantic”, meaning North America and Western Europe. The term “West” comes close, but is not exactly the same. It includes former colonies, such as Australia or New Zealand, which are also not part of the heartland of classic sociological research, while they are socially and scientifically close to the North Atlantic because they are part of the Anglophone realm.² Therefore, we prefer the term North Atlantic. However, when citing other authors we will follow their terminology.

Post-development and post-coloniality

Post-development and post-colonial debates are currently the most widely recognised form of critique of North Atlantic hegemony in sociology. They transcend the horizons of sociologists specialising in the Global South. These current debates can be traced back to the 1980s and are based on sociology’s claim to universality. Post-development and post-colonial debates share the same criticism of sociology linked with a deconstructionist lens, but harbour different epistemic self-understandings. Their shared aim is to break through the hegemonic interpretation of modernisation as the main model of transformation, and to show, on the one hand, that concepts of social change and associated ideas of the good life are plural (Escobar, 2010). On the other hand, they argue that sociological theorising is Eurocentric, androcentric and racist (Ziai, 2020). This means that scientific knowledge is situated and not universal. Post-development and post-colonial studies are not uniform schools of thought and develop their arguments in an interdisciplinary field. Post-colonial studies originated in cultural and literary studies and gained the attention of critical social scientists. Both schools of thought use the notion of “post”, which is not meant as a temporal concept but rather as a critical reflection on existing patterns of thought.

In the frame of post-development studies, scholars related their critique of a universalist explanation of development to an economic critique. Following Escobar (1995), development is perceived as the continuation of colonial suppression and the hegemony of the North Atlantic, leaving no space for local understandings of transformation. In addition, one of the main problems is that sociology constructs “the other” as deviant and not as a source of transformation (Ziai, 2020). As a consequence, post-development scholars study the “alternatives” to development in contrast to the dominant North Atlantic path of capitalist modernisation (Esteva et al., 2013; Klein and Morreo, 2019; Kothari et al., 2019). Studies on alternatives to development also highlight the plurality of “local” concepts of the good life beyond development and the importance of indigenous knowledge and ontologies. One of these concepts is the Latin American buen vivir (Caria and Domínguez, 2016). Other examples are the performance of communal work (Lang, 2019) or community farming (Chitranshi, 2019) as local paths of transformation beyond the logic of capitalist modernity. Important actors with regard to alternative transformation are social movements that establish “alternative” anti-capitalist practices. Social movements such as the Zapatistas in Mexico (Inclán, 2012) or the Kurdish Rojava communities in Syria³ (Nordhag, 2021) create alternative understandings of democracy and economy, community and solidarity (for more examples, see Kothari et al., 2019). Post-development scholars have in common that they call on sociologists to consider these alternative development paths, and these concepts of the good life, and thus the plurality of epistemic sources, such as indigenous knowledge.

Despite their enormous contribution to deconstructing the universalistic claims of sociology by simultaneously expanding the focus of sociology to include “alternative”, “local” or “indigenous” ontologies and epistemologies, post-development studies face some pitfalls. All these “alternatives” aspire to some kind of “good life”, often ignoring the ambivalences and limitations of this idea (Cusicanqui, 2012). For example, the “people” or the “community” cannot be taken as a homogeneous collective because it is always subject to intersectional inequalities (for discussions of socio-economic status, gender, political power, race/ethnicity, political orientation, etc., see Hickey and Mohan, 2004; Mikkelsen, 2005; Pattnaik and Balaton-Chrimes, 2019). The alternatives also risk being culturally relativist and romantic (Rist, 2008: 209) and block mutual learning between the North Atlantic and the Global South, which offers added value (Olatunji and Bature, 2019: 242) or creates something new, including indigenous notions of modernity. Cusicanqui (2012) argues that these local or indigenous ideas and cultures can certainly be entangled with modernity. She argues, for example, that the notion of ch’ixi is a productive tension and mutual complementarity between different elements of indigeneity and modernity, beyond the Western concept of hybridisation. This reminds us to be careful not to romanticise alternative solutions. In addition, some of the promoted alternatives are less genuine than they might seem and are close to concepts in the criticised Western development nexus. The formation of buen vivir as an “alternative” to development was supported by a workshop organised by GIZ, the German Development Organisation (Altmann, 2013: 102). Not least, the supposed local rationalities or epistemologies often relate to North Atlantic anti-capitalist, socialist or communist concepts. Exactly this reference to the North Atlantic epistemological realm makes them attractive for critical left-wing debates.

Post-colonial research is interdisciplinary and overlaps with post-development studies. Post-colonial studies is a wide field with a broad diversity of scholarly work. We can observe two main intellectual traditions. One of these is critical reflection on the canon of North Atlantic scholarly work. The other is critique of colonial legacies. Both refer to the historical period of imperialism and colonisation, and to the urgent need to dismantle its legacies. The currently most cited authors are Mignolo (2010a, 2010b) and Quijano (2000, 2010), with their studies relating to Latin America. Quijano (2000) argues that the Latin American countries are shaped by an idea of European modernity that perpetuates colonial power in thinking and science and legitimates exploitative capitalism. The core element of this argument is that the colonial power matrix combines control of the economy with exploitation of labour and control over natural resources, authority, gender and sexuality, subjectivity and knowledge (epistemology). Beyond this, scholars focus on a discussion of the philosophical background of Eurocentrism, its consequences for scientific epistemology and the necessary shift to decolonial thinking (e.g. Mignolo, 2010b, 2020), and the need for a decentralising of knowledges (Rodriguez Medina and Harding, 2025). A main point is that colonisation involves not only the occupation and exploitation of territories, but also a racialised and violent process of construction and formation of so-called “others” – understood as a constitutive condition of the “self” (Hall, 2016).

From a more general perspective, post-colonial critiques turn not just against modernity but also against theories of globalisation, global cosmopolitanism, and multiple modernities. Even when these approaches focus on the plurality of social realities, for Bhambra (2010) they do not take into account the associated power relations. Bhambra’s call for decolonisation is a strong reminder that colonial dominance is still relevant. This includes a special responsibility for sociology, because the foundation of the discipline and the understanding of modernity developed in the context of imperialism and colonialism (Bhambra, 2007). She proposes “connected sociologies” that are sensitive to existing power structures and their colonial roots (Bhambra, 2014).

One of the core concepts of post-colonial studies, and particularly post-colonial sociology, is “provincialisation” (Chakrabarty, 1992, 2000). This points to the limitation of scientific concepts that claim to be universal, ignoring the fact that they were developed in Europe. Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2018: 3, 10) contributes to the debate by highlighting, with regard to Africa, that “decolonization has a double task of ‘provincializing Europe’ and ‘deprovincializing Africa’”. Provincialising means questioning the universal nature of sociology, and countering the over-representation of Europe, while deprovincialisation or de-Europeanisation means regarding Africa (for example) as a valuable unit for analysis, and seriously considering epistemologies emerging from Africa. Connell (2020) calls for considering epistemologies in the Global South, and thus acknowledging differences in knowledge production, which includes non-scientific popular knowledge and knowledge produced by those who suffer oppression and injustice. In her statement that Southern theory is linked to “indigenous knowledge” and “theories of the South” she refers to Akiwowo, African philosophy and African Renaissance, with a critique of the conditions for the production of knowledge in Africa. This is connected to dependency theory and post-development studies, and to the Indian Subaltern Studies that produced the term “epistemic violence” (Chakrabarty, 1992; Spivak, 1988; see also: Cusicanqui, 2012).

Up to now, mainstream social science uses universal parameters and defines modern North Atlantic societies as a global blueprint (Boatcă and Costa, 2010). Post-colonial studies unmask this implicit or explicit claim to universality as false universalism and as the ongoing dominance of North Atlantic sociology. This brings post-colonial thinking close to global sociology (see below).⁴ Burawoy (2009: 224), arguing for a global sociology, writes: “There is an elephant in the room and it is, of course, the domination, hegemony of Northern Sociology over Southern Sociology”.

Post-colonial scholars are accused of ignoring sociological approaches and a lack of willingness to dialogue with the “establishment” (Costa, 2007, 2012). In addition, the debate often refers to the Global South in very general terms, without taking a closer look, or making a more specific analysis of (post-)colonial hegemons such as China or Russia. Structural power relations are often referred to as North-South relations without sufficiently considering the complexity of realities and the heterogeneity of the Global South. The widely stretched concept of colonialism or coloniality as an umbrella term for structures of inequality risks losing its analytical sharpness and accuracy. To overcome these potential simplifications, scholars such as Boatcă and Costa (2010: 27) have called for a context-sensitive post-colonial sociology. This shows that there is much controversy surrounding post-colonial theory. We contribute to this debate by arguing that, while most post-colonial studies are based on philosophical ideas and critical theory, there is clearly a need for empirical country-specific research on epistemic hierarchies and colonial legacies in the particular local society (see some of the articles in Mignolo and Escobar, 2010; Quijano, 2000).

Global sociology as professional sociology

Global sociology reflects critically on the dominance of North Atlantic thinking, as post-colonial and post-development scholars do. More specifically, global sociology points to the core of sociology’s self-perception. The term global sociology is used in different ways, as a theory, a debate or a conceptual perspective (Kislenko, 2021: 580). In some cases, global sociology overlaps with post-coloniality. The notion of global sociology emerged in the 1960s as an understanding of the world as a single system, but at the same time recognising the need to consider the differences between societies (Moore, 1966). The idea of the interconnectedness of the world was another starting point marked by dependency theories in development sociology (see below). It became even more popular during the debate on globalisation. However, the question of the long-term consequences of colonialism and the resulting power relations were not in the focus of these studies (for an overview, see Cohen and Kennedy, 2013).

Mainly in the 1970s and 1980s, some voices from the Global South challenged the universal claim of North Atlantic sociology. Maybe the first was S.H. Alatas and his critique of the captive mind with its uncritical adoption of Western theories for the analysis of Southern societies. This led to a call to consider the particular elements of societies in the South and to develop an autonomous science (S.H. Alatas, 1972, 1974, 2002). It is not surprising that the International Sociology Association (ISA) developed as an arena for this debate, which appeared in the journals of the association and as a topic at its (world) congresses. The debate included a critique of universalism in sociology and a plea for stressing the local context and local epistemologies (Kislenko, 2021: 281). The early contributions by Akiwowo (1986, 1988) in the ISA Journal International Sociology (for a detailed discussion of Akiwowo, see Pearce, 2021) are still a reference point for the ongoing debate. Akiwowo argued for a Nigerian sociology that refers to traditional Yoruba poetry and thus challenged Western epistemology. This led to the question whether sociology is based on universalism, with one sociology for all, or particularism with different sociologies for different societies (Kislenko, 2021: 281–282; Neubert, 2022). In line with post-colonial thinking, indigenous knowledge became an expression of particularism in these academic debates. Under the heading of sociology for one world, sociology was called upon to open itself for different local contexts and their interaction with global mechanisms (Albrow, 1987).

For Burawoy (ISA president 2010–2014), who is strongly associated with global sociology, this notion is an answer to the critique of simplified universalism. Accordingly, global sociology is a perspective of sociological thinking and a strategy to change the discipline and its institutions. Global sociology needs to be based on national sociologies that observe their particular societies as part of a global or, as he puts it, “planetary context”.

A global sociology, therefore, has not only to be a sociology of society but also a sociology in society, recognizing the place of the sociologist-qua-scientist within a planetary context. (Burawoy, 2015: 28)

This highlights Burawoy’s notion of a politically committed “public sociology” combined with the notion of a “professional sociology” that builds on existing sociological knowledge.

Whether we are living in Colombo or Paris, Auckland or Oakland, Johannesburg or Sao Paulo, Tokyo or Beirut what defines us as sociologists is our connection to traditions of sociological research and theorising, traditions that have been defined by our predecessors, traditions that are redefined and rearticulated in a community of fellow scholars. (Burawoy, 2015: 15)

For Burawoy, global sociology tries to develop a compromise between simple universalism and radical particularism. It promotes a moderate universalism in sociological thought that reflects the differences between societies. Global sociology aims at integrating research in different societies into existing sociological debates. An example of this perspective is the volume edited by Burawoy et al. (2010). The argument here is that studies from different world regions will add new aspects to the conditions of doing sociology that may challenge mainstream sociology while remaining within the realm of professional sociology. This has led to calls to critically test mainstream sociological concepts on the basis of empirical material from outside the North Atlantic, as has been done in more recent studies in development sociology (e.g. Daniel, 2022, Daniel, forthcoming; Neubert, 2022).

North-Atlantic-dominated theories are just one important part of the problem. Global sociology also aims at the overcoming of striking institutional inequality and the dominance of North Atlantic institutions in knowledge production and reasoning, in line with post-colonial studies (Burawoy, 2015; Daniel, 2022; Neubert, 2022: 12; Neubert and Sabbi, 2024; Rodriguez Medina, 2014). North Atlantic universities dominate international research because they have better access to research funding, with better possibilities for publishing and attending conferences. Many universities and scientific institutions in the Global South are not only less well funded, but also less self-determined, and often have to rely on consulting and earmarked development funds, leading to applied and problem-oriented research (Keim et al., 2014; Sinha-Kerkhoff and Alatas, 2010). Even cooperation between North Atlantic and Global South research institutions may perpetuate hierarchies and inequality (Cusicanqui, 2012). Especially in Africa south of the Sahara the local actors are often only involved as research assistants and not on an equal footing (Iroulo and Tappe Ortiz, 2022: 75; Marchais et al., 2020). Here we can clearly observe the influence of the colonial past and the dominance of North Atlantic sociology. In South Africa, an exception in Africa with some well-funded, strong universities, research is shaped by US American and British functionalism and has a long history of following Marxism (cf. Daniel et al., 2022). In other world regions, such as Latin America or Asia, there are considerable differences. On the one hand, there are countries with strong academic institutions, such as Brazil, Mexico, Chile, China, Korea, Japan, India, Singapore or the Gulf States, and partly also Thailand. On the other hand, there are countries where conditions are much more difficult, with poorer and politically restrictive regimes (Neubert and Sabbi, 2024). This is the reason why Rodriguez Medina and Harding (2025) call for epistemic decentralising, which means a conscious distribution of resources, institutional support and authority to marginalised scholars, and a shift towards decentralised knowledge production.

Patel (2014) proposes a twofold strategy for overcoming structural hierarchies. First, he argues that the global scientific community needs to turn away from its European and colonial history and open up for other concepts, theories and explanations, including new syllabuses for the classroom. Second, he underlines the need “to build intellectual networks across institutions and scholarships among and between the scholars of the non-Atlantic and Atlantic regions” (Patel, 2014: 610). This will only be possible if the main funding institutions in the North Atlantic open up not only for researchers from other regions but also for their topics and questions (Neubert and Sabbi, 2024). The main contribution of global sociology is its critical reflection on sociology’s claim to universality through the valorisation of Southern epistemologies. It also has a political dimension in that it calls for an integrative space for the multitude of sociologies.

A point that is seldom reflected on in global sociology is the dominance of English as a lingua franca, which excludes non-anglophone scholarship and scholars (Keim, 2014: 102; Oettler et al., 2024). Also, there is a lack of reflection on the genesis of global sociology, which emerged as a result of colonial domination. Thus, sociology maintains the existing hierarchies. Just “calling for voices from the periphery to enter into debates with the center” ignores their different relations to the colonial past (Bhambra, 2015: 3). This focus on existing power structures is a main point of Bhambra’s “connected sociologies” (Bhambra, 2014). With a different twist, Boatcă and Costa (2010: 26) point to the dilemma of choosing between universalism and particularism. The problem with particularism, as indirectly mentioned above, is that it tends to overlook structural hierarchies and power dynamics. In addition, when emphasising the particular, there is a danger of ignoring the relevance of theories beyond the specific context, or their global interconnectedness. This is where sociologists, as argued in Boatcă and Costa (2010), perceive the critical perspective of post-colonial sociology as being necessary in order to reflect on related power dynamics in knowledge production. This critical point is well taken, but the question is whether post-colonial power dynamics are the only topic for sociology. Sari Hanafi (ISA president 2018–2023) from the American University of Beirut, who may be seen as a voice from the South, underlines that “the post-colonial approach is not sufficient to account for the problems of knowledge production” and calls for a “post-authoritarian approach” (Hanafi, 2019: 2) that would include critical analysis of the growing importance of authoritarian practices in the Global South. This reminds us that inequality has more than one potential cause.

We are far from realising global sociology. North Atlantic sociology, and sociology in other parts of the world, still bypass the debate on global sociology and ignore or sideline all critical debates contesting universality. Even at ISA world congresses, where this critique has been expressed in inaugural addresses and panels, the bulk of papers treat typical mainstream topics.

Development sociology: A pioneer as part of the problem and part of the solution

From its beginning, development sociology went far beyond the typical focus on the North Atlantic, long before post-development, post-decolonial and global sociology emerged. The fact that development sociology, although it is a sub-discipline of sociology, is little known or less popular is related to its legacy of modernisation theory. As we will show, development sociology consists of a broad diversity of theories that partly overlap with post-development, post-decolonial and global sociology.

In the 1960s, development sociology emerged as part of the interdisciplinary field of development studies, which includes, among others, anthropology, economics, political science and area studies. It followed the dominant theories that explicitly set the North Atlantic region as a blueprint for the world, with the idea of universal, linear and quasi-automatic modernisation, and supported the appropriate development policies (Rostow, 1971; Smelser, 1973). The dominance of classical modernisation theories⁵ in the 1960s and 1970s is part of the problematic legacy of development sociology.

The critique of these theories of modernisation started in the 1960s. Dependency theories coming from Latin America (Frank, 1966; Prebisch, 1962) became an integral part of development sociology (Amin, 1976; Arrighi and Saul, 1973). They pointed to continuing interdependencies between the former colonial powers and the former colonies. The core point was that the development of today’s industrialised countries was built on dependencies and led to underdevelopment and growing structural heterogeneity in the former colonies (see also Wallerstein, 1974).⁶ Instead of the term “decolonising” these authors preferred “decoupling” or “self-reliance”, which they saw as the only way to overcome the still existing domination of the North Atlantic. Even if the terms are different, global inequality was, and still is, the core critique of these studies. Thus, development sociology has referred since the 1970s to these “theories from the South”. This line of research merged with the aforementioned post-development critique which was also part of development and post-colonial studies.

In response to these critical approaches, the so-called empirical turn started in the 1980s and referred to earlier and new ethnographic studies. Instead of expanding the debate relating to modernisation or dependency theories, development sociologists have contributed empirical studies and focused on understanding the microcosms of social phenomena. The findings of qualitative and ethnographic studies have revealed the limitations of supposed “universal concepts” in sociology by highlighting the particularities of societies in the Global South (Neubert, 2001, 2020: 27–28). These observations overlap with those in regional studies (such as African or Asian studies) and in anthropology, and are sometimes described as being based on a decolonial perspective (Daniel et al, 2022). In contrast to decolonial sociology, development sociology not only reflects on the limits of theory, but offers rich critical empirical data.

For instance, the simple question some development sociologists ask is, “Do Western sociological concepts apply globally?” (Neubert, 2022). Starting from a critical reflection on universal sociology, they argue that concepts and theories need to be contextualised when doing research on or in the Global South. Development sociology deals directly with local (indigenous) knowledge and worldviews. These different epistemologies and ontologies form the basis of theories of the South and require awareness of the resulting methodological challenges (Hountondji, 1997; Neubert, 2001; Warren et al, 1995).

Already in the 1970s, ethnographic studies on poverty showed that informal settlements were not just places of deprivation and the fatalist culture of poverty (Lewis, 1971) but places with a vibrant self-help economy (Hake, 1977; Perlman, 1976) and dynamic informal economic activity (Hart, 1973), the so-called “informal sector”. These studies led to a new view of small-scale economic activity in industrialised countries, which is now seen as part of the economy (Deléchat and Medina, 2020: 55; Venn, 2008).

Beyond this, the globalisation debate led to a new perspective on the connection between the North Atlantic and the Global South. Studies from development sociology and anthropology showed that globalisation is a process of dynamic interaction, addressed as glocalisation, that overcomes simple dichotomies of North and South (Robertson, 1995). This includes processes of “appropriation” that transform universally available goods, and sometimes also institutions or concepts, to make them useful at the local level (De Leat and Mol, 2000; Neubert and Daniel, 2012; Van Binsbergen and Van Dijk, 2004). These studies underline local agency as an important element, in addition to power structures.⁷

Social structure as a mainly socio-economic concept has been challenged by empirical studies from the Global South. According to the classic concepts in sociology, modernity and capitalism lead to class differences that mark the main dividing lines in a society. However, studies of communities in Africa and other regions have shown that ethnicity is a very strong element of social organisation and social structure, especially with regard to urbanisation. Ethnic belonging is not just a traditional feature of society that dwindles with modernity. On the contrary, ethnicity gains in importance and sometimes new ethnic identities are created which may become a crucial element of social structuring (for Africa, see Eriksen, 1998; Iliffe, 1979; Neubert, 2019: 132–148; Southall, 1970). By now ethnicity is also accepted as an important potential feature of intersectionality in the societies of the North Atlantic (Anthias, 2013).

Empirical data can also challenge basic sociological concepts such as class. Concepts of class still follow the ideas of authors like Marx and Weber, where occupational position or control over the means of production lead to similar incomes and shared political orientations as the basis for potential political action. Class membership is usually thought of as applying to a whole family and as having a certain stability, despite the possibility of upward and downward mobility. However, with the application of the Marxist class concept to Africa between 1960 and the 1980s some particularities led to the definition of new classes. Authors identified a class of proletarised peasants (Arrighi and Saul, 1973) and a ruling class that gained its position via control over the state and its bureaucracy, the so-called “bureaucratic bourgeoisie” (Shivji, 1976) or “bourgeoisie of the civil service” (Fanon, 1968). Economic studies identifying a “new” middle class in the Global South (African Development Bank, 2011; Banerjee and Duflo, 2008) seem to support the earlier hopes of modernisation theories, although sound socio-economic studies show that the bulk of the middle class in the South are far away from the economic position of the middle class in the Global North (Darbon and Toulabor, 2011; Melber, 2015). More important than these socio-economic differences are empirical insights that challenge the classic concept of class (for a summary, see Daniel et al, 2016; Neubert, 2019). They show that the so-called middle class combines different sources of income (employment, small enterprise, agriculture; Schubert, 2016; Toulabor, 2014). Neither control over the means of production nor occupation can be used to define a particular social position. At the same time, normative and political orientations are determined neither by socio-economic status nor by occupation. Thus, we need to be very careful in applying our North-Atlantic-based sociological concepts to other regions of the world. It is always an empirical question whether class is an appropriate term to use.

However, this potential of development sociology to critically reflect is still not systematically realised, either in the aforementioned academic debate or in mainstream sociology. One reason lies in development sociology itself. Often development sociology does not realise its own potential. As Connell (2020) rightly complains, still too much research in this field is following a sociological canon which does not sufficiently engage with the limitations of sociological theory and concepts. It remains on the North Atlantic.

However, because of the existing links between development sociology and science institutions in the South, some steps have been taken towards reflecting on and reacting to the inequalities in the international science system. More recent studies in development sociology draw from the theoretical backdrop of post-colonial studies, engage critically with theory and show these limitations on the basis of rich empirical knowledge. In so doing, they combine the best of the “two worlds”, deconstructivist critical engagement and context sensitivity. From our point of view, it is time to bring development sociology back into dialogue with post-development, post-colonial and global sociology by acknowledging that sociology of development is part of the problem, but also offers answers to the lack of context sensitivity in recent academic debates with a rich body of empirical data and analysis (Hossen, 2023; Olutayo, 2014).

Conclusion: Pitfalls of the debates and a call for an empirical turn in critical engagement with universalism

The commonalities between these different approaches are obvious: they address the ignorance within mainstream sociology of societies in the Global South, the domination of the North Atlantic as a universal role model for transformation, the lack of awareness concerning the unequal relations between the North Atlantic and the Global South, and the need for reflection on knowledge production and structural changes within the discipline of sociology. These overlaps lead to the observation that academics often identify with multiple intellectual traditions. An example is Quijano, who initially positioned himself within development sociology and later shifted towards decolonial sociology.

While they share common ground, the debates have different foci. Post-colonial studies are mainly theoretical (one of the few exceptions is Rodriguez Medina, 2014), highlighting the continued existence of unequal global power relations and pointing to racist colonial societies. Their answer is to call for decolonisation of these societies and of sociology. Post-development scholars throw light on alternative concepts of a good life and transformations that have already been put into practice, and call for models of development that highlight pluriverse futures based on Southern epistemologies. Global sociology underlines the opening up of sociology to the Global South and promotes national empirical and professional sociologies in the Global South. This is in line with calls to reform the scientific system and offers researchers from the Global South the opportunity to work on an equal footing with their counterparts in the North Atlantic region. Development sociologists have wide-ranging experience of research in the Global South and provide sound empirical data as an indispensable condition for provincialisation. Development sociology also has access to long-established cooperation arrangements with researchers in the Global South. However, serious self-reflection on its legacy of modernisation theories is needed. It is increasingly losing recognition in mainstream sociology due to the growing importance of the other intellectual traditions, especially global and decolonial sociology. Clearly, development sociology needs to reflect on its future role.

Although overlaps exist, there is a lack of agreement between the different intellectual traditions concerning the political subjectivity of researchers and the role of academia in society. While some argue for unifying patterns of reasoning and knowledge production in line with the positionality of the researcher as distant and reflective, others point to the political subjectivity and the impact of researchers, as well as their responsibility towards society.

At least implicitly, the post-colonial and decolonial critiques suggest that there is opposition between the sociology of the North Atlantic and that of the South. However, we should be careful not to structure the debate along a more or less artificially constructed North-South divide. The protagonists of the different theoretical positions cannot simply be categorised as representatives of a Northern and a Southern camp. It is obvious that outspoken critics of mainstream sociology are from the North or based in the North, and that Northern science institutions offer the means to develop this critique.⁸ It can be observed that (seemingly) Southern exponents of a radical critique of North Atlantic epistemologies are also supporters of universal scientific rationality or sociology (Hountondji, 1996, 2007; Nwabueze, 2021), or argue for rigid scientific methods (Nyamnjoh, 2015). Critique of post-development with a quest for a more pragmatic approach comes also from Africa (Olatunji and Bature, 2019). Thus, we find different positions not only in the North Atlantic area, but also in the South. The critique of science cross-cuts the simple North-South divide.

Despite the very stimulating debates, all these intellectual traditions remain a niche in sociology. It seems that they develop in a kind of parallel world and have a limited impact on mainstream sociology. In addition, most critical engagements with the claim to universality are theoretical. While much research in post-development and development sociology is based on empirical data, these studies can be criticised because they apply widespread sociological concepts and theories and do not diverge from the sociological canon (see the empirical studies in Bueno et al., 2023; Burawoy et al., 2010). Thus, they do not pose a challenge to current sociological theorising.

Abend reminds us that sociologies that follow significantly different epistemological assumptions (he refers to Mexico and the US) are by no means incommensurable (Abend, 2006, 26–28). They can talk to each other and are part of general sociological reasoning. We need to take this chance for dialogue across the different research perspectives of post-colonial, post-development, global sociology and development sociology and their different epistemological orientations. Dialogue means being prepared to listen to the views of the others. We would like to contribute to such a dialogue with the following argument: In our opinion, theories, whether part of mainstream sociology or critical approaches, must prove suitable for the interpretation of empirical findings, and be able to be further developed based on empirical data. This call for an empirical turn is important against the backdrop of the dominant theoretical reasonings in decolonial and global sociology with their critique of the positivist and colonial legacy of sociology. Only sound empirical research addressing social phenomena in the Global South can open the way for different methodological orientations and prevent gross simplifications, such as the general claim that inequality is due to the perpetuation of colonial power structures in the present, or the sometimes romantic belief in local solutions. Social realities in the Global South confirm these arguments but also go beyond them. It is important to recognise the diversity of social realities in order to avoid simplifications. Empirical research is necessary for this purpose, whether quantitative, qualitative or based on participative approaches, open and combined with constructivist perspectives. The methods for understanding social phenomena in the Global South exist, but we need to use them in a critical way, with critical reflection of their epistemological legacy. Empirical research in and on the Global South should be carried out in dialogue between the Global South and the Global North, integrating different epistemological traditions and offering space for cooperation and learning across different approaches.

All in all, the different debates underline that sociology must systematically recognise, analyse and reflect on the contextuality of its findings and use the results to continue developing sociological theories. Only this offers a perspective beyond the North Atlantic for decolonising research with solid empirical grounding and in-depth knowledge of particular contexts. What we need is an exchange between the different debates against the background of an empirical turn that offers access to local perspectives and knowledge, as provided by development sociology. Despite the existence of a few examples, this is far from being realised. Up to now empirical sociology has focused mainly on national societies. What is missing is a real international exchange beyond the North Atlantic. This means exchange between different national sociologies,⁹ including a Northern openness for Southern thinkers (S.F. Alatas, 2003, 2010). This will lead to systematic provincialisation and will show which concepts and theories can be developed and applied universally. The ISA pushes in this direction. However, even if the critical debate is as productive as promised and moves forward and leaves the North Atlantic bias behind, the structural inequalities in the science system, hierarchies in knowledge production and between academic institutions will remain. Overcoming these inequalities is also a question of funding and access to international journals and publishers, as well as participation in international conferences. Within the given science system, only limited steps towards equality are possible without fundamental political changes. At least these steps must be taken.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Antje Daniel

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

References

Abend

(2006) Styles of sociological thought: sociologies, epistemologies, and the Mexican and US quests for truth. Sociological Theory, 24(1): 1–41.

Adorno

Adey

Frisby

(1977) The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. Heinemann.

African Development Bank (2011) The middle of the pyramid: dynamics of the middle class in Africa. Market Brief, April 20.

Akiwowo

(1986) Contributions to the sociology of knowledge from an African oral poetry. International Sociology 1(4): 343–358.

Akiwowo

(1988) Universalism and indigenisation in sociological theory: introduction. International Sociology 3(2): 155–160.

Alatas

(2003) Academic dependency and the global division of labour in the social sciences. Current Sociology 51(6): 599–613.

Alatas

(2010) Intellectual and structural challenges to academic dependency. In: Sinha-Kerkhoff

Alatas

(eds) Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences. Structural Reality and Intellectual Challenges. Manohar, pp.55–77.

Alatas

(1972) The captive mind in development studies (Part 1). International Social Sciences Journal 24(1): 9–25.

Alatas

(1974) The captive mind and creative development. International Social Science Journal 26(4): 691–700.

10.

Alatas

(2002) The development of an autonomous social science tradition in Asia: problems and prospects. Asian Journal of Social Science 30(1): 150–157.

11.

Albrow

(1987) Sociology for one world. International Sociology 2(1): 1–12.

12.

Altmann

(2013) Das Gute Leben Als Alternative Zum Wachstum? Der Fall Ecuador. Sozialwissenschaften und Berufspraxis 36(1):101–111.

13.

Amin

(1976) Unequal Development: An Essay on the Social Formations of Peripheral Capitalism. Monthly Review Press.

14.

Anthias

(2013) Intersectional what? Social divisions, intersectionality and levels of analysis. Ethnicities 13(1): 3–19.

15.

Arjomand

Patel

(eds) (2010) The Isa Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. Sage.

16.

Arrighi

Saul

(eds) (1973) Essays on the Political Economy of Africa. Monthly Review Press.

17.

Banerjee

Duflo

(2008) What is middle class about, the middle classes around the world? Journal of Economic Perspectives 22(2): 3–28.

18.

Beck

(2000) The cosmopolitan perspective: sociology of the second age of modernity The British Journal of Sociology 51: e00079. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-4446.2000.00079.

19.

Bhambra

(2007) Rethinking Modernity: Postcolonialism and the Sociological Imagination. Palgrave Macmillan.

20.

Bhambra

(2010) Sociology after postcolonialism: provincialized cosmopolitanism and connected sociologies. In: Gutiérrez-Rodríguez

Boatcă

Costa

(eds) Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches. Ashgate, pp.33–47.

21.

Bhambra

(2014) Connected Sociologies. Bloomsbury Publishing.

22.

Bhambra

(2015) Global sociology in question. Global Dialogue 5(2): 8–10.

23.

Boatcă

Costa

(2010) Postcolonial sociology: a research agenda. In: Gutiérrez-Rodríguez

Boatcă

Costa

(eds) Decolonizing European Sociology. Routledge, pp.13–32.

24.

Bueno

Teixeira

Strecker

(2023) De-Centering Global Sociology. The Peripheral Turn in Social Theory and Research. Taylor & Francis.

25.

Burawoy

(2008) Rejoinder: For a subaltern global Sociology? Current Sociology 56(3): 435–444.

26.

Burawoy

(2009) From earth to heaven: South African sociology in the international context. South African Review of Sociology 40(2): 219–224.

27.

Burawoy

(2015) Facing an unequal world. Current Sociology 63(1): 5–34.

28.

Burawoy

Chang

Hsieh

(2010) Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a Global Sociology. International Sociological Association, Academia Sinica.

29.

Caria

Domínguez

(2016) Ecuador’s buen vivir. A new ideology for development. Latin American Perspectives 43(1):18–33.

30.

Chakrabarty

(1992) Provincializing Europe: postcoloniality and the critique of history. Cultural Studies 6(3): 337–357.

31.

Chakrabarty

(2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton University Press.

32.

Chitranshi

(2019) Beyond development: postcapitalist and feminist praxis in adivasi contexts. In: Klein

Morreo

(eds) Postdevelopment in Practice: Alternatives, Economies, Ontologies. Routledge, pp.119–132.

33.

Cohen

Kennedy

(2013). Global Sociology. Macmillan International Higher Education.

34.

Connell

(2020) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Polity Press.

35.

Costa

(2007) Vom Nordatlantik zum “Black Atlantic”. Postkoloniale Konfigurationen und Paradoxien transnationaler Politik. Transcript Verlag.

36.

Costa

(2012) Freezing differences: politics, law, and the invention of cultural diversity in Latin America. In: Mascareño

Araujo

(eds) Legitimization in World Society. Ashgate Publishing, pp.139–158.

37.

Crawford

Zainab

Landstrom

(2021) Decolonising knowledge production on Africa: why it’s still necessary and what can be done. Journal of the British Academy 9(Suppl. 1): 21–46.

38.

Cueva

Villamil

Fortin

(1976) A summary of “problems and perspectives of dependency theory”. Latin American Perspectives 3(4): 12–16.

39.

Cusicanqui

(2012) Ch’ixinakax Utxiwa: a reflection on the practices and discourses of decolonization. South Atlantic Quarterly 111(1): 95–109.

40.

Daniel

(2022) Decolonising social movement theory: at the crossroads between northern concepts and protests in Africa and Latin America. Journal für Entwicklungspolitik 1(4): 74–101. DOI: 10.20446/JEP-2414-3197-38-4-74.

41.

Daniel

(forthcoming) Analsing contemporary society through lived utopias. Bristol University Press.

42.

Daniel

Neubert

(2019) Civil society and social movements: conceptual insights and challenges in African contexts. Critical African Studies 11(2): 176–192.

43.

Daniel

Kroeker

Sabbi

(2022) Soziologie aus, über oder in Afrika? In: Delitz

Müller

Seyfert

(eds) Handbuch Theorien der Soziologie. Springer VS, pp.1–25. Epub ahead of print.

44.

Daniel

Müller

Stoll

, et al. (eds) (2016) Mittelklassen, Mittelschichten oder Milieus in Afrika? Gesellschaften Im Wandel. Nomos.

45.

Darbon

Toulabor

(2011) Quelle(s) Classe(s) Moyenne(s) En Afrique? Une Revue De Littérature. Document de Travail. Agence Française de Développement.

46.

De Leat

Mol

(2000) The Zimbabwe bush pump: mechanics of a fluid technology. Social Studies of Science 30(2): 225–263.

47.

Deléchat

Medina

(2020). What is the informal economy. Finance & Development 57(4): 54–55.

48.

Dufoix

Macé

(2019) Les enjeux d’une sociologie mondiale non-hégémonique. Zilsel 5(1): 88–121.

49.

Eisenstadt

(2002) Multiple Modernities. Transaction Publishers.

50.

Eriksen

(1998) Common Denominators. Ethnicity, Nation Building and Compromise in Mauritius. Berg.

51.

Escobar

(1995) Encountering Development: The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Princeton University Press.

52.

Escobar

(2010) Latin America at a crossroads: alternative modernizations, post-liberalism, or post-development? Cultural Studies 24(1): 1–65.

53.

Esteva

Babones

Babcicky

(2013) The Future of Development: A Radical Manifesto. The Policy Press.

54.

Fanon

(1968) The Wretched of the Earth. Grove Press.

55.

Frank

(1966) The development of underdevelopment. Monthly Review 18(4): 17–31.

56.

Giddens

(1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.

57.

(2013) For a postcolonial sociology. Theory and Society 42: 25–55.

58.

Gutiérrez-Rodríguez

Boatcă

Costa

(eds) 2010. Decolonizing European Sociology: Transdisciplinary Approaches. Ashgate.

59.

Hake

(1977) African Metropolis – Nairobi’s Self-Help City. Sussex University Press.

60.

Hall

(2016) Rassismus als ideologische Kritik. In: Kimmerich

Lavorano

Bergmann

(eds) Was ist Rassismus? Reclam, pp.172–188.

61.

Hanafi

(2019) Global sociology – toward new directions. Global Dialogue 9(1): 5–7.

62.

Hart

(1973) Informal income opportunities and urban employment in Ghana. Journal of Modern African Studies 11: 61–69.

63.

Hickey

Mohan

(eds) (2004) Participation: From Tyranny to Transformation. Exploring New Approaches to Participation in Development. Zed Books.

64.

Hossen

(2023) Decolonizing sociology for social justice in Bangladesh: delta scholarship matters. Critical Sociology 49(3): 545–561.

65.

Hountondji

(1996) African Philosophy: Myth and Reality. Indiana University Press.

66.

Hountondji

(1997) Endogenous Knowledge. Codesria.

67.

Hountondji

(2007) Présentation. In: Hountondji

(ed.) La Rationalité, Une Ou Plurielle? Codesria, pp.1–4.

68.

Iliffe

(1979) A Modern History of Tanganyika. Cambridge University Press.

69.

Inclán

(2012) Zapatista and counter-Zapatista protests: a test or movement – countermovement dynamics. Journal of Peace Research 49(3): 459–472.

70.

Iroulo

Tappe Ortiz

(2022) Dear German academia: what is your role in African knowledge production? Africa Spectrum 57(1): 72–82.

71.

Keim

(2014) Conceptualizing circulation of knowledge in the social sciences. In: Keim

Çelik

Wöhrer

(eds). Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences: Made in Circulation. Ashgate, pp.87–113.

72.

Keim

Çelik

Wöhrer

(eds) (2014) Global Knowledge Production in the Social Sciences: Made in Circulation. Ashgate.

73.

Kessi

Marks

Ramugondo

(2020) Decolonizing African studies. Special Issue. Critical African Studies 12(3): 271–282.

74.

Kislenko

(2021) Debates on global sociology: ‘Unity and diversity’ of interpretations. The American Sociologist 52(3): 579–590.

75.

Klein

Morreo

(2019) Postdevelopment in Practice: Alternatives, Economies, Ontologies. Routledge.

76.

Knorr-Cetina

(1999) Epistemic Cultures. How Sciences Make Knowledge. Harvard University Press.

77.

Kothari

Salleh

Escobar

, et al. (2019) Pluriverse. A Post-Development Dictionary. Tulika Books.

78.

Kuhn

(1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press.

79.

Lang

(2019) Plurinationality as a strategy: transforming local state institutions toward buen vivir. In: Klein

Morreo

(eds) Postdevelopment in Practice: Alternatives, Economies, Ontologies. Routledge, pp.176–189.

80.

Latin American Subaltern Studies Group (1993) Founding statement. Boundary 2(3): 110–121.

81.

Lewis

(1971) The culture of poverty. In Spradley

McCurdy

(eds) Confirmity and Conflict. Readings in Cultural Anthropology. Little Brown & Company, pp.206–216.

82.

Lin

Tang

(2021) A concise history of sociology’s ‘indigenization’ in postwar Taiwan: emergence, transformation, and invisibilization. International Sociology 36(5): 662–673.

83.

Marchais

Bazuzi

Amani Lameke

(2020) ‘The data is gold, and we are the gold-diggers’: whiteness, race and contemporary academic research in Eastern Drc. Critical African Studies 12(3): 372–394.

84.

Melber

(2015) Where and what (for) is the middle? Africa and the middle class(es). European Journal of Development Research 27(2): 246–254.

85.

Mignolo

(2010a) Introduction: coloniality of power and de-colonial thinking. In: Mignolo

Escobar

(eds) Globalization and the Decolonial Option. Routledge, pp.1–22.

86.

Mignolo

(2010b) Delinking: the rhetoric of modernity, the logic of coloniality and the grammar of de-coloniality. In: Mignolo

Escobar

(eds) Globalization and the Decolonial Option. Routledge, pp.303–368.

87.

Mignolo

(2020) The logic of the in-visible: decolonial reflections on the change of epoch. Theory, Culture & Society 37(7–8): 205–218.

88.

Mignolo

Escobar

(eds) (2010) Globalization and the Decolonial Option. Routledge.

89.

Mikkelsen

(2005) Methods for Development Work and Research. A Guide for Practioners. Sage.

90.

Moore

(1966). Global sociology: the world as a singular system. American Journal of Sociology 71(5): 475–482.

91.

Moosavi

(2020) The decolonial bandwagon and the dangers of intellectual decolonisation. International Review of Sociology 30(2): 332–354.

92.

Moosavi

(2023) Turning the decolonial gaze towards ourselves: decolonising the curriculum and ‘decolonial reflexivity’ in sociology and social theory. Sociology 57(1): 137–156.

93.

Ndlovu-Gatsheni

(2018) Epistemic Freedom in Africa: Deprovincialization and Decolonization. Routledge.

94.

Neubert

(2001) Entwicklungssoziologie: Empirische Wende Und Ansätze Zur Neuen Theoriebildung. Soziologie (3): 48–63.

95.

Neubert

(2019) Inequality, Socio-Cultural Differentiation and Social Structures in Africa: Beyond Class. Palgrave.

96.

Neubert

(2020) Sociology of development: sociology, development studies or already dead? In: Kurfürst

Wehner

(eds) Southeast Asian Transformations. Urban and Rural Developments in the 21st Century. Festschrift Für Rüdiger Korff. Transcript Publishing, pp.25–40.

97.

Neubert

(2022) Do western sociological concepts apply globally? Towards a global sociology. Sociology 56(3): 930–945.

98.

Neubert

Daniel

(2012) Translating globalization, world society and modernity in everyday life: Theoretical reflections and empirical perspectives. Sociologus 62(1): 1–23.

99.

Neubert

Sabbi

(2024) Postkoloniale Selbstkritik und dann? Postkoloniale Selbstkritik – und dann? Zur Überwindung inhärenter Polarisierungen und der »epistemischen Gewalt« in der Soziologie. Leviathan 52(2): 205–228.

100.

Nordhag

(2021) Exploring peace in the midst of war: Rojava as a zone of peace? Journal of Peacebuilding & Development 16(1): 9–23.

101.

Nwabueze

(2021) Sociology in Africa: between domestication and indigenization. In: Yacob-Haliso

Nwogwugwu

Ntiwunka

(eds) African Indigenous Knowledges in a Postcolonial World. Routledge, pp.17–33.

102.

Nyamnjoh

(2015) Beyond an evangelising public anthropology: science, theory and commitment. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 33(1): 48–63.

103.

Oettler

Ruvituso

Santos

(2024) Dekolonisierung als Dekanonisierung? Soziologie 53(3): 305–319.

104.

Oguma

(2021) Sociology of the Japanese, by the Japanese, for the Japanese: a short history of unintentional indigenization of sociology in Japan. International Sociology 36(5): 684–696.

105.

Olatunji

Bature

(2019) The inadequacy of post-development theory to the discourse of development and social order in the Global South. Social Evolution & History 18(2): 229–243.

106.

Olutayo

(2014) ‘Verstehen’, everyday sociology and development: incorporating African indigenous knowledge. Critical Sociology 40(2): 229–238.

107.

Park

(2021) Three types of indigenization in the development of Korean sociology. International Sociology 36(5): 674–683.

108.

Patel

(2014) Afterword: doing global sociology: issues, problems and challenges. Current Sociology 62(4): 603–613.

109.

Pattnaik

Balaton-Chrimes

(2019) Who wants a ‘development’ that doesn’t recognise alternatives? Working with and against postdevelopment in Jagatsinghpur, India. In: Klein

Morreo

(eds) Postdevelopment in Practice: Alternatives, Economies, Ontologies. Routledge, pp.149–162.

110.

Pearce

(2021) The ‘outward/inward-looking principle’: Akìwowo and the sociology of development in Africa. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 39(3): 318–329.

111.

Perlman

(1976) The myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de Janeiro. University of California Press.

112.

Prebisch

(1962) The economic development of Latin America and its principal problems. Economic Bulletin for Latin America 7(1): 1–22.

113.

Quijano

(2000) Coloniality of power, eurocentrism, and Latin America. Nepantla: Views from South 1(3): 533–580.

114.

Quijano

(2010) Coloniality and modernity/rationality. In: Mignolo

Escobar

(eds) Globalization and the Decolonial Option. Routledge, pp.22–32.

115.

Rist

(2008) The History of Development: From Western Origins to Global Faith. Zed Books.

116.

Robertson

(1995) Glocalization: time-space and homogenity-hetrogenity. In: Featherstone

Lash

Robertson

(eds) Global Modernities. Sage, pp.25–44.

117.

Rodriguez Medina

(ed.) (2014) Centers and Peripheries in Knowledge Production. Routledge.

118.

Rodriguez Medina

Harding

(eds) (2025) Decentralizing Knowledges: Essays on Distributed Agency. Duke University Press.

119.

Rostow

(1971) The Stages of Economic Growth. A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge University Press.

120.

Schubert

(2016) Emerging middle class political subjectivities in post-war Angola. In: Melber

(ed.) The Rise of Africa’s Middle Class: Myths, Realities and Critical Engagements. Zed Books, pp.147–158.

121.

Shivji

(1976) Class Struggles in Tanzania. Heinemann.

122.

Sinha-Kerkhoff

Alatas

(eds) (2010) Academic Dependency in the Social Sciences. Structural Reality and Intellectual Challenges. Manohar.

123.

Smelser

(1973) Toward a theory of modernisation. In: Etzioni-Halevy

Etzioni

(eds) Social Change. Sources, Patterns, and Consequences. 2nd ed. Basic Books, pp.268–283.

124.

Southall

(1970) The illusion of tribe. Journal of Asian and African Studies 5(1–2): 28–50.

125.

Spivak

(1988) Can the subaltern speak? In: Nelson

Grossberg

(eds) Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. University of Illinois Press, pp.271–313.

126.

Tinsley

(2022) Towards a postcolonial critical realism. Critical Sociology 48(2): 235–250.

127.

Toulabor

(2014) Corps Habillés Et Stabilité Politique Au Togo: L’esprit De Corps D’une Catégorie Sociale En Uniforme. In: Darbon

Toulabor

(eds) L’invention Des Classes Moyennes Africaines: Enjeux Politiques D’une Catégorie Incertaine. Éditions Karthala, pp.237–278.

128.

Van Binsbergen

Van Dijk

(eds) (2004) Situating Globality: African Agency in the Appropriation of Global Culture. Brill.

129.

Venn

(2008) Measuring Informal Employment in OECD Countries. Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Directorate Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

130.

Wallerstein

(1974) The Modern World-System. Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.

131.

Warren

Slikkeveer

Brokensha

(1995) The Cultural Dimension of Development. Indigenous Knowledge Systems. Intermediate Technology Publications.

132.

Ziai

(2020) Decolonizing development studies: teaching in Zhengistan. In: Bendix

Müller

Ziai

(eds) Beyond the Master’s Tools? Decolonizing Knowledge Orders, Research Methods and Teaching. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp.243–256.