sociological globalization essay

It’s too late to learn something new.

Globalization: Key Debates, Concepts, and Perspectives

Globalization Synopsis : This article defines globalization, provides some causes for the advancement of globalization, explores the different dimensions of globalization, presents three different perspectives through which the phenomenon has been examined, explores the relation between globalization and identity, and finally examines how globalization is connected to power and politics.

In sociological terms, globalization can be defined as “an ongoing process that involves interconnected changes in the economic, cultural, social, and political spheres of society” (Cole, 2019). The world’s economies, societies, and cultures are becoming more and more interconnected and reliant on one another. The result of such increased connection and interdependence between regions is, therefore, and increase in the influence that the people of these regions have on one another’s lives. The vast and intricate nature of these processes makes globalization a complex event and necessitates its examination. Like all other processes involving large-scale change, globalization also includes certain factors – advances in technology, transportation, and communication being the primary ones. These have made the mobility of goods, people, and ideas across borders easier, faster, and more efficient, thereby driving globalization.

Causes of Globalization

As mentioned before, a number of factors are responsible for globalization. Firstly, technological innovations have played a huge role in the way the process of globalization has made a speedy advance. Over time, mobile phones, the internet, and social media have undergone significant advancements and are now easily accessible to a larger portion of the population. Connecting to others has, therefore, become easier and quicker – we are now able to connect to one part of the world from another and spread any kind of information in a matter of seconds. The second factor responsible for globalization is infrastructural development, particularly when it comes to transport. Traveling by air has become considerably easy and cheap (although still largely unaffordable to the majority), owing mostly to the development of the aviation industry and expansion of international trade routes due to better relations between countries. Due to these technological advancements, people from countries across the globe find mobility easier and faster from one place to another.

Additionally, trade liberalization, which involves reducing or completely removing “restrictions or barriers on the free exchange of goods between nations” (Banton, 2021), has made international trade less costly and more efficient. As a result, a space has been created to foster the establishment and growth of multinational companies and global trade.

With the growing interdependence of economies worldwide, nations are collaborating more closely in pursuit of common objectives like fostering economic growth and development. However, factors of globalization are not limited to economic factors only–several cultural and social changes have also contributed to globalization. As we will discuss in later sections, the rigidity of cultural boundaries has seen significant collapse owing to the increased exchange of people from one country to another and growth of social media and mass culture.

Dimensions of Globalization: Economic, Social, and Cultural

Globalization is often associated with the promotion of free trade, which has had both favorable and negative outcomes based on the context of the country. On one side, globalization has increased the accessibility of markets and technologies to developing countries that have been freed from the clutches of colonization very recently. This has led to economic growth and poverty reduction in many parts of the so-called ‘developing’ world. Simultaneously, it has also led to loss of jobs and worsening of wages and working conditions in, for instance, the fast fashion industry, where workers from developing countries are provided minimum wage by big firms, which leads to exploitation of their labour. Globalization, therefore, has led to greater income inequality, both within countries and between them.

Globalization also has social and cultural dimensions to it. A large part of why the world has become ‘smaller’ and people from different parts have gotten closer is popular culture, which includes music, movies, and fashion. Take for example the movie Parasite, directed bu Bong Joon Ho, which became the first movie in a ‘foreign’ language (i.e., language other than English) to win the Oscar for Best Picture, which is a result of the increased popularity of the Korean culture and entertainment industry across the globe.

However, globalization has also raised important socio-cultural concerns, such as the disintegration of cultural traditions, beliefs, practices, and values to make space for more global ones. The increased movement of people from one country to another also give rise to similar concerns. While it has created new opportunities for cultural exchange and cooperation, matters such as identity have also led to tensions and even conflict, leading to questions about the benefits of globalization.

Glocalization

The term ‘glocalization’ is formed by combining the words globalization and localization together. This is the same for the concept of glocalization as well, which combines elements of localization and globalization. According to Blatter (2019), glocalization is “the simultaneous occurrence of both universalizing and particularizing tendencies in contemporary social, political, and economic systems.” In other words, glocalization refers to the process of adapting global products, services, or ideas into local contexts such that the global and local domains amalgamate to create a unique phenomenon. One of the most popular examples of glocalization is the way in which McDonald’s, Dominos, or other fast food chains adapt their menu to the local food culture – for instance, Dominos in India has a menu that includes certain flavors of pizza that cater to the Indian audiences, such as Tikka Masala, Tandoor, etc. Global fast-food chains do so in order to appeal to the local masses and expand their local market reach.

Problems in Defining Globalization

While it is assumed that there is a consensus about what globalization entails, in reality, the complexities of the phenomenon do not allow for an easy and universal way of defining the phenomenon. Firstly, there remains the problem of assuming that globalization impacts everyone everywhere in the same manner. Along with this is the problem of assuming that globalization impacts everyone in a positive manner. These assumptions do not hold true everywhere around the globe. Globalization has several negative effects on certain communities that do not have easy access to the tools that are necessary in a globalized world, such as the internet. Those without resources such as the internet are essentially left behind in the process of globalization, leading to their marginalization and social exclusion. Therefore, not only does globalization not take place in a homogenous manner all over the world, it also has the potential to negatively impact communities and individuals, which contradicts the positive assumption that one might take while trying to define globalization. Further, there is contradiction among sociologists and other social scientists as to which aspect of globalization out of economic, social, and cultural need to be prioritized.

Perspectives on Globalization

Marxist Perspective

According to the Marxist perspective, globalization primarily benefits the capitalist class which essentially owns the production system and exploits the working class to earn profits. Globalization is seen as a process through which large firms expand their businesses and boost their profits while exploiting their workers and harming the environment. For proponents of the Marxism, rather than a people-centric focus, accumulation of capital and profits is what motivates globalization.

Karl Marx wrote extensively about the relationship between capitalism and globalization. In one of his most renowned works, The Communist Manifesto, Marx argued that capitalism’s inherent need for expansion–finding new sources for raw materials and labour and creating new markets for products–would eventually lead to the globalization. According to Marx, the “need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere” (Marx & Engels, 1848, p.16). For Marx, globalization also meant the exacerbated exploitation of workers by capitalists and, on a global scale, the uneven distribution of the way in which capitalist economies develop, with some countries becoming more wealthy and powerful at the expense of others. In brief, according to the Marxist view, globalization is advantageous for the capitalist class as it opens up new markets for their goods, fresh sources of labor and raw materials, and fresh prospects for earning profits. It also worsens certain issues of socio-economic concern, such as exploitation and inequalities, within and between countries around the world.

Feminist Perspective

It is important that “economic globalization must (also) be understood in terms of the effects it has had on women, who make up a disproportionate percentage of the global poor” (Parekh & Wilcox, 2014). According to feminist scholars, men have disproportionately benefited from globalization while women have been exploited and subjugated. For instance, when it comes to the division of labor, industries that heavily rely on the cheaply available female labor in developing countries have been augmented by globalization, therefore leading to the exploitation of female workers and their marginalization. However, industries that require higher levels of skill and also provide higher wages, such as technology, keep growing due to globalization. Such industries are primarily male-dominated and therefore disproportionately benefit male workers in economies.

Postmodernist Perspective

As per the postmodernist viewpoint, globalization is a phenomenon that entails breaking down borders and boundaries, blending cultures, and generating novel hybrid identities. Postmodernists reject the idea of fixed and stable identities and argue that globalization has created new and fluid forms of identity and cultural exchange. From a postmodernist point of view, globalization is not a straightforward or easily definable concept, instead consisting of several complexities. Postmodernists maintain that this process is characterized by a multitude of interconnected factors that interact in intricate and often unpredictable ways. Consequently, a simple or reductionist understanding of globalization is insufficient to capture its nuances and complexities.

Postmodernists argue that globalization has complex and unpredictable outcomes, and its benefits are not limited to any specific group or individual. Globalization has opened up fresh prospects for cultural exchange, creativity, and innovation. At the same time, it has given rise to several new types of inequalities, displacement, and marginalization. Postmodernists suggest that globalization has disrupted established forms of knowledge and power, presenting new opportunities for dissent and rebellion. In their view, globalization involves the crossing of boundaries and borders, the blending of different cultures, and the emergence of novel hybrid identities. Postmodernists believe that globalization does not have negative consequences only, as certain other theorists would like to argue. Instead, they recognize the complexities attached to the phenomenon, which opens up new avenues for positive change and transformation. Through these hybrid identities and cultural exchanges, individuals and groups may find ways to resist or subvert dominant power structures, leading to a more diverse and egalitarian society.

Globalization and Identity

Globalization has had a significant impact on identity. It challenges traditional forms of identity based on nation-states, cultures, and religions and creates new opportunities for cultural exchange, hybridity, and fluidity. Identity, in a lot of different ways, has become more flexible and diverse.

There are mixed responses to how globalization has impacted and continues to impact identity. On one hand, the large-scale global exchange of people, ideas, and commodities globally due to globalization means that certain new forms of identity have emerged that go beyond traditionally-defined national and socio-cultural identities. On the other hand, globalization has negatively affected community identity by causing its disintegration.

Globalization and Cultural Divergence and Convergence

Globalization has had both converging and diverging effects on cultures around the world. Convergence of culture has mostly been in terms of the West. Western values of culture, such as individualism and consumerism, has seen a significant increase, and due to its overpowering nature owing to a history of global colonialism, it has led to a homogenization of culture across the globe. In simple terms, it means that the diverse cultural patterns have given way to a considerably homogenous one lacking variations in beliefs and practices, especially when it comes to consumption. An example of this can be the hegemonic acceptance of English as the ‘official’ language for most countries of the world, including those for whom English is not the native language.

However, mostly as a result of such cultural homogenization and convergence, globalization has also revived an interest in local cultures and traditions among people who identify cultural convergence as a threat to their unique cultural identities. Cultural divergence has been the obvious outcome of such a critical view of globalization, with people striving to maintain their unique cultural practices.

Simply put, the debate over the impact of globalization on cultural convergence versus divergence is a complex one, and varies with cultural context and the specific processes of globalization at work.

Globalization, Western Ideology and Identity, and the Concept of Westernization

According to The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica (2019), Westernization can be defined as “the adoption of the practices and culture of western Europe by societies and countries in other parts of the world, whether through compulsion or influence.” Western ideas are known to have had a huge impact on the rest of the world, regardless of whether they have been forced onto other countries or willingly accepted by them. Further, Western nations are often considered the ‘ideal’ models of so-called ‘modernity’ and ‘progress’ of human civilization. Globalization has facilitated the adoption of Western ideology throughout the rest of the world, leading to homogenization of culture across domains such as politics, economics, education, and media. This trend has sparked concerns that distinct cultural identities are being eroded as local traditions and practices are supplanted by more universalized norms. Scholars such as Kaul (2012) have emphasized the potential impact of this homogenization on the richness and diversity of human cultures, and urge us to consider the broader implications of globalization on cultural identity.

Identity is a complex thing, and globalization has only made it more complicated. It has created both new opportunities and challenges in terms of cultures, traditions, and shared experiences. Western ideology has influenced the way people view themselves, with western values and practices being seen as aspirational and desirable. The adoption of western values and practices has also created new forms of identity, including transnational and cosmopolitan identities, which transcend national and cultural boundaries. However, the adoption of western values and practices can also lead to cultural hybridization, where traditional practices are blended with western ones, challenging the notion of western cultural hegemony. Identity crisis, which has become a catchphrase, is most common in non-Western countries. For instance, Doku and Asante (2011) state that “globalization increases the proportion of young people in non- Western cultures who experience a state of identity confusion rather than successfully forming an identity.”

Westernization is thus differently interpreted by its proponents, who argue that it can promote economic growth and development, and its critics, for whom westernization dismantles traditions, creating a sense of loss of cultural identity. It is important to understand and examine Westernization in the context of globalization from a critical lens.

Ethnic Revitalization

An important phenomenon in relation to globalization, ethnic revitalization is the process by which ethnic groups that are considered minority respond to the threats to their socio-cultural identity that they face due to globalization and the resultant homogenization of cultures. It is a process of renewal of their cultural identity and fighting back the aspects of globalization that lead to destruction of their local cultures and traditions. It is through ethnic revitalization that communities, groups, and cultures that have been relegated to ‘minorities’ resist the negative effects of globalization. For example, the Māori culture, which was suppressed due to centuries of colonial rule, is under the process of being revived or revitalized in New Zealand rapid spread and increasing popularity of te reo Māori , or the Māori language, through development of classes and lessons dedicated towards the language (Roy, 2018).

Cultural Defense

According to Kim (1997), cultural defense is a “a legal strategy that uses evidence about a defendant’s cultural background to negate or to mitigate criminal liability (with a concomitant sentence reduction)” (p. 102-103). In other words, the usage of cultural defense necessitates that individuals should not be held accountable for certain actions or behaviors if they are consistent with their cultural beliefs and practices. In the context of globalization, cultural defense can be seen as a way in which individuals resist homogenization of legal instruments by putting forward their particular cultural context into consideration. However, such a ‘benefit’ of cultural defense also means that acts of crime, such as violence, assault, murder, and sexual offenses, are defended for by using this concept. In the context of globalization, by citing a ‘loss of culture’ or ‘harm to cultural beliefs’, cultural defense can potentially be used to justify actions that violate basic human rights or harm others. Broeck (2001) gives an example of a case in Netherlands where an act of throwing flowers into a river by a Hindu person was considered a crime because Dutch law mandates pollution of waterbodies to be a criminal offense, but for the Hindu, it was simply part of a religious ritual. Such an act can easily be defended on cultural grounds.

Hybrid Identities

Cultural hybridization refers to the process by which “a cultural element blends into another culture by modifying the element to fit cultural norms” (Bell, 2014), which has become a common occurrence in an increasingly globalized world. Since cultures are a huge factor in creation of identities, in an increasingly culturally hybridizing world, identities are also become hybrid. Hybrid identities can therefore be described as the way in which multiple cultures, traditions, and experiences influence the identities of individuals as a result of the cultural blending due to globalization. For instance, Bell (2014) suggests that the language of Louisana Creole which resulted from a mix of African, French, and English languages is an example of cultural hybridization, which means that the lingual identity of the people who speak the language is also hybrid.

Globalization, Power, and Politics

The spread of liberal democracy and human rights.

 Globalization has led to the spread of liberal democracy and human rights.  According to Dalpino (2001), one of “the most tangible evidence of globalization’s impact on democratization has been the infusion of democratic norms, and the principles of human rights that support them, into many international and regional institutions.” A complex interplay of power, politics, and cultural values has been central to this. Citizens have increasingly demanded for more political freedom and accountability from the government. Governments also face pressure for the same from international organizations – the UN, for instance – and other governments. These can and have led to changes in the way governments work around the world. International organizations and advocates have worked to promote human rights norms and standards. Unequal power dynamics among countries can, however, hinder progress. More powerful countries can marginalize and exploit less powerful countries.

Power and Politics

In terms of power and politics, globalization has had a significant impact on the power bestowed upon nation-states (Jotia, 2011). Traditional power structures have been questioned and dismantled, making way for newer forms of power to emerge. According to Jotia (2011), the globalization of trade, finance, and technology has created new opportunities for corporations and wealthy individuals to accumulate wealth and power on a global scale, often at the expense of national governments and local communities, such that “the nation-states’ sovereignty remains in limbo as power steadily shifts to the most powerful financial and corporate institutions” (p. 246).

Globalization and Social Movements

Globalization has also had an impact on political activism and social movements . It has created new opportunities for the same to accommodate for the rising need among people for more equitable forms of globalization. The phenomenon has “opened new spaces for communication, allowing ideas to flow freely across borders” (McKane, 2014). For example, the global climate strike movement started by Fridays For Future in 2018 gained widespread attention and support from all across the globe, and helped to put pressure on governments and corporations to take more action on climate change.

Upon thorough examination, globalization therefore emerges as an intricate phenomenon with several complexities surrounding it. The impact of globalization can be felt most when it comes to identity, whether individual or community. While there might be positive effects of globalization, the phenomenon needs to be evaluated critically to ensure that its negative outcomes are understood, examined, and effectively eliminated. Through the various facets connected to globalization, it can be easily concluded that there is no singular way of examining the complex phenomenon that is globalization.

Also Read : Globalization- Contemporary: Issues

Banton, C. (2021, March 24). Trade liberalization: Definition, how it works, and example . Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trade-liberalization.asp#:~:text=What%20Is%20Trade%20Liberalization%3F

Bell, K. (2014). Cultural hybridization. In https://sociologydictionary.org/ . https://sociologydictionary.org/cultural-hybridization/

Blatter, J. (2019). Glocalization. In Encyclopedia Britannica . https://www.britannica.com/topic/glocalization

Cole, N. L. (2019, July 3). What is the meaning of globalization in sociology? ThoughtCo. https://www.thoughtco.com/globalization-definition-3026071#:~:text=Globalization%2C%20according%20to%20sociologists%2C%20is

Dalpino, C. E. (2001, September). Does globalization promote democracy?: An early assessment . Brookings; Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/does-globalization-promote-democracy-an-early-assessment/

Doku, P., & Asante, K. (2011). Identity: Globalization, culture and psychological functioning . https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268072584.pdf

Jotia, A. (2011). Globalization and the Nation-State: Sovereignty and State Welfare in Jeopardy. Education Review B , 2 , 243–250. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528356.pdf

Kaul, V. (2012). Globalisation and crisis of cultural identity. Journal of Research in International Business and Management , 2 (13), 341–349. https://www.interesjournals.org/articles/globalisation-and-crisis-of-cultural-identity.pdf

Kim, N. (1997). The cultural defense and the problem of cultural preemption: A framework for analysis. N.M. L. Rev , 27 (1). https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/151604531.pdf

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist party. In Written: Late Source: Marx/Engels Selected Works: Vol. One (Issue 1). Marxists Internet Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf

McKane, R. (2014). The globalization of social movements: Exploring the transnational paradigm through collection action against neoliberalism from Latin America to the Occupy movement. Pursuit – the Journal of Undergraduate Research at the University of Tennessee , 5 (1). https://trace.tennessee.edu/pursuit/vol5/iss1/11

Parekh, S., & Wilcox, S. (2014). Feminist perspectives on globalization. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-globalization /

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. (2019). Westernization. In Encyclopædia Britannica . https://www.britannica.com/topic/Westernization

Soumili is currently pursuing her studies in Social Sciences at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, focusing on core subjects such as Sociology, Psychology, and Economics. She possesses a deep passion for exploring various cultures, traditions, and languages, demonstrating a particular fascination with scholarship related to intersectional feminism and environmentalism, gender and sexuality, as well as clinical psychology and counseling. In addition to her academic pursuits, her interests extend to reading, fine arts, and engaging in volunteer work.

• The Charak Festival: Challenging caste identity and reclaiming god
• Professors as Role Models: How They Inspire Academic Success
• CHALLENGING THE DICHOTOMY: A CRITICAL INSPECTION OF DURKHEIM’S SACRED-PROFANE BINARY
• Interview with Richard Collis, Author of The Pool
• Book Review: The Perfection of Fish by J.S. Morrison

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Globalisation and Global Development

Table of Contents

Last Updated on July 16, 2024 by Karl Thompson

Links to posts on defining globalisation, theories of globalisation; defining and measuring development, theories of development (modernisation, dependency, world-systems theory, neoliberalism, post-development); aid, trade and development; industrialisation and urbanisation, education, employment, gender and health as aspects of development; and the relationship between war and conflict, population, consumption and the environment and development.

In A-Level Sociology, this module deals with some of the following questions…

Why are some countries rich and others poor, and how can it be that so many people in the world are suffering from poverty, lack of education, lack of clean water, disease and war and conflict, while at the same time others in the world lives live of relative ease and comfort?

What if anything should and can rich and poor countries do to help the plight of the poorest, and is it actually possible for global humanity to manage and control the various global challenges we face – not only the immediate problems of poverty, hunger and disease, war and conflict, but human rights abuses and international migration, terrorism and other global crimes, and the environmental crisis?

Introductory Posts

Globalisation and Global Development – Good Resources – some good ‘hub sites’ which I recommend for exploring global development further – including links to agencies which monitor global development, such as the United Nations and the World Bank, as well as a whole range of Non Government Organisations and independent development thinkers. Very much a work in progress (as of August 2017) and being updated constantly.

Trends in global wealth inequality and poverty – inequalities in global wealth have been increasing in recent years – this post explores some of the statistics on global wealth and poverty and introduces some possible explanations and solutions. 

Defining Globalisation and Theories of Globalisation

Globalisation – Key Concepts and Definitions – Globalisation is one of the most contested words in the English language, so it should come as no surprise that sociologists have invented lots of concepts to describe it. This post provides some basic definitions of concepts such as ‘Americanisation’ and ‘Coca-Colonisation’.

Factors Contributing to Globalisation – This is a relatively neutral account of the technological, economic and cultural factors which have contributed to globalisation from Anthony Giddens.

What is Cultural Globalisation? This post explores processes such as cultural aspects of migration, the globalisation of food, sport and consumption as well as the globalisation of risk. It also explores detraditionalisation and asks whether or not there is any such thing as a global culture or global village emerging.

What is Economic Globalisation? Class notes exploring the growth of international trade, the growth of transnational institutions such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, Transnational Corporations and the emergence of an international division of labour.

What is Political Globalisation? It’s a bit of a clumsy term – but the emergence of institutions such as the United Nations and the spread of liberal democracy around the world could be examples of political globaliastion.

The Optimist View of Globalisation – Optimists believe that increasing globalisation is beneficial for the vase majority of people in the vast majority of countries. This post outlines some of the evidence that supports this view, such as the relationship between increasing global trade and rapid economic development of many countries since the 1950s.

Kenichi Ohmae – Radical Hyper-Globalism – A good example of an optimistic globalist stand point

The Pessimist View of Globalisation – Associated with Marxism and Dependency Theory – Pessimists tend to see globalisation as being a one way process in which the rich get richer at the expense of the poorer. Globalisation is viewed as primarily being about increasing exploitation and inequality.

The Transformationalist View of Globalisation – probably the most sensible view – the idea that Globalisation is complex and unpredictable and that it is a two way process in which new cultural forms are continually emerging and transforming.

The Traditionalist View of Globalisation – There is some evidence that globalisation has been exaggerated – there are regions of the world which are largely excluded from global processes for example, and it might be more accurate to talk of regionalism rather than globalisation if we’re describing global trade flows.

Does Globalisation Mean the Decline of the Nation State? There are some global problems which require global co-ordination to tackle – such as global warming. This could mean the power of nation states to simply do their own thing is declining. However, there is also an argument that nation states are vital institutions in tackling global problems and helping people adjust to the changes brought about by globalisation.

Defining and Measuring Development

Defining Development  – detailed class notes covering an introduction to the concepts of ‘development’ and ‘underdevelopment, exploring commonly used categorisations of countries such as more developed, newly industrialised and the least developed countries. This post also explores the cold-war origins of the concepts of first, second and third worlds and Eduardo Galeano’s criticisms of the supposed superiority of western capitalist-industrialist models of ‘development’.

Economic indicators of development – Gross National Income is often used as the primary indicator of development, this post explores some of the strengths and limitations of relying on it.

The Human Development Index – A combination of economic and social indicators of development used by the United Nations – combines GNI with life expectancy and years spent in school to provide a ‘development score’ for each country.

The Millennium Development Goals – what were the Millennium Development Goals, how did they measure development, and how much progress was made up to 2015?

The Global Peace Index – What is it, and How Useful is it? The Global Peace Index scores countries on how peaceful they are – using dozens of indicators such as military expenditure, number of war deaths and numbers of protests among other things. There is a case to be made that peacefulness is a useful indicator of development because lack of peace (i.e. war and conflict) are the main things which prevent development. More debatable is how valid the GPI is!

The United States – an underdeveloped country? For some reason Americans think they live in one of the most advanced countries on earth, but by many indicators of social development, they appear to be a less developed country.

Theories of development 

Theories of development ask two basic questions: why are poor countries poor, and what strategies should they adopt to develop. For A level sociology you need to know about four basic theories: Modernization theory, Dependency (and World Systems) theory, Neoliberalism and People Centred Development, aka Post-Development. It would also be useful to have an understanding of Paul Collier’s Bottom Billion Theory and Jeffrey Sach’s work on the End of Poverty, as these build on and critique these previous four theories. 

Modernization Theory – detailed class notes –   Modernization theory emerged in America in the 1940s, and argued that the ‘third world’ was poor because of a number of internal barriers to development. They needed assistance from Western business and governments in order to provide the fuel for industrialization and to kick start the process of economic growth. 

Modernisation Theory – revision Notes – a much briefer version of the post above. 

Dependency Theory – detailed class notes –   popular in the 1970s Dependency Theory is basically a Marxist theory of development which holds that the poverty in the developing world is due to a 400 year history of slavery, colonialism and neocolonialism imposed on the rest of the world by European powers: the last 400 years of history has been a process through which Europe got rich by exploiting the rest of the world, keeping them poor. It follows that Dependency Theory holds that poor countries need to break away from the exploitative relations with the west and find their own revolutionary pathways to development – through socialism or nationalism for example. 

Evaluate explanations of development and underdevelopment put forward by dependency theorists – an essay plan designed for A-level Sociology which covers both dependency and world systems theory, with evaluations from other theories of development

World Systems Theory – Probably best thought of as an extension of Dependency Theory – suggests the world is split into three zones – core – semi-periphery and periphery – which are locked into a chain of exploitation. The periphery can rise up, but only at the expense of other countries falling back down. More than any other theory, this sees the global capitalist system of production as the problem.

Neoliberalism – Very popular as a model of development in the 1970s and 1980s – this holds that there are three main things a country needs to do to develop – deregulate, privatise and lower taxes – it sees more free trade, less government interference and fewer restrictions on business as the path the development. Neoliberalism is very critical of the role of government aid in development.

The consequences of neoliberalism in India – a summary of aspects of Arundhati Roy’s ‘Capitalism: A Ghost Story’

Post-Development Perspectives – critique the notion that what the West has labelled ‘less developed countries’ need to ‘develop’ at all.

People Centred Development – argues that development should have three main principles – social justice, inclusivity and sustainability, the former tow mainly meaning development should be led by local peoples with them setting the agenda.

Paul Collier – The Bottom Billion – In this extremely well-researched book Collier argues that the poorest 50 countries on earth remain poor because they are caught in four ‘traps’ which keep them poor…. he also considers what developing countries should do to help these remaining poor countries develop.

Why Nations Fail – A summary of a recent book which gives an alternative explanation to the above ‘standard’ theories of underdevelopment. Essentially it argues that countries are underdeveloped because they have a history of extractive institutions.

Sustainable Development – a core part of the United Nations Development Agenda, sustainable development involves attaining economic and social development without harming the environment. There are several debates about how this can be realised most effectively – from ‘technocentric models’ of development involving large scale renewable energy projects for example, to more ‘ecocentric models’ which emphasise the reducing of consumption and a return to more traditionally, locally based ways of live. NB this is a huge topic, and this post only scratches the surface!

Aid, Trade and Development

Arguments for Trade as a Strategy for Development – There is a strong correlation between high volumes of trade and development. Simply put, the more goods or services a country can sell at home or abroad, the more money it has coming in to fund social development.

Arguments against Trade as a Strategy for Development – This post explores some of the reasons why Trade doesn’t always work for developing countries. All too often, in the developing world, trade has meant extraction of natural resources, exploitation through poor wages and more recently pollution.

Double Standards in ‘Free’ Trade – a summary of one of the ways in which global trade rules work against developing countries – European countries subsidise their farmers to grow wheat, this then gets dumped on poor countries in Africa. Meanwhile the same African countries sign trade deals (often in exchange for Aid money) which prevent them from subsidising their own farmers growing similar products to wheat. This is quite a complex topic, well explained in the video I’ve summarised in this post!

Fair Trade and Development – The FairTrade Foundation emerged in response to unfair global trade rules working against developing countries, and its aim is to make Trade work more effectively for workers in developing countries – this post explores how Fair Trade works and some of the reasons why it doesn’t always work effectively to promote development!

A Summary of This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein (first five chapters) –  Naomi Klein provides some very clear evidence that neoliberal free-trade policies promoted by the World Trade Organisation are causing global warming. She further argues that governments (at the national and local level) need to regulate Transnational Corporations in order to protect the environment. Basically she argues against ‘Free Trade’ policies. 

Trade and Development updates for 2021 – This is a huge topic, so worthy of an update post in itself!

Different types of Development Aid – For the purposes of A-level sociology, there are three main types of aid – official development aid (government aid), Non-Governmental Organisation Aid (from charities) and Private Aid – from businesses and individuals. The former tends to be much more significant in terms of money available.

Useful tools for tracking how the UK Government spends international development aid – a couple of sites and tools from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s website that allow you to dive into how official development aid money is being spent by county and by topic area (whether it’s on health, education or so on).

Arguments for Official Development Aid – ODA is aid from governments in around 30 developed countries and is worth over $100 billion year to developing countries. Many development professionals and governments believe the West has not only a moral commitment to provide aid to poorer countries, but also that aid is necessary to help kick start economies and lift poorer peoples out of poverty traps. (NB this post focuses on aid for development, not disaster relief aid which is different!

Criticisms of Official Development Aid – Neoliberals argue that aid doesn’t work effectively in too many countries and creates perverse incentives, Dependency Theorists think Aid is really a tool to advantage the West, enabling more control over poorer countries, while People Centred Development theorists criticise aid for not always being relevant to the people receiving it.

The role of NGOs in development – NGOs or non Governmental Organisations are charities such as Oxfam. They tend to work closely with local peoples and often have a very specific focus: ‘Water Aid’ for example focuses on water and sanitation, ‘War Child’ focuses on helping children in war afflicted countries.

The strengths and limitations of NGO Aid – their strengths come from their small scale size – they are much more in touch with local peoples and know how to make aid money work for effectively because of their in-depth local knowledge. However, they also have their limitations – their budgets are significantly smaller than those of governments, for example, so their reach and impact are limited.

The role of international organisations in development

What are Transnational Corporations? (TNCs) – these are businesses that operate in more that one country. Some of them have enormous revenues and are household names – such as Walmart or Shell, for example. These organisations have considerable power and influence in global economics so it is important to understand what role they play in relation to developing countries.

Arguments and evidence that transnational corporations promote development

Dependency theorists and Neoliberals (especially the later) are optimistic about the positive role TNCs can play in development. They have the money (capital) to invest in developing countries and mine resources or establish factories for manufacturing -both of which can lead to more goods for export and more money coming into a country (hence increasing GNI). they are potentially the engines that can kick start economic growth and other forms of social development.

Arguments and evidence that transnational corporations harm developing countries – There is a wealth of evidence that rather than helping developing countries, some of the largest companies on earth are really just interested in maximising their own profits and tend to extract as much as they can get from the poorer countries they do business in and exploit them as much as possible. Thus post explores some of the most relevant case studies.

Historical Evidence of the negative impacts Transnational Corporations have on development  – There is a long long history of this, so it’s worth getting some depth perspective!

The role of the World Trade Organisation in Development – The World Trade Organisation establishes World Trade Rules – Neoliberals tend to see this institution as facilitating free trade by establishing global trading rules and standards and thus promoting development. Dependency Theorists see it as working in the interests of the more developed countries who tend to have more of a say in what the rules of trade are, which tend to work in their favour!

The World Bank – a brief overview of how it aims to promote development  -The World Bank is the main multilateral institution which funds development in poorer countries through channelling aid from donor countries and providing loans to developing countries who qualify. It also monitors progress in several indicators of development

Criticisms of the role of the World Bank in development – Critics see the World Bank as historically making loans dependent on countries adopting neoliberal policies which make it easier for Western corporations to extract resources from them and exploit the local labour forces.

The New Rulers of the World – summary of the documentary by John Pilger, which seems to be a pretty unambiguous dependency theory perspective on the role of the World Bank, the IMF, and Transnational Corporations in globalisation. The video focuses especially on their role in underdevelopment in Indonesia.

Industrialisation, Urbanisation and Development

Industrialisation and Development – Modernisation theorists argued that industralisation was a fundamental aspect of development (according to Rostow’s 5 stages of growth), while People Centred Development argue it is not necessary at all. Dependency, World Systems and neoliberal theorists have more nuanced perspectives which are also covered in this post.

The Industrial Capitalist model of Development – capitalists aim to maximize returns on investment and industrialisation helps with this because it brings efficiencies in production. This post is an accessible summary of how industrialism and capitalism have developed hand in hand over the centuries.

The Rise and Fall of Detroit – Detroit is where Ford used to manufacture cars in the early 20th century. It is an excellent case study to demonstrate how industrialisation can be a positive force for development, but also shows its limitations in a global system, because cheaper manufacturing becoming available in other countries (such as China) has meant the decline of industrial manufacturing and corresponding social decline in Detroit since the late 1960s to the present day.

Urbanisation and Development – the world population is moving from rural to urban areas more rapidly than at any other time in human history. In some senses cities are fundamentally related to development, but the sheer pace of urbanisation also has problems as slums develop. Urbanisation also has its critics – is this really the kind of development we want?

Education, Employment, Health and Development

Education as a Strategy for International Development – A-level students in England and other developed countries will probably take their education for granted, but education can be very different in the developing world. This post explores some of these differences, looks at how education promotes development, the barriers to improving education further and some of the reasons why a western style of education might just not be relevant to some developing countries!

Assess the View that Western Models of Education are not Appropriate to Developing Countries (20)- a 20 mark question that has come up in a previous A-level Sociology 7192/2 Global Development paper. This post provides an extended plan as a suggestion for answering it!

Gender and Development

Global Development Statistics – An overview of some the main differences in life chances between men and women in several areas of social life including political and economic life as well as domestic life.

Statistics on gender inequality in the UK – According to international statistics on gender equality in the UK, we’re the 18th most gender equal country in the world, but is this actually true? This post looks at some limitations with international statistics on gender and development

Modernisation Theory Applied to Gender and Development – From a Modernisation Perspective, the best way to combat gender empowerment is to challenge traditional values and focus on economic growth and getting women into the workplace – they have a point there is a strong correlation between economic development and gender empowerment.

Dependency Theory Applied to Gender and Development – point out that economic development may not promote gender inequality because Corporations can use the second class status of women in some countries as a source of ‘disempowered labour’, and even pay women less than male workers.

Radical Feminism Applied to Gender and Development  – this post focuses on the challenges remaining globally for women despite economic development, and especially those forms of gender based exploitation which increase with globalisation – such as sex trafficking.

War, Conflict and Development

Ongoing wars and conflicts in the world today – an overview of the current major wars, according to Wikipedia, including the Russian Invasion of Ukraine in comparison to other global conflicts.

How war and conflict harms development – war does more to harm development than anything else, this post looks at the direct, immediate negative effects of war on development, and the longer term, indirect effects.

The role of developed countries in war and conflict – A summary of the views of Noam Chomsky and David Harvey who argue that some individuals and organisations in developed countries actually benefit from waging war on poorer countries!

The United States Military – Some Recent Examples of Their War Crimes

The Global Peace Index (GPI) – The GPI measures peacefulness using over two dozen indicators and it clearly shows a correlation between peacefulness and positive economic and social development.

The Environmental Crisis and Development

The relationship between the industrial capitalist model of development and environmental decline – industrial capitalism may have led to economic growth over the last two centuries but there is also a clear relationship by its reliance of fossil fuels and rising CO2 emissions, global warming, resource depletion and pollution.

How pollution and toxic waste harm development – there are lots of case studies but this mainly focuses on pollution in rural China.

Country Case Studies

America as a Less Developed Country?

Global Development Revision Notes

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my  Global Development Revision Notes –

53 Pages of revision notes covering the following topics within global development:

• Globalisation
• Defining and measuring development
• Theories of development (Modernisation Theory etc)
• Aid, trade and development
• The role of organisations in development (TNCs etc)
• Industrialisation, urbanisation and development
• Employment, education and health as aspects of development
• Gender and development
• War, conflict and development
• Population growth and consumption
• The environment and sustainable development

As a final word to teachers of A Level Sociology – I’m gonna put this out there – Global Development offers you the only chance on the whole syllabus to actually teach proper, contemporary sociology, rather than A-Levelled sociology. You should give it a go.

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Globalizing Sociology: an Introduction

• Open access
• Published: 11 June 2016
• Volume 29 , pages 225–232, ( 2016 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Srila Roy 1 &
• Alf Gunvald Nilsen 2 , 3  

2713 Accesses

4 Citations

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Much of the work that has gone into the making of this special issue has taken place in the context of South Africa, where the nation’s universities have been sites of turmoil and protest for more than a year now. The origins of the protests that culminated in the FeesMustFall movement that swept across many of the country’s campuses can be traced to a campaign that erupted at the University of Cape Town (UCT) in March 2015. Led by a coalition of staff and students, the campaign sets out to challenge what it referred to as ‘the reality of institutional racism at the University of Cape Town’ ( http://rhodesmustfall.co.za/ ). The most immediate symbolic demand made by the campaign was for the statue of Cecil John Rhodes that had adorned the university grounds since 1934 to be removed—hence the campaign’s name, RhodesMustFall (RMF). The demand was inaugurated by a visceral act of protest, as student leader Chumani Maxwele threw human faeces at the statue. The immediate response from UCT was to have Maxwele arrested, but university management was soon compelled to enter into negotiations with a rapidly growing movement. Negotiations were followed by a student occupation of a central administrative building at UCT—renamed by the activists as Azania House to create a space for ‘free alternative versions of blackness otherwise denied by UCT’ (Sebambo 2015 : 2)—and by the end of the month, the UCT senate voted in favour of dismantling the statue.

As Ruchi Chaturvedi ( 2015 )—a UCT-based sociologist and one of the contributors to this volume—notes the RMF movement posed a comprehensive challenge to ‘the hurtful milieu they live and study in – replete not just with colonial era statues and symbols but also with pedagogical and conversational modes that regard black students as deficient, necessarily lagging in the civilizational race, and with course content that tells their history and describes their African present as above all a site of failure and lack.’ This became particularly evident as the fall of the Rhodes statue—celebrated by the RMF movement as ‘symbolic for the inevitable fall of white supremacy and privilege at our campus’ ( http://rhodesmustfall.co.za/ )—sparked similar movements in other universities across South Africa, which pursued an agenda centred on demands for the decolonization of universities and university education in the country. Indeed, amongst the core demands of the initial RMF movement was the implementation of ‘a curriculum which critically centres Africa and the subaltern. By this we mean treating African discourses as the point of departure—through addressing not only content, but languages and methodologies of education and learning – and only examining Western traditions in so far as they are relevant to our own experience’ ( https://www.facebook.com/RhodesMustFall/posts/1559394444336048 ). In addition, the RMF movement also called for radical changes in the representation of black lecturers across faculties and university decision-making bodies.

Interestingly, the call for the decolonization of the university that rose from the South African student movement in 2015 is echoed in and paralleled by campaigns by Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students in the former colonial metropolis. For example, at the University College of London, the initiative WhyIsMyCurriculum SoWhite? called attention to the fact that ‘BME students find themselves unrepresented, their histories and cultures completely ignored in the academic field because for many years white writing and history has been given a higher standing, and universities continue to perpetuate this idea of certain sources holding academic privilege.’ (Hussain 2015 ). Similarly, Oxford University witnessed the upshot of its own RhodesMustFall movement. Like its South African namesake, its aims include ridding the university campus of colonial iconography, but it also extends much beyond this by insisting that it is necessary to reform ‘the Euro-centric curriculum to remedy the highly selective narrative of traditional academia – which frames the West as sole producers of universal knowledge – by integrating subjugated and local epistemologies. This will create a more intellectually rigorous, complete academy’ ( https://rmfoxford.wordpress.com/about/ ).

Ultimately, what the project of decolonizing the university that is being articulated by student movements across the North-South axis of the world system revolves around is a challenge, as anthropologist Suren Pillay ( 2015 ) noted in a speech given at Azania House during the student occupation, to epistemic violence:

[Epistemic violence] authorizes thinking about Others in ways that enables political and economic violence to be enacted on the bodies of subject men and especially women. It also authorizes ignorance since it reinforces the prejudice that there is nothing much to learn from these parts of the world that could make us better, or help us create a better world. That is what we are talking about when we say we have a Eurocentric worldview in our education. It centers the idea of Europe, as a metaphor, and turns all others into bit players or loiterers without intent on the stage of world history, either too lazy to do anything ourselves or always late, and running behind to catch up with Western modernity.

The flipside to such epistemic violence is the epistemic justice that Robbie Shilliam speaks of in this issue as ‘a reckoning with the racialized inequalities of knowledge cultivation that have historically accompanied the European colonial project’. It is thus no surprise that Shilliam also turns to current protests by black students in the North as struggles for epistemic justice. As Pillay points out, undoing epistemic violence and achieving epistemic justice is a task that is fraught with difficulties and that can be approached in many ways. He argues: ‘The question might then be asked of you and us, do you want to return us to the particular against the universal, do you want us to step out of the global and the cosmopolitan and only think about the local, is relevance as a criteria for knowledge not the straight jacket of parochialism and narrow thinking?’ To this, he suggests an alternative—namely ‘that the way to think about decolonization and the universal is not to concede the universal to an imperial imagination, but to work towards a truly universal universalism. We need not give up then on the uni in the university, but we can try to redefine the very idea of the university itself.’

The reason why we start this introduction with an account of recent student movements is that the projects of decolonizing the university which they have articulated—their questions, their claims, their demands, and their visions—resonate with pivotal critiques of the discipline of sociology that have been gaining momentum in recent years. Writing as early as 1982, Wolf ( 1982 : 5) noted that in the Western social sciences, we have become accustomed to thinking that ‘there exists an entity called the West, and that one can think of this West as a society and civilization independent of and in opposition to other societies and civilizations.’ This line of thought, he argued, is linked to the underlying assumption within the social sciences that societies and civilizations can be understood as ‘internally homogenous and externally distinctive and bounded objects’ (Wolf 1982 : 6). About the discipline of sociology, he added that it had become particularly wedded to the idea that ‘social relations take place within the charmed circle of the single nation-state … Each society is then a thing, moving in response to an inner clockwork’ (Wolf 1982 : 9).

This ‘methodological nationalism’ (Chernilo 2011 ) is arguably wedded to a conceptual deep structure that is defined by Eurocentrism. This, indeed, is the argument that is at the heart of Bhambra’s ( 2007 ) seminal indictment of historical sociology, where she points out that modernity tends to be understood as a social formation that emerged from a temporal rupture with a traditional past and that this rupture was unique to the West. Hence, the emergence of, for example, industrial capitalism and the modern nation-state—institutional hallmarks of modernity—comes to be understood as strictly Western achievements. The non-Western world is sequestered off in a realm of traditional otherness and only later drawn into the ambit of modernity. One of the logical corollaries of this conceptual narrative, Bhambra argues, is the erasure of the crucial role played by colonialism in the making of the modern world.

Connell ( 2007 ) has pursued a different line of critique in her work on sociological theory. Dominant paradigms of sociological theory, she maintains, are characterized by a distinct ‘westernness’—witness only the near total dominance of Western scholars in our theoretical canons—that is concealed beneath a thin veneer of claims to universality. These claims to universality are problematic: in a fascinating reading of Coleman, Giddens, and Bourdieu, Connell shows how sociological theories that make claims to universal validity and relevance consistently evade colonialism as a historical process and experience when analyses of social relations, societal institutions, and structural change are articulated. The same pattern characterizes sociological theories of globalization. The underlying logic remains the same: a system of theoretical categories is created in the West and then turned outwards, in the direction of the global South, where the categories are then filled with empirical data. The majority world—and lest we forget, that means the global South—is thus reduced to being merely an object for a thoroughly Eurocentric social science.

Bhambra and Connell are of course only two of the most recent and perhaps most well-known critics of the Eurocentric parochialism of sociology as a discipline. In the Latin American context, the Peruvian sociologist Quijano ( 2000 ) has been integral in developing a critique of what he refers to as ‘the coloniality of power’—that is, the persistent legacies of European colonialism in both social orders and forms of knowledge (see also Mignolo 2012 ). Within Indian sociology, Sujata Patel has played a crucial role in criticizing both Eurocentrism and methodological nationalism and calling for a practice centred on an appreciation of the diversity of sociological traditions. ‘The challenge today’, she ( 2012 : 8) writes, ‘is in creating a political language and the intellectual infrastructure that can interface the many Souths, dissolve the markers of distinction between and within them and make their various voices recognize the matrix of power that has organised these divisions.’ Writing from South Africa, Sitas ( 2014 ) argues that sociology’s ideal types—especially those extrapolated from the European experience of modernity—have largely failed African attempts to engage with actually existing trajectories of social change. For sociology to be relevant in the African context, he argues, it will be necessary to forge ‘a new epistemological, conceptual and empirical terrain’ (Sitas 2014 : 467) that posits the modern as a product of planetary interconnections rather than the historical offspring of a European immaculate conception.

Sitas’ argument for a fundamental rethinking of the historical constitution of modernity in many ways echoes Bhambra’s ( 2007 ) call for positioning the idea of ‘connected histories’ at the centre of our attempts to overcome the Eurocentrism of sociology. Other scholars have suggested other routes towards a more global sociology: for example, Connell ( 2007 ) seeks to construct a canon of non-Western sociological theory whereas Julian Go ( 2013 : 28) has argued for the necessity of an ontological shift—that is, a shift from a substantialist ontology that understands the social world in terms of discrete and bounded entities to a relational ontology that emphasizes ‘the interactional constitution of social units, processes, and practices’. In many ways, these can be seen as different ways of addressing the challenge articulated in Suren Pillay’s speech—namely to transcend the imperial imaginary through which universals have tended to be construed in sociological thought and to move towards a genuinely universal universalism. Bhambra’s ( 2014 ) recent call for ‘connected sociologies’ has added further momentum to the project of creating a conceptual imaginary for what she refers to as ‘an always-already global age’.

At the core of this special issue is an ambition to contribute to these ongoing debates. The central question that we have come to ask ourselves is the following: how do we globalize sociology? Our responses to this question come not in the form of conceptual templates but rather as a series of engagements with different social phenomena that enable us to reflect on what genuinely globalized sociological engagement would look like. So, unlike related interventions, we approach global sociology not as a theoretical fact but as a practice—as a doing that involves particular citational, methodological, and obviously epistemological choices. Hence, many of the articles in this contribution varyingly draw on the intellectual resources of Subaltern Studies, postcolonial theory, and decolonial perspectives to pursue the project of expanding our understandings of sociology itself, as discipline, practice, and way of life. The key sites of engagement are place, politics, pedagogy, and practice—each of which is interrogated with a view towards undergirding substantial analytical advances in a discipline that for too long has been locked into what Patel ( 2014 : 609) has rightly referred to as ‘the provincialism of European universalisms’.

Part of the programme of globalizing sociology—or, as Ronaldo Munck in this volume puts it, pursuing ‘sociology across the globe’—is the attention to place and relatedly, to scale. By this, we mean not merely a decentring of the West from our political imagination and epistemological orientation—an all too common call in the academy today—but attention to the scalar and spatial politics of knowledge production. Munck in his contribution to this special issue argues, for instance, that ‘flat’ epistemologies are inadequate to the task of understanding the highly uneven effects of globalization today. His is a plea for an alternative paradigm for a global sociology, drawing on a political economy perspective, which is sensitive to the uneven geographies of place and scale. Munck thus argues that global sociology could emerge through a critical Southern lens and draw—as he does in his article—on the conceptual tools of cultural political economy. A sensitivity to place understood in both a geographical and a social sense—namely that of class—is a key to this perspective. We could go further to say that Munck’s arguments provide the foundation for a place-sensitive rather than a place-based global sociology. Munck argues that a genuinely global sociology must be based on an understanding of the socially constructed nature of space and scalar hierarchies if we are to displace the idea of the West and/or the North as the default scale of both analysis and politics.

An attention to the politics of place and scale is also central in a number of the other contributions to this volume. Robbie Shilliam, for instance, underscores the legacies and contributions of pan-African pedagogies not only for those in the South (from where they originate) but for the struggles of those who he refers to as ‘the South in the North’ or postcolonial populations settled in the North (as in the UK, his point of departure). Focusing on the noted Pan-Africanist politician and educator Edward Blyden, Shilliam explores how Blyden’s aims and methods of liberal education—even though they were products of the South—might come to inform struggles for epistemic justice by black peoples in the contemporary UK context—a context, he notes, that is marked by the onslaught of neoliberalization in higher education. His answer to this question—particularly in the conclusion to his rich article—offers many resources to the student movements we started this introduction with and some of whom are his direct addressees. The recovery of such traditions of liberal education not only speaks to the concerns of epistemic justice and even violence that are central to Pillay’s argument above but also to the neoliberalizing imperatives of universities today, whether in the North or the South. In the final instance, Shilliam recovers the history of a pan-African pedagogy not only just in the name of epistemic justice for black people located in the metropole or in the post-colony but also for a greater range of actors—black people in black-dominated locales—and structures beyond the university. Ultimately, he provides us with a sociological pedagogy that is historically aware and rooted, contemporaneous, globally attentive in terms of place and scale, and concerned with the epistemic aspects of ongoing struggles for justice.

The connection between epistemology and politics is another key focus of our combined attempt to globalize sociology. At least three of the articles are explicitly interested in exploring the political from the vantage point of and on behalf of a critical global sociology, each with its own particular thematic focus. Alf Nilsen’s is development—the Eurocentric politics and practice of which there have been many substantial critiques. While he is sympathetic to these ‘post-development’ criticisms of the discourse of development, Nilsen charts an alternative line of critique that emphasizes the multiple meanings of the idiom of development and locates the source of this multiplicity in conflicting political projects that aim to shape the form and direction of social change in different ways. In so doing, he displaces the ‘West and the Rest’ binary that still shapes much development critique and argues that development works simultaneously as a tool of power and of resistance. Nilsen draws on his ethnography of the Narmada Bachao Andolan in India—especially the fractured nature of the politics of opposing the Narmada Valley dam projects—to illustrate what he calls the ‘multivalence’ of the idiom of development. His contribution has much to offer critical and activist scholars in and of the Global South who are currently engaged with how social movements take shape around anti-globalization, post-development and decolonial discourses, and agendas. It also carries lessons for the project of globalizing sociology—especially in the importance it lays on deconstructing ideal types that underlie our academic and activist investments in pure narratives of power and resistance. Nilsen paints instead a picture of a more complex world that complicates the prospect of resistance to power and calls for scholarly practices that are sensitive to the intricacies of social movements on the ground.

In her contribution, Srila Roy takes as her point of departure the Indian women’s movement. In so doing, she provides substance to Munck’s provocation that ‘a new global sociology will need to engage with the rich debate around the politics of scale in geography if it is to be successful in its mission’. The article underscores the politics and ethics of scale in reading women’s movements in the Global South. Roy demonstrates that attempts to globalize feminism have historically served only to reinforce Western hegemony and to silence the Third World feminisms. The epistemic violence is obvious: even as recent processes of transnationalization and NGOization of women’s movements represent significant moments of scale-shifting, ‘feminism’ continues to be associated with that which is ‘Western’. Nevertheless, Roy argues, women’s movements in the global South have asserted a stridently transnational orientation that defies the hegemony of Western feminism in global histories of women’s struggles for liberation, and this poses conceptual challenges for sociological engagement with Southern feminisms. The article uses the anti-rape protests that erupted in India in 2012 over the gang rape and murder of a young student in Delhi as a way of thinking through the changing scales and sites of contemporary feminist protest in the global South. A reading of these protests calls for new spatial concepts and scalar epistemologies to emphasize their multi-scalar dimensions, internally non-homogenous nature and polyvalent meaning of ‘feminism’ itself. So, while Nilsen speaks of fault lines within social movements as raising serious ethnographic, epistemological, and ethical challenges for those writing these movements, Roy’s point is, similarly, that a uni-scalar analysis would not be able capture or adequately represent the complexity of the deep cleavages in the anti-rape movement in contemporary India. The multivalence of social movements that they both emphasize also bring about unexpected possibilities of critique, struggle, and solidarity that have to equally be the object of ‘sociology across the globe’ as Munck puts it.

The final contribution on the political comes from Ruchi Chaturvedi who takes as her point of departure the role of the urban poor or the so-called informal or lumpenproletariat in popular protests in West Africa. As a key to a project of globalizing sociology, Chaturvedi describes these critical agents of resistance in their specific contexts and describes the nature of political imaginations, possibilities, and agency that they have enacted. She writes: ‘These contexts and narratives alert us to various political possibilities and violent limits of popular politics. At the same time they lay the grounds for grasping another mode of imagining, enacting and understanding protest.’ In order to explore the possibilities and limits of popular protests more broadly, she focuses on the Nigerian artist Jelili Atiku and his political performance towards the end of the Occupy Nigeria movement in January 2012. Seen in the light of writings on the lumpenproletariat, the ‘third-wave’ of protests, and new research on politics of the informal working class in Africa, his performance opens up novel interpretive threads including the manner in which the local becomes the pre-eminent scale of political intervention besides other spatial arrangements around ‘political society’ (Chatterjee 2004 )—a now dominant trope of reading popular protest in the South. Chaturvedi also notes the internal differences or fault lines within the ‘urban underclass’ that are occluded in many discussions on urban protest, once again arguing for a more developed paradigm for reading resistance. Jelili Atiku’s street performance could also be read through Shilliam’s conception of epistemic justice especially when it comes to popular protest in that it affirms ‘that the knowledge systems of such communities (including their fault-lines) are resources that, in principle, hold epistemic authority when it comes to identifying what counts as a problem, what constitutes the problem and what are the means of redress’.

We end this special issue with a clear instance of the actual practice of globalizing sociology—of linking pedagogy, politics, and practice—in a reflection on a collaborative arts and research project between European and South African cultural organizations. In illustrating the complexities of such a North-South collaboration as well as between higher education and non-academic partners, Alison Rooke’s article considers these to be an opportunity—however modest—to develop a genuinely public sociology. Rooke understands public sociology in Burawoy’s sense as being ‘concerned with how to work reflexively with diverse publics in dialogue to produce sociological knowledge’. The collaborative project that is her case study is an instance of such a global sociology in involving and engaging debate ‘amongst multi-level, translocal sociological publics’. Rooke focuses on the considerable tensions and unequal power relations between partners as intrinsic to the nature of such collaborations: it is impossible to wish away such power relations or to consider them through the idiom of failure; rather, they have to be interrogated in a productive manner. She is also sceptical of the potential of what she calls a professional sociology to produce genuinely public sociology in the context of internationalization of higher education and the drive for ‘world class’ universities (in ways that resonate with Shilliam’s broader critique of neoliberal university culture and practice in the North). At the same time, she notes a more potentially positive fallout of the globalization of higher education institutions in the North especially in terms of its shifting scales of—from the North to the South—as challenging Eurocentrism in sociological knowledge production and practice.

Thus, we end as we began this issue—with a focus on the university or rather, of the role of the university in decolonizing knowledge and enabling forms of epistemic in/justice (and also in South Africa, which is also a part of Rooke’s case study). Rooke’s is an important reminder of the concrete methodological challenges of globalizing sociology in higher education institutions today, when, all said and done, theory and funding rarely ‘travel’ in the same direction—that is, from the South to the North. The politics of place, pedagogy, and practice renew commitments to critique and dismantle the hegemony of Northern theory even as they make more apparent theory’s travelling nature. We hope the essays in this issue offer some concrete insights and direction for a programme of globalizing sociology through their combined commitment to decolonization and social justice and in their attention to critical pedagogies of space and place and possibilities for solidarity building as well as internal contest. We hope that together they should be capable of generating important debates well beyond the disciplinary boundaries of sociology while, at the same time, taking an important step in the direction of undermining sociology’s Eurocentric deep structure. In Conversations with Bourdieu: The Johannesburg Moment , Burawoy ( 2012 : 211) contends that ‘to transcend the dominance of the North is a Sisyphean task, so we must avoid illusory solutions, the substitution of dream for reality’. This is indeed a sobering reminder of the difficulties of globalizing sociology in an already globalized world. We hope these articles, read individually or together, will offer concrete resources to those involved in this difficult project, which involves nothing less than decolonizing and democratizing spaces and structures of higher learning today—whether in South Africa, India, Chile, or the UK and US—and re-establishing the role of the university in constituting a public culture and space of dissent.

Bhambra, G. (2007). Rethinking modernity: postcolonialism and the sociological imagination . London: Palgrave.

Book   Google Scholar  

Bhambra, G. (2014). Connected sociologies . London: Bloomsbury.

Google Scholar  

Burawoy, M. (2012). Travelling theory. In M. Burawoy & K. Von Holdt (Eds.), Conversations with Bourdieu: The Johannesburg moment (pp. 210–218). Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

Chatterjee, P. (2004). Politics of the governed: reflections on popular politics in most of the world . New York: Columbia University Press.

Chaturvedi, R. (2015). The rise of a postcolonial university. Article available on http://africasacountry.com/2015/04/the-rise-of-a-post-colonial-university/

Chernilo, D. (2011). The critique of methodological nationalism. Theory and history. Thesis Eleven, 106 (1), 98–117.

Article   Google Scholar  

Connell, R. (2007). Southern theory: the global dynamics of knowledge in social science . London: Allen and Unwin.

Go, J. (2013). For a postcolonial sociology. Theory and Society, 42 (1), 25–55.

Hussain, M. (2015). Why is my curriculum so white? Article available on http://www.nus.org.uk/en/news/why-is-my-curriculum-white

Mignolo, W. (2012). Local histories/global designs: coloniality, subaltern knowledges, and border thinking . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Patel, S. (2012). Towards internationalism: beyond colonial and nationalist sociologies. Article available at http://www.isa-sociology.org/publ/E-symposium/E-symposium-vol-2-3-2012/EBul-Patel-Dec2012.pdf

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

Pillay, S. (2015). Decolonizing the university. Article available on http://africasacountry.com/2015/06/decolonizing-the-university/

Quijano, A. (2000). Coloniality of power and eurocentrism in Latin America. International Sociology, 15 (2), 215–232.

Sebambo, K. (2015). Azania house as a symbol of the black imagination. Article available on http://www.jwtc.org.za/the_salon/volume_9/khumo_sebambo.htm

Sitas, A. (2014). Rethinking Africa’s sociological project. Current Sociology, 62 (4), 457–471.

Wolf, E. (1982). Europe and the people without history . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

Department of Sociology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

Alf Gunvald Nilsen

The Society, Work and Development Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Srila Roy or Alf Gunvald Nilsen .

Additional information

Srila wishes to acknowledge the support of the National Research Foundation of South Africa whose generous Knowledge, Interchange and Collaboration (KIC) grant made a workshop at Wits possible, the direct outcome of which is this special issue.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Roy, S., Nilsen, A.G. Globalizing Sociology: an Introduction. Int J Polit Cult Soc 29 , 225–232 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-016-9221-y

Download citation

Published : 11 June 2016

Issue Date : September 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-016-9221-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research