Kitabı oku: «The Social Science of the Citizen Society», sayfa 2
De-colonization
Next to the discourse on the “globalization” of social science, there is another worldwide discourse, again 50 years later than the transformation of the colonized parts of the world into nation states and market economies, the discourse on the “de-colonization” of the social sciences, which is opposed by social scientists from the so-called developing countries to the discourse on “globalization” and in which these scientists insist that social science thinking, which creates its theories about the social world from the perspective of the imperial world, is an image of the world that only social sciences can develop in the imperial world.
In fact, for social sciences in countries where there is not a single social phenomenon that does not derive its characteristics from the dependence of these countries on the imperial world, it must be a strange idea of that “zombie” science which assumes that the social in a country could be thought of as an entity untouched by the world of states and which is only able to register the social world beyond its nationally defined societies after these in turn have become state societies.
From the point of view of thinking about the societies in these countries, which are formally also nation-state societies, but which are nation-state societies in which the political as well as economic substance of their societies is under the command of imperial states and which are entirely constructed to serve the imperial states, one might think it must be, at any rate, that it is a strangely illusionary idea to want to imagine their societies as societies exclusively shaped by an individual state and untouched by other states, just as the social science globalized thinking in the imperial world wants to make it its own in its juxtaposition of comparative theories that make no comparison.
Nevertheless, instead of causing any irritation about the explanatory power of social science theories that create such illusory images of the social world, and then instead of therefore examining their theories, the advocates of a de-colonization of social science thinking not only fail to refute the theories of the sciences from the imperial world, but they in turn claim to develop theories that, in their own way, juxtapose equally nationally inspired views of their societies with the theories about the national societies of the imperial countries.
It must be the case that social science thinking, even in these countries, simply does not seem to know how social science knowledge, which is not determined by the view of state definitions of what nation-state societies are, could otherwise be such thinking about the world of state societies. It seems that the nature of social science thinking involves equating thinking about nation-state societies with thinking through the view of the social constructs, primarily through the view of the state itself, of such nation-state societies, and that the only form of this kind of thinking about this world of state societies is thinking as imagining a world of nation-state societies no differently than the mere addition of theories about such social biotopes.
The postcolonial debates, with their contributions and concerns, make these discourses even more paradoxical. If one takes a look at the critical contributions to the debate from the “de-colonized” social sciences, which come from the former colonized countries, then one has to conclude that their word-radical objections, such as those about “scientific power”, about scientific “inequalities”, a “scientific imperialism” and similar objections, are even more paradoxical, that all these critical contributions, for their part, do not always also operate with nationally constructed scientific subjects, be it the idea of a scientific world consisting of a “North” versus a “South”, or of a “local versus global”, or of a Eurocentrism or Occidentalism, all these subjects and objects of their theory-building constructed by the post-colonial debates turn out to be constructions of the same social science-trained thinking of those globalization debates which, as in those debates, consist of an agglomeration of national societies, instead of articulating any doubts about them, that the social science theories about the world of state societies operate with their a priori assumption that they can understand them as biotope societies separated from the world of nation states, in order to reject such theories as obvious false images of imperial world views.
Without even looking at the arguments of the debates about what the de-colonization of the social sciences should be, the categories central to the accusations against “globalized” thinking already show that the opposite is the case: Committed to opposing the newly discovered scientific challenge of that “globalization” of social science thinking with their discourse of de-colonization, these critical objections with their de-colonization debate interpret their objections as a plea for more “local” theories, for a more nationally contoured thinking as congenial contributions from the former colonized countries, and with this strange criticism they claim to be able to participate in the creation and debates about a new global thinking with contributions that are recognized as equal to their own nationally constructed theories about their always nationally constituted societies.
The alternative debate on the “globalization” of the social sciences, which contrasts this with its “de-colonization debate”, does not know how to present this demarcation of the social sciences in the formerly colonized world with its accusation of “Eurocentrism” against the theories from the imperial world in any other way than to liberate its thinking from theories that are first explicitly attributed the explanatory power for European societies, and which then, however, for the explanation of the national societies of the former colonial world demands theories tailored to their national societies, i.e. the principle of viewing the world as individual national societies, which in “globalized” thinking are viewed through nation-state perspectives, does not reject them as a pipe dream or even as errors of the social sciences of the imperial world, but explicitly develops them further, thus confirming this nation-specific view with its critique, which does not want to criticize any of these nationally inspired theories.
But that’s not all: In order to produce their post-colonial social science theories, they themselves, like “globalized” social science thinking, hypostasize not only nationally contoured questions of inquiry in thinking about their societies, decolonized social science thinking, thinking in the former colonized world that would have every reason to do so after its transformation into states, to look at the world of states and their imperialism, because their societies are all too obviously only what they are through the imperial states, the advocates of a de-colonization of social science thinking go one step further towards a nationally predetermined thinking by propagating this thinking as a thinking about nationally contoured objects and research questions, which is supposed to be able to construct its theories only through theoretically exclusive “local” perspectives, “local” views that are only accessible to those who share this exclusive, national view, thanks to their affiliation with these national societies—with the result that this kind of locally exclusive theory production, called indigenous sciences by post-colonial thinking, on nationally preconfigured social phenomena interpreted by nationally biased thinking, with such explicitly nationally inspired theories makes its contribution to that globalized scientific world as a post-colonialized theoretical contribution to theory formation—and thus finally turns this post-colonial thinking into a questionable theoretical matter.
When even renowned masterminds of this de-colonization project from the former colonial states, such as Aimé Césaire in his “Discourse on Colonialism,”4 morally scourge the imperial states for their misdeeds, in order to work their way through this moral condemnation to the most stubborn advocates of the humanistic ideals of the state idea, as if the moral self-portraits of states, which social science thinkers and poets like Césaire like to attach to them, were ever the yardstick for any state policies, then these products of post-colonial thought are certainly among the bleak highlights in the history of social science thought and raise the question of what this decolonized thinking is all about, which is dedicated to the state ideas of those states which, under the title of these state ideals, with their old colonialism and their new imperialism, are responsible for the misery in these states and which, with their wars, ensure the maintenance of their sovereignty over this decolonized part of the world of states.
All these peculiarities of “globalized” and “postcolonial” theorizing in the social sciences are reason enough not only to take a closer look at these debates and to ask what characterizes the theories produced under the maxims of these two postwar debates, but also to raise the question of what is actually the nature of social science thinking, which not only produces such debates, but also discovers the necessity of directing its thinking towards the world only when the world has become a world of states; and that is a thinking that then obviously seems unable to think about the world of state societies in any other way than that in which the world of these state societies, contrary to all everyday experience, is conceived as national biotopes untouched by each other, in order to reflect on these societies thus preconstructed in this “globalized” as well as in “post-colonial” thinking with nationalist perspectives.
The results of these reflections are presented in two volumes under the title “The Social Science of the Citizen Society”.
In the first book on “Critique of the Globalization and De-colonization of the social sciences”, these central post-war discourses of social science thinking and their legacies for science are discussed in the following five chapters:
1 The “globalization” of the social sciences—the introduction of nationalist thinking into social science thinking
2 The worldwide implementation of the social science of the citizen society through its “de-colonization”
3 Comments on life in a world of citizen societies and its social science idealizations
4 Knowledge that endows national identity—contributions to the ideological armament of states
5 The final highlights of the masterminds of the globalized post-colonial thinking
6 Old and new errors and their sources: Theoretical legacies of the globalization and de-colonization debates under the preparatory work of Historical Materialism
Book 2, entitled “The Nature of the Social Science of Citizen Society—Sketches for a Theory” analyzes the characteristics of the nature of social science thinking in four chapters:
1 Architecture and conceptual foundations of disciplinary thinking
2 Forms of telelogical thinking—progress of social scientific theorizing about itself
3 The discourse on and progress of social science knowledge
4 Beyond social science thinking
1 In this book, the concept of a plurality of “social sciences” refers to the disciplinary social sciences and thus to the specific form of social science theories of citizen societies. Their nature and their current progresses in theory building is the subject of the book “The Social Science of Citizen Society 2, The Nature of the Social Sciences—Sketches of a Critique”.
2 A “zombie science” is the social science thinking according to Beck, because it practices a “methodical nationalism”. This accusation of a “methodical nationalism” does not criticize nationalist thinking, but wants to say that thinking must be “cosmopolitan”, i.e., directed at the world beyond individual national societies, and this cosmopolitanism is perfectly compatible with nationalist thinking, yes, as we will see later, it is the more clever nationalism praised by Beck. (See also chapter 5 in this book) http://www.ulrichbeck.net-build.net/index.php?page=cosmopolitan.
3 It is not by chance that the social sciences in the imperial state that supervises all imperial states, the USA, make an exception here. Long before the discussions on the necessity of a globalization of the social sciences started, the social sciences in the USA knew about the world beyond their national society with the rise of their country to the global world power and developed the idea of “area studies” that do not make a big fuss about their imperial missions. The unworldly idea of a social world established as a world of states, of wanting to imagine itself as a social world of social units untouched by each other, is the privilege of the social sciences in the imperial states, which under the global supremacy of the USA practice their imperial policy above all as global economic policy, and which must therefore receive a wake-up call from their national science policy, to “internationalize” their science, after their economic policy had noticed that science had become a new lever in the global struggle of capital for markets.
4 Aimé Césaire, Discourse on Colonialism, Monthly Review Press, New York 1972.
1. The “Globalization” of the Social Sciences—the Introduction of Nationalist Thinking into Social Science Thinking
For social science thinking it is a theoretical challenge when it is required to theorize beyond its national societies, especially for the social sciences in the countries where they have emerged. After
a period of more than 150 years of colonization of the world, with the exploitation of the colonized world as the economic basis for the political and economic power base of the domination of the European capitalist states over the world,
another half century after the establishment of the US model of imperialism, in which the former colonies have now been transformed into nation states participating in the global battle of nation states about political and economic power,
the post-war model of imperialism with a world that now consists of a world of states, which, with few exceptions, are all constructed according to the pattern of the rationale of the American concept of nation states,
a world divided into imperial states and states, which are under the command of the imperial states, many of which, like the former colonies, are sovereign states in a more formal sense only,
all of which are under the supervision of the American world power,
all committed to serve the growth of global capital and all drawing their political power resources from this global growth of capital and directing these power resources inwardly and outwardly to nothing other than this service for the growth of capital.
It nevertheless takes another half century for the social sciences in the imperial world to discover that there is a social world beyond their nation-state societies, a social world which they now, self-critically, believe they cannot continue to ignore.
The social sciences in the imperial states of Europe, in particular, thus discovered the necessity of what they call the internationalization or globalization of the social sciences—an internationalization that they henceforth put into practice as a comparison of theories of individual nation-state societies.
The reason why this “globalization” of social science theory formation is not justified as a conclusion from some shortcomings in theory formation, but rather comes across as a scientific imperative, is that this necessity of a “globalization” of social science theory formation, presented as self-criticism, is also only a euphemism for the fact that it was not the social sciences that had discovered the existence of a social world beyond their individual national societies in thinking about their objects. It was the science policies in the imperial countries, namely in Europe, later followed by those in the rest of the imperial world, as well as in some economically more important “emerging countries”, which prompted the sciences under their supervision to direct their theory production also towards the social world beyond their national territories and to create social science knowledge also about other nation states and their societies, especially those in which these science policies had a political or economic interest.
In fact, the selection of societies and states to which this scientific interest in “globalized” knowledge is then directed can easily be recognized as a selection of states which they have not encountered through a scientific interest, but in which states of the imperial world of states have a special political or economic interest, such as, for example, the unfortunate fact, from the point of view of the European Union, that certain states are under the exclusive control of a competing imperial state, the United States, which other imperially ambitious powers, such as the said European Union, have started to question, and this certainly not because of any scientific interest, but for political and economic reasons. In this, questioning the exclusive grip of the US on certain states, the social sciences should also play their part. The Europeans’ newly discovered scientific interest, for example, in Latin America, with which they are trying to challenge the US monopoly on this continent and this not at all primarily in matters of science, as is not concealed in their funding programs, or the interest of Japanese social sciences in South-East Asia, also being steered in the right direction by means of appropriately oriented funding programs, both cases may serve here only as two examples of why the self-critique of the social sciences is only the politically controlled interest that it elevates to a scientific mission, the already strange discovery of the existence of a social world beyond the world of imperialist states.
And even this is not yet the whole truth about the reasons why social sciences have proclaimed a new era of internationalized social science thinking. After all, it was not even the science policies in the imperial countries that forced their sciences to embark on the global voyage of discovery of the social world beyond their national territories. In fact, it was the global business world, which has always regarded the limited territories of nation states as an obstacle to its business activities and has always worked to remove the restrictions on its business to the markets of its nation states, that found its congenial partner in the nation state authorities and in the interest of these imperial states to extend their political power over other states, with the result that today’s world has been turned into a world for business. So that, since this global capital, which treats the globe as its means of growth, as well as its inhabitants, with the development of new technologies in which the natural and engineering sciences play a key role in its competitiveness, this global business world has come to value science as a means of doing business, and therefore, nolens volens, also the services of the social sciences came into their sight.
And it was only following the discovery of the global business world’s interest in science as an important lever for their business interests that science policies began to use their sovereignty over science to reorient science as a means for imperial states competing among themselves for their attractiveness to these global business interests. In this sense, science policies notice the new interest of the “markets” in science serving them, awaken them from the accusation of being in an “ivory tower”, which has been reinterpreted only for this purpose and which rubs the goals of previous science policies and their concept of science as an accusation against science’s unworldliness, and turn the whole science and its form of institutionalization into institutions for market competition for knowledge useful to the business world in a global knowledge market. It is only since then, and only because the international business world wants to see its interest in science established as a lever for its global business interests, that the reforms of the science scene initiated by science policymakers have redirected it towards these interests of the global capital in science and reformed it in line with these interests.
In order to ensure this new orientation of science, the national science policies in the imperial states, under the expert advice of the business world, have transformed their science scenes into a politically controlled national economic resource, according to the dictates of the business world and its thinking, and have forced their sciences to do so by making accordingly constructed ‘offers’ to redesign science as a national knowledge market as a contribution of the states to their establishment as an attractive location for the global business world, a national knowledge market that sociological thinking emphatically.1
As is usual in social science thinking to transform the social problems of citizens created by politics into aids for the problems of citizens, it ennobles its new economic missions in the global scientific world assigned to it by politics, as a further development of social science thinking towards “globalized” thinking, which has finally made its way self-critically to a scientific study of the world.
