Fifty Years of Bangladesh Sociology

326

Shaikh Mohammad Kais

Fifty Years of Bangladesh Sociology Towards a “Hybrid Sociology”?

Shaikh Mohammad Kais, University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh 1

Sociology, like human society, is varied, contested and constantly changing. It is hard to capture from a single perspective, and hard to describe with finality. (Calhoun et al. 2005: 1) In this age of globalization a new form of society is being shaped, and in Ulrich Beck’s words, “... sociologically and politically, we need a paradigm shift, a new frame of reference” (cited in Connell 2007: 52). This paper offers a new frame of reference to cast light on third world sociologies, 2 especially on Bangladesh sociology. The study of sociology as a separate discipline at the university level in Bangladesh passed fifty years in 2007. All the way through this journey Bangladesh sociology had to travel across wavy paths. It had to, and still has to, face a number of challenges. This paper largely seeks to critically review various facets of the development of sociology as a discipline in Bangladesh. Here the current problematic situation of Bangladesh sociology is analyzed by introducing a term “hybrid sociology,” which is somewhat analogous to the genetic concept of hybridization. 1

Shaikh Mohammad Kais is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi-6205, Bangladesh. This paper was written by reviewing articles on the development of sociology in Bangladesh. The research works on various sociological issues in Bangladesh have not been consulted due primarily to time constraint on the part of the author. 2 Throughout this paper “West,” “North,” “metropolis,” “core,” and “centre” have been used interchangeably to refer to “the global social science powers.” Similarly, the terms “periphery” and “Third World” are used synonymously to mean those sociological traditions which are not at the dominating position in global sociological discourses.

1

Fifty Years of Bangladesh Sociology 327

HYBRIDIZATION IN GENETICS “Hybridization” is a core concept in the science of genetics. The principles of genetics were discovered by Gregor (Johann) Mendel (18221884) through a series of experimental breeding which are termed as “monohybrid crosses.” Genetically speaking, characters of an organism are determined by genes located in chromosomes which are present in the nuclei of cells. The behavior of genes during gametogenesis (i.e., gamete formation through cell division) and fertilization is identical with that of the chromosomes. Each character has two, sometimes more, alternative forms known as contrasting characters. For example, eye colour in humans may be black or brown. Alternative forms of the same gene determine the contrasting characters. These alternative forms of the same gene are termed alleles (Singh 2005: 125). When two alleles are brought together through an appropriate cross, generally one of the alleles express itself (which is referred to as dominant allele), while the other is unable to do so (which is known as recessive allele). For example, the allele for round seed shape (W) in peas may be crossed with that for wrinkled seed shape (w). The seeds resulting from this cross (Ww) i.e., F1 seeds, are round. Here the allele for round seed shape is dominant and the other one recessive. When the two copies of a gene (alleles) present in an individual are identical, e.g., WW or ww, it is known as homozygote. But when the two alleles are dissimilar, e.g., Ww, the individual is termed as heterozygote. Both homozygous and heterozygous conditions produce the same phenotype when there is complete dominance (Singh 2005: 126). Hence the same phenotype (observable characteristics of an organism) may be produced by different genotypes (specific allele makeup of the individual). Now, hybridization refers to a process of producing offspring (animals or plants), of parents that differ in genetically determined traits. The offspring produced through hybridization is referred to as hybrid or F1 (filial 1). Most of the intervarietal and distant hybrids are the result of human intervention. If we mate a homozygous black male guinea pig with a homozygous white female guinea pig, each sperm will carry one gene for black and each egg will carry one gene for white. Thus all the offspring of this cross will be heterozygous, i.e., they will carry one of each type of gene. And since all these heterozygous individuals will be black, we can

328


conclude that black is dominant over white. When the cells within the testes and ovaries of these heterozygous individuals undergo meiosis, the two types of genes are separated, and one half of the gametes will receive a gene for black coat while the other half receives a gene for white coat. Again, if we cross the first generation offspring (F1) among themselves, there are four possible combinations of gametes from such a cross, as illustrated in Figure 1. Each of two different kinds of sperms may unite with each of two different kinds of eggs to yield four combinations of genes in the second generation (F2). Since white is recessive, no guinea pig can be white unless it receives two genes for white, and only one of the four types of combination contains two genes for white. This gives a 3:1 ratio. In working out this cross by diagram, we would use w to stand for white coat and W to represent the gene for black coat (see Figure 1). In brief, the major features of hybridization can be summed up as follows: 1. It is a process of cross-fertilization between two parental seeds that are dissimilar, i.e., they differ in one or several clearly distinguished characteristics. 2. In most cases, it is an artificial process, in that it needs a conscious intervention on the part of the scientist involved. 3. The aim of hybridization is to bring about qualitative or quantitative changes in the hybrid generation (F1 offspring). The term hybrid vigour implies the superiority of an F1 hybrid over both its parents in terms of one or more characters. Heterosis is another concept which is somewhat synonymous with hybrid vigour; but it may describe other situations also (Singh 2005: 235). The various manifestations of positive heterosis include increased yield, increase in size and general vigour (fruit size in tomato, head size in cabbage, cob size in maize etc.), greater resistance to disease and pest, greater adaptability, faster growth rate etc. 4. Hybridization does not always bring about the desired output. The impact on F1 generation might be negative in terms of the scientist’s aspiration. This phenomenon is termed negative heterosis or out breeding depression. Typical examples of this are crosses between wild and hatchery fish that have incompatible adaptation.


Figure 1: A monohybrid cross in guinea pigs (drawn by extending a figure from Winchester 1967: 72)

330


HYBRIDIZATION IN SOCIOLOGY What does “hybridization of sociology” mean? At the beginning of the twenty first century nations are economically, politically, and culturally being integrated in the modern world, or are experimenting with intensely hybrid processes which produce a complex heterogeneity. Nestor Garcia Canclini cited Latin American countries as examples of “hybrid societies” and he stated that in these societies “... different forms of disputing and negotiating the meaning of modernity are in constant contention” (cited in Connell 2007: 162). The integration process is occurring in the sphere of science and knowledge also. By “hybridization of sociology” I mean a fusion or blending of two or more sociological traditions. In the blending process different elements of sociological knowledge are being crossed with each other. The result is the outcome of a new tradition which assumes the character of dominant elements. Raewyn Connell describes the “hybrid structure of knowledge” in Australia as “where Australian sociologists combined metropolitan theory and methodology with local data and audiences” (Connell 2007: 82). To me, this can be used as a functional definition of hybrid sociology – “Hybrid sociology is a sociology in which theory and/or methods come from one sociological tradition while data come from another tradition.” Where does hybridization take place? Theoretically, in every country where sociological practices are present, hybridization can happen, as ideas from one sociological tradition might easily be diffused to other areas, especially in this information age. But in practice hybridization occurs primarily in global peripheral countries. The very nature of peripheral societies is responsible for this. We can say that the presence of the following characteristics is the prerequisite for a society to act as a field where hybridization of sociology can come about. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Academic dependency; Syndrome of “captive mind” and “Westoxication”; Colonized or postcolonized countries; and Marginalized position in the global division of labour in the social sciences

Academic dependency: By “academic dependency” I mean “...a condition in which the social sciences of certain countries are dependent on the


development and growth of the social sciences in those countries to which the former countries are subjected ... There is a psychological dimension to this dependency whereby the dependent scholar is a passive recipient of research agenda, methods and ideas from the social science powers” (Alatas 2006: 63). The process of academic dependency leads the social scientists of the Third World to total reliance on their Western counterparts in various respects. Syed Farid Alatas summed up the dimensions of academic dependency that include dependence on ideas, on the media of ideas, on the technology of education, on aid for research as well as teachings, on investment in education and dependence of Third World social scientists on the Western demand for their skills (ibid: 64). Academic dependency theory explains the fact that sociologists of peripheral countries are tied up in certain circumstances where they find no way out but to depend on metropolitan knowledge, theory, books, journals, funding, and resources for attaining accomplishments in their academic arena. This situation contributes to the hybridization process. Syndrome of “captive mind” and “Westoxication”: “Captive mind” denotes a particular mental state in which freethinking and critical judgment cease to exist. Syed Hussein Alatas elaborately described the characteristics of a captive mind, especially in Asian contexts. Those are as follows: A captive mind is the product of higher institutions of learning, either at home or abroad, whose way of thinking is dominated by Western thought in an imitative and uncritical manner. A captive mind is uncreative and incapable of raising original problems. It is incapable of devising an analytical method independent of current stereotypes. It is incapable of separating the particular from the universal in science and thereby properly adapting the universally valid corpus of scientific knowledge to the particular local situation. It is fragmented in outlook. It is alienated from the major issues of society. It is alienated from its own national tradition, if it exists, in the field of its intellectual pursuit.

332


It is unconscious of its own captivity and the conditioning factors making it what it is. It is not amenable to an adequate quantitative analysis but it can be studied by empirical observation. It is a result of the Western dominance over the rest of the world. (Alatas 2004: 83) Al-e Ahmad’s concept of “Westoxicated man” (Gharbzadegi or Westoxication) is somewhat similar to Alatas’s “captive mind.” A Westoxicated man also is devoid of freethinking and critical judgment. He is completely captured by Western ideas and ideologies. In Al-e Ahmad’s words “the Westoxicated man follows Western news, reads Western literature, and even learns about Eastern philosophy from Western books” (cited in Connell 2007: 121). The phenomenon of “captive mind” is unlikely to be present in Western countries. Because Western people are not educated in non-Western countries, institutes, or languages, they are hence not subject to be captivated by other cultures. So also no counterpart of Westoxication (counterpart might be “Eastoxication!”) is present in the West. The existence of these two phenomena in Third World countries makes them susceptible to hybridization. Colonized or postcolonized countries: In colonial society the “colonizing structure” (in Valentine Mudembe’s term) is established by the colonialists, which includes “the domination of space, the reshaping of native minds and the integration of local economies into international capitalism” (Connell 2007: 215). That means colonizers try to create such a situation where the native people gradually become dependent on ruling nations economically, politically, and intellectually. Even after getting political independence, the colonial legacy continues to exist in these countries. Thus these societies remain prone to be economically and intellectually engulfed by the Northern hegemonic policies. Marginalized position in the global division of labour in social sciences: The global division of labour in the social science arose out of a colonial mode of knowledge production. At the end of the colonial period, this division continues to perpetuate, in the form of academic dependency, in the new global order. Syed Farid Alatas mentioned a threefold division of labour in the social sciences – theoretical/empirical labour, other


country/own country studies, and comparative/single case studies (Alatas 2006: 71). Third World sociologists are marginalized in the global division of labour in the sense that, due to some unavoidable reasons, they limit themselves to “empirical, single-case and own-country studies,” while their Western counterparts perform “theoretical, cross-national and other country studies” (Alatas 2006: 55). This marginalization, in turn, makes them academically dependent on the West. A society or country possessing the above characteristics is an ideal place where metropolitan science and knowledge can be installed and injected easily. From the above discussion it is evident that in Third World countries, there are structural (objective or macro level) factors as well as agency related (subjective or micro level) factors that contribute to the hybridization process.

BANGLADESH SCENARIO Sociology in Bangladesh: A Historical Outline The first sociologist who attempted a systematic review of the progress of sociology in Bangladesh was Professor Rangalal Sen (1984, 2003). Later, other sociologists did deliberate research and analysis on the issue (see Quddus 1994; Islam and Islam 2005; M.I. Khan 2008). The development and growth of sociology in Bangladesh did not take a similar path as that in the West, where sociology first emerged. The formal take off of sociology in Western Europe took place in the early nineteenth century in response to dramatic changes in European society: the Industrial Revolution, class conflict, secularization, alienation, and the modern state (Connell 2007: 4). That means its emergence was associated with the specific socioeconomic and intellectual development in Europe at a chaotic and critical time when society was shifting to an industry-based economy. The innovation of new branches of knowledge and science was inevitable for explaining the new social situation. This process of emergence of sociology in Western Europe may be labeled as “organic growth” (M.I. Khan 2008: 27).

334


To Monirul I Khan – Whatever counter arguments are provided against the popular view of the emergence of sociology in Europe it is still the dominant one in the relevant literature. As long as we subscribe to this view we may call it an “organic model” since it seems to have come out of the intertwining of the society and the intellectuals. Whatever factors (e.g., intellectual tradition, supporting social class or new social process) were there for the emergence of sociology, they were rooted in that society, and took shape gradually over the subsequent period, in an interactive manner. In plain words it was neither an isolated effect of social revolution of that period nor the mere culmination of a certain intellectual tradition. (M I Khan 2008: 29-30) The case of Bangladesh was different. Here the emergence of sociology might be termed as “a case of borrowing from abroad” (ibid: 30). Sociology was imported and implanted in Bangladesh from Europe. That means it did not arise out of societal need but was imposed. This type of institutional growth of sociology is termed “diffusion” (ibid: 27). The British colonial administrators, soon after the occupation of India, felt the urgency to know about the people and culture of this country in order to perpetuate their rule here. The colonial authority started to collect information of their own, through administrators, on the social, economic, and religious life of the people. The reports of these studies, later published in books and journals, laid the foundation of sociology in the Subcontinent (Quddus 1994: 623). The formal introduction of teaching and research in sociology in colonial India took place at the University of Calcutta (Kolkata) in 1917 (Sen 1990: 10; Islam and Islam 2005: 376). The then Pakistani full academic recognition of sociology first came in 1955, when Punjab University inaugurated the first department of sociology (Gardezi 1994). And in Bangladesh, sociology as a recognized separate discipline formally started functioning on the first of July in 1957 at Dhaka University (Bessaignet 1964: ii). Prior to that, beginning in 1926 sociology had been taught as part of different courses in different disciplines at Dhaka University. The Department of Philosophy introduced the teaching of sociology in 1926 as a part of a course of a MA programme entitled “Ethics and


Sociology.” Later in a 1939-40 academic session, sociology was adopted as a full course entitled “Elements of Sociology,” which was the fifth paper of a BA (honours) programme in the Department of Political Science (Sen 2003: 74). As it transpired, the first batch (from 1957 up to 1961) of the local faculty in the Department of Sociology was political scientists by training (Sen 1984: 138; Islam and Islam 2005: 377). The tangible formation of the department began with the visit of the renowned French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss, who came from Paris to Pakistan in 1954 as a UNESCO consultant to assess the position of the social science studies in the two parts of the country (Bessaignet 1964: i). He visited Chittagong Hill Tracts region and became so impressed with observing the unadulterated primitive life of the tribal people there that he termed it a “veritable paradise for social anthropologists” (Sen 1990: 11). Professor Levi-Strauss’s findings showed that possibilities for the development of social science were good, and that Dhaka was the place best fitted for an initial experiment (Bessaignet 1964: i). In the following year UNESCO sent a trio of Euro-American social scientists, Den Hollander from the Netherlands, John Humlum from Denmark, and John S. Arid from the USA, to promote teaching and research in social science at Dhaka University. They were sent in accordance with the UNESCO programme of that year which authorized the organization’s Director General “to organize, on a limited scale and by way of experiment, visits by parties of distinguished professors to Universities which request their services and are ready to bear part of the expense” (Bessaignet 1964: i). These consultants were attached to the Department of Political Science at Dhaka University to teach sociology courses. Later, in 1956, Professor Pierre Bessaignet of France became the new UNESCO consultant whose main job was to help “in the organization of a Department of Sociology, in the re-grouping of social science departments in a separate Faculty of Social Science, and in the promotion of whatever research seemed indispensable for their organization” (Bessaignet 1964: ii). He was unsuccessful in re-grouping the social science departments into a separate Faculty, but his efforts did give concrete shape to the Sociology Department (Quddus 1994: 625). In 1957 the Department of Sociology at Dhaka University was formally launched with Professor Pierre Bessaigent being appointed as the first Head of Department. The department began with two full-time and two-part time teachers (Sen 1984: 137). UNESCO continued its

336


support for the department until 1967 by providing consultants from different parts of the world. In Rajshahi University a separate sociology department was formally launched on October 7, 1969 with Professor Fazlur Rashid Khan as the first Head of Department. Prior to that, sociology had been taught in the Department of Political Science since August 24, 1964 (Sen 2003: 97). In Chittagong University an independent sociology department was established in 1970. In recent times, sociology departments have started functioning in the Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST), Khulna University, Jagannath University, and Bangladesh Open University. There is also a Department of Rural Sociology at the Bangladesh Agricultural University at Mymensingh, and sociology is taught as minor courses in technical and specialized public universities, as major or minor courses in some private universities, and as undergraduate and graduate programmes in a large number of colleges affiliated with the Bangladesh National University (Islam and Islam 2005: 377). Thus, at present “there is no dearth of sociologists in the country, despite the fact that sociology as a discipline has made little headway” (Islam and Islam 2005: 378). Present State of Bangladesh Sociology: Major Problem Areas The teaching of sociology at undergraduate and graduate levels in Bangladesh has been expanded in some degree in recent times. At present there are thirty one public universities, fifty one private universities, and two international universities functioning in this country (UGC 2009a, 2009b, 2009c). Among the public universities, only six have separate sociology departments, while sociology departments have been established in seven private universities in the country (information obtained from the University Grants Commission (UGC)). Moreover, in thirty nine colleges affiliated with the National University, honours and master’s courses are taught. Currently in these colleges a total of 23,414 students are reading sociology at the Honours level, while there are 4,626 students at the master’s level (information from the Registrar’s office of the National University). The number of students and teachers in sociology departments at six public universities is presented in Table 1 below.


Table 1: Number of students and teachers in the sociology departments of six public universities in Bangladesh Number of students

Name of University Sociology University Dhaka Univ. Rajshahi Univ. Chittagong Univ. SUST. Khulna Univ. Jagannath Univ.

Number of faculty Assoc.

Asst.

Prof

Prof.

17

6

10

1

34

415

11

2

5

1

19

413

523

9

6

3

0

18

45

260

305

1

2

12

3

18

-

52

185

237

-

-

7

-

350

800

1150

4

6

-

estd

dept. estd

1921

1957

8

23

210

1200

1441

1953

1969

2

6

82

325

1966

1970

5

8

97

1991

1992

-

-

1991

2002

-

2005

1991

-

PhD M. Phil Master’s Honours Total Prof.

Lecturer Total

3+2 10+2 8

Note: Jagannath College was upgraded to a university in 2005, but the Sociology Department was established in 1991 at the college. In Khulna University there are two part-time lecturers in addition to three permanent lecturers. Source: Information collected from the chairmen of respective sociology departments through personal interviews or telephonic interviews.

Despite the expansion of sociological knowledge production in terms of students’ enrolment, sociology in Bangladesh, as in other peripheral countries, is confronting multifaceted challenges. In their recent articles, S. Aminul Islam and Nazrul Islam (2005) and Monirul I Khan (2008) have delineated the crisis areas in Bangladesh sociology. Here, for convenience, I will discuss the major problem areas of Bangladesh sociology in four broad categories: 1. Crises related to the very nature of sociology as a branch of science. 2. Crises related to teaching of sociology. 3. Crises related to sociological research. 4. Socio-structural constraints.

18

338


1. Crises Related to the Nature of Sociology: Sociology as a distinct discipline emerged in Western Europe at a particular time. Its theories and methods have been designed in such a way that best suits explaining social phenomena in industrialized countries. Thus the mode of institutionalization of sociology is somehow related to the mode of production of society where it is embedded. Alvin Gouldner emphasized this issue: “an academic sociology becomes institutionalized where industrialization has at least reached the ‘take off’ point and has become self sustaining” (Gouldner 1970: 467). T.B. Bottomore also observed “…in spite of its claim to be a general science, sociology dealt particularly with the social problems arising from the political and economic revolutions of the eighteenth century; it was above all a science of the new industrial society” (Bottomore 1971: 20). To be equally applicable to the study of societies other than industrialized ones, sociology has to be “remodeled” in those countries. That means the “indigenization of sociology” is needed; but this did not happen in Bangladesh. Sociology, in the West and in the rest, faces an identity crisis regarding its exact location in the knowledge-sphere. Auguste Comte proposed it as a science, a status that it has yet to achieve. To avoid questions, the American Sociological Association (ASA) defines sociology without mentioning the word “science” anywhere; instead the ASA calls it a “study of social life…” (Islam 2008: 7). Thus the relevant question, arising regarding the very nature of sociology, is whether it is (i) a “science” or (ii) a “proto-science,” i.e., a “science in intention” but yet become one, like string theory, or (iii) a “pseudoscience,” i.e., a “science in pretension,” making big claims but is not a science, like astrology, or (iv) a “non-science,” i.e., no pretension or intention to be a science, like the arts and the humanities (ibid: 6). Another problematic nature of sociology, especially manifested in American sociology, is its “allinclusiveness.” With a “study of social life”–type definition, sociology has virtually no boundaries regarding its study area. The ASA now recognizes more than 60 specialty areas and many sub-sub areas within the purview of sociology. And further new areas are being proposed with increasing regularity (Islam 2005: 22). In this context Jonathan Turner and Stephen P. Turner call sociology an “impossible science” and they observe that this uncontrolled expansion has allowed each sociologist to have his or her own field of specialization (see Islam 2005: 34). This has turned sociology, according to Professor Nazrul Islam, into a “most undisciplined discipline” (Islam 2005: 34). Also in this context Jeffrey


Alexander in “Theoretical Logic in Sociology” prophesized -- “if sociology could speak, it would say ‘I am tired’” (cited in Deshpande 1994: 575). Now I turn to the Bangladesh context. In Bangladesh sociology the problem of over-expansion is not yet visible (rather it suffering from under expansion). But the identity crisis regarding its nature is having a negative impact. In Bangladesh, the identity crisis of sociology leads to its “image crisis” among the people. Here, common people know of sociology as a branch of arts and humanities and not as a scientific discipline. Thus sociology is paid less attention than it ought to be given. 2. Crises Related to Teaching of Sociology: Teaching sociology in universities in Bangladesh is subject to multifarious challenges. The lack of growth of sociology is best exemplified in the way sociological discourse has developed in the country (Islam and Islam 2005: 378). Sociology courses taught at the university level are not upgraded regularly. S. Aminul Islam (1990) critically reviewed the sociology courses taught in Dhaka University. He found that no substantial changes in the course were brought in for as long as thirty years. What had been done was just addition or subtraction of one or more topics, and nothing else. This is also a common scenario in all other universities in the country. Thus, the course curricula seem to be boring, uninteresting, and sometimes irrelevant. Acute shortage of quality textbooks in the country is another dimension of the crises in teaching sociology. Only a very few sociologists of Bangladesh are engaged in writing sociology books that fit the society’s demand. In the absence of quality home books, teachers and students have to rely on European/American books. With this come two related problems. First, there remains a gap between the issues discussed in these books and the real social issues of Bangladesh where these books are read. Second, these books are costly and fairly unavailable to those who need to consult them. In Bangladesh, the salary structure for public university teachers are so constituted that they get a minimal remuneration and purchasing a number of books for their own use is hardly possible (let alone for students). Thus students and teachers are pushed to use backdated books from the university libraries. Through this process we remain mostly ignorant of recent global sociological transformations.

340


Low quality students in undergraduate courses in sociology are a common feature in the Subcontinent. I point to findings of a recent study in Pakistan: Parents and students alike chose their area of study targeting employment prospects, rather than student’s aptitude or interests. Equipped with no knowledge of the job market, parents of toppers and accomplishers send their daughters and sons to lucrative fields such as computer science, engineering, medicine and commerce. Armed forces attract the next best, leaving only those for arts, humanities and social sciences who fail to get admission and selection into fields that are more desirable. As a result, students in other disciplines, including sociology, are perceived by market forces to be inferior as compared with the “superior” ones selected by other fields… Graduate programmes in sociology justify their inability to produce better quality students as they have to work with students, majority of whom have modest career ambitions, poor work ethics, and poor commitment to studies. People perceive this [sociology] to be an easy subject. Therefore, they expect to earn a degree without much effort. (Shah et al. 2005: 362-63)

A similar attitude towards sociology prevails in Bangladesh. Parents are mostly ignorant of the actual content and method of study of sociology. They are not aware that sociology is not “just a common sense” and it “penetrates much deeper in its conceptions and outlook than does ‘common sense’” (Owen 2005: 30). Again, after gaining admission, these students continue to show their indifferent attitude and they study only to pass the exams and to get a certificate, not to acquire in-depth knowledge of the discipline and of the subject matter (i.e., societal phenomena). Thus enthusiastic and energetic students are rarely found in sociology departments. This is particularly true for Rajshahi University. Appointment of low quality teachers and the presence of sharp groupings among teachers at universities create problems at university campuses in Bangladesh. Up to now, university teaching is viewed as a lucrative job considering the social prestige and honour attached to it. Thus, still today students with the highest academic grade run for the post. But over the years recruitment policies have turned out to be “politicized” so much that political expediency of a candidate is prioritized over his/her academic competence. In the universities there exists a power relation in which at the time of distribution of some benefits ⎯ such as scholarship for higher studies, research grants, housing facilities, and appointments at


“offices of profit”--applicants’ connection (political-ideological) with the decision makers is considered, among other things. Moreover, in public universities there exists so-called “teachers’ politics” in which a number of teachers (not necessarily everyone) are grouped sharply. These groups are formed on a political basis with a connection to state power politics. There are several groups among teachers that are backed by major political parties in the country. When a shift in the central state power occurs, a corresponding change in university administration becomes inevitable through appointment, at the posts of Vice Chancellor and other high ranking offices, from a pool of teachers who belong to the group attached to the ruling party. The so-called “leaders” of these groups thus benefit from teachers’ politics and, to make their support-base stronger, they tend to appoint and promote teachers who hold the same political ideology. Thus, now-a-days newly appointed teachers, in many cases, have less academic aptitude and more political affiliation. And there are a number of teachers who are more involved with politics than with teaching and research. These things sometimes make university environments unfriendly for academic and research activities. The politicization of recruitment and promotion has led to a sense of frustration for highly meritorious but politically nonaligned teachers. The scenario for private universities is even worse in terms of quality of education offered. Students with poorer academic qualifications get admitted to private universities. These are the students who generally cannot qualify for admission to public universities on merit but are financially well off enough to pay tuition fees many times greater than those at public universities. Private university teachers also, generally, are less competent than public university teachers. A norm has also been established in private universities that allows low quality students to get relatively higher grades in exams as compared to his or her counterpart in public universities. It means the evaluation system in private universities is not as rigid as that in public universities. This is why some scholars tend to term private universities “business centres” of higher education where low quality students from wealthy families get admission by virtue of their wealth and also get degrees of higher grades by spending huge amount of money. These universities might be termed “business centres” also because these universities, with very few exceptions indeed, are run on a profit motive. Authorities there take large sum of money from students but they appoint only a few permanent teaching staff, managing courses by recruiting teachers from public universities on a part-time

342


basis, and they spend less money for libraries and other facilities for students. Driven by a profit-orientation, a good number of these universities have opened branches in different district towns. The above comments have been made on the basis of casual and systematic discussion with knowledgeable persons on the issue. I think in-depth studies are needed to assess the role of private universities in higher education in Bangladesh. Only then we will find the real picture. Professional associations provide a common platform in which professionals come close to one another and increase interaction, which in turn enhances the development of their professional field. This is true for sociologists as well. Thanks to factionalism, resulting from the socalled grouping in teachers’ politics, Bangladeshi sociologists failed to erect any effectively unifying common forum. The Pakistan Sociological Association (PSA) was formed in April 1963 and was followed by a national seminar held in June of the same year at Dhaka University (Gradezi 1994). After independence, the Bangladesh Sociology Association began functioning but “it failed to make much headway primarily due to infighting and ideological difference” (Islam and Islam 2005: 389). In 1986, a group of sociologists came out of the association and formed another association, naming it the Bangladesh Sociological Association (BSA). Both associations remained active for a decade through organizing seminars and conferences and through publishing a few books and a journal. But after 1997, both organizations turned dormant for over a decade. Recently, in August 2008, the BSA arranged a conference in Dhaka. In 2003, a small group of Dhaka based sociologists formed the Bangladesh Sociological Society ⎯the third of its kind in the country. This newly formed association is relatively more successful as it has set up a website (http://www.bangladeshsociology.org) and has floated the Bangladesh e-Journal of Sociology from the same site (Islam and Islam 2005: 389). This journal has been able to maintain a standard of publication and has already published ten issues (the latest one was in July 2008). Despite the above efforts, it can be claimed that none of the associations emerged as a unifying platform for all Bangladeshi sociologists. The current president of the BSA opined that, mainly due to the lack of required funding, sociological associations in Bangladesh could not arrange seminars and conferences and other programmes on a regular basis. 3. Crises Related to Sociological Research: Quality in higher education is closely connected to research productivity; the most renowned


universities in the world are the best research institutes as well. In Bangladesh, on the other hand, university research has never been a priority issue. Sociologists from Bangladesh have to face some serious constraints in conducting research. They have to do research mainly through personal initiative. Here I will mention just a few of those constraints. (i) Lack of research funds: In a country where university teachers get a very poor salary, it is hardly possible for them to conduct social research on their own expense. So funding is required. But in Bangladesh researchers do not get adequate funds either from universities, from the UGC, or from the government. Whatever meager amount of money these bodies grant for research projects, sanctioning and disbursement of that amount takes a lengthy bureaucratic process. As a consequence, the researcher is discouraged to avail themselves of that little amount of funding. (ii) Lack of training for young researchers: There are very few institutes in Bangladesh that provide training for young researchers. These institutes conduct only methodological courses, and even these on a very irregular basis. (iii) Lack of well-equipped research libraries: This is a very acute problem in Bangladesh. There is virtually no well-equipped research library in the county. The university libraries are devoid of major equipment and are extremely under resourced. (iv) Lack of a standard journal: Only an inadequate number of research journals in the social sciences are published in Bangladesh. To mention a few of these: Social Science Review from Dhaka University, Social Science Journal and Journal of the Institute of Bangladesh Studies from Rajshahi University, and Bangladesh Sociological Studies from Bangladesh Institute of Social Research (BISR) in Dhaka. But not all of these and other journals maintain the expected standards. The number is not sufficient as well. (v) Limitations of NGO-conducted research: By definition, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are “those national, private, nonprofit organizations which are involved in development work in underdeveloped countries and are not membership organization...”

344


(Zaidi 2004: 187). Over the last few decades the developing world witnessed a remarkable growth of NGOs. Now, “NGOs are considered to be a far better conduit for the distribution of multilateral and bilateral aid, for the dissemination of new ideas and concepts with regard to social and economic development, and as means to foster participation and democracy in order to improve civil society” (Zaidi 2004: 187). Large-scale penetration of NGOs in social and economic spheres has consequences for social science research, especially in third world countries like Bangladesh. Sociologists and other social scientists engage in evaluation/consultancy research which in turn takes much of their time away from academic activities and from basic academic research. Momtaz Uddin Ahmed observed the Bangladesh scenario: Contrary to expectation, the research output produced by the academic community has, on the whole, been inadequate and, in many cases, of poor quality. The reasons for this dismal performance are quite evident. Most of these researchers are busy to providing consultancy services to the donors, NGOs, or government organizations in exchange for higher remuneration, and thus neglect serious academic research which does not pay directly or as well as the consultancy jobs. (Ahmed 1997, cited in Mukherje 2005: 317) Most local NGOs are funded by foreign donor agencies that set the priority issues for research and provide the research agenda. The researchers involved get little freedom in the research process. Mukherji (2004: 29) noted, “More often than not, the design of inquiry, research tools and overall methodology to be used is prepackaged by donors.” The researcher’s work is to gather field data, often in line with the donor agency’s suggestion. Thus the consultant becomes, in effect, a passive partner of the client (Mukherji 2004: 29). These NGOs often claim that by involving participation from the grassroots, they promote a “bottom-up approach.” But, in effect, these programmes are conducted with a “top-down manner of delivery” (cited in Zaidi 2004: 195). Thus, their “bottom-up approach” turns out to be rhetoric only.


This type of client-oriented evaluation research does not contribute to increasing academic knowledge. Moreover, a number of social scientists are spending their time in these types of consultancy jobs. Thus, basic problem-oriented academic research is being ignored or hampered. 4. Socio-structural Constraints: In addition to the crises mentioned above, other types of problems also persist in Bangladesh. The prevailing education system itself is problematic. The colonial British rulers introduced a modern education system in India with a view towards perpetuating their rule. It was necessary to get systematic information on culture, land, and the people of India in order to formulate policies to govern Indian people effectively. On this ground social science studies were initiated at universities during the British period. The British system of education only produced clerks (bureaucrats), no scholars. Still today that legacy continues in our education system. Thus, through this system we are getting only a few scholars with analytical thinking. Analytical-critical thinking is a prerequisite to offer alternative theories and paradigms in the social sciences. The masses of Bangladesh do not know about the nature of sociology. They confuse sociology with social welfare or “left-wing philosophy.” This view creates a poor public image of sociology. In our country “life is mainly bound by traditional concepts and static values” (Saaduddin 1962: 89). Our traditional mode of living consciously or unconsciously guides us to a particular mode of thinking and acting. Bangladesh is a predominantly Muslim county and the natural conservations of the people sometimes discourage the liberal practice of sociology. The liberal and progressive tradition of sociology at early stages at Dhaka University faced challenges from a certain quarter of people. It even incurred the wrath of the Martial Law government of erstwhile Pakistan. This government tried to close down the department and compelled the department not to enroll undergraduate students at a session three years after its birth (F.R. Khan 2008).

346


FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE HYBRIDIZATION OF SOCIOLOGY IN BANGLADESH In an above section I mentioned four characteristic factors of a society that lead to hybridization of knowledge. Now we will examine the Bangladesh case within this frame of reference. Postcolonial country: Bangladesh has existed as an independent state only since 1971, yet its national character dates to the ancient past. The earliest reference to the region was to a kingdom called “Vanga” or “Banga” (ca. 1000 BCE). Buddhists and Hindus ruled Bengal for centuries before 1576 when it became part of the Mughal Empire. Bengal was ruled by British India from 1757 until Britain quit in 1947, and Pakistan was created out of the two primarily Muslim regions of the Indian Subcontinent. For almost twenty-five years after independence from Britain its history was part of Pakistan’s. Bangladesh was under British colonial rule for about 200 years. A “colonial structure” was established along the lines of the British policy. They introduced a Western university system with the view to proliferate the British type of education among the Indians and to make such an educated class who would remain obsequious to them. The Britishfounded education system was nothing more than an apparatus used for sustaining their rule here. Within this system sociology, along with other social sciences, was an indispensable element of colonial capitalism. Yes, political colonization has ended, but “academic colonialism” is still very much in effect in present day Bangladesh. Yogesh Atal rightly observed, “Academic colonialism, in fact went beyond the boundaries of political colonies, countries that managed to retain their political autonomy could not prevent the vicarious colonization of their academia” (Atal 2004: 99). Academic colonialists (i.e., the West) maintain this type of colonialism by penetrating new ideas and institutions (new disciplines, courses, journals, etc.) in the academic sphere. For example, in the development discourse of Bangladesh over the years, development strategies have been influenced by Western paradigms and models. In the process, and in the name of promoting democratization, the Western donor countries and agencies (such as the IMF and the World Bank) set the development parameters here. At times they set the priority issues for Bangladesh. These issues turned out to be “catch word recipes” (Mukherji 2004: 30) for development ⎯ birth control, child right, gender


equality, emancipation of women, good governance, sustainable development, etc. This type of prioritization influences the discourses in sociological knowledge. Marginal position: We have very little (if not “no”) contribution to global sociological knowledge production. Bangladesh positions itself at a very peripheral place in the global division of labour in the social sciences. Bangladeshi sociologists, like their counterparts in other peripheral countries, are acting only as “learned informants for Western science and scientists” (cited in Connell 2007: 105). In the process of so-called research works, they collect information on various social issues and features of Bangladesh society, but they do not interpret, elaborate on, or theorize about these issues and features. Thus, Bangladeshi social scientists are doing what Mukherji (2004) terms “nuts-and-boltsresearch,” in that these research works do not result in theory building in Bangladesh sociology, limiting themselves to experimenting with the local context within Western theories. Academic dependency: Bangladesh is doubly vulnerable to academic dependency because it does not have enough of a resource-base to produce alternatives, on the one hand, while on the other hand sociologists here do not show the required desire. Theory production needs rigorous brainstorming as well as spending money, time, and labour to produce basic contributions. Bangladeshi sociologists, confronting many limitations, generally do not go that direction; rather, it seems practicable and labour-saving to them to simply borrow theories and concepts from Western sociology, applying them to the Bangladesh context by using methods innovated in the core countries. All six dimensions of academic dependency, as delineated by Alatas (2006), are very much present in Bangladesh sociology. Captive mind syndrome and “Westoxication”: The phenomenon of academic dependency and the legacy of the British colonial education system jointly contribute to creating an educated class who hold a captive mind. Though Karl Marx used the phrase “appropriation of an alien will” with a different connotation (see Chaterjee 1993: 346), it is also applicable to this case because a captive mind is involved in realizing others’ agenda. The manifestation of captive mind syndrome is observed in different planes. For example, a general tendency of neglecting local literary and

348


philosophical traditions prevails among Bangladeshi sociologists. Some of them reject everything that originated in this land by labeling them “not up to the mark.” We do not read (or give very little attention to) Rammohun Roy, Rabindranath Tagore, or Lalon Shah despite the fact that they all have a good number of writings of sociological importance. In addition, whatever basic research done in contemporary Bangladesh (for example, Jahangir 1979, Karim 1980, Sen 1982 and 1986, and Alam 2004 and 2005) are also ignored. Bangladeshi sociologists (especially university teachers) feel reluctant to cite these works in their lectures and reports. This is a manifestation of a Westoxicated mind. One sociologist (who is not a university teacher) told this author that sociology teachers in universities in Bangladesh possess a special type of mentality for which they think their prestige and status as sociologists is enhanced if they refer to Western books and articles in their classes, and their status is degraded if they mention the writings of Bangladeshi scholars. Captive mind syndrome has even been institutionalized in Bangladesh. I will give an example to clarify this point. Publishing research articles in metropolitan journals and attaining higher degrees from universities in the core countries are deemed as prestigious for Bangladeshi scholars. Through these means they gain international recognition and their works reach a wider audience. Furthermore, they help much in their promotions. It is an established norm in Bangladeshi public universities that during recruitment and promotions publications in metropolitan journals and degrees from metropolitan universities are given preference over those from other countries. For instance, the existing principle for recruiting “Assistant Professor” at Rajshahi University states, “Candidate having PhD or its equivalent /comparable degree from a recognized university or Honours / Master’s /M. Litt. /M. Phil degree from a recognized European/North American/Australian university will be eligible for direct appointment as Assistant Professor” (Rajshahi University 2006: 61). This principle clearly establishes equivalence between a PhD from a Bangladeshi university and a master’s degree from a metropolitan university. Thus we are consciously undermining ourselves. It is an example of how the process of hybridization, formally accepting Western dominance, is inspired and patronized in Bangladesh. In addition to the above factors, a blending of sociological ideas is functioning in universities, in that faculty members acquire diversified orientations from various universities around the globe. For example, the Sociology Department at Dhaka University was established with


European connections. At the initial stage, a number of teachers in this department got training in European institutes. They were thus inclined to historical and social anthropological approaches. Professor A.K. Nazmul Karim, the founding father of sociology in Bangladesh, opined that historical-anthropological-philosophical methods are more suitable than statistical-empirical techniques for studying a tradition-bound, agrarian society like Bangladesh. Thus he declared, “Sociology … must be social anthropology in the context of our country, at least for some years to come” (Karim 1964: 6). But from the 1980s the direction shifted towards American sociology and towards empirical research. Currently the faculty members in university sociology departments have higher degrees from Europe, North America, Australia, Eastern and Southeastern Asia, as well as from India. These diversified orientations are creating a blend of ideas in academic discourses in sociology. The Process: Yes, some sociologists in Bangladesh tend to oppose using the term “Bangladesh sociology.” They ask, what is actually referred to by Bangladesh sociology? Does it have any distinct trait? These questions are, rather, an expression of grievance resulting from dependency on metropolitan sociology. Even then, let us assume that there is/was a homozygous Bangladesh sociology consisting of its own elements. When this sociology is crossed with a Western one, the result will be a hybrid sociology (F1 generation) which is completely dominated by Western concepts and theories. If we argue that sociologists of Bangladesh intend to possess a purely autonomous Bangladesh sociology, in that case also, due to the presence of a number of recessive factors, Western dominance is inevitable in the hybrid generation. I will illustrate this with the following figure (Figure 2):

350


Figure 2: Hybridization in Bangladesh Sociology

If we analyze the hybridization process in Bangladesh sociology we find that Bangladeshi sociologists, for various reasons, are consciously or unconsciously involved in this process. Their aim might be to bring about some positive qualitative changes, but the process is resulting in a sociology that is completely dominated by Western theories and methods (because these are the dominant alleles). Thus, we can conclude that crossbreeding in sociology only causes negative heterosis if we view it


from the point of the autonomy and self-dependency of Bangladesh sociology.

MAPPING THE OVERCOMING PROCEDURE The alienness of Western theories and methods in the context of Bangladesh was realized as early as 1963 when, at the first national seminar of the Pakistan Sociological Association in Dhaka, a section of sociologists raised the issue of the consequences of “a heavy and uncritical reliance on Western substantive sociology, its philosophical and methodological premises, and its techniques and modes of research” (Gardezi 1994). Thus, awareness of the limitation of blending sociological knowledge is a phenomenon that has been associated with Bangladesh sociology nearly from its very beginning. Here I propose a way out; a way for hybridization in Bangladesh sociology to be directed through a desired channel. First, there can be no society that can innovate everything of its own. So hybridization per se is not a problem, the problem is the domination of Western ideas. If we are able to reverse the situation, i.e., if the outcome of hybridization is that indigenous knowledge, theory, methods, and ideas become dominant, there is no “problem” or “crisis.” Our main focus is to build an autonomous sociology in Bangladesh. Syed Farid Alatas pointed out the chief traits of autonomous social science, which include autonomy “in the conceptualization and prioritization of problems, in the development of research agenda, in the building of original theory, and in the conduct of empirical research” (Alatas 2006: 114). Autonomy does not mean rejecting Western ideas altogether. But it emphasizes a constructive critique of Western and nonWestern knowledge. Bangladeshi sociologists should adopt those elements of metropolitan sociology that are effective and useful for studying Bangladesh society. This means they should borrow only selectively from Western theorists. To find out the effective and useful theories and methods one needs to be carefully and critically examine those elements. “Uncritical imitation” does not serve this purpose. “Captive mind syndrome” is largely responsible for the deteriorating situation of Bangladesh sociology. Bangladeshi sociologists need to build independent minds opposed to the captive mind, and “constructive imitation” as opposed to “negative imitation.” We should look at

352


whatever resources we have of our own; we need to emphasize indigenous knowledge. Sociology syllabuses in universities need to be updated by accommodating recent global sociological transformations as well as incorporating more indigenous material. A uniform principle for recruiting and promoting teachers in universities, giving equal value to degrees from home and abroad, needs to be established. The universities, the UGC, the government, and the donor agencies need to increase research grants and scholarships for problem-oriented basic research. The number of quality home journals should be increased and publishing articles in home journals should be given equal value to publishing in foreign ones. To enhance cooperation Bangladeshi sociologists need to erect an effective professional association which will unify and uphold the greater interest of the discipline, ignoring the clash of interests among factions. Sociology, like other sciences, is universal in its approach, but society has to be understood in the context of those particularistic and parochial forces that constitute the society. Bangladeshi sociologists need to be innovative, analytic, and critical in order to capture the local stock of knowledge. Mamado Diwara suggested African social scientists should “talk to the people face-to face” (cited in Connell 2007: 89). In Bangladesh also the university teachers have to go to the people to get indepth knowledge of their own society. They have to do research (and, certainly, basic research) not for research’s sake but in order to gain insight. In his speech as the convocation guest at Dhaka University in 1930, S.M. Solaiman reminded the university teachers of their duties: No doubt teaching and research work are distinct functions, but in a properly organized university a judicious combination of both can be adequately secured. If the teachers devote their time not only to imparting what they know, but also in increasing the extent of their knowledge, the double object is fully realized… (Chaudhury 1988: 155) Proliferation of “public sociology” and “professional sociology” is particularly important in the Bangladesh context. Professor Michael Burawoy offered a broad definition of public sociology – “a sociology that seeks to bring sociology to publics beyond the academy, promoting


dialogue about issues that affect the fate of society…” (cited in ASA Taskforce 2005). Professional sociology is sociology “that supplies true and tested methods, accumulated bodies of knowledge, orienting questions, and conceptual frameworks” (cited in Brint 2005: 147). Expanding public sociology in Bangladesh will help the discipline gain ground among the people, especially by eradicating misconceptions about sociology (e.g., confusing sociology with socialism, social work, etc). Further, a thorough exercise of professional sociology is a must in order for Bangladesh sociology to attain an autonomous character. Sociology is a global endeavour. Every corner of the world is able to have input in the global pool of sociological knowledge. And in this context, there should be an increasing local-global interaction for developing sociological theories. Crisis in Bangladesh sociology should not be treated as an isolated or unique phenomenon. Other third world sociologies confront similar constraints. Networks of cooperation among the peripheral nations, through forming alliances, can strengthen their voice within global sociological discourse. Also, to enhance cooperation and exchange of ideas in a positive way, linkages need to be established between the core and peripheral countries (including Bangladesh) in which the relationship should be based on mutual understanding, mutual sharing, mutual respect, and recognition; and thereby no dominationsubordination relationship – in the sense of a global sociological division of labour – can prevail. Only then can the hybridization process bring about affirmative results. Finally, in order to make real headway, global sociology needs to recognize multiple centres and sources of social theory around the globe. Recall Immanuel Wallerstein’s comment, “if social science is to make any progress in the twenty-first century, it must overcome the Eurocentric heritage which has distorted its analysis and its capacity to deal with problems of the contemporary world” (cited in Mukherji 2005: 317).

AN OPTIMISTIC CONCLUSION Over the last half century Bangladesh sociology has expanded in terms of organizational/ institutional growth, but it presently occupies a fragile position with regard to theory building, research, teaching, and publications. West-dependence and West-dominance have turned out to be the characteristic feature of Bangladesh sociology. Bangladeshi

354


sociologists need to make conscious movement towards erecting selfdependent sociology. Fifty-seven years ago the French economist and demographer Alfred Sauvy (in 1952) coined the term “Third world” in an article that concludes “the Third world has, like the Third Estate, been ignored and despised and it too wants to be something” (cited in Hadjor 1993: 3). History tells us that the “Third Estate” became “something” during the French Revolution. It is the conviction of the present author that the “Third World” will eventually become “something” in the global economy, in global politics, and in global knowledge and science. So also Bangladesh sociology, as a part of Third World sociology, will become “something” ⎯ “something significant,” through the rise of a class of enlightened and free thinkers, whom Shariati calls “rushanfekr,” “who have a sense of responsibility with regard to their time and society and wish to do something about it” (cited in Connell 2007: 135). We are looking forward to that golden day!

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akhter, Tahsina. “Teaching and Practices of Sociology: Changes over Decades. From Theory to Practice in Bangladesh.” Unpublished paper presented at the Biannual Conference of Bangladesh Sociological Association at the LGED Bhavan, Dhaka, August 1, 2008. Alam, Khurshed. “Government and Politics: An Analytical Framework.” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (Humanities) 49, no. 2 (2004): 349-362. -----. “Towards a Theory of Muslim Social Stratification.” Bangladesh Sociological Studies 1, no. 1 (2005): 1-12. Alatas, Syed Farid. Alternative Discourses in Asian Social Science: Responses to Eurocentrism. New Delhi. Sage Publications, 2006. Alatas, Syed Hussein. “The Captive Mind and Creative Development.” In Indigeneity and Universality in Social Science: A South Asian Response, edited by Partha Nath Mukherji and Chandan Sengupta, pp. 83-98. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004.


ASA Taskforce on Institutionalizing Public Sociologies. Public Sociology and the Roots of American Sociology: Re-establishing Our Connections to the Public - Interim Report and Recommendations. American sociological Association. 2005. Retrieved 15 September 2008 (http://pubsoc.wisc. edu/e107_files/public/tfreport090105.pdf) Atal, Yogesh. “The Call for Indigenisation.” In Indigeneity and Universality in Social Science: A South Asian Response, edited by Partha Nath Mukherji and Chandan Sengupta, pp. 99-113. New Delhi: Sage Publications, 2004. Baker, David P. and Gero Lenhardt. “The Institutional Crisis of the German Research University.” Higher Education Policy 21, no. 1 (2008): 49-64. Retrieved 15 September 2008 (hppt://www.palgravejournals.com/hep/ journal/v21/n1/full/ 8300178a.html) Bessaignet, Pierre. “Introduction.” In Social Research in East Pakistan, second edition, edited by Pierre Bessaignet, pp. i-vii. Dacca: Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 1964. Bottomore, T.B. Sociology: A Guide to Problems and Literature. Second edition (third impression 1975). New Delhi: Blackie & Son (India) Ltd, 1971. Brint, Steven. “Guide for the Perplexed: On Michael Burawoy’s ‘Public sociology’” The American Sociologists 46-56 (2005). Retrieved 10 February 2009 (http://www.highered2000.ucr. edu/Publications/Brint%20(2006a).pdf) Calhoun, Craig et al., eds. The Sage Handbook of Sociology. London: Sage Publications, 2005. Chatterjee, Parttha. “More on Modes of Power and the Peasantry.” In Subaltern Studies II: Writings on South Asian History and Society (seventh impression 2007), edited by Ranajit Guha, pp. 311-350. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1993. Choudhury, Serajul Islam, compiler. Dhaka University: The Convocation Speeches, Volume 1: 1923-1946. Dhaka: University of Dhaka, 1988. Connell, Raewyn. Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. New South Wales: Allen & Unwin, 2007. Deshpande, Satish. “Crisis in Sociology: A Tired Discipline?” Economic and Political Weekly. 1994. Retrieved 10 February 2009 (http://cssh.unipune.ernet.in/HistorySociology/A%20DOCUMENTS %20ON%20HISTORY%20OF%20SOCIOLOGY%20IN%20INDI A/A/%202%20Crisis%20in%20Sociology/A%202%2005.pdf)

356


Encyclopaedia Britannica. Ultimate Reference Suite. Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2009. Gardezi, Hassan N. “Contemporary Sociology in Pakistan.” In International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Sociology, edited by Raj P. Mohan and Arthur S. Wilke. Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994. Retrieved 10 February 2009 (http://cssh.unipune.ernet.in/HistorySociology/B%20DOCUMENTS %20ON%20HISTORY%20OF%20SOCIOLOGY%20IN%20REST %20OF%20THE%20WORLD/1%20SOCIOLOGY%20IN%20THE %20SOUTH%20ASIA/B%201%2006.pdf) Gouldner, Alvin W. The Coming Crisis of the Western Sociology. London: Heinemann, 1970. Hadjor, Kofi Buenor. The Penguin Dictionary of Third World Terms. London: Penguin Books, 1993. Islam, Nazrul. End of Sociological Theory and Other Essays on Theory and Methodology. Dhaka: Ananya, 2005. -----. “Sociology: From Science to Pseudoscience?” Bangladesh eJournal of Sociology 5, no. 2 (2008): 5-18. Retrieved 10 February 2009 (http://www.bangladeshsociology.org/BEJS%205.2%20%20final.pdf) Islam, Nazrul and M. Imdadul Haque. “End of Sociological Theory: Implication and Lessons for Bangladesh.” In Sociology, Health, Women and Environment, edited by Nazrul Islam, pp. 9-19. Dhaka; Bangladesh Sociological Association, 1999. Islam, S. Aminul. “The Crisis of Sociological Studies in Bangladesh.” Samaj Nirikkhan 35 (1990): 61-94. -----. “The Reproduction of Knowledge and Crisis in Bangladesh.” In Sociology, Health, Women and Environment, edited by Nazrul Islam, pp. 20-30. Dhaka: Bangladesh Sociological Association, 1999. Islam, S. Aminul and Nazrul Islam. “Sociology in Bangladesh: Search for a New Frontier.” Sociological Bulletin 54, no. 3 (2005): 375-395. Jahangir, B.K. Differentiation, Polarization and Confrontation in Rural Bangladesh. Dhaka: Centre for Social Studies, 1979. Karim, A.K. Nazmul. “The Methodology for a Sociology of East Pakistan.” In Social Research in East Pakistan, second edition, edited by Pierre Bessaignet, pp.1-6. Dacca: Asiatic Society of Pakistan, 1964. -----. The Dynamics of Bangladesh Society. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt Ltd, 1980.