The question of the Eurocentrism of social sciences arises from the historical role played by social sciences in the legitimation of European global policies and discriminations. One famous example is the participation of anthropology in the legitimation of racism and colonialism. From the acknowledgement of this role, student social movements have developed in the last few years asking for decolonisation of education and the end of the ‘Western monologue’ in social sciences. These movements are only the tip of the iceberg of a reflexion happening across disciplines since the 1970s.
The denunciation of Western dominance over social sciences lies on the idea that the academic discourses are Eurocentric and that this Eurocentrism benefits to “the West”. Critical scholarship argues for diversification of research, which would break the monopoly of enjoyed by Eurocentric visions of the world supported by gate-keeping practices to internationalisation keeping the so-called “non-West” or “Global South” at bay.
In this research started in 2010 and completed with the publication of my new book, I question the empirical foundations behind this consensual vision of the globalisation of social sciences and the social effects of this critical discourse (a discourse that I call ‘the narrative of Western dominance’) on this very globalisation.
Using an International Political Sociology framework (IPS) and taking as a case study the internationalisation of International Relations (IR) in Brazil in India, I show that the ‘Western monologue’ is not a result of gate-keeping practices organised along a West/non-West divide. It is rather a result of publishing practices shaped by national public policies. Based on these elements, I argue that the globalisation of social science is a multilateral phenomenon structured by states, including the so-called ‘Global South’ or ‘non-Western’ states.
Based on these empirical results, this research reflexively questions the role of critique in the (re)production of the social and political order. Using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, I show that paradoxically, the anti-Eurocentric critical discourses reproduce the very Eurocentrism they criticise by describing ‘Western scholars’ the main agents of the globalisation of social sciences and denying the agency of ‘non-Western’ states and actors.
The denunciation of Western dominance over social sciences lies on the idea that the academic discourses are Eurocentric and that this Eurocentrism benefits to “the West”. Critical scholarship argues for diversification of research, which would break the monopoly of enjoyed by Eurocentric visions of the world supported by gate-keeping practices to internationalisation keeping the so-called “non-West” or “Global South” at bay.
In this research started in 2010 and completed with the publication of my new book, I question the empirical foundations behind this consensual vision of the globalisation of social sciences and the social effects of this critical discourse (a discourse that I call ‘the narrative of Western dominance’) on this very globalisation.
Using an International Political Sociology framework (IPS) and taking as a case study the internationalisation of International Relations (IR) in Brazil in India, I show that the ‘Western monologue’ is not a result of gate-keeping practices organised along a West/non-West divide. It is rather a result of publishing practices shaped by national public policies. Based on these elements, I argue that the globalisation of social science is a multilateral phenomenon structured by states, including the so-called ‘Global South’ or ‘non-Western’ states.
Based on these empirical results, this research reflexively questions the role of critique in the (re)production of the social and political order. Using Foucauldian Discourse Analysis, I show that paradoxically, the anti-Eurocentric critical discourses reproduce the very Eurocentrism they criticise by describing ‘Western scholars’ the main agents of the globalisation of social sciences and denying the agency of ‘non-Western’ states and actors.