Decolonising social sciences across the world

Addressing the same conference, UNESCO Regional Adviser on Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific Darryl Macer called for 'greater and real democracy of social science knowledge in the global intellectual community', a process 'which will enrich every one of us.' Below is the text of his speech.

---

IN the latest UNESCO World Social Science Report (UNESCO, 2010), there is a call for global scholarship and action. Is this mere platitude, or is this view a good-intentioned but ill-informed one?

Even though UNESCO has 192 member countries and the title of the report is Knowledge Divides, the underlying paradigm of the World Social Science Report is centred on an understanding of social sciences closest to that in the West. For example, in the preface to the report, Gudmund Hernes, President of the International Social Science Council (ISSC), writes, 'To a great extent, the social sciences grew out of the seventeenth-century European Enlightment, when new ideas about religion, reason, humanity and society were merged into a fairly coherent worldview that stressed human rights, individualism and constitutionalism' (p. vii). He continues, 'Studies of alien societies were used as a contrast when analysing a country's institutions and customs.'

As someone who carries an 'alien registration card', being a resident of Japan since 1990, it is interesting that in the 21st century we still can refer to our fellow Homo sapiens as 'aliens'.  However, as Hernes continues, 'Equally basic to the birth of Modernity was the recognition that a plurality of opinions and an open, critical debate were necessary to gain new insights and for citizens to forge their own history.' It would thus be wrong to take these remarks out of context, and against the intention of many good-intentioned scholars. However, better information and more open minds to the search for wisdom will be useful. Some have commented on the deficiencies of the type of knowledge quoted in the WSSR (Singh, 2011).

'New global agenda'

The WSSR includes over 80 individual papers compiled into one volume, with 14 authors from the Asia-Pacific region. Because the contributors write on their own behalf, the usual disclaimers apply: 'Each author is responsible for the facts contained in his/her article and the opinions expressed therein, which are not necessarily those of UNESCO or ISSC and do not commit either organisation.'

In the foreword, the Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, writes, 'The report reaffirms UNESCO's commitment to the social sciences, and our desire to set a new global agenda to promote them as an invaluable tool for the advancement of the internationally agreed development goals.' So, we can ask: What is this new global agenda?

She also notes, 'Yet, social scientific knowledge is at risk in the parts of the world where it is most needed. The huge disparities in research capacities across countries and the fragmentation of knowledge hamper the capacity of social sciences to respond to the challenges of today and tomorrow. While we may be building a "knowledge society", it is one that looks very different depending on one's regional perspective. Social scientists produce work of outstanding quality and tremendous practical value, but, as this Report illustrates, social scientific knowledge is often the least developed in those parts of the world where it is most keenly needed - hence this publication's title, "Knowledge Divides".'

UNESCO thus is challenged to continue to work for the development of social sciences, but we can ask: What type of social science? Further description of this is given by the former Assistant Director-General of UNESCO, Professor Pierre San‚, who says of the WSSR in his foreword, 'Its findings are profoundly challenging.' The gaps in knowledge relate also to wealth and the rise of poverty.

Fundamental to all scholarship is the definition of 'knowledge'. The WSSR takes the predominant Western construction of what is knowledge. We need to value all forms of knowledge, and systems to understand that knowledge. UNESCO is concerned about diversity of knowledge forms and ideas. For example, I even found, in a UNESCO workshop I co-organised last year to describe indigenous approaches to community engagement for nanotechnology in foods in Japan and New Zealand, that the social scientists were trying to conform the feedback from the research into traditional Western social science rather than to be innovative and use different presentation styles. Yet these persons included some indigenous social scientists, researching indigenous forms of knowledge. We have a major task to promote multiple formats and methods of knowledge-sharing.

In the philosophy programmes of UNESCO a major effort has been made for interregional philosophical dialogues.  Dialogue is essential for developing a better understanding of not only others, but even ourselves. Dialogue is an exchange between different peoples, communities, and entities. These dialogues have been held over the past six years in Seoul, Rabat, Hiroshima, Paris, Bangkok, and Malacca. They occurred with the coordination of the Regional Unit for Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific (RUSHSAP) at UNESCO Bangkok, UNESCO Rabat, and UNESCO Paris, and the efforts of academics throughout the world.

The Interregional Philosophical Dialogue project was born from a resurgence of interest in and a strengthening of philosophy within UNESCO, supported by member countries. As people in many countries of the world express dismay at the directions that their society is pursuing, some are reminded of the former important roles of philosophers as navigators of the courses that societies should take. The publications of the dialogues (Macer and Saad-Zoy, 2010a and b; Macer, 2011) also aim to broaden inter-cultural communication, to strengthen the role of philosophy in public policy, and to promote the teaching of non-Western philosophies around the world. We would hope that in discussions of diverse ideologies, the materials produced by UNESCO projects such as these with non-Eurocentric views are used.

In addition, the Asia-Pacific regional programme in social and human sciences from RUSHSAP at UNESCO Bangkok published a critique of ethical principalism in 2010, Universalism and Ethical Values for the Environment (Rai et al., 2010). Actually this publication describes different worldviews, and is being followed with the construction of a repository of ethical worldviews of nature, that will be a resource for those looking for views of nature and the world different from the predominant ones.1

The WSSR may not offer too much directly for social science teaching and curriculum design, but we can examine the conclusions. Among these is a call to reinforce teaching of social sciences. In section 8.1 on 'Social sciences, education and society' we find three pages of the 421-page report on 'Social science studies in secondary and higher education', and 'Social science textbooks in higher education'. It is clearly not a review of social science education, which would be expected to be of equal volume itself.

Here are a few quotes from the WSSR, and some comments:

'The first relevant role for social science in the public sphere is educating students to develop the knowledge and skills required to become public researchers, experts, officers, managers, professionals, but above all, responsible citizens of open democratic societies, aware of their rights and obligations.' Here we can ask what form of knowledge should be promoted and taught. We need to promote diversity of knowledge, and appreciation of all forms of knowledge.

'At the higher education level, social sciences are taught separately by disciplines. The definition of the disciplines and the boundaries of social sciences vary from one country to another.' Although some trends in higher education are to create new interdisciplinary disciplines, the disciplines taught in some countries follow very traditional divisions. In addition in some countries universities like reform, and seem to go through repeated reforms every few years.

'Most of the scientific literature on textbooks is concerned with a critique of their implicit or hidden ideology. Some scholars have looked at the way in which national histories are constructed in history textbooks; others have concerned themselves with the description of sexual behaviours and family relations in psychology and sociology handbooks; yet others have scrutinised representations of poverty, and of minorities in history, sociology and psychology handbooks.' The Web offers one way to increase the diversity of free resources to present alternative views. We need to promote this diversity as university faculty to find alternative sources to introduce to students, and to reward students who find themselves different sources of materials.

We can reflect on some of these observations in our own curricula, university, and nation. Is there an accurate compilation of the different curricula that we can actually refer to? That should be one of the tasks of our endeavour. Then we would have a reference to assess the diversity of approaches to the teaching of issues in each nation, which would of course be a very useful source for a comparative course to offer the different accounts of the same event. We can also provide these resources in different languages.

Having said that, there is still a need to establish social science disciplines in many countries. It was only in 2006 that the first undergraduate sociology degree programme was established in Lao People's Democratic Republic. There was support from a number of sources, including UNESCO and universities in Thailand (for linguistic and geographical reasons).  So there are knowledge divides across national borders, and we need to promote cooperation.

The geography and political economy of the international circulation of social science handbooks, textbooks and other publications should also be considered carefully. Circulation along former colonial lines or within linguistically homogeneous areas probably reinforces knowledge dependency.

The conclusion of the WSSR identifies eight divides in global capacity in social sciences, including:

  'a geographical divide

  a capacity divide

  the unequal degree of internationalisation of knowledge production

  the divide between disciplines

  the divide between mainstream research and alternative approaches

  the competition resulting from new managerial practices

  the sometimes tense relations between academics and society and between academics and policy-makers'.

One clearly would have to add several other divides that may also have contributed to the perceived knowledge gap. These would include:

  lack of recognition for academic research not conducted in European languages

  low recognition of non-European authors and institutions

  differences in fundamental paradigms of thought and concepts of what is social science

  need for greater South-South collaboration and exchange programmes.

Developing social sciences

The WSSR made a number of suggestions for future action addressed to 'international bodies such as the International Social Science Council (ISSC) and UNESCO, to funding agencies at national and international levels, to governments, and to major academic institutions that are concerned with overcoming knowledge divides'. UNESCO should be spending more time in the coming years on further development of social sciences in different countries; however, it is unclear, as programmes are reformed, whether this will actually lead to increased diversity and continued development of new sources of material.

As mentioned, UNESCO has been developing interregional philosophical dialogues. However, there are fears that this programme will be stopped, and the funds placed back into promotion of democracy. There is also a need to implement the action plans for teaching of philosophy, and RUSHSAP has made draft summaries and concept maps of the philosophy-related curriculum for 47 member countries in Asia and the Pacific.2 UNESCO is not a funding agency but a networking and facilitation agency, but is still very open to partnering with institutions that wish to rediscover indigenous traditions and apply these to contemporary challenges of every society, not only global society.

The WSSR recommends: 'The development of research capacity requires that governments, international organisations and aid agencies provide funding to support research institutions as well as individual training. The three levels of capacity - individual, organisational and systemic - all need sustained attention. Funding has to be made available for a sufficient period to produce results. Long-term rather than immediate impact is the objective. To combat the negative aspects of brain drain, programmes enhancing the circulation of ideas and social scientists should be promoted, and they should include support for diasporic networks.'

In the Asia-Pacific region we have two major networks to promote original research linked to policy, the UNESCO Asia-Pacific School of Ethics,3 and the Women's/Gender Studies Network in Asia and the Pacific.4 Several decades back RUSHSAP also founded the Asian Association of Social Science Research Councils (AASSREC),5 which is continuing to function as an independent network of social science research councils.

Major challenges

We still face major challenges in promoting scholarship and creativity. Still in many countries many social scientists spend their time translating European works into local languages, rather than writing their own works and papers. In my own professional area, bioethics, we established the Asian Bioethics Association6 in 1995 to promote original research rather than to import Western ideas.

Let us consider Japan as one example of an Asian-style democracy. Public opinion is seldom influential in determining public policy and there are few effective means used by the public to change policy. In Japan, there has been concern about bioethical issues such as environmental pollution since the 1960s, suspicion of the medical profession and its paternalism since the 1970s, and intense discussions on the question of brain death since the 1970s. Public discussion of bioethics opened up in the 1990s (Macer, 1992; Suda et al., 2009). The first open national forums on policy and successful attempts at open government were related to bioethical questions such as brain death, the labelling of genetically modified food, and human genetics research.

The delay in establishing such forums for debate was more related to the structure of Japanese society than to any difference between individual persons' attitudes in Japan and Western countries. When individuals are asked to give their reasoning for their opinions on bioethical issues such as genetic manipulation of humans or animals, there is as much variety in opinions expressed by members of the general public in Japan as in Australia or New Zealand (Macer, 1994a). Many people perceive simultaneously both benefits and risks from science and technology. The diversity of reasoning exposed in the survey was independent of education or age, and similar diversity was found among members of the public, high school biology teachers, and scientists. The overall statistical results of many of the questions in surveys conducted in 1991 and 1993 in Japan are similar to results of surveys in Australasia, Europe, India, Russia, Thailand and the USA (Macer, 1994a). Later research continues to reveal diversity of reasoning, and this is also something to be valued. However, in many educational systems and institutions the examinations do not promote divergent but rather convergent thinking.

Thus even though there are different models of social relationships, and different levels of public participation, people's decision-making preferences at the individual level were similarly diverse. The structured paternalism of many Asian and Arab societies is built on the idea that only the views of so-called experts should be heard. It also means that their views should not be questioned, in accordance with the traditional paternalistic Confucian, or neo-Confucian, ethos. We can consider what would be different in a more international curriculum of social science that would not be apparent in one based in a European-centred worldview. Firstly they might not consider the same 'Enlightenment' for social sciences in their culture as a European or Western view.

There is variation in the view of individual, family and society; the interpretation of human rights; the concepts of privacy and personal space; the taboo subjects; individual freedom; what is democracy and how to express this politically; independence of religion and philosophy, state, laws; inherited privileges and social class divisions; systems of economic trade; worldview; use of principalism in morality and to define relationships, for example. However, all of these also vary between individuals within any community, no matter how we would like to define it.

There are still many elements that we would expect to be taught in a curriculum at university level in social sciences, such as the importance of critical thinking and education as a means for empowerment of learners. There are also some commonly agreed goals of social science education, such as freedom of thought and critical analysis, that we would expect in any culture in some form. In fact this is used in this conference as a basis to question colonial influences in education.

Global trends

How do we define colonialism? Is it only European colonisation? There may be similarly challenging trends in the influence of Chinese and Japanese values that have particularly strong global influence now. There is certainly no shortage of materials and innovative methods7 to develop into new teaching programmes to create critical thinkers. UNESCO has worked with curriculum bodies in every willing country to consider plans for teaching of philosophy, with goals that are very broad. In Asia-Pacific we also have mapped primary and secondary curricula, but not yet university curricula, which will require the cooperation of many scholars as universities vary much more than at earlier levels of education.

In the process of mundialisation we should see the adoption of different elements from each culture into others. There are some global trends. The adoption of bioethics and bioethical reasoning has transformed some cultures into modern democratic cultures, and arguably this is seen in greater ways in many Asian and Arab countries than in North America or Europe. The stimulus provided by debates over new technologies, such as genetically modified food, assisted reproduction, and life-sustaining treatment, has opened up the doors of government decision-making to the broader community. The results of cross-cultural studies in bioethics (Macer, 1994b) provide empirical research that some forms of democracy are possible under diverse and different cultural situations (UNESCO, 2003). There are many forms of democracy, and we call for greater and real democracy of social science knowledge in the global intellectual community, which will enrich every one of us.                                        

Darryl RJ Macer is Regional Adviser on Social and Human Sciences in Asia and the Pacific at UNESCO in Bangkok. The above is the text of his presentation at the International Conference on 'Decolonising Our Universities' held in Penang, Malaysia, in June 2011.

Endnotes

1. http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/ethics-and-climate-change/energyethics/

2. http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/philosophical-reflection-and-the/philosophyteaching/

3. http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/asia-pacific-region/networks/apse/

4. http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/asia-pacific-region/networks/womensgender-studies-network-in-asia-and-the-pacific/

5. http://www.aassrec.org/

6. http://eubios.info/ABA.htm

7. http://www.unescobkk.org/rushsap/resources/shs-resources/ethics-resources/multilingual-material/

References

Macer, D. 1992. The 'far east' of biological ethics. Nature, Vol. 359, p. 770.

Macer, D. 1994a. Bioethics for the People by the People. Christchurch, Eubios Ethics Institute.

Macer, D. 1994b. Bioethics may transform public policy in Japan. Politics and Life Sciences, Vol. 13, pp. 89-90.

Macer, DRJ. and Saad-Zoy, S. (Editors). 2010a. Asian-Arab Philosophical Dialogues on War and Peace. Bangkok, UNESCO.

Macer, DRJ. and Saad-Zoy, S. (Editors). 2010b. Asian-Arab Philosophical Dialogues on Globalization, Democracy and Human Rights. Bangkok, UNESCO.

Macer, DRJ. (Editor). 2011. Asian-Arab Philosophical Dialogues on Culture of Peace and Human Dignity. Bangkok, UNESCO.

Nudeshima, J. 1991. Obstacles to brain death and organ transplantation in Japan. Lancet, Vol. 338, pp. 1063-64.

Rai, J.S.  et al. 2010. Universalism and Ethical Values for the Environment. Bangkok, UNESCO.

Singh, S. 2011. World Social Science Report: Whither India and South Asia? Economic and Political Weekly XLVI (1 January 2011), pp. 10-12.

Suda, E., Macer, D. and Matsuda, I. 2009. Challenges to public engagement in science and technology in Japan: experiences in the HapMap Project. Genomics, Society and Policy, Vol. 5, pp. 40-59.

UNESCO, 2003. Democracy: UNESCO and the promotion of democratic values and principles (SHS Strategy). Paris, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001401/140180e.pdf

UNESCO, 2010. World Social Science Report: Knowledge Divides. Paris, UNESCO.

*Third World Resurgence No. 266/267, October/November 2012, pp 16-19