Decolonising sociology: perspectives from two Zimbabwean universities

S. Gukurume, Godfrey Maringira
{"title":"Decolonising sociology: perspectives from two Zimbabwean universities","authors":"S. Gukurume, Godfrey Maringira","doi":"10.1080/23802014.2020.1790993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The decolonisation of sociology continues to be characterised by debates on what it constitutes, in both theory and practice. While such debates are centred on a ‘radical decolonisation’, we argue that the decolonisation of sociological curricula is never final, but should be driven by and with ‘hybridised’ thinking on the knowledge which underpins the discipline. While the canonical thinking in sociology has come under serious critique, there ought to be ‘knowledge accommodation’ combining Eurocentric and localised thinking. We focus on the ways in which sociology and sociological theory in particular have been criticised for being Eurocentric and androcentric, and the debates about decolonising it. This article draws on ethnographic research with sociologists and sociology students based at two Zimbabwean universities, the University of Zimbabwe and Great Zimbabwe University. This contributes to a growing body of research on decoloniality, by focusing both on attempts by some Zimbabwean sociologists to decolonise and localise the discipline, and on the ways in which academics and students advance and resist this practice. We argue that the decolonisation of sociology curricula and pedagogy should embrace transmodernity, blended knowledge systems, and border thinking. Following this, we further argue that decolonising sociology is never final and that there ought to be a ‘hybridised sociology’, which accommodates both canonical thinking and localised knowledge of the discipline.","PeriodicalId":398229,"journal":{"name":"Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Third World Thematics: A TWQ Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23802014.2020.1790993","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT The decolonisation of sociology continues to be characterised by debates on what it constitutes, in both theory and practice. While such debates are centred on a ‘radical decolonisation’, we argue that the decolonisation of sociological curricula is never final, but should be driven by and with ‘hybridised’ thinking on the knowledge which underpins the discipline. While the canonical thinking in sociology has come under serious critique, there ought to be ‘knowledge accommodation’ combining Eurocentric and localised thinking. We focus on the ways in which sociology and sociological theory in particular have been criticised for being Eurocentric and androcentric, and the debates about decolonising it. This article draws on ethnographic research with sociologists and sociology students based at two Zimbabwean universities, the University of Zimbabwe and Great Zimbabwe University. This contributes to a growing body of research on decoloniality, by focusing both on attempts by some Zimbabwean sociologists to decolonise and localise the discipline, and on the ways in which academics and students advance and resist this practice. We argue that the decolonisation of sociology curricula and pedagogy should embrace transmodernity, blended knowledge systems, and border thinking. Following this, we further argue that decolonising sociology is never final and that there ought to be a ‘hybridised sociology’, which accommodates both canonical thinking and localised knowledge of the discipline.
非殖民化社会学:来自两所津巴布韦大学的观点
社会学的非殖民化继续以其在理论和实践中的构成争论为特征。虽然这些争论集中在“激进的去殖民化”上,但我们认为社会学课程的去殖民化从来都不是最终的,而应该由支撑该学科的知识的“混合”思维驱动。在社会学的规范思维受到严重批判的同时,应该有一种将欧洲中心思维与本土化思维相结合的“知识融通”。我们关注社会学和社会学理论被批评为欧洲中心主义和男性中心主义的方式,以及关于非殖民化的辩论。本文借鉴了津巴布韦两所大学(津巴布韦大学和大津巴布韦大学)的社会学家和社会学学生的民族志研究。通过关注一些津巴布韦社会学家试图将该学科去殖民化和本土化的尝试,以及学者和学生推进和抵制这种做法的方式,这有助于越来越多的非殖民化研究。我们认为社会学课程和教学法的非殖民化应该包括超现代性、混合知识系统和边界思维。在此之后,我们进一步认为,非殖民化社会学从来都不是最终的,应该有一个“混合社会学”,它既能容纳规范思维,也能容纳学科的本地化知识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信