by Syed Farid Alatas, Department of Sociology, National University of Singapore
The first of what might become a series of regional meetings on sociology in and of the Middle East was held in Tehran on May 28 and 29, 2011. Entitled the “Regional Conference on Social Thought and Sociology in the Contemporary Middle East”, the meeting brought together Arab, Iranian and Turkish sociologists from the region and beyond. The conference was organized by the Iranian Sociological Association in collaboration with the International Sociological Association and supported by the Istanbul Foundation for Science and Culture, the National Library and Archives of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Institute for the Study of Religion and Thought in Mashhad, the Center for International Scientific Studies and Collaboration, and the Social Sciences Faculty Branch, of Jamee-Shenasan Publications. Some fifty papers were presented over the two days, half of them in Persian.
Opening lectures were delivered by Michael Burawoy and the doyen of Iranian sociology, Gholamabas Tavasoli. Burawoy directed his remarks to what the conference felt to be an all important issue, that is, the establishment of a regional sociology in the Middle East. Such a sociology was expected to comprehend processes not only within nations but also across nations. Burawoy saw the Middle East as testing the possibility of a global sociology, to the extent that the region can contribute to the universalization of sociology. Tavasoli, basically in harmony with Burawoy’s position, drew attention to alternative perspectives in social thought, emphasising, for example, that there are ideas in sociology, such as civil society, that have their origins in pre-Islamic or Islamic Iran and not only Greece.
Discussions of sociology in the Middle East usually critically assess the state of sociology and emphasize the need to consider Middle Eastern alternatives to Western traditions. This conference was no exception. Several papers, by Tina Uys, Sari Hanafi, Michael Kuhn and Ebrahim Towfigh discussed the problematic state of sociology in the Middle East such as Orientalism or academic dependency. Participants were quick to point out, however, that the objective was not to engage in West bashing but to do good sociology. This meant extending our horizons beyond knowledge generated in the West to include the Middle East and other regions as sources of concepts and theories. Indeed, one often hears calls for indigenous or alternative sociologies. It was refreshing that this conference not only discussed these calls but also presented examples of Middle Eastern sources for social thought. Sait Özervarli, Mohamad Tavakol and Seyyed Javad Miri discussed the works of a galaxy of Iranian and Turkish thinkers from the 19th and 20th centuries and urged that the content of their thought be considered seriously for the establishment of a Middle Eastern sociology. Furthermore, the source of Middle Eastern sociology was not to be restricted to narrowly defined social thought but was to be extended to literature, as pointed out by Biuk Mohammadi. Such a sociology does not neglect Western thought but creatively assimilates it. Özervarli brought out how this was done by several Ottoman thinkers of the 19th century.
Another issue, central to discussions of sociology in the Middle East, is the relationship between Islam and sociology. Based on his vast experience in teaching and research in this area, Riaz Hassan discussed what a course on the sociology of Islam might look like. This inevitably raises the question as to whether there was a conflict between theological and sociological approaches, particularly when it came to the explanation of the origins of Islam. Sara Shariati’s paper discussed this problematic relation in some detail and in doing so, clearly distanced herself from the idea of Islamic sociology. At the same time the conference also included presentations from several clerics who advanced the idea of an Islamic sociology, and put forward a position more hostile to Western sociology.
Many of the participants were keen on the idea of continuing to meet on a yearly or biennial basis. Plans are underway to organize the next conference on social thought in the Middle East in Istanbul, possibly in 2011. In line with the critical spirit of the conference, however, it was also suggested that ‘Middle East’ be dropped as it was less than desirable to refer to the region from the vantage point of, as the Dutch student of colonial trade and society J. C. Van Leur once said, “the deck of the ship, the ramparts of the fortress, the high gallery of the trading-house”.
Possibly a good idea, but if ideas alone were sufficient to effect institutional transformation – in the domain of education or elsewhere – this issue may have been resolved quite some time back. Since Sociology as it currently exists is not “Christian” Sociology, it is not at all clear what exactly a discussion of the relationship between “Islam” and “Sociology” would have to offer. And which Islam? Or Hinduism or any other organized or disorganized religion for that matter. Fore better or for worse, some of the basic concepts of sociology – be they class, status, rationalization, alienation, anomie etc. _ emerged to get a handle on the issue of “where do we come from, what are we, where are we going”? (Gaugin’s famous painting) – in the context of dramatic social transformations in what is now known as “the West” or Europe. No news here. The fact that colonialisms and their role in the transformations in Europe were not adequately incorporated in the earlier analytical accounts or in some cases when such issues were addressed, the result was a valorization of the so-called “European miracle” is for sure a problem. But it is not a problem that has not been addressed. It is not clear how exactly “culturalism” of the sort exemplified by “several clerics who advanced the idea of an Islamic sociology and put forward a position more hostile to Western sociology” will either help or can be avoided if Sociology as such is considered to be resting on “Western” epistemological foundations. As global capitalism and environmental problems continue wreak havoc, surely we do need, as apparently many speakers at the conference pointed out, more good global sociology that seamlessly combines “structural” and “cultural” issues as they indeed are in real life. And less rhetoric about Islamic, Hindu, Indian, Arabic or Norwegian that displays the “poverty of cuturalism” in all its manifestations, would appear to be the way to go.
apologies for all the typos and awkward sentences due to the “culture” of speed-typing and multi-tasking
Talking about a regional sociology and laying out a policy in advance can only , lead to hollow reification. It is all too easy to forget that sociology ‘exists’ because people do it. There is no basis for sociology as a discipline except for the fact that many people share the premise that there is a social reality ‘out there’ and also share the desire to understand it with the help of one or another set of tools. Sociological tools are not the only ones; there are theological tools, literary tools, not to mention the tools of all the subdivisions of physics and biology. Even in the Middle East – or shall I say West-Asia – people, sociologists, have access to tools from different sources and are inspired by varieties of cultural resources. There is no point in dictating the components of a sociological approach, whether strictly based on the sociological literature or based on writings that stem from other ‘ologies’. People interested in social issues have to be given a chance to study their societies freely; and they have to be given opportunities to give voice to what they see. In producing sociology as they understand it, they cannot but draw on the resources they command in the rich cultural experiences in which they participate. From the sociology that will be done/ produced/ allowed to be heard, it will be possible to see the nature of the sociology of this region. Initial limitations and initial directives can only undermine the hope of making interesting, not to say, novel discoveries.
Written with the hope that I will be able to raise my voice in the next West-Asian sociological conference!
I don’t think that the conference participants, at least the dominant sentiment among the particpants, were sympathetic to a religious sociology or a regional sociology in the sense that Devorah referred to. Many of the Iranian sociologists present would be war of “laying out a policy in advance” as many have been victims paorchially conceived notions of what education in Iran is. Iranian sociology has also gone beyond the idea of so-called Islamic sociology. The notion is not entertained by leading Iranian sociologists both inside and outside of Iran. I think this is fair to say of the entire Muslim world, in fact. “Islamic sociology” was a fad of the 80s and 90s of the last century. I think, what this conference did was to tell us that Iranian, Arabic and Turkish sociologies are really on the move and have become more self-critical.
“”This inevitably raises the question as to whether there was a conflict between theological and sociological approaches, particularly when it came to the explanation of the origins of Islam.”"
one would think that the short answer would be “yes, there is a conflict”! to convert (pardon the pun!) sociological approaches to theological ones would be epistemological and ontological non-starters.
No mention of or refence to Israely Sociology? Is it so underdeveloped in comparison to those of Iran, Syria, etc., etc?
Very interesting piece indeed.. While the topic is Middle Eastern sociology there is no mention of the Israeli Sociology. Throughout the decades, Israeli Sociologists have developed an amazing and strong sociological research, which is commonly acknowledged around the world.