Documentación gráfica de proyecto anexa a la memoria descriptiva Planos

The above sections defined sociology as a subject matter, outlined various meta-analyses of Asian social sciences after a review of the sociology of knowledge, and proposed the “word system of knowledge network” as an over-arching conceptual imagery. A pivotal theme that penetrates the three layers of discourse, as I shall discuss in this section, is “modernity.”

1.5.1 Modernity and Sociology

Modernity (the character of the modern society) was clarified by Giddens (1998, 94) by offering three characterisations: (1) A certain set of attitudes towards the

72 world as open to transformation by human intervention; (2) a complex of

economic institutions, especially industrial production and a market economy; (3) a certain range of political institutions, including the nation-state and mass

democracy. The three themes can be traced back respectively to the

Enlightenment and scientific revolution, the industrial revolution, and the French (democratic) revolutions. The idea of modernity presumed a rupture of the “modern European” from the earlier era, and its distinction from the pre-modern societies in Asia and Africa (Bhambra 2007).

The historical emergence of sociology has, since the start, intertwined with the development of modernity. On the one hand, sociology took modernity as its primary subject of inquiry. The initiation of the new discipline was driven by the tremendous social transformation following the “dual revolutions” (the industrial French) (Giddens 1982). The major themes include various facets of the

emerging “modern society”— for example industrialization, capitalism expansion, urbanization, the rise of large institutions and the nation state. On the other hand, sociology is itself a manifestation of modernity. The intellectual enterprise is sustained within the modern institutions of universities with government funding. It aims to make sense of, and exert control over, modern society in a

73 rational way. The faith in rationality and attitudes to exert human knowledge to intervene in the social, and the reliance on large institutional and on national fiscal systems all bear the gene of modernity.

1.5.2 Colonial Modernity and Asian Social Sciences

The emergence of modernity was closely tied up to colonialism in several ways (Bhambra 2007). First, the presumed distinction between the modernized Europe and the rest of the world which was pre-modern created a perception of European mandate that legitimized the projection of colonial power. Second, to a large extent the more sophisticated achievement of European modernity was made possible by the material resources harvested from the exploitive trading system created by the colonial expansion. Third, the colonial powers exemplified a version of modernity through the demonstration of their technological

capability, military power, and the material affluence brought by industrial production to the Third World. They introduced various modern institutions in the territories directly under the colonial control, and inspired the post-colonial modernization projects pursued in many Asian countries.

74 seen as a mere reproduction of Western modernity. First, the colonial

administration never transplanted the entire political, legal and educational system from their home country to the colonies. Instead they selectively adopted a combination of elements that best secured the colonial interest. Second, in many parts of the colonized world, the encounters with Westerners created a psychological complex that combined agony from exploitation and slavery, envy for Western power backed by modern technologies, and anxiety over losing traditional culture, values and identity. This complex lived on into the

post-colonial era and formed the axis of debate about the modernity project pursued by many post-colonial countries. Therefore, I have adopted the term “colonial modernity” (Barlow 1993) to recapture the unique trajectory of

modernization that was framed by both the “filter effect” under colonial rule and the constant presence of anti-imperialist and nationalist sentiment.

The interconnection between modernity and the emergence of sociology invites further examination into the connection between the form of colonial modernity and the formation of sociology in the respective countries. This aim is a return to the themes discussed in the previous two sections. The theoretical diagnosis of the state of Asian social sciences outlined in Sec 1.3 could be seen as a

75 manifestation of discontent with the modern social scientific discourses of

Western origin. This discontent mirrored the ambivalence of Western modernity in a wider context. To a greater or lesser extent, these diagnoses left their mark on the later trajectory of domestic scholarship. The world system of knowledge

network (Sec 1.4) was so conceived to depict the historical expansion of a

modern knowledge network from Europe to its colonies. The conceptual framework invites an analysis of various transnational structural dynamics in this process. Such structural dynamics also frames the development of domestic scholarship. To be more specific, the framework drew attention to the following colonial-related themes:

(1)The production and dissemination of sociological knowledge about the colonial territories and subjects by scholars who were either associated with, or were supported by the colonial administrations.

(2)The colonial installation of knowledge intensive institutions (e.g. higher educational institutions, libraries and academic societies) and its legacies for both the structure of higher education and intellectual horizons.

(3)The hierarchical structure of knowledge flowing between the colonial core and peripheries.

76 (4)The colonial geopolitics and their impact on the production and flow of

knowledge.

(5)The colonial network and the post-colonial patterns of knowledge flow (e.g. the scholar/student migration, submission to foreign publisher or journal). The following chapters will demonstrate how these themes affect the

development of sociology in the three cases examined.

1.5.3 Four Principal Powers in East Asia

Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore all emerged in modern history as strategic nodes on the map of confrontation between the various imperial powers competing in this region. Their modernization was initiated by external

colonizers, and, even after the decolonization of Taiwan and Singapore, continued on a path constantly shaped by the shifting balance and relationships between these regional powers. There were four principal forces that played significant roles in regional history and these were. First, China has historically been the source of migration and cultural influence in the region. Second, the European colonial powers (Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish and in particular the British) came through the Melaka Strait since the 17th _{century. Third, Japan, the first}

77 States, the hegemony merged in the Pacific region in the 20th _{century. The short} “historical portrait” in Introduction suggests that all three places had some sort of encounter with the four imperial forces. Table 1-2 summarised these

encounters. Different shading is used to indicate my subjective evaluation of the relative significance (duration and mode of impact) of the influence.

Imperial Force Taiwan Hong Kong Singapore

Chinese

Empire and the Circle of Confucian Culture Chinese Migrant 16th_C onward Qing Empire 1683-1895 Republic of China, 1945- Historical Territory of Chinese Empire Chinese Migrant HKSAR, PRC ’97- Chinese Migrant Labour, 19th _C- Japanese East Asia circle of Co-Prosperity Japanese Colony 1895-1945 Japanese Occupation, 1942-45 Japanese Occupation in 1942-45 Post-War US Hegemony

American Ally against the Communist China

American Hegemony American Hegemony European Colonial Powers

Dutch and Spanish Settlements in 17th _C

British colony 1842-1997

British colony 1819-1959

Table 1-2, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore: Historical Encounter with Four Imperial Forces

Summary

This chapter reviews a series of theoretical “maps” relevant to the study. To define the subject matter, I first accepted sociology as a historical entity by

78 For empirical research, I operationally defined my scope of investigation in

institutional terms to focus on a core circle of sociologists. This inquiry was

anchored within the tradition of the sociology of knowledge. I reviewed the German origin, reorientation in the United States and various post-1960s legacies of the sociology of knowledge; but I also noted its ignorance of

geographical dimension of knowledge, in particular the power relation between the former colonial powers and their colonies. Various approaches of theorising the state of social science in Asia (Alatas 2006: Ch2) were subsequently reviewed but were considered limited by their built-in dualistic image of East-West

dichotomy. To address the theoretical shortage, I borrowed from Wallertein (1974), Castell (1996) and Altbach (1987) to propose a “world system of

knowledge network” as an overarching theoretical frame to place my inquiry. The framework retains the Wallerstinian emphases on history in social inquiry, on an interdisciplinary approach, and on a concern of the core-peripheral inequality; but it avoids a state-centric approach and acknowledges the multiple levels of social entities and relations embodied in the system. The concept “modernity” was in the end introduced as a pivotal theme, relating the project about Asian sociology to the forms of colonial modernity in the region.

79

Ch2. Methodological Note

This methodological chapter outlines the research design and describe the methods employed of data collection. It elaborates the methodological rationales and limitations and reflects upon the ethical dimension. The conventional

practice of its writing is to deliver a neatly-organized “design” with clearly defined objectives and procedures to defend the scientific rigor and disciplinary identity of the project. This practice however tends to present the research as a well-controlled process that follows a pre-determined blueprint, and therefore downplays (if not conceals) the expected frustrations, inevitable compromises, and decisions of reorientation in the actual course of research. This is what I shall avoid. In fact, one characteristic of this project was my constant doubt of whether I, still a trainee in this profession, was suitable for undertaking such a task that involved researching many senior colleagues. The precarious researcher- subject power relation proved challenging. Hence in the following sections, I will

incorporate a more personal perspective to dialectically reflect upon my positionality in this project and restore a historical dimension of the research process to acknowledge how the blueprint has been revised towards a more feasible proposition. This chapter proceeds with a discussion of the “comparative

80 design” and the “historical turn” (an extension in time scale to bring more history into analysis) of the project. The methods employed will be reviewed in detail in Sec 2.2, followed by an account of ontological and epistemological issues in the next section. Two ethical particularities will be elaborated upon in Sec 2.4 and 2.5: the researcher- informant power relation and the issue of confidentiality.