522171

research-article2014
CSI0010.1177/0011392114522171Current SociologyRosa

Current Sociology Review CS

Current Sociology Review

Theories of the South:

2014, Vol. 62(6) 851­–867
© The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Limits and perspectives of an sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0011392114522171
emergent movement in social csi.sagepub.com

sciences

Marcelo C Rosa
University of Brasilia, Brazil

Abstract
The article critically reviews the recent publications in the field of social sciences regarding
the themes of ‘Southern theories’, ‘theories from the South’ and ‘epistemologies of the
South’ seeking to understand the limits and perspectives of this current wave of critique
to the social sciences establishment. Analyzing the works of Boaventura Santos, Raewyn
Connell and Jean and John Comaroff the article defines the use of the term ‘South’ as
a circumstantial project under which different notions of theory are in a dispute for
legitimacy. Such disputes are bringing to the center of the sociological debate the very
notion of ‘theory’ and its production in a geopolitical context where Southern social
scientists are actively participating in the international debates.

Keywords
Alternative sociology, modernity, social theory, social thought, Southern sociology,
theories from the South

Introduction
There is nothing new about the fact that some social scientists have been disconcerted by
the way in which our disciplines have constructed their master narratives, appropriating
Euro-American sociological theories to give meaning to the idea of society in the rest of
the world. In the 1950s and 1960s, authors such as Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon had

Corresponding author:
Marcelo C Rosa, Department of Sociology, University of Brasilia – Brazil, Colina UnB Bloco H 508, Brasilia,
DF, 70904-108, Brazil.
Email: marcelocr@unb.br
852 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

already criticized the impact of these theories on the subjectivities of colonized subjects.
The dependence theories were also a direct challenge to the developmental models of the
times, establishing themselves, albeit topically, as an alternative for interpreting the
question of global inequality.
Over the past two decades, new theoretical reactions and alternatives have emerged
under labels as diverse as ‘postcolonial’ (Chakrabarty, 2000), ‘decolonial’ (Mignolo,
2009), ‘multiple modernities’ (Eisenstadt, 2000), ‘phases of modernity’ (Domingues,
2008) and ‘our modernity’ (Chatterjee, 1997). These movements recovered the pioneer-
ing reactions from the 1950s and 1960s vis-à-vis contemporary African, Asian and
Amerindian experiences. Even the International Sociological Association recently edited
two books in which a profound and current debate on this issue has resurfaced (Burawoy
et al., 2010; Patel, 2010). However, it is necessary to clarify that the theoretical move-
ments of the past – along with the new critical and analytical trends mentioned here –
have but a minor influence on legitimate debates not only in the academic circles of
Euro-American sociology but also those located in countries where these approaches
were first produced, as noted by Go (2013) and Alatas (2006).
While there is already a main outline of this set of debates – to the point where it is
acknowledged as part of the internal disputes within the social sciences – a new alterna-
tive has now been added under the label theories of the South. Even if we consider this
new theoretical movement as a component of the larger set mentioned above, it is impor-
tant for us to recognize that it has introduced a new tool (we can also think of it as a lens)
that had not reached the core of the geopolitical dispute within our disciplines: the South.
If we examine works from only the past five years, we can find three major contribu-
tions that helped add this specific challenge to the existing conceptual corpus: the work
of Boaventura de Sousa Santos on Epistemologies of the South; the collection of articles
by Raewyn Connell on the sociologies of Southern Theories; and, finally, the recent
work by anthropologists Jean Comaroff and John Comaroff on Theories from the South.
Utilizing the strategy of the review essay, I will discuss the ways in which the South
has been brought to the core of the theoretical debates within the social sciences in these
works. By employing the notion of économie de la grandeur (how actors can legiti-
mately justify their actions in contexts where multiple or contradictory logics exist), a
term coined by Boltanski and Thévenot (1991) and by Boltanski (2000), I describe the
grandeurs or virtues that are associated with the South in each work. In addition, I show
how these authors employ particular grandeurs to sketch the universe of theoretical
debates in their books and thus ensure the legitimacy of their contributions to contempo-
rary sociological debate.
Instead of reviewing these works in their totality, I aim to explore the ways and
moments in which each author invokes the South in these writings, giving it the heuristic
potential to modify the agenda of the social sciences. From this particular focus, I will
look into certain specific issues that I find problematic in these works in order to enrich
the debate on the meanings and the appropriations of the South. First I examine the
vision of Boaventura Santos, according to whom the main feature of the epistemologies
of the South is associated with a disruption of the abysmal logic of scientific/capitalistic
forms of knowledge. This is followed by a critique of the Comaroffs’ reification of the
classic dualism of traditional social sciences between the ‘theoretical’ theories of the
Rosa 853

North and the ‘practical’ theories of the South. I then analyze Connell’s disregard of the
internal processes of colonization of the social sciences by Euro-American narratives
when the author defends the social theories produced in the South as potential alterna-
tives to mainstream sociology.

The South as epistemology and hope

In his writings since the 1990s, Portuguese social scientist Boaventura Santos has ques-
tioned whether the epistemological project of Western sciences is in fact universal; he
does so by combining the discoveries of the ‘social science’ with other forms of knowl-
edge. As he has stated in his works, Santos seeks to challenge the way in which the North
imposes its scientific knowledge as superior to other forms of knowledge that still sur-
vive in the South, building an impassable distance for a type of abysmal thinking.
His book Epistemologies of the South, originally published in 2009, is a compilation
that brings together perspectives with the same theoretical aim: to break away from the
colonial model of production of knowledge, presenting a range of texts that cover every-
thing from postcolonial African literature to Indian subaltern studies and the Latin
American decolonialist authors. In this essay, I will not compare the entire book with the
texts by Connell and the Comaroffs but will instead focus on the introduction (co-written
by Santos and Maria Paula Meneses) and Chapter 1, where the notion of the South is
explicitly associated with alternative forms of knowledge for the social sciences.
From the very first pages of the introduction, the authors define their objective to be
a critique of the colonial perspective of scientific knowledge, understood as a representa-
tion of the West that combines processes of secularization and global capitalist expan-
sion. The South, in the words of Santos and Meneses (2009: 12), ‘is conceived of here
metaphorically as a field of epistemological challenges that attempts to repair the dam-
age and impact historically caused by capitalism in its colonial relationship to the world’
(author’s emphasis).
For both of these writers, ‘the epistemologies of the South are a set of epistemological
interventions that denounce this suppression’ (of the knowledges of peoples and colo-
nized nations). They place value on the knowledges that ‘successfully resisted and they
explore the conditions of a horizontal dialogue among different knowledges’ (Santos and
Meneses, 2009: 13). In this regard, the South corresponds not to a geographic unit but to
a specific epistemological form that could be defined by its negative and repairing rela-
tionship to colonial capitalism.
According to Santos, Western modernity and its scientific perspective of the world
turn out to be a weapon for domination by forcefully refusing any possibility of coexist-
ence with other forms of knowledge. The main problem, according to Santos and
Meneses, would not necessarily be the inexorable existence of colonization and of its
master narrative, that is, scientific thought. The central issue would reside in the fact that
these processes do not allow for that which Johannes Fabian (1983) and later Walter
Mignolo (2000) refer to as coevalness of other social forms and their knowledges. For
the colonial-global-capitalist order, social forms and formulas scattered across the globe
have been left on the fringes or simply disregarded as significant experiences. Like the
title of Walter Mignolo’s latest work (2011), this would be the ‘dark side of modernity’.
854 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

According to the authors, although it was impossible for them to simply exclude colo-
nization and the consequences of modernity from their colonized daily lives, the peoples
of the South managed to adapt and come up with alternative modernities, which were not
sufficiently explored in their text. Another solution unique to the peoples of the South, as
noted by the authors, is the creation of a ‘subaltern cosmopolitanism’ ‘meaning toler-
ance, patriotism, global citizenship, a global community of human beings, global cul-
tures, etc.’ (Santos, 2009: 41).1 The base of this cosmopolitanism would be the different
temporalities in which ‘the subaltern experiences of the global South have been forced to
respond to both the short duration of their immediate needs of survival and to the lengthy
duration of capitalism and colonialism’ (Santos, 2009: 50).
As with other theorists on decoloniality already quoted, Boaventura’s empirical wager
is on the indigenous peoples. By having historically positioned themselves in opposition
to colonialism and to abysmal scientific thought, indigenous peoples would constitute
living proof that understanding of the world goes beyond Western modes of knowledge.
The recently acknowledged emergence of indigenous representatives and their own
forms of organization in international leftist forums (the fundamental stage analyzed by
the author is the World Social Forum) shows, according to Santos, the possibilities of a
hybridism between West and non-West, in which classic leftist movements ally them-
selves with black, indigenous, feminist and landless worker communities.
For the author, in spite of the fact that these forums created new political relations,
‘this diversity continues to lack an adequate epistemology’ (Santos, 2009: 45) that would
allow for the free movement of ideas among such different groups. Its academic project
thus consists in constructing an epistemology that takes this diversity into account while
allowing asymmetrical realities to be joined together.
Here I believe that Boaventura Santos is left in a quandary since in spite of praising
the plurality of forms of knowledge and their incompleteness, the Portuguese thinker
seems hard-pressed to come up with a single formula that encompasses them all: ‘In
order to move forward, we require a residual or negative general epistemology: a general
epistemology of the general impossibility’ (Santos, 2009: 46).
It would thus appear that in order to deconstruct a hegemonic form, it is necessary to
construct another hegemonic form, one populated with the imagination of the colonized
as well. In my opinion, this type of elliptical solution does not help us to overcome epis-
temological colonialism. We continue to face the same dilemma of either imposing an
epistemology (a general one that takes diversity into account) or accepting several epis-
temologies (which do not necessarily communicate or wish to communicate with one
another) supported by the colonized world in such different conditions, durations and
consequences. His proposal, as we have seen, is to use the dialogue of differences, which
he refers to as an ecology of knowledges, in order to argue in favor of a non-hierarchical
point in common between scientific knowledge (of the North) and tradition knowledge
(of the South).
However, once again, wouldn’t the search for this convergence be precisely the driver
of the ‘liberal-democratic-Western’ project? Wouldn’t that rhetoric be more of a way of
conceding the diversities of the South to the North’s need to simplify them? Like placing
within a single scope feminist and postcolonial epistemologies, the landless movement,
quilombolas and indigenous people (examples used by the author) without relapsing into
Rosa 855

what traditional social science (of the North) has always done? In my view, this ecumenical
perspective represents a sort of Northern Other, not a configuration based on own specifici-
ties that would go beyond the vague notion of traditional used throughout the work.
To demonstrate the virtues and the differences of the societies of the South, the author
himself explains what the sites of this new epistemology would be: ‘Peripheral societies
of the modern world system, where the belief in modern science is most tenuous, where
the connection of modern science to the purposes of colonial and imperial domination is
most visible, and where other non-scientific and non-Western knowledges prevail over
the daily practices of the population’ (Santos, 2009: 47).
Although readers of Santos may not find it difficult to perceive the perverse effects of
colonial epistemologies, it is nearly impossible to figure out from the text which of these
knowledges would fall on the ‘other side of the line’. If we say as Santos does that these
knowledges are ‘popular, secular, proletarian, peasant and indigenous’ (Santos, 2009:
25), exemplary terms coined by the epistemology of the North, aren’t we in fact grouping
them in the categories that the colonizer-capitalist-globalizer subject created to fit them
into a hierarchical order for forms of knowledge?
The impression that Boaventura Santos gives is that in spite of the fact that little is
known about the specific content of these other knowledges, there is a metaphysical
belief regarding its difference in relation to those of Europe. A belief that at certain points
could be confused (from my own perspective) with what is also a metaphysical idea of
the noble savage free from conflict, without bodies and contradictions. In this point,
there is a serious risk of limiting the debate to the same rhetorical dimension that has in
the past (and in the traditional vision of the social sciences) posited the superiority of the
colonizer as a generic and civilized being. By placing his hopes in the societal forms that
he recognizes in the South, the author leaves aside local forms of knowledge and places
excessive emphasis on the problems violently created by colonizing societies.

The South as hell’s avant-garde

The book by Jean and John Comaroff, follows the same editorial trend of the other texts
analyzed here. The work begins with a lengthy introduction entitled ‘Theories from the
South’, which attempts to bring together a series of articles the public is already familiar
with (besides the introduction to the book, only a single chapter had not already been
published). This introduction will serve as the basis for my analysis as it is the only part
of the book to formulate the question of the South in a satisfactory way.
The Comaroffs begin their essay by embracing the idea that for decades Southern socie-
ties have been regarded ‘primarily as a place of parochial wisdom, of antiquarian traditions,
of exotic ways and means’ (2011: 1). Another familiar topic addressed in the text is the fact
that the South has traditionally been a supplier of ‘raw materials’ for the social theories
drafted in the North. In their vision, however, this scenario could be on the verge of being
altered as certain social processes of the South begin to spread across the globe.
These authors are working to subvert what they refer to as epistemological structures
of this hierarchy. This is based on the hypothesis that in this historic moment, the global
South is the one that should be providing the insights for understanding the rest of the
world.
856 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

These insights are connected to terms like inventions, accommodations and hybrids,
which appear over and over again in the text (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2011: 6). In the
different colonial contexts of the South specific forms of ‘proletarianization of the peas-
antry and of displaced cosmopolitanisms forged in the spaces between promises and
privation, between exclusion and erasure’ (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2011: 6) have
emerged. In spite of their insistence on describing the social processes of the South – and
the creativity with which the South deals with the most pressing questions of life in the
North – the authors state that they do not wish to merely revert the process, which ulti-
mately would preserve the topography of traditional critical analyses. For the authors,
new geographies of center and peripheries have emerged along with alternative forms of
production and value creation. In current geopolitics, in which companies and govern-
ments from the South participate in markets on fairer conditions, the old structural
approaches in which the ownership of the means of production was limited exclusively
to the North have also been undermined in the view of the authors.
According to the authors, the modernity of the South is not merely a derivative or a
counterfeit of that experienced in Europe. This modernity needs to be apprehended in its
relationship to the North but also to the South, with its own experiences and dilemmas.
As we will see further on, it is these dilemmas and their solutions that give the South a
competitive edge in a situation of crisis in Euro-America.
One of the longest and most obscure points in the text is precisely the difference
between modernity and modernization. In a clear effort to safeguard modernity, mod-
ernization and its theoretical/normative telos are presented as factors that would tend to
build hierarchies within societies and establish discriminatory, unilinear notions of time
and space. As a concept and as a practice, modernity – which the authors describe at one
point, using David Harvey’s words, as ‘an orientation to being-in-the-world’ and ‘to a
vision of history as progressive, man-made construction, to an ideology of improvement
through the accumulation of knowledge and technological skill’ (Comaroff and Comaroff,
2011: 9) – would already seem less noxious, because it is inscribed and modified accord-
ing to specific contexts (an argument that also brings to mind the debates on alternative
modernities).
In the modernity of the South, the ‘capitalism-and-modernity’ dialectic would thus
have generated new ‘radical’ standards for the relationship between capital and work. In
the book, these do appear from time to time, though mainly associated with the flexibili-
zation of labor, a phenomenon which the authors claim originated in the South and is
now spreading to the Old World.
As the author stated in a recent interview about the book for a Brazilian journal: ‘And
given the state of cities everywhere, these communities (and I have noted that they are
not all the same; their living conditions and possibilities vary) suddenly appear to be very
avant-garde. Just like corruption, temporary aberrations or third-world scandals, these
communities can no longer be seen merely as deviations from a more rational plan’
(Comaroff, 2011).
This passage serves as an introduction and leads directly to another controversial
topic within the book, which is the evolution of Euro-America toward Africa. The authors
make it clear that this is a provocative phrase and not a statement on the fact of there
being an involution of the North’s history. By accepting (albeit partially) the notions of
Rosa 857

multiple modernities, the authors conceive of life in the South as parallel and in relation
to the North. While for decades we believed that the South would evolve toward the
North, it now seems that it is the North that will take on airs of the South in various ways.
The question that is not sufficiently clarified in the text is whether the authors believe
that this will occur because there is a dialogue and a learning of the North with the South
or whether the path taken by the North (the crisis) is the inexorable route already taken
by the South.
The authors’ discussion then turns briefly to the question of coevalness (a term also
appropriated by Boaventura Santos, as we saw earlier) or, to put it a better way, to the
North’s refusal to acknowledge the temporalities specific to the South. According to the
authors, the North is progressively giving in to the time of the South. In this regard, we
find another relationship that the authors would not hesitate to call ‘dialectic’ between (1)
multiple modernities with parallel temporalities, and (2) a modernity sui generis that
encompasses the South and the North: the neoliberal modernity.
According to the authors, the events of the South would be the epitome of capitalism
in its current neoliberal phase, which is why the North would be increasingly more and
more similar to the South. In this point the authors adopt a pessimistic tone like that in
their other writings when discussing Africa and modernity. With a dangerous simplifica-
tion that appeals to the Euro-American imagination, they are insistent when affirming
that governance in Africa is based on ‘kleptocratic patronage … because market forces
in Africa have never been fully cushioned by the existence of a liberal democratic state
and its forms of regulation’ (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2011: 16). They even go so far as
to say that these are settings in which ‘the rule of Law, of the labor contract, and of the
ethics of civil society are, at best, uneven’ (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2011: 19).
To the surprise of certain critics who believe that they had already understood the
positions defended in the text, a few pages later we find a definitive phrase: ‘And not all
is darkness’ (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2011: 18). For the Comaroffs, Africa is also ‘a
source of inventive responses to the contingencies of our time, responses driven by a
volatile mix of necessity, possibility, deregulation, space-time compression,’ (Comaroff
and Comaroff, 2011: 18). These are imaginative forms of survival. While the North lives/
acts, the South survives/reacts, and even without very much awareness, it could have
invented its own ways out of the crisis. To borrow an argument by Ortner (2001) in his
review of another book by the Comaroffs, it seems to me that there is no room in their
analysis for an agency other than that of capital and capitalists.
This type of rhetoric could have an effect on the perspective of the social sciences and
the Euro-American leftist press, both of which continue to see the South as a place of
absence, as the heart of darkness. Yet the argument of these anthropologists is devastat-
ing for those who have sought to construct the agencies and the convivial coexistence of
forms of knowledge in the South (Borges, 2009; Nyamnjoh, 2012).
The authors then lead us into the universe of what they consider to be the production
of theory in the South. It is from among the Tswana, and their notion of a multifaceted,
cultured personhood, that we are provided with a sketch of the future paths of the South.
For the Comaroffs, the notion of personhood that emerged from their research would not
be too different from the contemporary neoliberal forms of constructing the self. In a
rereading of their own previous texts (which make up a great part of the book) on the
858 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

politics of mercantilization of ethnicity, of the changes in the nature of the nation-state

and citizenship, and of the disenchantment with procedural democracy (as opposed to a
civil society democracy), we find many examples of how the dilemmas of the South
could have anticipated those which the North is currently experiencing.
In my opinion, the authors’ statements on the specular or mimetic nature of the pro-
cesses experienced in the South and in the North pose a dilemma: how do these new
processes constitute a Theory from the South? For the Comaroffs, ‘theories’ does not
refer to the grand theories of the modernist tradition. It would not be an appeal to abstrac-
tion or to a philosophical anthropology. The authors clamor for a ‘grounded theory’ that
is historically contextualized (although they seem to easily accept a single idea of capi-
talist history). A middle ground between the concrete and the concept, between the epic
and the daily, between the significant and the material. In short, a theory that seeks to
‘explain’ phenomena through the relationship between the grand determinations and the
contingent and close conditions.
The notion of theory is modified in an interesting way to welcome the practical solu-
tions found (under scarcity) in these countries as also theoretical. Due to the method and
manner in which the social situations described by the authors are presented, it is difficult
to wager on their theoretical-epistemological potential. In this regard, a ‘grounded’ narra-
tive in this book is constructed through findings from the authors’ research in relation to
major Euro-American theories repeating the classic model that they criticize. In the end,
the book emphasizes the idea that grand theories are constructed in the North and that in
the South, we should be constructing grounded theories that enter into dialogue with those
built in the North. Nevertheless, we could ask ourselves the following: isn’t this ‘ground-
ing’ precisely a new version of what the authors refer to at the beginning of the book when
speaking of the South as the producer of data for the theories of the North?
In spite of this legitimate desire, it seems that the Comaroffs’ problem lies in their
dependence on the essential concepts and narrative forms of leftist colonial thought.
They embrace, without questioning them, the typical dualisms of sociology and anthro-
pology (i.e. micros and macros). By doing so, they do not manage to follow through on
their good intentions; in the end, all the grounded theories of the South would be nothing
more than reactions to the theories of the North. These grounded theories would be pas-
sive, only capable of being understood in the extent to which they evoke an existing
theory of the North, that is, in the extent to which they prove palatable to Euro-American
epistemocentricism. In other words, it is a grounded theory that serves as a subsidiary to
a Theory with a capital T.
The point the South African anthropologists are trying to make becomes explicit here.
The South itself does not seem to have enough content to characterize something empiri-
cally and in my reading of the book, the South would also be the result of the universal
‘global movement’. In this regard, there is no need to revise the historical or sociological
narratives as proposed by the subaltern, postcolonial or decolonial writings.
Since the North continues to be the North Star (the pun is intentional) of the narratives
and social processes even in its negativity, the authors are quick to ironically classify
contemporary events as ‘counter-evolution’ (2011: 47). We could be sparing and keep to
the authors’ preferred perspective, according to which this is an ironic approach to the
evolutionist way in which terms like ‘Third World’ were coined in the past. Nevertheless,
Rosa 859

if we bear in mind the relational conception according to which South and North would
in fact be two facets of the same process, which now moves toward that which Norbert
Elias would refer to as decivilization, the only alternative, in my opinion, is to consider
that for the Comaroffs, we are in fact regressing. Given this scenario, those who are
accustomed to living in the savage world of poverty, kleptocracy, HIV, magic and slums
would already be adapted to adverse situations and would thus be more prepared to sur-
vive the destructive consequences of neoliberalism.
Like in the articles that comprise the rest of the book, the Comaroffs’ recent incursion
into the challenges of the South never questions the traditional reading of the social pro-
cesses which take place in the South. Incidentally, it is the acceptance of the worst facets
of these societies which allows the anthropologists to structure their theories. The fact
that we are in the South, which the traditional social sciences have described as the home
to defective societies, is what allows us to survive in today’s context of globalized neo-
liberalism. What has changed due the crisis is that these defects, though never desirable,
have now become useful.

The South and its social thought

In the three books analyzed here, the work of Raewyn Connell can be considered the
only one which systematically presents ‘endogenous theories’ (Mafeje, 2000; Nyamnjoh,
2012), that is, theoretical alternatives produced outside Euro-America that equate North
and South in terms of their epistemological limits. In every chapter of Connell’s 2007
book, we can discern an attempt to engage with the social thought produced in countries
of the South. The South here has well-defined locations: Latin America, Africa, India or
Iran and, surprisingly for some, Australia. Yes, for this author Australia (as a reminder,
the name literally means ‘land of the south’) is a country of the South which could be
compared to the other locations mentioned above in sociological terms. Australia would
thus share both the effects of colonialism as well as the relegation to the periphery of its
sociological production – mainly in the realm of theory. In other words, unlike the
Comaroffs, Connell believes that the South can be defined not by its political and eco-
nomic situation but instead by its intellectual position (which cannot be reduced to the
terms mentioned above).
Unlike the other texts analyzed, this book establishes an intrinsically sociological
discussion and its subjects are social theories produced by social scientists living in colo-
nial situations. In contrast to the work of Santos and Meneses, the book seeks to establish
a dialogue not with other epistemologies (non-scientific or popular/practical) but instead
with sociology itself outside of Euro-America. The argument, a sensitive one for many
of us who live in the South, is that the sociologies produced outside Europe and North
America in Connell’s perspective are as marginalized as other non-Western forms of
knowledge.
The use of the term Southern means ‘[to] emphasize relations – authority, exclusion
and inclusion, hegemony, partnership, sponsorship, appropriation – between intellectuals
and institutions in the metropole and those in the world periphery’ (Connell, 2007: ix).
More explicitly than the other authors, Connell defines the South by an intellectual rela-
tionship, not necessarily a cultural (like Santos) or economic (like the Comaroffs) one.
860 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

Four years before the Comaroffs, Connell had presented the same problem estab-
lished by the South African authors. Borrowing an argument from the philosopher Paulin
Hountondji (1997) (who also has a chapter in the Santos and Meneses book), she argues
that while the collection and application of data take place in the colonies, theorizing
about them remains the privilege of the metropolises. The author then asks when the
social theories made in the South – and as the book shows, there are many – will be
incorporated by the social scientists of the core and, although the question may seem
paradoxical, by scholars from the periphery as well.
However, as the author herself warns, the social sciences of the periphery do not all
share the same basic principles, which contributes to making these own forms of creating
theory different as well. In this regard, as I have already stated, the theories in question
are more ‘social thought’ than they are sociology sensu stricto, they are not limited to a
specific epistemological scope.
Instead of accepting sociology as an established science (like the Comaroffs do),
Connell offers a profound critique of the canons of the discipline. For the author, who
interestingly classifies Economy and Society and the Division of Labor in Society as
grand ethnographies (in the sense of being large-scale ethnographies on European social
life), the classic works with their tendency toward the comparative have never admitted
the effects of colonialism as a variable in their analyses. In the author’s view, the sup-
pression of colonialism is what allowed classic social scientists to establish the role of
the South in a grand civilizational/rational narrative without discerning the effect of their
own theoretical actions. According to this perspective, the universalism that the founders
of sociology sought can only exist through the ignorance and through a lack of dialogue
with the intellectual realm of the colonized countries.
As I had already emphasized earlier, Connell’s objective is also to discover how mod-
ern has been thought of in the South. Up to this point, there is nothing to distinguish this
from that which is referred to as academic social thought almost everywhere in the world.
According to Connell, however, the dilemma of the theories of the North is that they
have never been willing to think together with their colleagues in the South, as shown in
her sharp critique of the works of Bourdieu, Giddens and Ulrich Beck. And even when
they are open to dialogue, they demand that this dialogue take place in their language and
in its traditional, i.e. colonial, form.
Some questions emerge from this dilemma: ‘Can we have social theory that does not
claim universality for a metropolitan point of view, does not read from only one direc-
tion, does not exclude the experience and social thought of most of humanity, and is not
constructed on terra nullius?’ (Connell, 2007: 47).
For those accustomed to doing sociology in the South, the answer is obviously yes.
For that reason, it is interesting to note that Connell only asks this question because she
spends most of the book on an extensive review of certain theories on how to think about
the modern world – theories made outside the Euro-American axis. In my opinion, this
is the book’s greatest merit and it denotes a rare effort among English-speaking authors
to conceive of a more democratic social thought.
In the section ‘Looking from the South’, Connell offers accurate readings of specific
debates produced at locations with which the author seems to have established academic
ties over the course of her life. This is another important point: Connell respects the
Rosa 861

theories of the South because she has maintained academic relationships with several
countries outside Euro-America. Her interpretation of the sociologies she became famil-
iar with during her academic visits around the world goes beyond the scope of this arti-
cle; her criteria for selection are pretty clear and consciously limited.
This concern and perspective are reflected in a different notion of the grounded theory
proposed for social theory. This would mean a ‘linking theory to the ground on which the
theorist’s boots are planted. To think in this way is to reject the deeply entrenched habit
of mind … by which theory in the social sciences is admired exactly in the degree to
which it shapes specific settings and speaks in abstract universals’ (Connell, 2007: 206)

Challenges and limits

As we have seen, all three of these books point to the need to advance a principally non-
colonial perspective of the South in the sphere of the social sciences with their own
methods. For Santos and Meneses, advancing the South means bringing in other types of
typical or genuine forms of knowledge from this region. This knowledge would build the
scope of a negative, temporary and general epistemology which would be capable of
helping to resolve the daily dilemmas of contemporary life. Their text calls for a conver-
gence between the science of the North and other typical forms of knowledge of the
South. In the attempt to consolidate his notion of abysmal thinking (typical of colonial-
ism), Boaventura Santos prefers to maintain dualism as the starting point that allows him
to construct his proposal for the ecology of knowledges. If we compare the text of these
authors to that of Connell, it becomes clear that the Portuguese pay little attention to the
fact that (social) science is also produced in the South. Therefore, although their book
includes certain important authors of Latin American and African social thought, they do
not take full advantage of these authors (in their text there is only a brief digression on
the dilemmas of creating an African philosophy). As we saw earlier with regard to the
chapters written by other authors in the Santos book, the goal of the work is to pay more
attention to the subaltern, the intellectually non-hegemonic knowledges and ways of
thinking than to scientific or sociological outputs.
As we also saw earlier, the Comaroffs’ appeal for a grounded theory comes up against
the lack of any criticism by the authors of the knowledge, the narratives and the vocabu-
laries typical of the social sciences.2 The authors’ interesting conclusion that the coun-
tries of the South are creatively dealing with the imperfections of neoliberalism and that
these alternatives should be explored as a theory from the South is limited by the impe-
rial curtailing of the South. Here the South is merely the subject of action and reaction
to the social processes that originated in colonization; the South is a place of chaos. The
book offers no frank dialogue with the anthropologies or sociologies made in this part
of the world, as the authors take for granted that the form and content of these sciences
are no different from those of the North. In the name of (an evidently colonial) unity of
the social sciences, their complexity is negligent while they eradicate the theoretical
questions that have already been addressed by local anthropologies and sociologies –
questions which could eventually lead to something originally created in the South.
A similar dilemma can be found in Connell’s book. In this case, it is important to note
that Santos and Meneses indirectly point out one of the gaps in Connell’s book. We
862 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

cannot believe that just because certain social theories are produced in the South, this
automatically means they are not colonial. The Australian author does not address the
question (or only addresses it in relation to her own country) that many contributions to
the social sciences are produced by colonial elites or by local groups more interested in
aligning themselves with the proposals of Giddens, Bourdieu and Beck than in taking on
the theoretical challenges developed endogenously.3 In other words, they are more inter-
ested in bringing the inevitable Euro-American and Southern provincialism to rest on the
same platform.
To be a bit more accurate, the book should have taken into account the internal colo-
nialism within the social sciences in which local theorists and researchers generally
impose foreign agendas in their own countries (the use and abuse of the so-called barom-
eters that measure democracy are a good example). We cannot forget that the majority of
the social scientists in the South have little or no contact with local or endogenous forms
of social knowledge. We also cannot ignore the fact that, due to the colonizing nature of
the field, many of the theorists who are based in the South position themselves not on the
ground upon which they are writing but instead on abstract global narratives. As
Nyamnjoh (2012) warns, at times our theorists appear to be ‘potted plants in green-
houses’ whose atmosphere is as pure and ideal as the narratives on modernity that we
receive and teach in our courses at the universities of the South. Not all theories made in
the South are thus grounded theory.4
Only Boaventura Santos considers (albeit superficially) that the social sciences and
their narratives can be produced locally by intellectual elites – chiefly the political and
economic elites. It is important to acknowledge that in Africa, Latin America, Australia,
Iran and India, those who produce theory about the modern world are the colonizers.
These theorists consider themselves modern and they feel little connection or admiration
for the other epistemologies discussed by Santos and Meneses. In the end, they hail from
social strata that never enter into a profound dialogue with the majority of the popula-
tions of their respective countries, sometimes because they merely consider these popu-
lations to be part of an objectified class. We must keep in mind that certain Southern
scholars can simply choose to overlook the discontinuities with the North (Connell,
2007: 24) and, in order to ensure they are legible for international and local audiences,
they strive to insert their texts into the grand and simplistic narratives of pre-modern/
modern or pre-capitalist/capitalist.

On notions of the South and theory: Grandeurs in

development
Based on this literature review, my main hypothesis is that the notion of South and its
extreme variations in different texts are connected to the diverse meanings and values
that are attributed to the term theory in each of the cases. From my point of view, for
those who analyze these works from the South, the initial enthusiasm expressed in the
titles does not actually translate into elements that configure an alternative per se. There
are at least two central points revealing that the South is still a less homogeneous label
than ‘postcolonial’ or ‘decolonial’. In addition, to quote Boltanski and Thévenot (1991),
Rosa 863

the South has yet to establish a convention of grandeurs and principles of equivalence
that would allow for mutual recognition among the diverse initiatives presented (unlike
that which has been established for theories of modernity, for example).
The first proof of this is that the very idea of what theory is differs significantly in
each case. For Santos, theory is epistemology; for the Comaroffs, theory is practice; and
for Connell, theory is academic social thought. Thus, the unity expressed in the titles
succumbs to highly diverse analytical universes, whose grandeurs (in the sense attributed
to the word by Boltanski, 2000) correspond to disputes over different things. Although
we can optimistically confirm that as a set, the texts could represent an innovative move-
ment in the social sciences, the evidence and subjects incorporated into the debate are not
at all equivalent. In the forms of knowledge that would be typical of the South, we see
the value attributed to certain competencies (non-scientific knowledges, practical knowl-
edges or local sociologies). As these competencies are highly disparate, they lead sociol-
ogy itself down paths that are not always reconcilable in methodological terms. These
competencies are also attributed to different subjects like indigenous people, informal
workers or social scientists.
The second conclusion is that when these works are placed side by side, they do not
allow for a clear definition of what the South would be as a matrix of knowledge for the
social sciences. In this regard, there would be no significant difference between the soci-
ologies of the South and the postcolonial sociologies, as both defend the effects of colo-
nialism as an analytical unit more than a concrete homology between the forms of living
in these diverse places. The sociologies of the South (in Iran, in Nigeria, in Australia, in
India, in Latin America) cited by Connell, for example, do not enter into dialogue with
one another. In the majority of these cases, they are national constructions and in many
cases, nationalist5 (a critique that could also obviously be applied to a significant part of
Euro-American social theory, like in the book by Chakrabarty, 2000). The best example
of this is Africa as presented by the Comaroffs: a generalizing summary of second-hand
information which appears in a forced and imprecise way alongside specific questions
like the Brazilian welfare program Bolsa Família (Comaroff and Comaroff, 2011: 44). In
keeping with this tendency to generalize (which evokes the traditional theory criticized
by Connell), the non-scientific knowledges of Santos encompass everything from rice
cultivating practices in Asia to the landless, the indigenous and the quilombolas in Brazil
(Santos, 2009: 50), groups which, in spite of what the author suggests, reveal abysmal
and often antagonistic epistemological differences in their daily struggles, as I noted in
Rosa (2012a, 2012b).
From the point of view of the disputes and the grandeurs brought to bear, the way in
which South and theory are present in all of the texts analyzed makes it impossible to
bring them together in a stable, permanent way. In terms of the theoretical-methodological
option of this analysis (in which the main question is the dispute), the South could be
considered a grandeur that remains an outsider to the sociological universe, that still does
not have a set of stabilized elements that would situate it in a specific place to be vali-
dated. The estrangement of theory in its hegemonic form does not allow for the South to
be simply situated within a field, nor does it permit one of the classic roles of critical
thought (like that of the periphery) to be attributed to the South. What I perceive in these
864 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

texts is a call for the need to transform not only the settings but also the possible roles of
sociology.
Returning to another important features of Boltanski and his partners’ économies de
la grandeur models, the challenges and the grandeurs proposed by the three works could
be interpreted as critiques, in the sense established in The New Spirit of Capitalism
(Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005: 73). By emphatically exposing some of the weaknesses
and fallacies of the hegemonic social theory, the authors demand that established knowl-
edge justify itself – for some of the injustices it has committed and continues to commit.
Adequate responses to some of these challenges are essential for the discipline (and for
capitalism, in the case of Boltanski and Chiapello) to continue existing in an increasingly
critical context.

Conclusions: The South as a critical project

The aim of reviewing these three works was to understand the conditions in which the
concept of South has been utilized to foster the debate about sociological production
outside of Euro-America in recent literature. In the past and in other circumstances,
authors such as Alatas (2006), Sosa (2006) and Sitas (2006) have utilized South as an
adjective to generically describe academic production outside of Euro-America.
However, these and other authors appropriated the term in a broader sense without both-
ering to seek a more precise definition, one capable of making the term more instrumen-
tal in sociological disputes. I believe that it is this search for a more accurate use of the
term in today’s geopolitical context that differentiates the texts analyzed here.
Given that this is a dispute for legitimacy (both political and theoretical), we cannot
leave aside considerations about whether these new lenses would be approved for their use
in the debate. In dependence theories, multiple modernities, post- and decolonialism, the
constructions start from facts that tend to appear self-evident to any traditional social sci-
entist. Few would be brave enough to doubt the existence of modernity or its colonial facet,
since we have found (and we are trained to find) their traces and effects in many places
across the globe. Many doubts, however, would still surround the South, as we do not know
exactly what its effects are, nor can we identify its trails, its edges and its borders.
In a general way, I believe it would be possible to summarize the efforts of the works
presented here as an attempt to enact (Law, 2004) the South from different contexts.
Enacting intrinsically depends on the production of characteristics and methods of detec-
tion that are already in use and in a process of legitimization as well. If we take them as
a whole, as we have in this text, it becomes evident that there is nothing uniform in these
works which would allow us to use them without hesitation as a tool, as has occurred in
other traditions mentioned over the course of this essay. The traces of the South are dis-
persed in practice theories, in non-scientific practices and in local sociologies. Both in a
traditional reading and when returning to the notion of the économies de la grandeur, the
arguments employed here do not yet reveal a higher principle capable of reorganizing
the hegemonic theoretical disputes (Boltanski and Thévenot, 1991: 54–56); who knows
whether they even strive toward this goal.
Within the scheme proposed by Boltanski and Thévenot (1991), the question that
readers are left with is how to consider literature about the South in a legitimate way. To
Rosa 865

a certain extent, we could posit that the South, in the sense described here, is a project,
like those described by Boltanski and Chiapello (2005) which forms part of a ‘new spirit’
in which contemporary social science develops. When considering the three works pre-
sented here, one of the features of this new spirit would be ‘encounters and temporary,
but reactivatable connections with various groups, operated at potentially considerable
social, professional, geographical and cultural distance. The project is the occasion and
reason for the connection. It temporarily assembles a very disparate group of people, and
presents itself as a highly activated section of network for a period of time that is rela-
tively short, but allows for the construction of more enduring links that will be put on
hold while remaining available’ (Boltanski and Chiapello, 2005: 104).
The highly activated section, in this case, is the need to bring the social processes tak-
ing place outside of Euro-America to the core of social theory; this must be done in a
competent, symmetrical way, not merely as counterexamples or derivations on the great
march toward the West.

Funding
This research received funding from the National Council for Scientific and Technological
Development (CNPq), Brazil.

Notes
1. For recent debates among sociologists from North and South on the notion of cosmopolitan-
ism and its dilemmas, see the recent issues of the newsletter of the International Sociological
Association (ISA) Global Dialogue, www.isa-sociology.org/global-dialogue/.
2. This same characteristic appears in the accomplished works of Domingues (2008, 2009).
3. In a recent post on her website, Connell comments on her experience at the most important
conference of the social sciences in Brazil (Connell attended as a speaker and ethnographer).
‘It really is a problem of hegemony – the usual assumption is that if you engage with Bauman,
Bourdieu, Habermas and Foucault you are engaging with Theory, there is no sense that these
guys represent specifically European experience’ (www.raewynconnell.net/2011/11/with-
social-sciences-in-brasil.html).
4. One classic theoretical counterpoint – and perhaps contemporaneously hegemonic in Latin
American sociology – is presented by authors like Mascareño and Chernilo (2009). In this
article, the authors use Luhmannian concepts to anchor their argument that the theories of the
region turn abstract enough to free themselves from their political and historical traps.
5. For a more specific analysis of national and nationalist sociological narratives in the theoreti-
cal sphere, see Ortiz (2012), Maia (2009, 2011) and Chernilo (2006).

References
Alatas SF (2006) A Khaldunian exemplar for a historical sociology from the South. Current
Sociology 54(3): 397–411.
Boltanski L (2000) El amor y la justicia como competencias. Buenos Aires: Amorrutu.
Boltanski L and Chiapello E (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism. London and New York: Verso.
Boltanski L and Thévenot L (1991) De la justification. Paris: Galimard.
Borges A (2009) Explorando a noção de etnografia popular: comparações e transformações a
partir dos casos das cidades-satélites brasileiras e das townships sul-africanas. Cuadernos de
Antropología Social 29: 23–42.
866 Current Sociology Review 62(6)

Burawoy M, Chang M and Hsie MF (2010) Facing an Unequal World: Challenges for a
Global Sociology. Volume One: Introduction, Latin America and Africa. Taiwan: Institute
of Sociology, Academia Sinica, Council of National Associations of the International
Sociological Association.
Chakrabarty D (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chatterjee P (1997) Our Modernity. Dakar: CODESRIA/SEPHIS.
Chernilo D (2006) Social theory’s methodological nationalism. European Journal of Social
Theory 9(1): 5–22.
Comaroff J (2011) Teorias do sul. Mana 17(2): 467–480.
Comaroff J and Comaroff J (2011) Theory from the South: Or How Euro-America is Evolving
Toward Africa. London: Paradigm Publishers.
Connell R (2007) Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science.
Cambridge: Polity.
Domingues JM (2008) Latin America and Contemporary Modernity: A Sociological Interpretation.
New York and London: Routledge.
Domingues JM (2009) Global modernization, ‘coloniality’, and a critical sociology for contempo-
rary Latin America. Theory, Culture and Society 26(1): 112–133.
Eisenstadt S (2000) Multiple modernities. Daedalus 129 (1): 1–28.
Fabian J (1983) Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Objects. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Go J (2013) For a postcolonial sociology. Theory and Society 42(1): 25–55.
Hountondji PJ (1997) Endogenous Knowledge: Research Trails. Dakar, Senegal: Codesria.
Law J (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. New York: Routledge.
Mafeje A (2000) Africanity: A combative ontology. CODESRIA Bulletin 1: 66–71.
Maia JM (2009) Pensamento brasileiro e teoria social: notas para uma agenda de pesquisa. Revista
Brasileira de Ciências Sociais 24(71): 155–168.
Maia JM (2011) Ao Sul da Teoria: A atualidade teórica do pensamento social brasileiro. Sociedade
e Estado 26: 71–94.
Mascareño A and Chernilo D (2009) Obstacles and perspectives of Latin American sociology:
Normative universalism and functional differentiation. Soziale Systeme 15(1): 72–96.
Mignolo W (2000) Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality, Subaltern Knowledges, and
Border Thinking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mignolo W (2009) Epistemic disobedience, independent thought and decolonial freedom. Theory,
Culture and Society 26 (7–8): 159–181.
Mignolo W (2011) The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options
(Latin America Otherwise). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nyamnjoh F (2012) ‘Potted plants in greenhouses’: A critical reflection on the resilience of colo-
nial education in Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies 47(2): 129–154.
Ortiz R (2012) As ciências sociais e a diversidade dos sotaques. Revista Brasileira de Ciências
Sociais 27(78): 7–24.
Ortner SB (2001) Specifying agency: The Comaroffs and their critics. Interventions: International
Journal of Postcolonial Studies 3(1): 76–84.
Patel S (2010) The ISA Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions. London: Sage.
Rosa M (2012a) Reforma agrária e land reform: movimentos sociais e o sentido de ser um sem-
terra no Brasil e na África do Sul. Caderno CRH 25(64): 99–114.
Rosa M (2012b) Landless: Meanings and transformations of a collective action category in Brazil.
Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy 1(2): 205–231.
Rosa 867

Santos B (2009) Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a um ecologia dos saberes.
In: Santos B and Meneses MP, Epistemologias do Sul. Coimbra: Almedina/CES, pp. 23–73.
Santos B and Meneses MP (2009) Epistemologias do Sul. Coimbra: Almedina/CES.
Sitas A (2006) The African renaissance challenge and sociological reclamations in the South.
Current Sociology 54(6): 357–380.
Sosa R (2006) Sociology and the South: The Latin American experience. Current Sociology 54(3):
413–425.

Author biography
Marcelo C Rosa is Associate Professor at the Department of Sociology, University of Brasilia,
Brazil and CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) researcher. He
has done research on landless social movements in Brazil and South Africa and is currently devel-
oping a project called ‘Non-exemplary sociology’ (www.naoexemplar.com) seeking to develop
social theories and methodologies from the Southern societies’ experiences. He is also one of the
founding editors of the Agrarian South: Journal of Political Economy.

Résumé
Cet article procède à une revue critique des récentes publications dans le champs des
sciences sociales relatives aux thèmes de « théories du Sud », « théories venant du Sud
» et « epistémologies du Sud », dans le but d’explorer les limites et les perspectives
de cette vague actuelle de critiques de l’institution des sciences sociales. En s’appuyant
sur les travaux de Boaventura Santos, Raewyn Connel et Jean et John Comaroff,
l’article définit l’utilisation du terme « Sud » comme un projet circonstanciel au sein
duquel différentes notions de la théorie se disputent la légitimité académique. De telles
disputes déplacent le centre du débat sociologique vers la notion même de « théorie »
et sa production dans un contexte géopolitique où les chercheurs en sciences sociales
du Sud participent activement aux débats internationaux.

Mots-clés
Sociologie du sud, théorie sociale, modernité, pensée sociale, sociologie alternative,
théories du sud

Resumen
Este artículo revisa críticamente las publicaciones más recientes en el campo de las
ciencias sociales en relación con los temas de las “teorías del sur”, “teorías desde el
Sur “ y “epistemologías del Sur”, buscando entender los límites y perspectivas de esta
actual ola de crítica a las ciencias sociales establecidas. A partir del análisis de la obra
de Boaventura Santos, Raewyn Connell y Jean y John Comaroff, este trabajo define el
uso del término “Sur” como un proyecto circunstancial en el que diferentes nociones
de teoría disputan legitimidad. Dichas disputas traen al centro del debate sociológico
la noción misma de “teoría” y su producción, en un contexto geopolítico donde los
científicos sociales del sur están participando activamente en los debates internacionales.

Palabras clave
Sociología del sur, teoría social, modernidad, pensamiento social, sociología alternativa,
teorías del sur