At the beginning of the new millennium, the social sciences discover an epochal turn making it necessary to revolutionise their theory-building: As a response to what they call the globalisation of the social, they find the need to globalise their theorising as well. It is odd to discover after two centuries of colonialism and imperialism, after two world wars and several economic world crises that there is a world beyond the national socials; it is even more strange that the social sciences globalise their theorising by comparing theories about nationally confined socials and by creating all sorts of, preferably, local theories, just as if any national social was a secluded social biotope. Discussing how to globalise the social sciences, they argue that globalising social science theorising means finding a way of theorising that must, above all, be liberated from scientism in order to allow a provincialisation of thinking. Not surprisingly, the globalising social sciences also rediscover mythological and moral thinking as a means for a true scientific universalism. Michael Kuhns book presents many thought-provoking arguments on the oddities of the globalising social sciences and on how these oddities are not accidents, but a consequence of the nature of how the social sciences theorise about the social.

That we live in a world ruled and confused by cultural diversities has become common sense. It was the social sciences that gave birth to a new theoretical paradigm, the creation of cultural theories. Since then, social science theorising applies to any social phenomenon across the world exploring cultural diversities in any social practice -- except in regard to the social sciences and how they practice the creation of knowledge. How academics in the social sciences across the world create knowledge is no topic for cultural theories. Social science theorising seemingly assumes that creating knowledge does not know such diversities. Kazumi Okamoto presents the development of an analytical instrument that helps study academic culture, analyse academic practices of how social sciences create and distribute knowledge, and the influence the academic environment has on their knowledge productions. Applying this theoretical tool to the academe in Japan, she further presents a case study about how social scientists in Japan interpret academic practices and how they are affected by their academic environment. Studying the academic culture in the case of Japan, she reveals that not only the academic practices and the academic environment of the academe in Japan show much less diversities than cultural theories tend to presuppose, but that the assumption that creating social science knowledge does not know cultural diversities is an error as well.

The European social sciences tend to absorb criticism that has been passed on the European approach and re-label it as a part of what the critique opposes; criticism of European social sciences by subaltern social sciences, their talking back, has become a frequent line of reflection in European social sciences. The re-labelling of the critique of the European approach to social sciences towards a critique from Southern social sciences of Western social sciences has somehow turned Southern as well as Western social sciences into competing contributors to the same globalising social sciences. Both are no longer arguing about the European approach to social sciences but about which social thought from which part of the globe prevails. If the critique becomes a part of what it opposes, one might conclude that the European social sciences are very adaptable and capable of learning. One might, however, also raise the question whether there is anything wrong with the criticism of the European social sciences; or, for that matter, whether there is anything wrong with the European social sciences themselves. The contributions in this book discuss these questions from different angles: They revisit the mainstream critique of the European social sciences, and they suggest new arguments criticising social science theories that may be found as often in the Western as in the Southern discourse.

In the past, the European social sciences labelled and discredited knowledge that did not follow the definition for scientific knowledge as applied by the European social sciences as an alternative concept of knowledge, as indigenous knowledge. Perception has changed with time: Not only has indigenous knowledge become an entrance ticket to the European social science world, but the indigenisation of European theories is seen by some as the contribution of peripheral social sciences to join the theories of the centres. This book offers contributions to the discourses about alternative concepts of knowledge, inviting the reader to decide if they are alternative, indigenous, or European types of knowledge. However, in order to make this decision, the reader must know what the nature of the European concepts of science and of scientific knowledge is; this might be a motivation to read a book that presents thoughts claiming to be alternative concepts of knowledge, alternative to the European concept of science.

This innovative book provides new perspectives on the globalization of knowledge and the notion of hegemonic sciences. Tying together contributions of authors from all across the world, it challenges existing theories of hegemonic sciences and sheds new light on how they have been and are being constructed. Examining more closely the notions of 'human rights' and 'individualization', this much-needed volume offers new and alternative ideas on how to transform the universalization of the Western model of science and can serve as an eye-opener for all those interested in non-hegemonic scientific discourse. This book is published within the Series 'Beyond the Social Sciences'.