In search of global sociology: a critical overview of competing research agendas

The paper interrogates what it means for Sociology to be global, distinguishing the globalisation of sociology (the discipline’s institutional and intellectual expansion) from the sociology of globalisation (analyses that extend Western-developed frameworks worldwide). It aims to assess competing research agendas and the broader idea of global sociology beyond internal disciplinary debates. After noting sociology’s diverse intellectual origins versus its institutional consolidation as an academic discipline largely in the West, the article outlines an arc from early internationalisation (IIS in 1894; ISA in 1949 with UNESCO) to the post–Cold War surge of globalisation discourse and ISA’s recurring calls for a “sociology for One World.” It frames the central research problem as whether existing programmes—global modernisation/Global Studies and postcolonial sociology—provide convincing, non-Eurocentric blueprints for a truly global sociology, and if not, what alternatives are viable.

The article surveys foundational and critical literatures shaping debates on global sociology. It traces the rise of globalisation as a concept from Robertson’s early sociological use (1983) and its post-1989 diffusion, alongside Levitt in business studies, and its institutionalisation through the ISA and the emergence of Global Studies programmes. It reviews world society theory (the Stanford School; Meyer 2010a, 2010b) on institutional isomorphism and diffusion of global models, and broader global modernity currents (Featherstone, King). It then covers critiques from the Global South and postcolonial perspectives: Bhambra’s deconstruction of the Eurocentric “grand narrative” of Western modernity and its neglect of colonialism and enslavement; calls to provincialise Europe (Chakrabarty/Chakraborty as cited) and develop indigenous or de-Westernised sociologies (Akiwowo; Therborn’s distinction between indigenisation and de-Westernisation). It also reviews Southern Theory (Connell), decolonial thought (Quijano; de Sousa Santos), and debates over geo-epistemic positioning and binaries (East/West vs North/South), including critiques of conflating global interconnectivity with coloniality (Susen) and concerns about “geoepistemic essentialism” (Go). The review highlights the growth and hybridity of Global Studies (Juergensmeyer, Steger, Sassen) and notes internal diversity in textbooks and programme orientations (e.g., alignment with International Studies).

This is a conceptual, critical overview and mini-survey synthesising and evaluating two main scholarship clusters—global modernisation/Global Studies and Postcolonial Sociology—against the objective of constructing a viable global sociology. The approach combines historical-institutional tracing (e.g., IIS/ISA development, diffusion of ‘globalisation’), theoretical comparison, and critique of key binaries and assumptions. The author also illustrates an alternative strategy via ‘small solutions’ and methodological glocalism: historically informed, context-anchored analyses that adapt sociological concepts without imposing Western grand narratives (examples include prior work on Balkan nation formation and Orthodox Christianity using long durée perspectives). No empirical dataset is analysed; rather, the paper engages in analytic synthesis of existing literature and programmatic reflection.

- Global modernisation/World Society Theory/Global Studies cluster: Offers a coherent account of transnational diffusion and institutional isomorphism and has advanced interdisciplinary infrastructures (programmes, handbooks). However, it tends to presume the universality of sociological knowledge rooted in Western modernity and often treats non-Western regions as sites to be incorporated rather than as sources of epistemic frameworks. It insufficiently addresses critiques from the Global South about Eurocentrism. - Postcolonial Sociology: Powerfully foregrounds coloniality, racism, and empire in the making of modernity and sociological knowledge, contributing essential correctives and reorientations. Yet, it faces internal tensions (postcolonial vs decolonial labels and locations), risks homogenising non-Western alterity, and can conflate distinct binaries (East/West with North/South) and global interconnectivity with coloniality. Overreliance on geoepistemic location risks essentialism. - Neither cluster provides a singular, compelling blueprint for a universal global sociology. Grand, single-narrative solutions are unlikely to resolve deeply political and epistemic divergences. - An alternative is a plural, glocal approach: accept postcolonial critiques of Western narrative universality while retaining the utility and partial universality of core sociological concepts and methods. Methodological glocalism and ‘small solutions’—context-specific theorising anchored in local histories yet open to global interactions—can cumulatively build broader understanding. - The ISA’s own structure and the coexistence of global, national, and local levels suggest that sociology is inherently multi-scalar (global, local, glocal), not exclusively global.

Addressing whether existing agendas can ground a non-Eurocentric global sociology, the paper shows that global modernisation/Global Studies insufficiently rethinks epistemic premises, while Postcolonial Sociology, despite valuable corrections, faces contradictions around binaries, scope, and geoepistemic essentialism. This explains the field’s difficulty in reaching a consensual ‘one-world’ sociology. The proposed shift—from searching for a new grand narrative to cultivating plural, glocal narratives—reframes the goal: integrate historically informed, locally grounded analyses with adaptable universal concepts (e.g., class, citizenship, human rights) to avoid both Eurocentric universalism and cultural relativism. This multi-scalar, glocal orientation better aligns with sociology’s institutional reality and opens space for cumulative knowledge across diverse regions, thereby advancing the discipline’s global relevance without imposing a single blueprint.

The paper concludes that two dominant routes—global modernisation/Global Studies and Postcolonial Sociology—each contribute insights but neither resolves the challenge of building a truly global sociology. Seeking a singular grand solution is likely futile given the political-epistemic fractures. Instead, the author advocates small, decisive solutions via methodological glocalism: historically informed, context-specific analyses that recognise non-Western alterity while employing and adapting a shared sociological toolkit. Retaining certain universal concepts and values (e.g., social class, democracy, citizenship, human rights, gender equality) enables global dialogue without re-centering Western narratives. A plurality of regional narratives and glocal models can accumulate into broader understanding, offering a pragmatic path for global sociology’s development and future research across diverse contexts.

The article is a conceptual critical overview without new empirical data or formal testing; its assessments rely on selective engagement with large literatures and focus primarily on two scholarship clusters. While illustrative cases (e.g., Balkan nation formation, Orthodox Christianity) demonstrate the proposed glocal strategy, they are examples rather than comprehensive evaluations. Consequently, generalisability rests on the coherence of argument rather than empirical validation, and additional case-informed research is needed to substantiate the proposed approach across varied regions and topics.