The concept of 'global sociology' has been a significant theme in international sociological conferences and publications. This article aims to move beyond internal disciplinary debates by critically assessing competing research agendas and the broader notion of global sociology. A key distinction is made between 'sociology' (a broader field of study) and 'Sociology' (the academic discipline). While acknowledging sociology's diverse origins, the article focuses on the institutionalization of Sociology as an academic discipline, primarily emerging from Western contexts. The article's discussion is structured into three parts: outlining the intellectual trajectory from the internationalization of Sociology to the emergence of global sociology; examining global modernization and Global Studies, assessing their adequacy in addressing criticisms from the Global South; and analyzing postcolonial sociology, exploring its insights and internal contradictions. The article ultimately questions the feasibility of a single grand narrative for global sociology and proposes alternative conceptualizations.

The article draws upon a wide range of scholarly works to trace the historical development of sociology and its engagement with globalization. It reviews key texts on modernization theory, world-systems theory, Global Studies, postcolonial theory, and the sociology of religion. It engages with authors such as Moore (1966), Parsons (1971), Robertson (1983), Archer (1991), Wallerstein (1995), Bhambra (2007, 2016), Said (1978), Connell (2007, 2018), and others. The review highlights the evolution of the concept of globalization itself, its origins in the Cold War context, and its subsequent integration into various academic disciplines. It also examines the critiques of existing approaches from the Global South, particularly concerning Eurocentric biases and the lack of attention to colonial legacies.

The article employs a critical review methodology. It analyzes existing literature on global sociology, Global Studies, and postcolonial sociology to identify key concepts, approaches, and debates. The author synthesizes these perspectives, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. The analysis is primarily conceptual and theoretical, relying on close readings of key texts and scholarly arguments. The author utilizes comparative analysis to examine the similarities and differences between global modernization theories and postcolonial approaches. The methodology is interpretative and critical, engaging with the underlying assumptions and power dynamics embedded within different research agendas. The article does not present original empirical research but rather offers a critical synthesis of existing scholarship.

The article identifies two main scholarship clusters addressing the challenges of constructing a global sociology. The first, encompassing global modernization and Global Studies, generally accepts the universality of sociological knowledge but often fails to adequately address the inherent Eurocentrism within the discipline. It often projects Western models onto non-Western contexts. The second, postcolonial sociology, offers a sharp critique of the Western-centric nature of Sociology, highlighting the discipline's complicity with colonialism and its biases. However, it sometimes struggles to balance universalism and difference, leading to internal contradictions between postcolonial and decolonial viewpoints. The article argues that both approaches fall short in resolving the core issues. The author finds that attempts to create a single overarching narrative for global sociology are problematic due to inherent political and ideological differences within the field. Instead of seeking a single grand solution, the author suggests focusing on more localized, 'glocal' approaches, integrating global and local perspectives. The use of concepts such as 'glocalization' and the adoption of a historically informed approach allow for a more nuanced and contextually sensitive analysis. The author highlights examples of his own work, which utilizes a glocal framework to study nation formation and Orthodox Christianity, demonstrating a method of incorporating diverse perspectives without surrendering to relativism or neglecting the utility of the existing sociological toolkit.

The findings demonstrate the limitations of approaches that seek to impose a singular grand narrative on global sociology. The article highlights the need to move beyond the binary oppositions between universalism and particularism, global and local, North and South, and West and non-West. The author advocates for a more pluralistic and contextually sensitive approach, acknowledging the historical and cultural specificities of various regions while still leveraging the shared tools and concepts within the sociological tradition. This approach acknowledges the importance of decolonizing sociological knowledge and addressing its historical biases, but it rejects a simplistic rejection of the entire Western-centric paradigm. The author's emphasis on 'glocalization' offers a promising avenue for bridging the gap between global and local perspectives, allowing for a more nuanced and inclusive understanding of social phenomena.

This article critically assesses competing research agendas within the pursuit of a global sociology. The author argues against the pursuit of a single grand narrative and instead advocates for a 'glocal' approach that integrates local and global perspectives. By combining insights from global modernization theories and postcolonial critiques, while acknowledging the limitations of both, sociologists can develop a more inclusive and contextually sensitive understanding of the social world. Future research should focus on developing methodological tools and theoretical frameworks that facilitate cross-cultural dialogue and avoid the pitfalls of imposing pre-existing models onto diverse contexts.

The article primarily relies on a critical review of existing literature, limiting its scope to examining established theoretical debates. The author acknowledges that a more extensive examination of empirical research from diverse global contexts would strengthen the analysis. The focus is mainly on conceptual and theoretical issues, leaving room for further empirical investigation into the practical implications of the proposed glocal approach. The author's own work, used as examples, may be interpreted as biased towards his own perspective, although this bias is acknowledged and addressed as an inherent aspect of the overall argument.