Synergizing and revitalizing post-colonial studies for the twenty-first century and beyond

 

The objective of this article is to echo recent concerns posed in some quarters that the post-colonial movement has lost steam, momentum, and direction, and may be somewhat in need of a dynamic overhaul and a reset. In this context and connection, we lay out the merits of revitalizing, reanchoring and synergizing post-colonial studies and post-colonial thought, to accommodate the changing landscape of globalization and the rising power of the global south in fields such as science, technology, business and commerce which is reshaping global power equations as well. We also propose and suggest its merger with our globalization of science movement, particularly for the social science, in the context of which we had authored over one hundred and seventy five papers and fifteen books. We believe this is necessary for the movement to emerge as a cogent and a coherent whole. To put the context in perspective, we trace the history and the misadventures of colonialism by major colonial players, along with their causes and historical background. We also then go on to assess the factors that shaped various resistance movements to colonialism, and trace their respective histories as well, in different parts of the world, culminating in political freedoms for colonized entities in the 1940’s, and 1950’s. However, intellectual colonialism  has barely ended, and this led to the birth of post-colonial movements particularly in Asia and Africa. In this context, and connection, we review the works of various post-colonial thinkers, at least the most important and influential among them, and the criticism and lacunae of sometimes fractured and disparate components of post-colonial thought. This will naturally drive home the need to bring disparate and incoherent thought processes under a common umbrella, while allowing for some difference in opinion to flourish at the same time. We need comprehensive reassessments of syllabi in various fields of the social sciences, and we have barely made any meaningful and substantial progress here. This also naturally calls for an integrated approach, and researchers from within academia must also contribute. Such approaches will naturally put the negative influences of colonialism and colonial intellectualism to an end, permanently and once and for all.  It is not because we want to throw a spanner or a wrench into the works. After all, post-colonial studies are going through a rough patch with uneven and lopsided progress, and there is no point in whistling past the graveyard.

Let us begin this paper by describing what exactly colonialism is.  Colonialism may be defined as a system where one nation commonly known as a colonizer takes control of another country, region or territory (known as a colony) in order that it may use its land, resources, and human capital for its own benefit, and in a manner that is detrimental to the interests of the colony. Colonialism is not only associated with direct or indirect exploitation, it is associated with settlement too, as colonizers  move into colonies in large numbers holding administrative and political positions as well, in many or in most cases. Colonialism is also associated with imperialism, and in case of the latter, a powerful nation exerts undue influence or power over a weaker one. There have been several definitions been put forward to define colonialism. According to the Oxford dictionary, colonialism may be defined as “the practice by which a powerful country controls another country or other countries.” According to the Collins dictionary, “Colonialism is the practice by which a powerful country directly controls less powerful countries and uses their resources to increase its own power and wealth” According to the encyclopedic dictionary of sociology, colonialism is “a process by which dominance is acquired and held by a foreign power over another people and land” in all such definitions, several common characteristics stand out: for example, there is always power or control without consent, and colonizers are seen as usurpers of power or resources. More often than not, there is also cultural (linguistic or religious, for example) imposition, and the colonies are subordinated and subjugated with a dilution of local identity; this feature sets it apart from outright annexation. The term itself may be traced to ancient Latin roots, where it was used in an agricultural context some two thousand years ago.  The term was later expanded to connote subjugation primarily, and the term acquired decidedly political overtones, particularly in the twentieth century, when it also came to be widely used in political and economic discourse.  It also came to be indirectly associated with racism, at least in some cases. While colonialism has officially ended in most parts of the world, neocolonialism still unfortunately persists to this day. In case of the latter, powerful nations, often erstwhile colonizers control weaker nations through debt, sanctions, and asymmetric or unfavorable economic deals. The term decolonization therefore assumes added importance, and in such as case, the remaining hierarchies and unfavorable power structures associated with colonialism must be systematically dismantled, not in the least intellectual imperialism. The latter must be accomplished without the creation of propagation of any other counter-ideology. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Trade outposts have existed since antiquity; for example, there were ancient Greek colonies between the eighth and sixth centuries before the common era. Ancient Greek colonies, which were also known as apoikiai were independent city-states founded by a mother city known as a metropolis across the Mediterranean, Black Sea, and surrounding regions during that period. However, colonialism in the modern sense refers to an extremely massive wave of territorial expansion carried out by European colonial powers such as the British, the French, the Portuguese and the Dutch beginning from the fifteenth or the sixteenth centuries in the Common Era. During the peak of colonization, colonial powers controlled nearly one third of the population, and one third of the earth’s land mass- among the colonizers, the British were unquestionably the most powerful, followed by the French. The age of colonialism followed the age of exploration and discovery where distant lands such as the Americas were discovered by Christopher Columbus, Vasco Da Gama, Magellan, and others.  Modern colonialism which was also triggered by improved maritime technologies such as the dry mariner’s compass and lighter ships, and other improved navigation tools and technologies, substantively and permanently altered power structures, shaping territorial borders, languages, economies, and religious structures as well. Several regions such as India were held in extremely high esteem by early westerners who saw it as a land of immense wealth and riches – this had triggered interest in the region right from ancient times- Megasthenes described it in his now lost treatise Indica, and Alexander the Great invaded the region as well.

There was also a scramble for Africa which had immense natural resources, and the ongoing industrial revolutions in the west demanded large quantities of raw materials as well. Furthermore, colonies were seen as captive resources for finished products produced in the west. The doctrine of mercantalism also provided an impetus for colonization. All this effectively led to deindustrialization of colonies, and an enormous drain of wealth. According to economic historians such as Angus Maddison, India's share of the world GDP was around 24.3% in 1600 and remained at around 24.4% even in by 1700.This had however declined to less than 3% by 1947. Many European nations also believed they were on a civilizing mission, as they believed Asians and Africans were racially and culturally inferior. We may also note in this connection that German Pietists Bartholomaeus Ziegenbalg and Heinrich Plütschau arrived in 1706 at the Danish settlement of Tranquebar, establishing an early Christian missionary, a printing press, and translations of religious materials into Indian languages. The eminent Baptist missionary William Carey arrived in 1793 and settled in Serampore, translating the Bible into multiple Indian languages and founded Christian missionary schools. The British East India Company also officially permitted Christian missionaries to enter and operate in India, leading to a quantum increase in missionary activities. However, missionaries actively campaigned against harmful religious and cultural practices,, supporting legislation by colonial authorities to abolish practices sati, (burning of the wife’s body next to the corpse of a deceased husband)  female infanticide, and the like. The practice of Sati for example, was officially abolished by Lord William Bentinck, the Governor-General of India, on the 4^th of  December 1829, though Raja Ram Mohan Roy and other Indian reformers also contributed immensely to the cause.  Colonies were also established in North America, the first one being a colony in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607. The British East India Company was incorporated in the year 1600 through a royal charter, and at the behest of a group of merchants who had strictly commercial motives. Likewise, the French established the Compagnie des Indes Orientales, and the Dutch established the Dutch East India Company. The French would eventually go on to hold parts of Canada (Quebec), Louisiana, Haiti and several parts of Africa which are now collectively referred to as Francophone Africa.  [5] [6]

The British first arrived in India when the ship Hector, commanded by Captain William Hawkins, landed  in Surat off the western coast of India on 24 August 1608. In 1612, Sir Thomas Roe visited the Mughal Emperor Jahangir and secured exclusive trading rights for spices, silks, opium and other condiments. The Company established its first "factories" (which were early fortified trading posts) in Surat, (in Gujarat) Madras (now known as Chennai), Bombay (now known as Mumbai), and Calcutta (now known as Kolkata). The British competed fiercely with the French, the Portuguese (who had landed first on Indian soil), and the Dutch. The British eventually reigned supreme (particularly after the Battle of Plassey in 1757, the Battle of Buxar or 1764 and the Diwani rights of 1765) and defeated the French in a series of Carnatic wars or Anglo French wars. The French held territories in Pondicherry and Chandranagore, while the Dutch, Danish and the Portuguese held small territories too in places such as Bheemunipatnam, Tranquebar (TaragambadI) and Goa. Other policies such as the doctrine of lapse (introduced by Lord Dalhousie) also helped consolidate British power in India, and power was directly transferred to the British imperial crown from the East India company in 1857, following the Sepoy mutiny or the first war of Indian independence which was caused by Hindu and Muslim sepoys refusing to ingest Beef and Prok laced cartridges. The British also recruited a series of sepoys or Indian soldiers to fight there wars, and introduced the subsidiary alliance system by means of which Indian rulers were reduced to vassals and puppets. The British also aggressively pursued a divide and rule strategy. After 1707, following the death of Aurangzeb, the Mughal empire was already in steep and terminal decline. The last namesake Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar, was deposed by the British, and exiled to Rangoon in 1857-58, ending the remnants of the Mughal empire completely. [7] [8] [9] [10]

The process of political decolonization largely reached its peak in the 1940’s and the 1950’s. This was largely because the travails of the world wars, particularly the Second World War exhausted Britain financially and politically, and caused great upheaval and strain in other British colonies.  The grant of Independence to both India and Pakistan in 1947 by Clement Atlee also marked an important turning point in decolonization because the Indian subcontinent was perceived as being the jewel on the British crown. Indian independence soon also triggered calls for independence in other parts of the world. Over the next couple of decades, a massive wave of decolonization swept across large swathes of Africa, the Caribbean, and Southeast Asia as nationalist movements successfully kindled the spirit of self-determination among the general public in many nations and territories. Decades of grassroots and popular movements and uprisings also produced highly sophisticated political movements and charismatic leaders—such as Mahatma Gandhi, Netaji Subash Chandra Bose, Lokamanya Tilak, Lala Lajpat Rai, and Jawaharlal Nehru in India, (following the first war of Indian independence in 1857, and earlier movements such as the Vellore mutiny, the Santhal revolt and the Ahom rebellion) Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam, Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, and Sukarno in Indonesia to name a few. These leaders effectively and successfully united diverse populations against their colonial oppressors. Millions of soldiers from colonies across Asia and Africa fought for the Allies during the Second World War, to defend political rights of colonizers, but learnt bitterly that they themselves were denied those basic and fundamental rights. In India, the British government constituted a series of reforms such as the Minto Morley reforms, Montague Chelmsford reforms, and organized a series of Round Table Conferences in London, along with parleys with Indian national leaders, but failed miserably- the Indian public demanded complete freedom and independence as they were both infuriated and disillusioned by events such as the Jalianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919, the 1905 partition of Bengal, and the British apathy to famines in 1899 and 1942-43 to name a few.  Of course, the British sensed opposition to their rule from many years prior, and in 1885, Alan Octavian Hume founded the Indian National Congress in a bid to let Indians voice their concerns peacefully. This later became an important catalyst for home rule. [11] [12]

The military rise of Japan also largely eroded and negated the myth of European invincibility, and the creation of the United Nations in 1945 further boosted anti-colonial sentiment. By the 1960’s the age of colonialism had largely and effectively ended. Not only had popular support for colonialism faded away among general populations of the west, but it was rapidly fading away into a distant memory in collective public consciousness all over the world. While there are many minor colonies to this day, a very important former colony, namely Hong Kong, was transferred from British power to China in 1997.  However, after the process of decolonization, many newly independent nations pursued the path of socialism, which may have limited their economic progress. Those that did not became economic miracles in many cases, as exemplified by the rise of the Asian tigers, and the rise of China and India. Weak economic performance often leads to doles and handouts, and this allows western-dominated international institutions to impose their writ and mandate upon others. This constitut4es a form of neocolonialism, as previously discussed. It is only since the 1990’s that things have changed somewhat, ad developing nations have morphed into developed ones, and have consequently become more and more assertive.

However, western dominance by the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom in prime and key international bodies and organizations such as the World Bank, the United Nations, and the International Monetary Fund, continues to this day. The excesses of colonialism in the past in general refer to the systemic violence, economic extraction, and humanitarian crises often inflicted by colonizing powers upon indigenous and native populations. Such excesses are attributed to the fact that colonial powers largely prioritized wealth extraction, self-enrichment and political and cultural dominance over human rights, thereby leading to both major violations and minor infractions of various kinds. While the excesses of colonialism have been widely documented by researchers from all walks of scholarship, and hailing from different parts of the world, the ill-effects of western dominated intellectualism and western elitism in intellectualism, are scarcely documented. It is now time for a change, and this demands and warrants an altogether different class of scholarship. [13] [14]

What is post-colonial thought?

Post-colonial thought which is also frequently referred to as postcolonialism or postcolonial studies is an important late twentieth and early twenty-first century academic and intellectual movement that analyzes the historical legacies of colonialism, including cultural, political, psychological, and economic ones.  Post-colonial thought is based on the all-important premise that colonial power structures, biases, prejudices and inequalities continue to persist to this very day and continue to shape contemporary paradigms and thought patterns. They also argue that colonial paradigms persist in the form of neo-colonial structures that continue to perpetuate inequalities, and discrimination against formal colonies in many different ways- political, economic, and cultural. This view has been put forward by scholars like Anne McClintock and Arif Dirlik, among others. Post colonial thinkers also focus on deconstructing Eurocentrism which holds and perpetuates the point of view that European history, values, ideals and literature are the universal gold standard, and also scientific, moral, rational and advanced. It also critiques the tendency to otherize other points of view as being trivial, marginal or non-important (even backward and savage). Post-colonial thinkers maintain that non-Western societies must be understood on their own terms, conditions, and frames of reference rather than being viewed only through a western lens. In sum, post-colonialism emphasizes multivocality of thought. Post-colonial thinkers often emphasize multiple and complex patterns of identity formation, perpetuation and transformation as opposed to the persistence of monolithic points of view.

The history of post-colonial thought is represented by a shift from deep-rooted concerns of colonized peoples developed and formulated initially in a non-academic or a non-university setting, into a highly sophisticated, globally recognized academic discipline, that has yet to replace obsolete paradigms in many cases. The first phase of the movement was the revolutionary phase of the 1950’s and 1960’s, and during this phase, the mental trauma, cultural alienation and other aspects associated with colonial rule were exposed. This phase is often associated with thinkers and writers such as Aime Cesaire and Albert Memmi, who brought out the complex set of relationships between colonizers and the colonized. In the second phase during the 1970’s and the 1980’s, post-colonial studies formally entered academia most notably through western universities. The third phase was the subaltern phase, and this phase which lasted from the 1980’s to the 1990’s, saw an emphasis on rewriting history from below. Since the dawn of the twenty-first century, post-colonial thought has expanded globally, with a plethora of different perspectives and counter-perspectives emerging. The movement also became increasingly active in Latin America and parts of Asia, though regions such as the Middle East, Eastern Asia, and South East Asia are poorly represented or underrepresented.  While post colonial studies were often applied to a study of literature and art, it has also come to include in its fold, global politics, economics, economic development and other vital facets. It has also included epistemological objectives such as salvaging and mainstreaming non-western knowledge systems and recovering subaltern voices. It has even included important psychological objectives such as decolonizing the non-western mind. It has also often stressed and emphasized the need to expose cultural imperialism, and mainstream non-western cultures including marginalized and non-dominant languages. Of course, global asymmetries in power equations are also sought to be exposed, and the continuing intellectual dominance of the west highlighted as well with its allied influence on fields as far apart as education and politics. Thus, the emphasis is now on decoloniality which means what western dominance has merely been transformed, not completely ended. Some researchers have also attempted to merge postcolonial theory in relation to class, gender and caste, though such studies have not yet become widespread.

Modern post-colonial theory was by and large built on the foundations laid by three very important scholars. The first among them was Frantz Fanon, a psychiatrist who fought in the Algerian War of Independence. In his all important works, Black Skin, “White Masks” and “The Wretched of the Earth”, Fanon focused on the deep mental damage inflicted by colonial rule upon the colonized who were made to implicitly and blindly accept the notion that they were mentally and culturally inferior. Another important thinker was Edward Said, a Palestinian-American literary scholar, who revolutionized the field with his epoch-making and seminal book, “Orientalism”, which was first published in 1978. In his view, western scholars painted the orient as being quaint, mystic, and exotic, and Said also sought to demolish that view. Another important thinker was Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, an Indian scholar who brought both subaltern studies (studies vocalizing the marginalized and the oppressed) and feminism to the forefront of the post-colonial movement, most notably through her landmark essay, “Can the subaltern speak?”. Other thinkers associated with the field have included the Indian-British post-colonial thinker and theorist Homi K. Bhabha who is known for introducing several new concepts such as hybridity and the Third Space. Another important post-colonial thinker is the Indian-American anthropologist Arjun Appadurai who has focused on examining how the globalized world operates after decolonization, exploring how media, mass migration, and technology interact with each other in unequal ways. Another thinker, Ranajit Guha has sought to challenge orthodox elite-driven narratives, emphasizing the role played by marginalized communities in shaping historical processes. Another eminent thinker, Dipesh Chakrabarty sought aggressively to challenge the notion that western-centric historical narratives were the universal gold standard. Partha Chatterjee, another eminent post-colonial thinker, also sought to overturn western-dominated intellectual paradigms, and promote multivocality in intellectual endeavours. The famous Nigerian thinker and writer Chinua Achebe sought to promote African views of history, though this concepts was later carried to the extreme by Clyde Winters and others. The eminent Kenyan writer and thinker Ngugi wa Thiong'o emphasized language as being a vital and a handy tool for breaking free from colonial thought processes.

There has been some criticism of post-colonial thought too. Most notable critics include Marxists, and other conservative thinkers based in the western hemisphere. There has been some internal dissent too, from within the field. Many Marxist scholars who are at the forefront of the criticism of post-colonial studies maintain that postcolonial theory overemphasizes culture and identity at the expense of material, economic realities, class struggle, and the solidarity of the international working class. Some Marxist thinkers also argue that postcolonial studies inadvertently promote capitalism as a new panacea for the ills plaguing the non-western world. For example, Vivek Chibber warns against mimicking and imposing western capitalist models on the non-western world, and other critics such as Aijaz Ahmad and Nivedita Majumdar warn against “otherizing” and “particularizing” non-western cultures and downplaying common and vital issues such as class struggle and labour exploitation.  Neil Lazaru and Benita Parry also echo similar concerns. These are of course, typically Marxist views.  Some other criticisms centre around western elitism in post-colonial thought, and the neglect of native languages in academic discourse. Others say that non English speaking or non English knowing audiences are left out of valid post-colonial debates and discussions, and that verbose jargon is often used by post colonial theorists to bewilder non-technical audiences or the common man in the street. On the other hand, western conservatives often accuse post-colonial theorists of introducing a anti-western bias into American universities, and committing the same cardinal errors once committed by ardent colonialists. Post-colonialism is sometimes associated with postmodernism and all its associated ambiguities in spite of their fundamentally different goals, and the criticisms of postmodernism have indeed been many – such as an overemphasis on subjectivity over academic rigour. Others such as Meera Nanda accuse post-colonial theorists of swinging too far right, and supporting far-right elements such as Hindutva in India in some cases. Of course, all accusations need to be data-driven at all times. [15]

 

Let us now deal with the question of whether the post colonial movement has matured, or whether it has lost steam. One way of putting it would be to state that it has fractured and diversified with the passage of time with many subfields and sub schools of thought emerging. It no longer is entirely associated with a monolithic status as it once was in the 1960’s and 1970’s. Some aspects of postcolonial thought have been incorporated into western academia; however, an complete overhaul of syllabus in cases where it is warranted, or the replacement of archaic colonial-driven and colonial-inspired paradigms and frameworks with more contemporary, uptodate, and inclusive ones has not yet happened adequately or sufficiently, if at all.  We have also seen new streams of thought emerge over the last couple of years; for example, decolonial theory (pioneered by Latin American scholars like Walter Mignolo), demand urgent steps to dismantle colonial power instead of analyzing literature and language alone. Bruno Latour and others have bemoaned and lamented the fact that the postcolonial movement is focused too much on basing the fast instead of constructing and developing new paradigms and frameworks. We heavily endorse and subscribe to this view too. Of course, the postcolonial movement is yet to be comprehensively or meaningfully merged with our globalization of science movement, which is an intellectual initiative that advocates for the de-colonialization, modernization, and universalization of scientific research, with a heavy emphasis on reshaping the social sciences and humanities.

 

A more syncretic, multidimensional and holistic approach is therefore required. If colonial frameworks in the sciences, particularly in the social sciences are to be vanquished and banished, we need to merge integrate  and harmonize approaches touted by various authors and intellectuals, and not just let them persist in silos. We need a dedicated school of scholarship to merge and collate diverse strands of thought meaningfully, and sift the grain from the chaff. Non-integrated, and vague and ambiguous approaches would be utterly self-defeating to the cause of science in general as long as they remain non-focused and non-incisive. In our view, and in our perspective, we also need to merge post-colonial studies with our globalization of science movement, as the two would represent two sides of the same coin. After all, post-colonial studies are going through a rough patch, and there is no point in whistling past the graveyard. A new generation of scholars and researchers must drive the movement forward. Many of our oft-cited principles would always hold good, examples being horizontal collaboration being developing nations, cross-cultural research design, and interdisciplinary approaches. Practicalism and pragmatism would be of paramount importance too,  and not just abstract and impractical thought processes and scholarship. We also need to gradually move towards ideology-free scholarship, and more towards data-driven validation, and data-driven criticism. This may appear to be a distant pipedream at present, but change is always possible. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

 

Conclusion

The objective of this paper has been to echo recent concerns posed in some quarters that the post-colonial movement has lost steam and direction, and may be somewhat in need of an overhaul and a reset. In this context and connection, we lay out the merits of revitalizing, reanchoring and synergizing post-colonial studies and post-colonial thought, to accommodate the changing landscape of

---

[1] Schaefer, Richard T. (2015). "Minorities". International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. pp. 569–574

[2] Jacobs, Margaret D. (1 July 2009). White Mother to a Dark Race. Lincoln: U of Nebraska Press. pp. 24, 81, 421, 430

[3] Melvin E. Page, ed., Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia (2003)

[4] Minawi, Mostafa (2016). The Ottoman Scramble for Africa: Empire and Diplomacy in the Sahara and the Hijaz. Stanford University Press.

[5]  Savage systems: Colonialism and comparative religion in Southern Africa, D Chidester - 1996

[6]  Hindu-Catholic encounters in Goa: Religion, colonialism, and modernity, A Henn - 2014

[7]  Stanley A. Wolpert, Tilak and Gokhale: revolution and reform in the making of modern India (1962) p. 67.

[8]  Ramachandra Guha, India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy (2007) p. 43.

 

[9] Baten, Jörg (2016). A History of the Global Economy. From 1500 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. p. 267

[10] Rubin, Andrew N. ed. Humanism, Freedom, and the Critic: Edward W. Said and After. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2005.

 

[11] Gonsalves, Peter (2012). Khadi: Gandhi's Mega Symbol of Subversion. Sage Publications. ISBN 9788132107354.

 

[12] Amstutz, Andrew (27 May 2019). "Review essay: Alternative histories of revolutionaries in modern South Asia: context, chronology, and archives". India Review. 18 (3): 324–342

[13] Roy, Kaushik (2009). "Military Loyalty in the Colonial Context: A Case Study of the Indian Army during World War II". Journal of Military History. 73 (2): 144–172.

[14] Nasta, Susheila, ed. (2013). India in Britain : South Asian networks and connections, 1858–1950. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

[15] Sujay Rao Mandavilli (2023)  Taking the benefits of science to underrepresented regions of the world: Promoting Horizontal collaboration in social science research as a meaningful extension of cross-cultural research design IJISRT 2023:  6.  1 August. 

[16] Josiah McC. Heyman, Howard Campbell (2009) "The Anthropology of Global Flows:A critical reading of Appadurai's `Disjuncture and Difference in the Global Cultural Economy", Anthropological Theory(9:2) 131-148, 133

[17] Spivak, Gayatri (1997). "'In a Word': interview". In Nicholson, Linda (ed.). The Second Wave: A Reader in Feminist Theory. Interviewed by Ellen Rooney. New York: Routledge. pp. 356–378

[18] Sujay Rao Mandavilli (2023)  Operationalizing cross-cultural research design: Practical, cost-effective, and a minimalistic application of cross-cultural research design to minimize cultural bias in research and reconcile diverse viewpoints IJISRT 2023:  April.  April.

[19] Sujay Rao Mandavilli (2024)  Widening the scope of social science research to cover global considerations: How “practicalism” can help identify new vistas in social science research IJISRT 2024:  July.  1 July. 

[20]

Sujjay Rao Mandavilli (2024)  Disseminating the real-world importance of conjunct studies of acculturation, transculturation, and deculturation processes: Why this can be a useful technique to analyze real-world observations IJISRT 2024:  June.  1 June

Facilitating whistle blowing in science: Why we need a culture of “science audits” in all facets of scientific endeavour

 

"It's not unpatriotic to denounce an injustice committed on our behalf, perhaps it's the most patriotic thing we can do." — E.A. Bucchianeri

In previous years we had published several papers on journal ranking and classification, pre-publication reviews, and post-publication reviews, all in the interests of better and high-quality science. In this article, we propose that a formal whistle-blowing mechanism must be incorporated in science, and preferably institutionalized.  This must be viewed in the context of the rising threat of pseudo-science, and the deteriorating quality of science both in the developing and western world.  These people must act as watch dogs and conscience keepers for scientific activity, just as there are other conscience keepers for witches for other religions and ideologies. We would actually recommend that a dedicated group of researchers commit themselves to the cause, in addition to their discharge of other scientific duties, roles and responsibilities. This may of course be subject to time, cost, and other practical constraints.  We begin this paper by providing not only definitions, but also characteristics and attributes of bona fide science and pseudoscience along with some suitable examples culled from diverse fields and contexts. We also discuss and debate good science, bad science and proto science briefly with additional pertinent examples. We will also then proceed to show that while miracle busters, myth busters and superstition busters are prevalent and widespread in many parts of the world, whistle blowing in the context of bad or pseudo science is still a nascent and underdeveloped field, which needs development and reinforcement. We also say this because it is highly lamentable that dubious science sometimes gets mainstreamed without an appropriate gate keeping process to the detriment of science, and eventually societies and education systems around the world. We quote a couple of other scientists and researchers to bolster our case, and conclude that this activity and endeavour is pretty much essential to foster and nurture ideology-free and high-quality science as well, and foster greater ethics and transparency throughout the knowledge production lifecycle. This paper therefore, forms an essential aspect and component of our ongoing globalization movement, particularly for various fields and subfields of the social sciences.    

Science and pseudoscience

Science is represented by a systematic and an honest process of knowledge creation, and the term also often refers to a systematic and consistent body of knowledge gained regarding various observable phenomena. Science primarily makes use of facts, evidence, and rigorous testing to understand the means by which natural, physical, and in some cases, the social worlds function and operate. Pseudoscience on the other hand, chiefly consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be scientific an bona fide but are in fact incompatible and inconsistent with the scientific method and the rigorous processes associated with scientific discovery. Pseudoscience often makes pompous and dubious claims which are also unfalsifiable, thereby negating the fundamentals of good and acceptable sciences. Such claims also do not rely or rest on genuine and incontestable data and rigourous testing processes but instead rely heavily on hearsay and anecdotal evidence. Pseudoscientific claims are often never peer-reviewed, and are innately and inherently non self-correcting. Pseudoscientific claims chase popularity among a scientifically naïve and non-erudite audience, with the sole objective of climbing the popularity charts.  They are also designed to provide pecuniary benefits to the proponent, and rely heavily on sensationalism. As they say “A lie travels half way around the world when the truth is still putting on its shoes. The term "pseudoscience" evolved over time. However, the earliest attested usage of the term dates back to 1796 when it meant a "pretended or mistaken science". James Pettit Andrews, an English historian and antiquarian, used the term in the first volume of his historical work, “History of Great Britain, from the Death of Henry VIII to the Accession of James VI of Scotland”, which was published in 1796, and his intention was primarily to critique alchemy. Francois Magendie, an eminent French psychologist further used the term in 1843, when he directly critiqued phrenology which has now been totally discredited, and is considered to a pseudoscience beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. Karl Popper also popularized the term “pseudoscience” in a modern context and setting and introduced the all-important concept of falsifiability. According to him, a true science must be falsifiable, and must therefore, always be open to criticism.

In addition, astrology, palmistry, and numerology are widely discredited, and the jury is still out whether the basics of homeopathy can be construed as valid. Cryptozoology, which is the search for creatures from mythical folklore, such as Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster, is also considered to be dubious science. We also then have the concept of protoscience, and this term is used to describe a field of inquiry that has not yet gained mainstream scientific acceptance. For example, alchemy later morphed into chemistry in a way, but alchemy is in many ways only a proto science.  Over a period of time, new and novel claims do get mainstreamed however, and some prime examples include Alfred Wegener’s continental drift theory, and the germ theory which was pioneered by Girolamo Fracastoro, Ignaz Semmelweis, and Joseph Liste, but was proven by Louis Pasteur. Other claims made in fields such as phrenology, reflexology, Lysenkoism, and iridology have remained within the realm of pseudoscience, however. We must also distinguish between good science an bad science, as the latter is not entirely bona fide, and often leads to distorted results. The latter often relies heavily on confirmation bias, cherry picks data, resorts to deliberate and intentional obfuscation of inconvenient data, etc. some dubious sciences such as Eugenics – pioneered by Sir Francis Galton and others have been outright dangerous to humanity as they have directly and indirectly promoted racism, and trampled upon human rights. Other theories such as Atlantis (found in Plato’s writings) have been totally discredited, and the theory of Lemuria which emerged as a bona fide science, is now discredited as well.

Other examples of bogus science have included “The chariots of the Gods” advanced in 1968 by Swiss author Erich von Daniken. This book popularized the claim that extraterrestrial beings visited earth in early antiquity and were worshiped by earthlings. The Orion constellation theory championed by Robert Bauval since 1989, also has many logical consistencies, and is highly suspect at best. Evidence to prove that Jesus lived in India either during his lost years or after his crucifixion are flimsy at best, and such theories have been criticized by Max Muller and others, though they were initially promoted by Nicolas Notovitch and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, and later by Holger Kersten. Other contemporary pseudoscience writers have included Graham Hancock known for his fantastic claims in the realm of pseudo archaeology, Zecharia Sitchin, another pseudo archaeology writer, and the John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris duo whose work led to the “Young earth creationism” movement. The intelligent design movement was launched by Phillip E. Johnson, Michael Behe and others, but their claims do not comply with methodological naturalism.  The New Age Movement took off in the 1970’s and 1980’s, though some of its core claims are considered to be pseudoscientific. More recent movements such as postmodernism, and post-processual archaeology have also emphasized subjectivity and subjective interpretation over objectivity, and such schools of thought may compromise severely with objectivity.

In some cases, there have been cases of outright scientific fraud as exemplified by the Piltdown man hoax and the Schon scandal. More recently Jason Arday of Cambridge University committed suicide, after alleged plagiarism and malfeasance accusations came to light. Hindutva writers have often championed pseudoscience too, and so have some Dravidian nationalist writers. Both camps have made often outrageous and untenable claims that were rejected by the scientific community.  There are ideologies in science too, and the concept was described in detail by Georges Canguilhem and others. This often leads to echo chambers and intellectual cabals. Science also progresses somewhat slowly due to careerism, and resistance to new ideas, and this is often known as the Planck’s principle. This is particularly true when paradigm shifts are involved. While some amount of careerism, personal, cultural and subjective ideological bias is inevitable, we must learn to draw the line somewhere. Society must not suffer due to careerism, and neither must the long-term and healthy progress of science. We must gradually attempt to move towards a post-ideology world in science, mo matter how long it takes. We have had pseudo science busters too and examples have included Martin Gardner, Ben Goldacre, James Randi, and others. The latter mostly functioned as a miracle buster. In India, Basava Premanand, Abraham Kovvur, H Narasimhaiah and others have done good work too. The rationalist movement has been strong in India, and pioneers have included Muddu Narasimham Naidu, Saraswati Gora, Innaiah Narisetti, Babu Gogineni, and others.  

However, we believe that scientific method and the philosophy of science themselves need a radical overhaul – we have dedicated and committed over thirty papers to scientific method and the philosophy of science. Objectivity and society focused science must be baked into scientific method as far as possible, and science communication must be stepped up to. Scientific method must be taught to students right from a young age, along with epistemology and the philosophy of science, and science must not be reduced to a mere rote memorization of facts, but must be viewed as a process by means of which new conclusions are reached . Students must be taught how to think, and not only what to think.  At present, we are still very weak in this department, and students cannot even distinguish between strong evidence and weak evidence. People must be taught to expose conspiracy theories which are often based on, or linked to persecution complexes. Scientific method itself we believe must improve, and future researchers must set the direction in this context. All these are so necessary, to promote a scientific temper, a concept that was famously proposed by the late Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. We also believe we need cross cultural approaches and region and context specific approaches to understanding how people think and building a scientific temper. We must try to understand why people believe what they do. That is why we need emic perspectives driven by cross-cultural research design, and  other valid and bonafide social science research techniques. We also need to adopt cultural frames of reference and cross-cultural frames of reference. We had written about all these concepts extensively in the past. We believe that the pseudoscience problem must be approached from a sociological and structural angle, shifting the focus from simply mocking fringe beliefs to examining why mainstream science fails to prevent them.

We have also always argued that pseudoscience flourishes primarily because mainstream science has often left massive gaps due to non interdisciplinary approaches and over-the-top approaches, has often suffered from ideological bias, and has failed to maintain public trust in the process. This observation, we believe holds good particularly for the developing world, though it is not necessarily limited to it In a 2025 paper entitled “Reigniting public trust and public confidence in science: Why high quality science alone will restore trust in science and wipe out pseudoscience”, we had even advanced a core premise, namely: “One kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias”. This essentially asserts that if mainstream scholarship becomes ideological, rigid, or epistemologically incomplete, it triggers a dangerous public counter-reaction. When the man in the street observes and realizes that mainstream academic frameworks are flawed, biased, or Eurocentric, (as they more often are for the social sciences) he begins to lose faith in established scientific institutions, and in scientific scholarship in general. This loss of institutional trust creates an intellectual vacuum, which fringe groups with vested interests eagerly and enthusiastically exploit, driving a dangerous resurrection of pseudoscientific movements of different kinds. [1]

We will therefore consistently maintain the idea that the only successful and long lasting way to wipe out pseudoscience is not through censorship, but by producing mainstream science that is of a fundamentally higher quality. Also, when mainstream research models, frameworks or paradigms, dogmatically adhere on unproven myths, they more or less mirror the pseudosciences they claim or seek to oppose. In other words, ideology is the gateway to pseudoscience. In other words, when scientists design and conduct experiments in order to mainstream a preconceived ideological narrative rather than discover the absolute truth, they are no longer practicing real or fully objective or socially responsible science. We therefore fiercely champion and promote “Ideology-Free Science", arguing that researchers must remain strictly objective, make use of precise and objective measurements, and rely on data driven conclusions. Of course, we need rigorous scholarship, but rigorous does not necessarily equate to objective if it is one sided. Scholarship therefore needs to be both rigorous and objective. [2] [3]

We have also argued for the need to overhaul educational systems because current education systems are woefully inadequate in fostering critical thinking, and inculcating a scientific temper. In order to construct a strong and fortified defense against pseudoscience, we have advocates for educational reforms, and have dedicated several papers to this cause. The ability to distinguish good and bona fide science from pseudoscience must be taught to children at the appropriate academic level, so that pseudoscientific constructs are eventually edged out. If scientists practice intellectual elitism and talk down to everyday people or insult their traditional cultures of points of view rashly or inappropriately, they will alienate the general public and greatly delay the process of social change. Instead, science must not only  of fundamentally and intrinsically high quality, but must also be globalized (especially for the social sciences) and cross-cultural enough to win public trust, and public hearts and minds. Mainstream, trained scientists must hold objectivity and commitment to the truth closer to their heart than untrained people. This is because mainstream scientists claim to be the custodians of truth and knowledge. In this context and connection, it can be said, “A man in the street can be forgiven, but a Harvard university professor cannot”.  Ideologically driven historians must also take share of the blame, for example. Exaggerating the past or suppressing the past are two cardinal sins practiced by historians at the opposite ends of the ideological spectrum.  Scientific audits must be carried out from time to time by well-versed and competent professionals, an whistle blowing is also necessary. According to Edward Snowden, who exposed several high-profile scams, a whistleblower may be defined as someone whose conscience goads them to expose or act against an institution that has violated its duty to the public. In addition, Martha C. Nussbaum, an eminent American philosopher, warns that a "go along to get along" approach and attitude that discourages proactive whistle blowing can eventually lead to systemic institutional failure. Dedicated and committed individuals must act as watch dogs and conscience keepers for scientific activity, just as there are other conscience keepers for witches in Christianity and untouchability in Hinduism. We would actually recommend that a dedicated group of researchers commit themselves to the cause, in addition to their discharge of other scientific duties, roles and responsibilities, as may be required. This can be done as a part of continuous post-publication reviews of papers, or otherwise. [4]

However, good and socially appropriate science is of paramount importance. As Wernher Von Braun once said, “Science itself is neither good nor evil. Its power depends on the hands that wield it. A discovery can heal millions, or cause widespread destruction. The real question isn’t therefore, what science can do, but what humanity chooses to do with it.”  This statement must be viewed in light of the dangerous culture of pseudoscience that is brewing in many different parts of the world, including both the developing world and the western world. Let us conclude with a quote by Yuval Noah Harari, the eminent Israeli researcher and scientist, “The truth is almost always complicated, difficult to comprehend or understand, not very flattering, and on some occasions even painful. However, arriving at the truth is a central component of human an societal progress, and for arriving at the truth, a great deal of time, energy, expertise, and commitment are required, including fact checking and data validation, data corroboration, and complex investigations. On the other hand falsehoods and lies can come very cheaply, and propagate very easily because can say whatever they want as long as it is emotionally very appealing.  There is also a very dangerous and very likely possibility that falsehoods will triumph unless we make a concerted effort to discover and promote the truth. This naturally requires institution building as well, and almost nothing is possible without it.” [5] [6]   [7]

---

[1] Wootton, David. The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution (Penguin, 2015). p.136

[2] Reigniting public trust and public confidence in science: Why high quality science alone will restore trust in science and wipe out pseudoscience, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, SSRN, 2025  

[3] Bowler, Peter J.; Morus, Iwan Rhys (2020). "The scientific revolution". Making Modern Science (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 25–57

[4] Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their Unity". Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11

[5] Mainstreaming continuous post-publication review in science: Yet another milestone towards high-quality science, Sujay Rao Mandavilli, SSRN, 2025

[6] Laying the Foundations for Ethical, Unbiased and Substantive Reviewing of Research Work: Providing the Theoretical Foundation for Superior Science

[7] Cataloguing The Sacred Duties of a Researcher Towards Science, Society and the Education System: A Necessary Adjunct for Progress in the Twenty-First Century and beyond