Revisiting indigenization of sociology in Iran : an inquiry into Shariati’s distinction between subject and indigenous

Abstract EN

What does indigenization of social sciences mean? Does it carry a similar meaning to all those who are concerned with this project in social sciences and humanities or does this concept mean something else to different schools of indigenizers? Some would argue that indigenization refers to nativize social sciences in contrast to westernization of knowledge, though the pursuit of knowledge is locally bound, by nativizing social sciences we could overcome western values, which are embedded within occidental frame of references.

However, there are others who argue that indigenization of social sciences is similar to the project of Islamization of knowledge which did not yield any substantial results within academic social sciences and will soon fade away.

However, this problem is a serious one and if we consider only the Iranian context, we see that the challenges are serious and grave in consequences.

Here in this article we shall raise the question that at what level is it possible to talk about indigenization.

For instance, if we agree, as Ibn Khaldun mentions, that there could be five levels of knowledge, i.e.

demonstration, dialectics, rhetoric, poetics and sophistry, then at which level can we talk about "native” form of knowledge or "local” forms of episteme?