How the Social Sciences Think about the World's Social
- -
- 100%
- +
Theorizing in national perspectives and assembling such nationally constructed knowledge, is the only way social science know to creating social thought namely in the rightly called inter-national science encounters, that has indeed so much internalized the constructs of state constructed societies, that the naturalization of these state constructs only allow them to recognize the national peculiarities, the historically particular interpretations of these constructs as the essentials of the individual nation states and, hence lead to a new version of globalized ignorance among social sciences about the other national socials.
As in our example about an international comparative view on the sphere of education, social science thinking is not able to see what this particular national systems essentially shares with the education systems of the countries against which it is compared, but, falsely—locked in their thinking in comparative national "perspectives"—identifies the particularism of the national interpretation of the state education system, here the French education with the nature of education in France, what is only the peculiar variation of the way to interpret essentially the same education system, the French education shares with the education systems against which it is compared. Excluding the systemic fundaments from reflecting about education in thinking in national "perspectives", results in considering the peculiarities of the nation state constructs as their essentials and creates the, indeed, very national view not only this French scholar advocates as the key to understand education in this country and across the world's national state socials.[12] The global indifference among social sciences about the other nation state social is thus the inevitable consequence of theorizing about the world's social through thinking in national "perspectives" about the national socials, the particularisms of nationally constructed categories, presenting a nationally peculiar concept of humans as the essential of a nationally constructed human nature—the elementary "enlightened" form of a theoretical racism in social science thinking.
…off-thinking the world's social…
Constructing theories that present the social as secluded national entities, and consequently, as in our example, presenting the national fabrication of humans as the nature of humans, is a construct of the social sciences in the imperial nation states and the claim to international social sciences, internationalizes the social sciences approach to global social thought that is that the world's social must be reflected on as accumulating such nationally constructed theories about secluded national socials, interpreted through the national peculiarities constituting the unique national "perspectives".
Presupposing the national socials in developing countries as such social entities secluded from the world is most obviously almost impossible, since it is too obvious that their national socials are a product of the imperial nation states. Societies that only exist as a means to serve the economic and political power needs of the imperial countries could hardly create social thought about their national socials that presents the image of national socials and of the world consisting of such social biotopes, the social sciences in the imperial world present as the theoretical entities through which theorizing about the social must and could only be understood.
However, also within these imperial nation states socials, thinking about the national social as secluded from the world's social implies to off-think the impact the world' socials have on each other via their nation states and via their economies.
Social science theorizing in the imperial countries does, in fact, precisely this, theorizing about the world's social as theorizing about secluded social biotopes, unaffected by each other. Theorizing in globalizing social science thinking is in the first place to off-think the world beyond their national biotopes.
A few examples may show that this presupposition, thinking national socials as socials secluded from other national socials, requires to practice thinking as the determined ignorance even about what social science surely do know about how the world beyond the individual national biotopes affects the national socials.
That thinking about the "happiness" of people—let aside what this dubious category ever means—for social science theorizing must be as any other phenomenon of global theorizing considered as an issue related to nation states constitutes for social science thinkers the nation state as their comparative unit of analysis, to find out in which country one can find "differences in happiness":
"This item response theory methodology is first applied to assess the differences in happiness across selected European states." [13]
Admittedly, theorizing about the happiness of people is certainly quite an odd topic for social sciences and has the strong taste of EU-propaganda, comparing happiness across European nation states, nation states, which day by day boast with their agendas making Europeans an attractive "human recourse" and thus Europe an attractive global business location.