The decision to split the Department of Sociology and Anthropology into two separate entities at Tribhuvan University (TU) may seem normal, but it has profound ramifications on the academic front. The decision seems to have been made for a host of factors, not the least an inclination to satisfy competing egos of 'sociologists' (who were in minority) and 'anthropologists' (who had dominated the combined structure).It will be interesting to note the future trajectories of these independent departments. The observers will now watch whether these departments place a premium on research-based academic engagement, or if it will be business as usual of lecture-focused pedagogy. To begin with, the new pundits of respective departments could engage with fellow academicians of other subjects such as history, culture, archeology, linguistic, political science and development studies, whereby productive engagements could lead to new specialized areas. Further, student writing skills, which are important for their academic success, need to be enhanced. This will help bridge the gulf between what they learn in the classroom and their engagement with the academia.
The engagement with other departments would not only enrich respective subjects but also open new frontiers within the university system. A long-held belief among professional sociologists and anthropologists was that having a separate department would lead to more specialization. But a look at their syllabi suggests otherwise, even though the syllabi have been updated from what they were prior to 2009. Further, the setting up of separate departments seems to have been done in haste, without due considerations to disciplinary growth.
We should bear in mind that the focus of both sociology and anthropology is to promote intensive study of Nepali society. In this regard, there should be ample attention to literatures produced by Nepalis, irrespective of their language and location. In addition, the departments should critique hitherto produced works on Nepal, both of foreign and Nepali scholars who have extensively employed concepts steeped in Western social sciences.
Earlier, when there was a decision to maintain a unified department, some senior sociologists and anthropologists believed that the problems and issues to be taken up by the two disciplines were similar. Lack of trained faculties and financial resources were other reasons cited for maintaining a combined department. But, as some sociologists have grudgingly confided to the two authors, the over-emphasis on anthropology in terms of resources and access created a sense of alienation among sociologists which fed into the idea of having a separate department.
However, the idea of two separate departments is nothing new. Back in 1980s when there were discussions during the phase of curriculum design for the department, academics like Chaitanya Mishra had stood against the proposal for a single department. The talk of separate departments once again gained currency after the silver jubilee celebration of the Central Department of Sociology and Anthropology (CDSA) in 2006.
A challenge before the practitioners within these departments is to establish academia as a serious profession and not just a stepping stone into the consultancy world. The focus, which has henceforth been missing, should be to build academic reputation through emphasis on research and publication. One of the tasks should be to revive the Occasional Papers in Sociology and Anthropology, the only journal being produced by CDSA. In fact, with new departments, separate journals are expected with emphasis on new frontiers. Such publications should be diverse, both in terms of content and authorship.
One of the major hurdles in preparing professional sociologists and anthropologists has been their limited access to original writings of scholars, which is often in English. The majority of the students have problems understanding them. So the progenitors of the new departments should take some time off their consultancy world and pay attention to such vital issues. In fact, a major thrust of new departments should be preparing texts for those not comfortable in English, but those who have critical insights about the society and the world at large.
With the split taking place in Kathmandu, there is also a need for a critical look at departments in colleges outside Kathmandu valley. If the thrust of the process of formation of new departments is more specialization and creation of trained sociologists and anthropologists, then is the center communicating with prospective candidates outside the center as well?
The authors are assistant professor at the Kathmandu School of Law
Related story
Birth pangs
