Gulbenkian Commission

Gulbenkian Commission is an international group of scholars established to identify the structural, epistemological, and organizational challenges facing the social sciences in the final quarter of the 20th century and to propose solutions to these issues. The commission was formed in 1993 under the auspices of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation in Lisbon, Portugal, under the chairmanship of sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, with the participation of ten scholars from diverse disciplines. After approximately two years of work, the report produced by the commission was published in 1995 under the title "Open the Social Sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the Restructuring of the Social Sciences". The report aims to bridge the past, present, and future of the social sciences, develop a critical perspective on contemporary issues, and ultimately achieve the goal of "Reconstructing the Social Sciences".

Founding Purpose and Fundamental Starting Point

The primary motivation for establishing the Gulbenkian Commission was the recognition that, since the end of the Second World War and especially from the 1970s onward, the existing institutional structure, disciplinary boundaries, and epistemological assumptions of the social sciences had become inadequate for understanding and explaining social reality. Emerging in a period when the social sciences were struggling to survive academically and old paradigms needed to be questioned, the commission responded to growing demands for diversity and innovation in the field. The report, in general terms, rejects the anachronistic fragmentation of disciplines, the claims of Western-centric universality, and methodological positivism. Instead, it advocates for openness to the future, recognizing the "other" as part of "us," and uniting scientific knowledge under the concept of "pluralistic universalism."

Structure and Historical Analysis of the Report

The report consists of four main sections:

Historical Formation of the Social Sciences from the 18th Century to 1945

This section examines the emergence of the social sciences in the modern sense, beginning in the 16th century with efforts to produce systematic knowledge verifiable through empirical observation.

• Process of Discipline Formation: In the 19th century, knowledge became divided into disciplines and professionalized. Science was organized into a two-tier hierarchy: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, and Humanities.
• Core Disciplines: After a century of development, consensus was reached on five core social science disciplines: History, Economics, Sociology, Political Science, and Anthropology. Geography, Psychology, and Law were defined as disciplines either not fully integrated into the social sciences or not subject to consensus.
• Critique: The commission criticized this institutionalization as having developed in parallel with European colonial activities, structuring the social sciences around a Europe-centric global dominance and silencing voices from other continents through colonial agendas.

Debates Within the Social Sciences from 1945 to the Present

The period following the Second World War is seen as the beginning of transformations that challenged the established structure of the social sciences. Three major developments of this era and the three areas of debate they generated form the focus of the report.

Three Influential Developments

Changes in the social and political structure of the world (notably the rise of the United States as a superpower), the increase in global population and productive capacity, and the global expansion of the university system.

Three Emerging Areas of Debate

Validity of Interdisciplinary Boundaries: Interdisciplinary research, such as area studies, demonstrated the artificial nature of knowledge divided by rigid disciplinary lines. Boundaries gradually blurred, and interdisciplinary terms such as "historical sociology" became widespread.

Universality or Locality of the Social Sciences: As European political power declined, the claim of European social science to universality came under scrutiny from the 1970s onward. In response to accusations that this claim failed to represent non-Western social sciences and amounted to scientific colonialism, the commission argued for the necessity of achieving pluralistic universalism. During this period, the concept of cultural relativism and critical theory gained prominence.

Validity of the Divide Between Two Cultures (Natural and Social Sciences): The report noted that the distinction and tensions between natural sciences and social sciences had evolved into a different form, with knowledge across fields no longer requiring mutual contradiction but rather coexistence.

Key Recommendations of the Commission

Resource Scarcity and Organizational Fragmentation: The social sciences are struggling with budget cuts and resource shortages, alongside organizational fragmentation and the threat of proliferation of new disciplinary labels. The commission emphasized the need to bring under control the root cause of these conflicts: excessive disciplinarity.

Claim of Researcher Objectivity: The traditional notion of the "objective scientist" has been rejected. It is argued that no researcher can be abstracted from their own social and physical context; therefore, scholars must avoid donning a false guise of objectivity and instead remain aware of their own assumptions.

Positioning of Time and Space: Time and space must be understood not as physical realities of the social universe but as social constructs that require analysis as integral components of social inquiry.

Artificial Division of Fields: The report asserts that the artificial distinctions established in the 19th century between politics, economy, and society must be overcome.

Solutions and Vision

To achieve pluralistic universalism, the Gulbenkian Commission proposed the following key recommendations:

Clarifying Disciplinary Boundaries and Promoting Collaboration: To counter the "monopolies of wisdom" and uncontrolled spending caused by excessive disciplinarity, the commission recommends re-examining existing disciplinary boundaries and encouraging multidisciplinary research.

Transformation in Academic Structure (Organizational Reform): The commission proposed requiring professors and doctoral students to engage in work across multiple fields.

Pluralistic Universalism: To attain universal knowledge, the commission argues that othering must be avoided and that broad segments of the world's historical experiences must be incorporated into research. To this end, scholars are encouraged to become proficient in multiple languages and conduct research in diverse cultures to contribute to multicultural understanding.

Balancing Research and Education: To address the growing gap between research and education, solutions must be developed that can persuade the public. It must be recognized that public funding may be reluctant to support education without direct ties to research.