2013
DOI: 10.1177/0038022920130202
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Revisiting the Legacy of the Bombay School of Sociology

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For instance, M. N. Srinivas followed the structural– functional perspective and A. R. Desai relied more on the Marxist framework. As different from this, the Lucknow School ‘focussed on the philosophical underpinnings of social reality and became famous for its engagement with the question of post-colonial social and economic reconstruction and its concern with grass-roots issues and problems’ (Momin, 2013, p. 207) as well as of social policy and development planning.…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, M. N. Srinivas followed the structural– functional perspective and A. R. Desai relied more on the Marxist framework. As different from this, the Lucknow School ‘focussed on the philosophical underpinnings of social reality and became famous for its engagement with the question of post-colonial social and economic reconstruction and its concern with grass-roots issues and problems’ (Momin, 2013, p. 207) as well as of social policy and development planning.…”
Section: IImentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From 1924 to 1959, Bombay’s sociology department was headed by G.S. Ghurye whose training was in Indology, and whose ‘writings reflect an abiding engagement with the classical texts’ and are characterised by a ‘rather uncritical acceptance of the textual view of Indian society’ (Momin 2013; cf. Dirks 2013).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%