Decolonising the canon: The case of Bhambra and Holmwood’s <i>Colonialism and Modern Social Theory</i>

Two closely related strategies are currently being used in efforts to ‘decolonise’ sociology: subjecting the writings normally included in the sociological ‘canon’ to close scrutiny as regards their treatment, or neglect, of colonialism; and introducing the work of people of colour into the canon, for example that of W. E. B. Du Bois. Both these strategies are used by Bhambra and Holmwood in their influential book Colonialism and Modern Social Theory . They focus mainly on the work of Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim and Weber, emphasising the significance of colonialism, but they also include a chapter on Du Bois. In this paper I address a series of issues raised by their book. These concern: the nature of the discipline that is being decolonised; the approach that the authors take towards sociological work of the past; their rejection of stadial theory; and their arguments for the centrality of colonialism to sociology. I also critically assess their accounts of the main sociologists they discuss, suggesting that, in some key respects, these are misleading.