China Versus Taiwan – a Cold War within ISA?

ISA was founded in response to UNESCO stimuli, which had three objectives: “(1) to knit together social science scholars of the world... [to] increase international understanding; (2) to raise the level of social science research... in the belief that greater knowledge... will benefit mankind; and (3) to promote research... crucial to the establishment of a peaceful world order.” (Angel, 1950, 282)

During the Cold War the national associations (NA) of the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries – as Judith Platt shows in “History of the ISA 1948-1997” – were collective ISA members. Individuals participated in RCs, occupied leadership positions, sometimes enriched scientific dialogue, and pursued UNESCO’s objectives. The Cold War’s end saw some countries achieve independence, sociologists formed NAs and these applied for ISA membership. In East Asia, the place of the NA representing sociologists of the Peoples’ Republic of China (CSA) is still occupied by the NA that represents the former Republic of China, (now the Taiwanese Sociological Association) TSA. Does such an anomaly mean the Cold War is still being fought within ISA?

To address this question, ISA archives were researched, interviews conducted with ISA elected officials (including ex-presidents) and staff, observations made at ISA meetings, Taiwanese and Chinese sociologists consulted. Successive ISA presidents have sought to bring CSA into ISA. Negotiations, hopes, positions of TSA and CSA are analysed. The 1998-2022 period has been marked by the status quo.

The world’s largest non-member NA of the ISA, is excluded. A sociology that has some of the world’s most technically competent, creative, vigorous, consequential and courageous sociologists plays a feeble role in all instances of ISA. In contrast, Taiwan appears a giant. The question becomes, does this state of affairs respond to UNESCO’s original objectives, or have these been replaced by others?