בין הקיסוס לצבר: המבנה החברתי של המתח בין מוכוונות מקומית וגלובלית בסוציולוגיה הישראלית

The literature on global academic center-periphery relations points to a hierarchical power structure dominated by academic centers in the Global North. These centers set the leading intellectual agendas and standards of academic excellence. They also drive the spread of academic capitalism. Semi-peripheral academies, like that in Israel, experience pressure to conform to these hegemonic criteria, often discouraging local orientations, such as researching local issues and publishing in local languages. But how do these values and priorities shape recruitment and promotion processes within local contexts, considering that gatekeeping positions are staffed by local academics? Based on a survey of professional sociologists and anthropologists in Israel, we explore the mechanisms that shape the intellectual choices of these academics. We find that the field's incumbents (and gatekeepers) show a higher tendency to adopt globally oriented intellectual values and practices, notwithstanding that dissatisfaction with the globalization trend is quite widespread throughout the local academic field. We also find that a background in international education, which has become a condition for promotion in the local academic field, plays an important role in shaping the observed stratified distribution of intellectual choices.Our theoretical approach draws on the sociology of knowledge, particularly the concept of intellectual choice, often influenced by strategic considerations for status and career opportunities. From a Bourdieusian perspective, academic fields involve constant competition over prestige and resources, with strategic choices guiding individuals' intellectual decisions. The study hypothesizes that senior academics will be inclined to adopt global orientations thanks to two mechanisms-sorting and socializing-forming an orthodoxy. As gatekeepers,this orientation will enable the reproduction of global hegemony at the local level. Our work also feeds from the ongoing normative discussion within the Israeli sociological and anthropological community concerning the tension between these disciplines' local and global orientations. This discussion was revitalized given recent findings highlighting that leading American sociology journals tend to publish work by American scholars on American society. This observation emphasized the semi-peripheral position of Israeli academia relative to global knowledge centers and raised concerns about the reliance on international-often American-standards for academic advancement in Israel. Many community members perceive this situation as fostering subordination, and questions about the identity and role of sociology and anthropology in the country come forth.Specifically, whether these disciplines can exist as local entities separate from global centers and whether they have obligations to their local society alongside their global integration. Thus, against this normative communal debate, we aim to explore the distribution of attitudes, research practices, and professional identities of Israeli sociologists and anthropologists around the tension between local and global orientations in their disciplines. In sum, the community appears to be divided into two groups: one globally oriented and focused on intra-academic professionalism, and another locally oriented, supporting professionalism that includes public engagement. These findings have implications for the professional community. There is a need for reflective discussion about balancing global integration with commitment to local society and culture. Neglecting this commitment could erode the field's social legitimacy and eventually reduce the interpretative imagination through which we understand the social world.