Pages

Saturday, October 26, 2013

GENDER, FEMINISM AND RELIGION

Religion and the origin of religion have been defined in multiple ways by different school of thoughts but generally, it is defined as the belief system which validates existence of supernatural beings that have a governing effect on life. In sociology, its functions are also viewed differently by different schools as Marxist sees it as a deception, functionalist views it as functional for the dynamic equilibrium of society etc. Somehow, religion as an ideology has a very profound effect on the societal relationship and in every social setting; it plays the crucial roles of bringing social change and continuity even in the post-modernist world. Especially in the South Asian context, sometimes being a part of the culture and sometimes independent of culture, it has significant impact on the peoples. Here religion provided the reason for the partition of Indian subcontinent, rise of Taliban in Afghanistan, and sectarian violence in Pakistan, radicalization of Islam in Maldives.
Religion had very adverse impact on the social conditions of women and Feminist ideologies have produced intensive literature on the plight of the women and causes for the prevailing conditions and exploitation of women. Conventionally, Religion is seen as male-affair and the glorification of male gods is shown in most of the religions. Women are seen as the creation by men. As Anthony Giddens sees that religion is a male affair in its symbolism and argues that “women are portrayed as created from a rib taken from a man”. However, it is true that ‘women’ are not born; they are created by patriarchal psychic of male. In the evolutionary perspective if we will see the function of the religion then it is visible that initially female deities and female priests were present in the society and women were found central to the spiritual pursuit, but after the invasion of Aryans and Semitics male dominated mythology came into prominence and finally it turned into mostly monotheistic religion, which is fully male dominated. Karen Armstrong sees this as the evolution of ‘male god’ in the society.
Feminist theories like Marxian theory divide society into two classes and see religion as a product of patriarchy unlike Marxian theories a product of capitalism. Women and women’s labour is exploited by male for the fulfillment of their need. Jean Holm has reviewed the ways in which female are exploited or subordinated.  She tells that while the classical doctrines of many religions have stresses equality between men and women like in Japanese folk religion and Islam. Women’s status in the society is related to female sexuality. ‘Menstruation’ and childbirth are treated as polluting in all the religions.
Religion portrays women closer to god than men but they are not given position in the power structure of the religious institutions. Mainly the role of the priests is occupied by the male and women are provided differential treatment in entering sacred places. They are provided with false consciousness about their suffering that they will be compensated for their sufferings in the spiritual spheres of the religion. Simon de Beauvoir in her book The Second Sex talks about the oppression of women in the religion and compared it with the oppression in the capitalist society.
Radical feminist like Simon de Beauvoir, sulasmith Firestone consider that gender inequality is founded on the patriarchal institutions like marriage, family, and glorification of reproductive role of women. Therefore, patriarchy is located on the base; ideology, state, mode of production, education are influenced by the culture of patriarchy. Therefore, in every sphere women are put into disadvantaged position against men. So, more we are progressing in economic and political sphere, more significantly gender is evolving into important instrument of social inequality.
They advocate that institution of marriage gives way to loss of control of women over her body and mind. When man is demanding ‘sex’ from the women then it is a matter of right but when women are asking for sex they are treated as slut. Further, they consider gestation is a painful experience, where woman is forced to torture her body. Heterosexuality is a patriarchal construct, which is glorifying the idea of motherhood justifying to sexual division of labour
Maria Becker equates women with ‘Dalits’ of India, Belhooks equates women with blacks of Africa, who create ‘underclass’- which is further divided on the basis of race, ethnicity and class. They are subjected to marginalisation, exploitation, inequality from the beginning of the civilization to the contemporary times. Religion is the patriarchal construct, which creates fear of god in human beings to obey the system of patriarchy.
In sub Saharan and North East Africa, in the name of religion, the genital part of women are circumscribed, which has a very negative effects on the body of female for the sake of female modesty and it is the violation of ‘universal ethics’ provided to every citizen of the world known as Human Rights. It is forcibly done on the female child. Many of the feminist thinkers were jailed for opposing this religious practice like Nawal El Saadawi of Egypt. Men distort religious doctrine to serve their own interests and to legitimize their oppression. Slavery, prostitution and abortion are the cases where they are treated as the second class citizens and they are deprived of their basic rights. These sorts of discrimination are linked with the scriptures to get the justification.
In Hindu social system, if we take ‘hierarchy’ as the structure and within the hierarchy ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ as the two ‘Binary Opposites’ then we can understand the position of women in the caste system. Hindu women can make the food and other sacred activities impure and male has the responsibility to remain pure to get social honor  So, the female members in the time of menstruation cannot enter the sacred places and prepare the food. They have to take bath before preparing the food and after male members had taken the food then they have to clean that place. They cannot even stand in front of the male members when they are having food because; even the presence of women can pollute the food.
In some parts of India, female sex ratio is very low. The reason for this low sex ratio is abortion of female foetus in the contemporary times and killing of female infants in the past. Indian scriptures say that son is the way through which one can reach heaven. The demand for son in Hindu society gave female a status of ‘second sex’ and their exploitation in the society remained a challenging question in front of the society for centuries. Even after much legislation, the problem of female foeticide is a big question in front of the policy makers. The main reason for the failure of legislation is the differential impact of ‘modernity’ and modern values on the heterogeneous societies of India. Tradition is reinforcing the archaic cultural value of the society and modernity remains isolated in this sphere of social life. However this problem is not only among the Hindus but also other religions have got influenced from these values.
However the Hindu feminist movements has achieved success to the some extent in the area of land ownership rights, access to education, representation in Panchayati Raj Institutions and Urban Local bodies etc. The acceptance of ‘love marriages’ in most of the parts of India and sending girls to the school is showing a good sign for Indian society. Indian society is liberating from the prison of patriarchy. The changes in the mindset of Indian society were influenced by the impact of British colonialism in 17th century, and the influences of modernist thoughts. Bengal Renaissance started reforms in social structure to provide women more space in public life. People like Raja Rammohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar and others tried to interpret the scriptures holistically to show the right path for change. These socio-religious movements tried to soften the exploitation by pressing British to pass Widow Remarriage Act, Prohibition of Child Marriage Act etc.
After independence some of the women activists went to Pakistan and some others joined Indian National congress and occupied power positions and the constitution of India gave the equal rights to women as the Fundamental Right and universal adult franchise to safeguard the women’s right. But the establishment of Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) was the first initiative in 1972 by Ela Bhatt to make significant change in the life of women by providing training, technical aid to the women workers of the unorganised sectors. Further anti-dowry campaign, protest against oppression of women by various women organisation started.
The turn came after the landmark judgement of Supreme Court in Shah Bano case (1985 SCR (3) 844), which gave Muslim women right to alimony, was turned down by Rajiv Gandhi Government by passing a law. This act of the government changed the scope of infusion of modern values in Muslim society, which is skewed in favour of Muslim men. This was a great chance for bringing uniform civil code in India. In 2010, a court in Delhi illegalised polygamy in Islam, when the present wife is not sick or any other conditions which make her incapable of producing children etc..
Patriarchy exists in different forms all over the world and that ultimately defines various forms of entitlements both in public sphere and private sphere on the basis of gender criteria. Uma Chakrabarti writes that in India multiple forms of patriarchy like Brahmin patriarchy, kshatriya Patriarchy, Dalit and Islamic Patriarchy, explains the economic roles of women, their domestic roles and their participation in public sphere activities with structure distinction.  This multiplicity of patriarchy has given way to various women’s movements in India emphasizing on equal pay for equal work, regulation of female foeticide and infanticide, protection of women from domestic violence, abolition of dowry, question of feminization of poverty and so on.
Sociology of family and Kinship today is not engaged in looking into functions and dysfunctions of family rather from a gender perspective. Family is defined as a product of patriarchy that is contributing for the domestication of women, demarcation between public and private sphere activities and justification to inherent inferiority of women by creating “Pink collar jobs” in modern industrial society. Therefore, breaking the conventional tradition to the study of division of labour in terms of modern organisation, mode of production, structure of society, Feminist considers that patriarchy in different forms all over the human history  is determining, defining unequal system of division of labour and different forms of entitlements, which have the religious sanctions.


The picture is not so gloomy in the world in the contemporary post-industrial society where service sector is increasingly contributing to the national GDP and the service sector is providing good opportunities for women. The transformation in the position of women can be seen all over the globe. All religions are providing some position to the women in the post-patriarchal societies. The reform Judaism has allowed women to become rabbis since 1972.  ‘New religious movement’ and ‘neo-spiritual’ movements does not discriminate between men and women. Many multinational companies are being run by women and various acts for the safeguards of women at workplaces are being passed by the government.

Friday, October 25, 2013

Modernisation of Indian Tradition

Indian civilisation has always been based on the principle of holism, hierarchy, continuity, and transcendence and its character has influenced from orthogenetic changes and changes in its Great Tradition and Little Tradition but form of the institutions remained unchanged as the endogenous changes were confined only to ‘Sanskritisation' .The real change came from the contact of western civilisation in 17th century, which began through the process of colonization. The earlier encounter with Islam only reinforced the tradition as Islam was a traditional religion and a synthesis of Islamic tradition and Hindu tradition took place which even had the effect in the Persia. The Islam of Indian subcontinent also adopted the features of hierarchy as the most of the Muslims were Hindu convert. In political structure also the feudal system was common to both the religions. Despite having differences in ideologies a syncretic relationship between both the religions was apparent in Indian subcontinent. Social change and modernism are two different things especially while evaluating traditional societies. Social change can be continuous without having the modern or pre- modern type of evolution. In Indian social system applying western evolutionary perspective to study the ‘change' will be injustice to the very pattern of Indian society. Indian social system was undergoing changes without inculcating any modern notion of change which can be studied from qualitatively distinctive evolutionary differentiation.

Various methodologies have been used to study Indian society as M. N. Srinivas gave ‘Sanskritisation' and ‘Westernization' to study the social change in India but Yogendra Singh finds it problematic as the sociology of Srinivas glorifies the idea of continuity and change but never talks about absolute change. Further, he founds the absence of consensus in the historical context of Sanskritisation as the role of dominant caste is more important to legitimize the mobility. In India, plurality of the little tradition was preserved through caste structure and its local cultural expressions of lower castes. As Redfield and Singer finds that these Little Traditions comprises the cultural beliefs and practices held by folk, through oral tradition and ‘' localized adaptations of cultural values and roles of the great traditions. Various religious groups and the groups within the sub-structure of these groups formed plural traditions and micro-structures as kinship and social ties hardly ever extended beyond the borders of 200 km. So the changes from within in the internal structure that is Sanskritisation and from outside that is Islamization were active in the Hindu Little Tradition.  

The frustration of low caste Hindu and repression by Islamic ruler in India accelerated the process of Islamization in India. Yogendra Singh puts that "Islamization also led to some structural changes through continual differentiation and segmentation of new castes who got converted to Islam." The sub-culture and social practices among these converts clearly shows the reminiscence of traditional Hindu system, which led to formation of little tradition of Islam. Further Islamization developed structural similarities with Sanskritisation as a caste of pseudo-Ashrafs emerged. Similarly, here dominant castes did not recognize or oppose the mobility.

Is Marx a sociologist?

Karl Marx was born on May 5, 1818, in Trier a small town in Germany to a lawyer Hirschl Marx-Levy, who was struggling hard to make a living because the Prussians made it illegal for Jews to hold public offices. So, he converted to Protestantism two years before Marx’s birth, which helped him to climb the ladder to become head of the Trier Bar Association. Karl Marx first got admission in the University of Bonn and from this university he was transferred to Berlin University due to his subsequent fighting, habit of drinking and of running up debts. Some of the most famous professors were associated with Berlin university especially Hegel, who died five years before the Marx joined. By the 1840s, Britain was prospering with the help of Industrial revolution and France was the centre of socialist ideas but in 1830s and 1840s, Britain was undergoing political movements named Chartist movement, organised by radical and reformist groups, which wanted working class participation in electoral processes. This movement demonstrated the capability of effective political mobilization of proletariat class. In these decades, the condition of working class in Britain was very severe ad Middle class reformers pressed government to bring series of legislation to regulate the working conditions. Economic depression triggered by bad harvests of 1846 and 1848 brought revolutions, which terrified the ruling classes of whole Europe and the second great revolution in Marx’s lifetime was in 1870, when Napolean III undertook a disastrous war against Germany. The working class, anticlerical, and radical members set up a commune in working class neighbourhood of Paris. Karl Marx wrote in these years so his works have the reflections of these social environmental conditions and the social change associated with this to create a society which has the means to solve this anomic situation.  In the disciplinary discourse of Sociology, Karl Marx is not only treated a sociologist but a “classical sociologist” but as his works have influenced the discipline of History, Political Science, Philosophy, Economics so is he a classical sociologist or just an imported theorist in the sociology discipline as at that time Sociology was holding breadth to devise a methodological approach.  
                           Some theories are called “classical” because they fulfil two criteria, first, they should have an ideological significance and, second, they can be instrumental in developing an autonomous discipline and as an institutionalised profession and these two characteristics are mutually inclusive. Marx’s approach is heavily influenced by his idea of society and social change. All other theorist like Durkheim, Spencer, Comte, Weber, and Simmel’s theories have ideological biases. But, Marx never wanted to conceal ideological character of his work as other theorist of that time did. As George Ritzer writes, “indeed, it is built into the very structure of his theorizing’’. As Marx was critical about the mode of operation of capitalist class in Industrial society and as a humanist he was highly sentimental about the working class situation and in all his works he consistently took this view points.  
                             When Sociology was developing as an intellectual discipline, its fundamental concerns were two fold, first, to define the subject matter of the discipline in order to distinguish the discipline from the other and, second, the methodology that can distinguish the emergent discipline from the other disciplines. So, when Sociology developed as a branch of intellect then classical sociology was divided into two categories:- As a general science that can understand every aspects of social life, a discipline that can study social structures, continuity and change by applying scientific methods, To its contrast German sociologists believed those social institutions are the products of the human behavior that is defined by history, culture, and emotions. Therefore, individual behavior is dynamic, subjective which cannot be studied from scientific perspectives. However, Marx’s approach does not fit in any one of these schools as his methodology was the accumulation of inquiry, epistemology, metaphysics which finally resulted in the formation of  “sociology of knowledge” i.e.; a conception of the purpose of social science inquiry and a schematic notion of what social science results ought to look like. (Theories, Bodies of empirical findings, Statistical laws, Narrative interpretations of important social processes, Groups of causal hypotheses). Marx’s aim was to provide an empirical description of the institutions of capitalist societies, social implication of these institutional arrangements and to illuminate the historical processes through which social change was possible. As Marx in his work Capital (Marx 1977) gives detailed insights into historical description of the societal changes, micro-sociological details about the inherent structural contradictions in capitalist society, reasoning about their institutions and implications, and mathematical political economy. 
                          Marx’s writings have an interdisciplinary approach and where he believes in “Formalist School’s” conception of Sociology .Refuting the view that Political Science is committed to the study of specific objects of society but sociology in terms of approach and method is holistic in character, he writes that social life is a product of negotiation between economic base and power present in the superstructure of the society. Therefore, domination and subordination present in the political structure is the reflection of the inequality present in the economic base. Therefore, doing sociology without Economics, History and Political Science is not possible. Later Neo-Marxian school scholars like Lukas, Gramsci, Althusser, Habermass, Adorono developed a dynamic approach to the study of social life keeping Power at the centre. So, reciprocation of approaches was done by both the discipline which is now considered as the celebration of knowledge or interdisciplinarity in the field of sociology.
                              Conventional meaning of History is the study of chronology of events. In sociological usages, history refers to the understanding of the rise of human civilisations and conditions present in there. When Hegel develops an idealistic explanation to History indicating that History is a product of human consciousness and advancement of ‘Mind’ is responsible for transformation of ‘primitive society’ driven by ‘universal reflexivity’ to ‘civil society’ driven by ‘universal egoism’ and finally ‘state’ driven by ‘universal altruism’. Young Hegelians rejected the metaphysical idea of Hegelian idea and considered that History of all societies is a story of hierarchy, domination and exploitation. Mark took the idea of exploitation and hierarchy from Young Hegelians. Marx adopted Empiricism but rejected the empiricist’s notion of empiricism and further tells that empiricism is directed exclusively to the source of the knowledge but not the form of that knowledge. So it will produce very mechanical form of materialism leaving loop holes for idealism. So, Marx finds History as the creation, satisfaction and recreation of human needs. Human needs make history and changing needs change history. So, History is the making of dynamic needs of human. He gives Human History’s phases--- 
Equality-----Inequality--------Intensified Inequality---Revolution--------Social Equality 
Primitive Society----Slave Society ----Feudal Society-----Capitalist Society---Communist 
Marxian historical analysis left deep footprints in History which later turned History to exchange ideas with sociology confirming the statement that “Sociology with History is rootless and History without sociology is fruitless”.   

SOCIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE Of MARX WRITINGS:- 
  Karl Marx’s writings have the vision of the future of society as he tells capitalism has inherent contradictions that would be manifested in defecting crises and it would be replaced by socialism which would mount the way for communism. Marx further went on to answer the critical questions of way of transformations of capitalism into communism and the meaning of the term capitalism. In The Communist Manifesto of 1848, Marx suggested the imminent demise of capitalism. If class exploitation in some countries was economically desirable but politically dangerous then that system can be exported. Further he attached history with the form of revolution. So the transition can be peaceful, bloody depending on the degree of the exploitation. Marx saw capitalism as a setting which is distorting the humanness of the society and communist society will have true class consciousness and surplus labour i.e. labor over and above what is required for mere satisfaction of the material necessities of physical subsistence will be used for public welfare, which will help in treating people with humaneness rather than treating like commodity or needy. Marx’s writing influenced capital societies to become progressive in western countries by adding socialistic ideas in the policy makings.                       He also talked about the “Division of Labour’’ in communist societies which will be highly organised. According to Marx, in communist societies “nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity.’’ Nevertheless “society regulates the social production”. Socially regulated work in communist society will not need specialized knowledge and where the specialized labor will be needed, it will not be the sphere of one person. Marx wanted to eliminate the destructive effects of specialization. As David McLellan puts, Marx never believed “that each should do the work of Raphael, but that anyone in whom there is a potential Raphael should be developed without hindrance. The exclusive concentration of artistic talent in particular individuals, and its suppression in broad mass …………..is the consequence of division of labour.” So, the communist society will help people develop to their fullest.          
                            In the Economic and Philosophical Manuscript 1844, he talks about the relationship of human with the production environment, product, self and the process of production. He talks about the causes of alienation and also provides the causes for this problem. Change in production environment and modes of production which help workers to enjoy the integration of self to the product and satisfaction of self is the solution to the alienation. He furthers modifies the ideas of Hegel by defining relationship between “consciousness” and “self”. Hegel says “it is the consciousness that determines being” and ‘self’ defines the embodiment of civilisation i.e. architecture, literature, language and technology develops. Developing a theory for “class for itself” Marx offers a criticism to Hegel to indicate that it is the being who carries the real materialistic experience, on the basis of which he develops “true-class-consciousness” that determines the being, finally, which determines the consciousness.      
                            In his work Capital, Marx talks about the commodification of labour and how through the use of exchange value surplus labour is appropriated. So, capitalism is a product of exploitative system of production and exchange, which is degrading the ethical values, intellectual capacities, humanistic motives present in the ‘being’ and converting them commodities in the market. He makes a comparison between early systems of exchange where exchange was targeted to gratify the consumption needs. In capitalist societies, money is invested to procure commodities in search of profit, which is again re-invested to generate private wealth. So, everything considered as sacred is being converted into profane viz. creative art, literature, and knowledge is reduced into commodity. This development is unique to human history that, ultimately, will lead to the detachment between man and his work, where work will be reduced into a means to an end. Appropriation of surplus of labour leads to a condition where property is theft and that is legitimized by super-structural institutions of society.        
                         Social theories have to draw a distinction between ideas and words they are expressed in. Marx never felt himself to be labelled as sociologists but his work provided the methodologies, theories and pattern to the emerging discipline of sociology. His deep humanistic feelings about the class location of workers in the social setting and their exploitation led him to develop sociological insight about the structure, causes, and notion of change. Marx, even having created a large pool of anti-Marxian thinkers and the sustenance of capitalism, remains one of the leading figures in the discipline of political science, History, Economics, Philosophy and Sociology. Any use of classical authors inevitably involves interpretations but as Alexender puts it the work of interpretation never ceases. 
                           Disputes over the interpretations of the nature of classical theorist constitute one of the distinctive features of social theory. Marx’s theory has been interpreted by various social thinkers with the lens of their ideological biases and various distortions came into existence in the form of vulgar Marxism. 
In true sense, sociology has as much right over Karl Marx as the disciplines of History, Political science and other disciplines have. Also the schools of thought developed after Marx like critical theorist, post-modernist have the influences of Marxian structural model and Post-modernist do not choose any single type of methodology. Marx and Marxian view of society is an integral part to social understanding of social settings. However, there are some contradictions in Marxian theories but so is the case with other theorist also. It is the influencing sociology of Marx that has made Marxism alive even after the death of Marx. Social relevance even in the contemporary society and bringing change in the society by giving alternative way is what makes Marx a sociologist.

• Marx’s Capital –Philosophy and Political Economy. Geoff Pilling 1980http://www.marxists.org/archive/pilling/works/capital/pilling2.htm
• Marxism and Method, Daniel Little University of Michigan-Dearborn (http://wwwpersonal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Marxism%20and%20Method%203.htm)
• Economic and Philosophical Manuscript-1844,, Karl Marx.
• Das Capital, Karl Marx.
• George Ritzer- Sociological Theory.
• www.marxists.org.
• Bottomore, Tom and Nislet , Robert (1978)—A History of Sociological analysis.