Theories are Double Edged Sword

We live in a country which provides us with various rights classified into different categories like fundamental rights, legal rights, statutory rights etc. These rights talk about the basic values which are absolute in nature and reinforces the concept of “Kantian Man.” These values provide human motivation to believe in the political and social concepts like nation-state, territory, citizenship etc. every human being is deemed to be equal, who possess freedom to practice his religion, to information, to speech, of conscience and free profession and other freedoms and also they are told that they will get justice in the case of any discrimination and any crime committed against them. Therefore, it basically provides human freedom to practice individual affairs and responsibility and the state will take care of all other things i.e.; in a simplest term the concept of “Social Contract”.  But, if an individual sees the daily newspaper and events around him then he finds that reality is not so simple. It is not black and white but it is a complex puzzle and it is so complex that if one tries to solve this, he gets more confused.

Most of the disciplines of social science are engaged in solving this puzzle and especially sociology tries to find meaning behind all the social structures, social actions and social constructs. Different people come with different conceptions of ‘truth’ in the form of social theories. As a simple human being, when one tries to see the reality behind events, he gets different meanings. The basic notion about society, individual, a social being, free individual gets either perplexed or static. So, do the social theories define the social reality or it constructs a new reality? Is social theory sufficient to describe the social phenomena? Is it possible to define the trajectory of changing paradigm of cultural values, beliefs, norms and mores? Can there be generalization about all societies of this world? Do rationality and science provide a basis for defining our actions? These questions and many other questions get existence in the domain of sociology to have sociological imagination to liberate society from complexity, to find the best method to organize social structures and to streamline social actions.
Sociology deals with the glorification of society and the degradation of society. This tragic dualism can be seen in different grand narratives of this discipline and this dualism is also present in our culture. All the concepts defined at a point of time and space in society fail at a different point of time and space. If the over glorification of ‘capitalism’ as an economic system has failed then also the alternates to capitalism have failed. If capitalism has created Hitler then the alternate to capitalism i.e. communism also created Stalin. However, one might say that the political economy of USSR was not true communist system but same can be said about capitalism and we cannot have different benchmark for comparing different systems. Both produced violence as its main product and kept the world on the verge of destruction. A world, which is already fragmented in different sections, gets more fragmentation through the construction of new ideologies.
Society progresses instead of excessive resistance to change and it progresses by the effects of different social agents like education, science and technology, ideologies etc and these changes are compared from the older forms of institutions. Some changes are universally accepted and others are resisted but the persistence of some proves the ‘function’ of new structures. Change in society brings change in social practices like no one could expect the acceptance of gay sex as the natural form of sex in 19^th century. Even in 1970s and 1980s, Acquired Immuno-Deficiency Syndrome was named ‘Gay Plague’. But, now people are largely accepting homosexuality. So, the question is what changed from 19^th century to the end of 20^th century – people’s definition of natural sex or the concept of ‘freedom’ has broadened. Science changes its hypothesis every decade or year. Our ethics is a jungle of discordant norms and opposite values.
The philosophical movements after French revolution like positivism, neo-positivism, pragmatism, operationalism, instrumentalism, logico-positivism and other movements converted man into mere ‘fictional’ character and a by-product of sensual (Freudian), economic (Marxian), or other drives and residues. Materialism identifies man and culture with matter. So, it does not give man and its values any unique position in this world. The world of theorizing produces different contradictory “truths”, each as valid as others. So the boundary between truth and false gets blurred. The poisonous aspects of these theories contribute to depreciation of man and the truth.  Reality become vast, unorganized, dichotomous and chaotic and so theorising becomes a smoke screen to propagate some forms of ideologies for the betterment of some groups and happiness for all or concept of universal happiness diminishes.
There are many other problems in social theories but it also provides ways to find the truth. Social theories can provide us insights into the social problems and ways to revise social practices to end different forms of discriminatory practices. it shows us what are the inherent problems of different social structures like Karl Marx showed the world that in the wake of Industrial Revolution, the main wheel of the industry labour is getting exploited so, it provided the reflection on the severe condition of workers in the industries. Foucault showed us how the engagement of society with mad people changed with time and why it changed. Durkheim showed the effects of different forms of “Division of Labor” on the social solidarity.
So, social theories can provide us the after effects of social practices. It can help us to create universal values in the society. Social theories can make the reality clear, if we engage it with through the lens of sociology. The knowledge, social theory creates can be used to understand the relationship of an individual with the institutions and the structures of the society. The ‘individuated’ mass can have the freedom to decide the functions of the institutions and adopt role to these institutions. The confused individual through social theories can find the appropriateness of institutions for the welfare of society or can create one for the same.
The development of science has created chaos in the life of an individual. Science has entered into the private sphere of life. The ‘cyber space’ created by science has infused extreme materialism in the society. Commodification of human and their culture has become a normal phenomenon. Sociological theories try to solve this puzzle by mixing the accumulated knowledge of different disciplines like history, economics, political science and most importantly philosophy. The human face of the social institution and social practices can be understood through sociological narratives because for sociology nation-state is not a static and mechanical concept but it has attached “nation-ness”, which is absent in the domain of political science. Religious rites and rituals might be irrational for economics but social theories show the importance of these practices for the common well being of the people. Therefore, social theories can be ‘monster’ and ‘enlightenment’ at the same time. It depends on the people who use it in the sense how they use it.

Yes, We are Racist!

Debyani Khobragade was charged by US authorities with committing visa fraud and providing false information and she was arrested and strip searched. Indian authorities responded in a furious manner and made it a matter of identity. Even the Indian population started protesting against this American act and a chaos in India-America relationship was seen at that time. However, some media pundits related it to civil-nuclear deal and other matters which are in the backdrop of the India-America relationship. Indians cannot accept this type of humiliation from a country which is powerful in economic and military spheres but Indian history is more glorious than the Americans. The Indian civilisation is more ancient than any civilisation of the world (common perception) and India is not the land of people who seek only material pleasure but every activity of Indians is related to more sacred spiritual existence, which is not the case with America. However, the second side of the story was also of an Indian who is poor, marginalised, alleged victim of exploitation but no one look up to this side because her story was not glamorous.

The same Indians having the glorious past killed one guy who does not possess quality history like the Indians do and most of the mainstream politicians and media persons could not see it a racist attack. Some gave the name of regionalism, result of common fight in Delhi etc. They think that ‘enlightened’ Indians cannot indulge in racial attacks. Regionalism is a problem for this country and it can be solved without any new act just the fundamental rights provided under the constitution is enough. The hypocrite Indian mass talk about the moral values and ethics they imbibe but never show in their activities. The situation of North-Eastern people or people of Mangoloid race is known to everyone in this country. They are stereotyped as prostitute, delinquent and the persons who eat dogs. Verbal, physical, economic and mental attacks are common in the capital city of this country. Considering the rich knowledge of geography, culture and history of Indian mass, we cannot say that they are making any wrong assumptions and even saying it an assumption or postulate will be a travesty of their knowledge.

After some days of the events, the hero of Indian mass politics had to do a rally in North-Eastern part of the country and suddenly, the stand of his party changed. But, hate crime did not stop here. Two more people were stabbed and one 14 years girl was raped in the city. The North-Eastern organisations demanded anti-racial laws and speedy justice in the case. "The Hindu" published about Rani Gaidinliu and a search for the history of North-East started. Suddenly, on conventional and neo-conventional media platforms, people started pouring support for North-Eastern people. Some of them talked about the relationship between state’s apathy and secessionist policy of North-Eastern part. An atmosphere of academic discussions and sympathetic attitude started but not at the price of anti-racial laws.

Tradition resists change and people fear change and this is the reason why change in the society is synonymous with continuity. No one, generally, loves tradition and everyone is apprehensive towards new systems and new structures. That is the reason why people in this country are not accepting racial discrimination imbibed in them even after knowing it. They deliberately believe in lies. But, if one will not recognize the problem then the solution of that problem is not possible. Indians will have to accept that they are race driven and victimises people on the basis of their putative social groups. Anti-racial law can provide confidence to the people of different race in this country and its proper implementation can bring down the crime against people of 'different' race and people like Somnath Bharthi will not be able to  defame the constitutional office. And, please do not tell me that it is not constitutionally possible after considering SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. This is the only legal way through which racist and self proclaimed enlightened Indians will be able to pay respect to “different others" and the concept of equity can be brought to provide social justice to the people of this country.

The preamble of our constitution says "we the people" but this we-ness has lost somewhere in the gallery of vote-bank politics, regionalism, and different forms of discriminations ranging from caste based to class and race based. The huaman beings who are an end-in-themselves are evaluated on utility. The deep divide in the contemporary society is providing impetus to organizations based on the concept of "primitive solidarity". To make our society better,  we will have to act for the betterment of all and it should be visible in our actions.

Colonial Govenmentality by David Scott

The colonialism and its discourses have been discussed actively by the historians and other social scientists. Some took the orthodox view of seeing the history of colonialism from the view point of Europe as the Cambridge school did and the historians of the colonised tried not to see the discursive and non-discursive discourses of colonisers or they do not take Europe at the centre of their history. Foucault, through his concept of “governmentality” tried to show the political rationalities of power which provided the transformation acceptance from the subjects.  Colonialism’s attitude towards the colonised in the form of its exclusionary practices like exclusion of the colonized from humanity (racism), or their exclusion from the institutions of political sovereignty (false liberalism) has been the great part of recent discussions of colonialism. So, on one hand, criticisms tried to show how colonial textuality works at the level of images and narratives to produce distorted representations of colonized and exposed the devices through which colonized have been denied autonomy, voice and agency and on the other hand the hollowness of  false liberal democratic political principles of the colonizers were demonstrated.  Colonizer’s image of establishing more humane and rational institution which runs by the rule of law was criticized by showing the false representation of the facts.

Colonialism as a practice works to include or exclude people and the political rationalities that allow colonial power to this is the main area of concern for Scott. A colonial political rationality characterises those ways in which colonial power is organized as an activity to produce effects of rule and the more important areas are targets of the colonial power and field of its operations which formed the historically heterogeneous rationalities through which the political sovereignty of colonial rule were constructed and operated. Also, with the rise of colonialism the old form of social system were transformed into modern and people obliged to these modern practices. So how the notion of ‘break’ from the past was configured and what it is understood to consist in. So the reorganization of the terrain in which new choices became possible and these political rationalities created this reorganization.

Partha Chatterjee distinguishes between colonial and modern form of power while historicizing colonialism and finds colonialism as “little more than an episode in modern in Europe’s history”. Chatterjee’s argument is more directed towards the revisionist or new Cambridge school. He founds two parts in the revisionist account of history:-

•  Periodizing distinction between earlier and later part of the colonial rule in which the phase of the transition is roughly 1780-1830,
• The assignment of agency in the establishment of empire.

In the revisionist views, there is no notion of break from the past but they found organic, internal relationship and they also find Indian as an active subject of their own history. Chatterjee finds it an attempt of making all the features of colonialism as an innate property of an indigenous history. So, the distinction between the earlier and modern part is useful to understand the structure and projects of colonial power. For Chatterjee, colonialism works on the principle of distinctiveness i.e., rule of colonial difference and race is the defining signifier of this rule of difference. However, Scott finds that it is not race but religion that constituted the discursive frame within which the difference of non-European was conceived and represented.

Talal Asad says that modern power is not distinctive for its relation to capitalism and social and institutional differentiation rather it is distinctive for its point of application and its point of application now not rely over the question of sovereignty. Enlightenment gave way to the people to leave the practice of sovereignty and prejudice and see the idea of reason as the sole foundation for their activities to emancipate themselves from the moral slavery and eradication of benighted ignorance. But, it could not be done by alteration of false notions and attack on the causes of these false notions with systematic replacement of rational and new ideas can only uproot these practices and it can produce governing effects on conduct. Modern power seeks to arrange or rearrange the conditions in an improving direction.

Colonialism cannot be seen as the reiteration of single political rationality whose effects can be assessed in terms of freedom, reason and force and “in such a refigured narratives the colonial modernity would have to be reappeared as a discontinuity in the organization of colonial rule characterized by the emergence of a distinctive political rationality- that is colonial governmentality in which power comes to be directed at the destruction and reconstruction of colonial space in bodies as governing effects on colonial conduct”. The Srilankan narrative told by colonialist and nationalist historians alike is in threefold event. The first episode is transition from the medieval to modern (1796-1802), the second episode from the beginning of Crown’s colony status and building of the apparatuses of colonial state. Through Colebrooke-Cameron Reforms in Sri Lanka, colonialist established modern form of institutions, rational ideas in the social life of the Sri Lanka populace, reforms in judiciary, legislative and development of capitalist agriculture etc. these progressive ideas transformed the mercantilism to governmentality and the targets of the reforms and field of operation were so devised that acceptance among the masses increased and a break from the old and traditional superstitious practices became possible.

These reforms reorganized the conduct and habits of subjects themselves. The colonial power came to intervene at the level of what stokes calls “society itself”. The new form of political rationality depended upon the “public opinion” and the press in the vernaculars and press in general were opened to get the opinions of the public and also know the interests of the masses so as to have the field of operations targeted and it provided a huge benefit to both the colonizers and the colonized. Press promoted good government and participation became the rational and legal kind of exercising influence. Colebrooke gave the idea of the state’s responsibility for commercial strength and he opposed the mercantilist monopolies of government as it was injurious to capitalism. He objected the system of rajkariya, which was hindering the development of free market in labour. Abolition of rajkariya stopped the process of distinction on the basis of race and caste. A self regulating

The construction of colonial space to accommodate subject and contain resistance changed the art of governing. The earlier aims of the government were directed towards social wealth but “colonial governmentality” transferred the direction towards the conditions of social life to have less extractive effect and more governing effects. However, David Scott does not take into consideration various laws which affected the freedom of press and liberty of the people. Also, he is more concerned about colonial government’s existence and he does not pay attention to the movements resisting the colonial government.    

Sociological Imagination of Max Weber of Sociological Epistemology

“[Sociology is] ... the science whose object is to interpret the meaning of social action and thereby give a causal explanation of the way in which the action proceeds and the effects which it produces. By 'action' in this definition is meant the human behaviour when and to the extent that the agent or agents see it as subjectively meaningful ... the meaning to which we refer may be either (a) the meaning actually intended either by an individual agent on a particular historical occasion or by a number of agents on an approximate average in a given set of cases, or (b) the meaning attributed to the agent or agents, as types, in a pure type constructed in the abstract. In neither case is the 'meaning' to be thought of as somehow objectively 'correct' or 'true' by some metaphysical criterion. This is the difference between the empirical sciences of action, such as sociology and history, and any kind of priori discipline, such as jurisprudence, logic, ethics, or aesthetics whose aim is to extract from their subject-matter 'correct' or 'valid' meaning.”

— Max Weber, The Nature of Social Action 1922

In this statement of Weber some key points are “meaning of social action”, causal explanation, subjectively meaningful, a priori disciple, which has historical explanation given by famous philosophers and teachers of Max Weber. These intellectuals have profound effects on the sociological epistemology of Weber. Prior to Weber two traditions were present in the Germany. First was Vienna school of Karl Menger, who believed in the British positivistic theories, gave importance on “rational choice theory” and the “law of equi-marginal utility” and the second school was Kantian school of ‘dualism’, which says that knowledge can be divided into two types a) moral science, and b) natural science. Kant said that transcendental and transhistorical moral laws are an integral part of the “practical-cognitive interest”. Moral philosophy gives very basis to humans of becoming social being and it is not based on the meanings given to empirical data and it involves the reflections on moral maxims that are innate and external to human experience.  

Weber agreed with the Kantian division of the knowledge and believed that the use of human intellect to typify ‘good’ and ‘bad’ is useless i.e., intellectuals are not maven at making moral judgement. So, he rejected the Hegelian idea of the conflation of fact and value and said that sociology can tell us about the consequences of our value commitments but it cannot tell us about good and bad. So, empirical judgements and moral judgements are incommensurable.  Philosophers shall be engaged in the discourse of moral science i.e. “philosophization of the knowledge”. So, dualistic source of knowledge is giving the ‘total knowledge’ through ‘philosophisation’ and ‘scientific enquiry’.

Kant postulated that the subjects can find secure and reliable knowledge about the cause-effect relationship among ‘physical’ objects but not for the cultural and historical objects. Dilthey tried to repeat this exercise for history and sociology. Dilthey was the prominent member of the “historical school”, which viewed the historical processes dependent on the interpretative theory not on the positivistic theory.  For him, human history is the product of the human freedom to create a number of ‘cultural objects” like legal system, political system, aesthetic works etc. Dilthey made a distinction between explanation and understanding through his interpretation techniques. Dilthey took a non-positivist stand and later which influenced Neo-Kantians Windelband and Rickert, who classified forms of knowledge in two branches- ‘nomothetic’ and ‘ideographic’ and said that History is ideographic and natural sciences are nomothetic. But Max Weber argued that one cannot tell that history is ideographic and natural sciences are nomothetic. The gap between these two can be filled by sociology, which has both the characteristics of nomothetic and ideographic and have elements of both subjectivity and objectivity.

Weber tells that history is the making of the people and history is not good or bad it can only be understood through the interpretation of context e.g. rise of Nazism, Indian nationalism are the historical events and it can only be understood through interpretation.  Further, he is also influenced by the work of George Simmel, who talks about the “epistemology of actions” and talks that actions always take place in a context. People manifest a given kind of action driven by multiple motives that might have the influence of the culture, history and psychology. Therefore, meanings behind the action should be studied from the epistemological perspective and action should be studied from objective perspective.

Weber finds positivist methodology not accurate as he sees positivists having the prior assumption of structured society and law bound society. He says that sociology should follow the spirit of science but not the methodology. Sociology should be striving for objectivity. Sociology is a science on the basis of its own merit. American sociologists of that time found Weber antithetical to Marx but Weber’s work can be seen as the revision of Marxian notion of ‘materialist history’ as he placed more emphasis on ‘idea’ in the explanation of the great historical processes. But, Weber’s sociology can also be seen as complementing to Marxian analysis and Weber, generally, accepted Marxian conclusion about the capitalism.

Weber is considered as the founder of ‘Interpretative methodology’ in sociological research. He is not inventor of this term and Droysen before him had tried to use this in the history and it was the cornerstone of the Geisteswissenschaften of Dilthey.weber has elaborated this method and applied it to sociology. Like Dilthey, he also differentiated between explanation and understanding. Verstehen is the German word for understanding. Weber is looking into the limits to sociological research through the use of this concept. Weber believed, like any other German historicist that people make their life world through meaningful action giving way to interactional relationship. Why people behave in similar or distinctive way is driven by their subjective orientation. Therefore, a researcher must have to keep himself in a position from where the meanings associated with the behaviours can be interpreted.  

To understand the realities created by the social actors, interpretation is necessary. Further, he said that hermeneutics provides a ground for the sociological understanding of unique historical conditions, cultural objects presents in different society at different points of the time. This method rejects to dialectical method and positivistic methods on the grounds that they neglect cultural diversity, variability of the choice of the people and dynamism of the mind of the actor. This method takes sociology closer to history, conceptualising that sociology has nothing much to do with scientific methods and science.

This method also rejects to mechanical-statistical approach, which can go to the extent of arriving at the conclusion that exchange rate of currency do have strong impact on divorce rate of the country. Weber’s another contribution to the methodology is “causal pluaralism”. Through this, he completes and complements his comprehensive method. He says that in human activity goal and means can be interchangeable, not only because attained goal can become cause but also the relative success of the means can become the cause of the fresh undertakings. Therefore, positivism, based on causal relationships, is engaged in glorifying sociology than appropriately guiding sociological research looking into the limits of the discipline.

Weber divides verstehen into two types. First is ‘Direct Observational Verstehen’, which can study microscopic realities and ‘indirect Explanatory Verstehen’, which can study macroscopic realities like rise of capitalism in west, family structure in Asia. Culture specific macroscopic institutions like caste system, growth of cities can be studied through collection of historical evidences, interpretation of values and norms of people guiding their inter-personal relationship and social action. Therefore, sequence of events, motivational forces should be interpreted to understand the essence of reality.

Weber was acquainted with the imperialistic claims of sociology but his epistemology allowed him moderation to accept sociology as a science in reference to values not to the reality. Weber was also aware about critical aspects of his philosophy and developed “philosophical hypothesis of the inevitable hypothesis of all science, including of course, sociology. He developed the hypothesis of “value-neutrality”. When a researcher understands the essence of reality, he is not using value neutrality.

He writes that Hermeneutical method is looking into limits of mechanical and scientific methods and its inadequacies to understand human behaviours and the outcomes of it. So for the making of sociology, it is imperative that sociology must go for supplementation to scientific methods. Weber indicates that positivists failed to understand the real subject matter of sociology, which is a product of meaningful social action taking place in socio-cultural context. Since the action is dynamic so the structure is experiencing dynamism and diversity.

Therefore, structure study in sociology is qualitatively different from natural sciences. Facts give rise to the growth of theories and theories provide a framework for the analysis of facts in the field of science but in the domain of sociology, people make a reality and we have to study respecting to their subjective perception. So, the subjective understanding of objective reality, what it means to be sociology, is not the meaning attached to the concept of science. We study specific from out of the infinity, that is the making of people driven by choices but for sociology, it is a product of nature subjected to continuity. Therefore when they go for scientific methods, sociology is duty bound to go for hermeneutical method. Weberian sociology is a realistic and reflexive sociology looking into the limits of sociological research. For him, action is, so far, social as long as it considers others behavior. He also makes a distinction between individual behavior and social action.