noc18-hs37-lecture 03

Friends, we are going to take up another issue and that is basically in continuation to what we have discussed about the emergence of sociology. As we shared that this emergence of sociology in India has a specific trajectory like we try to see that how the various forces both at the national and the international level. They were trying to influence upon the development of sociology in India and within that framework we try to see the effects of the western sociologist, the European Eurocentric understanding, the Americanization of sociology and also we had many other understandings that has developed at the academic fronts. We talk about the colonial understanding and then talking about the sort of decolonization or which pertains to the development of sociology or the social science in general in a specific framework. The point is that the sociology which we are trying to speak about definitely when it has matured to certain level of time, I think the new debates had started emerging especially when we try to see the context. Then we try to find out that in the initial phase of the development of sociology, we were simply talking about the pioneers, we talking about the initial theoretical frameworks, the worries of the various sociologists which has contributed towards the sociology as a discipline and also we try to see that how sociology has been found in the various universities. But the point is that these initial attempts whatsoever has been done, definitely they were with certain limitations. The limitations which has to be seen not in terms of the growth of sociology, but the limitations are to be seen in terms of the establishment of sociology of India and that was the important concern of the pioneers of sociology in particular. But now since we have reached to the different levels of development as such with regard to the sociology, with regard to the interdisciplinary understanding, we may have the new challenges and these challenges again are not going to be the changes which are to be fought or which are because of the internal forces of change. But it also has to be seen that how the external forces are also trying to work upon or trying to make us to work upon the sociology at the different pedestrian, especially we try to see that the sociology which we were talking about at the initial phase, may be to some extent may vary in terms of an understanding, if you try to see it in the present context. Keeping those things in mind, we had to have an understanding of a very pertinent question that is talking about the issue of indigenization of sociology. Now this indigenization of sociology definitely has reached to a specific level after the establishment of sociology as a discipline, especially when we try to see the way in which the sociologists, the pioneers, they try to shape, they try to adopt the specific theories and the concepts and the way in which these aspects have been worked upon with regard to the Indian society. But the point is that those attempts definitely they were quite valuable, people are questioning that those attempts were in a specific time frame and also those attempts were been guided by certain forces of change. Like earlier we had the colonial rule or we have also have the spirit of nationalism at some period of time, but now we do not have those issues. It does not mean that nationalism is missing, but now we may have the new form of nationalism which is coming up or we may have not the colonization as such, but we may have the different other aspects of colonization at the different levels. So definitely, those circumstances, those forces may have a different effect with regard to the specific discipline and the present forces will definitely yield some different results. And so, the question of indigenization of sociology becomes very pertinent at this juncture. And here, I think the starting point would be what we have discussed in the emergence of sociology was talking about sociology in India and then gradually a shift towards sociology for India. Now, this sociology of India is something which has to be seen in terms of reaching to the level of indigenization. That is how I am trying to understand that initially with regard to the growth of discipline, we had sociology in India that what sociology was there in India at one period of time. But when we try to speak about sociology of India, I think the most pertaining question, the meaning that we try to make out is that we need that sociology which should be for India that we try to see it in terms of the sociology for India in that sense as such. So, it is not the sociology which we try to see in a specific sense, but we are more concerned with the sociology which is for India and that becomes an important issue. And apart from that, a significant thing that we also have to deal with or we have to talk about is the question of what is indigenization. Because indigenization can be thought of in terms of varied meaning, so how indigenization has to be looked into that is another important aspect that we may deal with. And then also, we all will try to speak about the various social thinkers which has led to the debate on indigenization. And apart from that, we also may be trying to focus upon the issue of what are the different ways in which we can reach to the level of indigenization. Now, the important thing that we have to keep in mind is that these aspects of indigenization or the various scholars which has contributed, they try to see the understanding of the sociology for India in a specific sense. If we can recall, we had the significant contributions in sociology for India, especially the contribution which appears to be significant, if you can recall is the contribution by Louis Dumont and Pocock. .Louis Dumont and Pocock were basically talking about sociology for India in 1960s, especially the seminar which took place in Mount Abu, where we had the discourse on sociology for India. And out of that, later on we have the specific journal that is contribution to Indian sociology, which basically talks about that how we can see sociology with regard to the Indian society in a specific sense. So, the Dumont and Pocock's contribution appears to be very significant over here. Now, the point which we have to see is that the discipline which we are speaking about that is the sociology, what sort of sociology we try to build up, are we speaking about the study of Indian culture through the studies of the conceptual categories of general sociology. And these general sociology and its various understanding are going to be applied to the specific problems of Indian situation. Now, the point is that the specific problems are to be dealt with the general sociology, that is of course, one way in which we can see how Dumont and Pocock tries to build up the issue or are we speaking about the methodological particularism, that is we adopt those methodologies which are specific to the Indian society, that is another way in which we can see this whole debate. So, the debate of sociology for on India, basically with regard to the sociology for India started in the late 1950s and it has been seen that we have the two ways in which the things have grown. One of course, is led by Dumont and Pocock as I said, Dumont and Pocock who talks about that we should have the distinctiveness of Indian society, the distinctiveness of Indian society and it has to be anchored in a unique cognitive, it has to be encouraged into a unique cognitive and cultural tradition. And we have to had the principle of hierarchy which has to be adopted, the principle of hierarchy which has to be adopted for understanding these issues. Then on the other hand, we may have that how Indian sociology should be free from the so called academic colonialism, sociology which has to be free from academic colonialism, especially the non-use of the borrowed concepts and the methods. So, can we have the sociology which should not adopt those methods, those concepts which has been used by the colonial academicians. And we try to see that both these approaches, either it is trying to see it as a distinctiveness of Indian society with the unique cognitive model or in terms of free from the academic colonialism. In both the issues, one pertinent question is that neither of these two questions tries to address or reject the notion of universalism. The idea is that can we thought of the sociology in a specific framework, not compromising in terms of the universality. It should be appealing at the global level. It should not be restricted to the Indian subcontinent or its understanding should not be seen with regard to having its application on Indian society alone. Rather, it should has an appeal which should have been applied or which can be applied in terms of the global map. So, the important issue that we have to keep in mind is that the sort of indigenization has not to do with the particularity at such a level that it should simply be restricted to the Indian society. What is more important in that sense of course, is that we should be in a position to carry forward the amount of universalism, so that it should have the wider applicability. The main function of this whole debate was to develop or to help the Indian sociologist to reach to the level of self awareness. I think this is an important issue that the sociologist should reach to the level of self awareness. The basic idea in that sense of course, is that why this self awareness is going to be important, because if they had or if they are concerned about or if they are aware about themselves and the situation, then their analysis can be more meaningful. The sociologist should have the level of self awareness, if you try to build up the debate on indigenization. Now, this debate was carried forward in as I said earlier in this contribution to Indian sociology and in that we have people like Dumo and Pocock, we had people like professor T N Madan, professor Yogendra Singh, professor Imtiaz Ahmad and professor Satish Sabharwal at the initial phase. And the focus shifted from the use of the conceptual typology, the historical data to the social structure and the two factors which were dominant during the 1970s and 80s were the social structure as process, social structure as process and not as a form and not as a form. And the emphasis was on the history and tradition, in the history and tradition in a structural and Marxian perspective. So, we try to see that the social structure that we are trying to speak about should not be seen as something which is permanent, rather it has to be seen as having a question of revolution in terms of the process, not in terms of the specific form. And also we try to see the history and traditions which are to be seen in the structural framework with the Marxian perspective, where the possibilities of change carries certain weight. So, the important issue that has to be seen is whether these sort of attempts are making the sociology in terms of a global sociology. Now, indigenization of sociology in India, if you try to see in a more specific sense, in the first presidential address to the Indian sociological association, we had as we know that we had the Indian sociological society, especially we had a standard journal out of that, that is sociological bulletin. And in that the president, first presidential address which was been, the first presidential address which was been talked about and has been delivered by professor Radha Kamal Mukherjee, that was in 1958. And later on by sociologists like professor D P Mukherjee, who was again the president in 1950s and professor R N Saxena in 1959, they made a plea for indigenization of concepts, indigenization of concepts or the methods and the value premise. Now, all these sociologists, all these prominent pioneers of Indian sociology, their basic quest was to have the sort of indigenization of what, of the concepts, of the methods and the various processes, in terms of the value premises. And in this way, only we can have the reachability towards the indigenization, R K Mukherjee, who was having a vision, that is rooted in the Indian tradition, he wanted to see the understanding of the presidential address, in terms of Indian traditions. And especially, when we try to see, we try to find out that, the Indian traditions, which were to be seen in terms of universalistic framework. Then, we also try to find out the people like professor D P Mukherjee and R N Saxena and their approach, if you try to see, D P Mukherjee and professor R N Saxena, their attempt were particularistic. So, we had on the one hand, the universalistic understanding and on the other hand, we have the particularistic understanding about developing the indigenization of sociology, in terms of the specific discipline. Now, the mount above seminar, where we have this debate on sociology for India, the important questions that has been raised were, that what should be the disciplinary status of the sociology in India. What should be the disciplinary status of sociology in India, that is one important aspect, which has been raised. And then, how far the sociological concepts requires the re-adaptation, how far the sociological concepts requires the re-adaptation and also re-conceptualization, for the study of the Indian society. I think, these are the two pertinent questions and apart from that, what is more important in that sense is that, what possibility of inter disciplinary approach has to be adopted. Inter disciplinary approach has to be adopted, then what is the role of sociology, the role of sociology in developing societies, what is the role of sociology in developing societies. And apart from that, what are the theoretical and what are the theoretical and practical problems, which are to be seen or to be taken for the research in the Indian society. The theoretical and the practical problems, with regard to the research in the Indian societies. Now, here the important thing, that one has to make out is that, A K Saran was also speaking about the notion of indigenization. And A K Saran, how he was trying to see the sort of indigenization, that those one, the those one, where we have the total rejection of, total rejection of the modern western civilization, total rejection of the modern western civilization. And to advocate the return to the traditionalistic principle, now I think, this is a going to be a very transformative understanding, that we totally reject the western or the modern notion of the civilization, the western modern notion of civilization. And we have to adopt the traditional principle, that is going back to Vedas or may be trying to speak about giving more emphasis upon the traditions. I think, that is how, we can have certain amount of socializing, we have certain amount of indigenization, which professor A K Saran was talking about or he was also trying to see, that can we think about the sort of synthesis, the synthesis of the two traditions. That is, we are not going to reject the modern western civilization, or we are not going to have the traditionalistic principle alone, rather we can have the mix of the two, in that sense. So, can we think about the sort of synthesis between the two, what you can say, lines of arguments in that sense. Now, those who basically debate on the synthesis of the traditional concepts, with the rationalistic idea and the value neutral attitudes, are going to be seen as the righteous way, that we should have the synthesis of the traditional concepts, with the rationalistic idea. And also, we have to have the value neutral attitude, value neutral attitude. Now, this is going to be an important aspect, that we have to have the sort of rationalistic understanding and also, we have to have the amount of value neutrality, we have to have certain amount of value neutrality, neutrality of value, that is going to be important. And in that way, we can have the model in which, we can go for the sort of indigenization, which has been talked about by A K Saran. Now, how we can attain this issue of indigenization? What are the ways through which, we can attain the sort of indigenization? I think this is an pertinent question, that we can have the different models, we can have the different ways, in which we can go for the indigenization. Now, we try to see that the social science, that has grown in the third world, basically in the developing and the underdeveloped world, it has to be seen in terms of two way process. One of course, is the issue of decolonization, one of course, is the issue of decolonization and also, simultaneously, we have the issue of development. So, we have on the one hand, what we have to argue for, we have to argue for the decolonization and parallely, we also has to speak about the development in that sense. So, that is one way, in which we can think about the notion of indigenization. Another way in that sense is that, we should have the so called academic colonialism. We have the academic colonialism, which has to be seen beyond the political colonies or which has to be seen, beyond the understanding of what has been developed by the so called rulers of the specific colonies. So, one can say that, the westernization and modernization package, had to be seen in a wider way. It includes the attack on the dependence, the attack on dependence and the issue of servility. Now, the basic understanding is that, academic colonialism should not be to such a level that, we are becoming dependent upon them and we have certain amount of servility of or the bent of mind towards them. Rather, the westernization and modernization, which has been developed by the so called, the impact of colonization, has to be relooked in that sense as such. Like when we try to speak about, the sort of borrowed academic knowledge, it may lead to a failure, because why it may lead to the failure, because it may not suit the interest of the masses or sometimes, it is not going to have the, what you can say, the concern for the development of a specific nation, somewhere that, self interest of the colonial rulers are going to be an important issue. Now, we can have another way, in which we can think about the sort of indigenization that, the planners and the policy makers, the planners and the policy makers. I think, they definitely plays a crucial role in the development of a nation. So, the planners and the policy makers of the developing countries, they should find the faults in the western model of development. They should find the faults in the western model of development or one can see it in terms of, raising the critique of the western notion of development as such. So, if we have the critique, the challenge to the model of the western aspect, by the planners and the policy makers and we can have the lineage of them, to such an extent that, the important aspect can be carried forward, but other things has to be filtered out. So, if we have that aspect, then we can have the better results, because it is going to be more meaningful as such. And also, another way, in which we can go for indigenization is, the appeal for endogenous development, the appeal for endogenous development and indigenization by the social scientist, indigenization by social scientist. So, I think, this appeal for endogenous development, development within and also the indigenization has to be kept in mind, that can have the better results for attainment of the indigenization. Thank you. .