The 'other' view of sociology

Book review of 'QED: India Tests Social Theory'

QED: India Tests Social Theory

Dipankar Gupta

Oxford University Press

223 pages; Rs 695

This book has been written primarily for the author’s peer group in the disciplines of sociology and anthropology. But it is not a sermon. It starts from the position that the simultaneous existence of modernity and traditionalism, rich and poor, rural and urban in India defies the construction of social theories. So how can these seemingly contradictory forces be harmonised into the construction of theory? To offers answers, the author has rigorously analysed the entire corpus of sociological theories as applied to the study of modernity, peasantry, caste, ethnicity, health and multi-culturalism. His key message, spelt out in his introductory chapter, is to urge researchers to put themselves “in the position of the other”. As he observes, inter-subjectivity involves “seeing oneself in others and not just being aware that others affect our lives”.

The other element of the approach involves comparative studies of social issues. Taking the example of the Indian peasantry, he argues that the gulf between “powerful and the subordinate classes” is true not only of India but occurs elsewhere too. He cites James Scott’s Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance for insights on rural uprisings around the world and on his own study on land and labour in western Uttar Pradesh about actual relationship between Jats and Scheduled Castes such as Harijans and Valmikis. 

Peasant relationships at the grassroots cannot necessarily be viewed through one lens; in fact, they are much more nuanced than outward appearance suggests. For instance, “Members of the SCs... only whisper their complaints against Jats. They would immediately fall silent if a Jat were to wander in while such a conversation was going on,” he writes. This finding clearly shows the reality of the “class-caste’ domination in rural agricultural social relationships where Jats dominate and exploit the Harijans and Valmikis. 

However, powerful social dialectics are at work and social change is the order of the day and the evidence for such a new awakening among the oppressed Harijans or Bahujan Samaj is provided by the emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Thus, if Jats feel threatened today, it is not because of petty thefts by the Harijans and Valmikis, but rather by the declared politics of defiance that BSP has inaugurated in what they hitherto perceived as their unchallenged domain. The author’s note of caution is that “peasant resistance should not be lionised” but social science inquiry should focus attention on the conditions under which the poor in the countryside effectively organise protest and resistance. 

On the caste system, which haunts India till today, the author in three interconnected chapters makes an interesting observation: The so-called uniqueness of caste system in India as visualised by western sociologists can be overcome if the scholar “traverses cultures” and does not confine himself to social “exceptionalism” or “uniqueness”. The author makes a significant comment when he says that “no caste actually accepts their degraded status” and he further states that “a phenomenon that once appeared unique is now familiar, without being the same as any other. In times of crises, caste, too, can give in and bend the rules”. He traces the history of British colonial policy of separate electorates for non-Brahmins especially beginning with Morley-Minto reforms of 1909 and how this new policy led to the emergence of non-Brahman organisations in post-Independence India.

Social conflicts are the real stuff of politics and society and India has witnessed ethnic and communal clashes, which have been growing in frequency. The author has made a special reference to the Sikh militancy of the 1980s in Punjab. In discussing this phenomenon, he says he uses the term “imago” to refer to “primordial or ascriptive identities in times of strife”. The Sikh image of themselves as Singhs (lions) motivated a section of militants who were engaged in struggle for Sikh independent identity. “Thus, in moments of social strife, cultural identities get constructed on the basis of self-image of the community….”

The study of tradition and modernity has engaged the attention of many anthropologists and sociologists, and following in the footsteps of his professional colleagues, the author devotes two chapters that essentially address the vexed question of multi-culturalism in societies. The essence of his contribution to these debates is on individualism. He says, “individualism is not the preserve of lonely and resolute souls but is a condition that impresses itself on all in modern societies.” Individualism, however, “functions best when there is a recognition of constraints and of rules that cannot be transgressed.”

Overall, the author’s real contribution in this study lies not so much in what he says about the reality of different aspects of Indian society, but in his critical examination of theories and concepts of the great founders of social philosophy and theories of the last two centuries. His seminal contribution to the study of sociology lies in his suggestion that by “putting oneself in the position of the other”, researchers will be able to approach the “respondent” with empathy.