Sample Notes for Sociology for IAS

EMILE DURKHEIM

SAMPLE NOTES FOR SOCIOLOGY

EMILE DURKHEIM

Perspective: his perspective is called Social Realism because he assigned reality to group & not to individuals. Keeping in view that every science is distinct (19th century thinking); he got this idea from Emile Boutroux.

Reality exists at multiple levels. Each level of reality is emergent in character. When parts join in a certain relationship, they produce a new level of reality & each level is studied by a different science.

Social reality is sui-generis: It cannot be reduced into its component parts. It cannot be adequately understood in terms of causes & consequences alone. Social Reality calls for a new science, i.e. sociology. Social reality pertains to group life. Once a group results, a new level of reality results; i.e. social reality which is beyond and outside individuals have its own independent existence. Anything with independent existence is observable. So this reality can be based on positive science. Social reality is unified whole made of interdependent & inter connected parts Organismic analogy.

Subject Matter: Aspects of this new level of reality are Social facts. Facts, because they have independent existence; Social because they pertain to group. Social facts are those ways of acting, thinking and feeling which are capable of exerting external constraints on individual members, which are diffused throughout a given society & which exist in their own life- independent of individual manifestations. Ultimate social fact is conscience collective. Other social facts are subsets of conscience collective.

Conscience collective: Totality of beliefs and sentiments common to an average member of society which forms a determinate system and has a life of its own. It is also called as totality of social resemblances. It has its own distinctive properties, conditions of existence and mode of development. It has a life of its own. Beliefs and sentiments comprising conscience collective are both moral and cognitive. They act as an agency to regulate behaviour as well as act as means of knowing the world. It is a psychic type of society. Durkheim argued that state derives its authority from conscience collective and becomes its directive organ and symbol. In a democratic polity, there exists a high degree of communication between state and conscience collective, which renders the latter more deliberative, reflective and critical.

Conscience collective varies in extent and force from society to society. It is reflective of the degree of cohesion, integration or solidarity of a society. It is distributed throughout the society. It has specific features which make it a distinct reality. It is independent of particular conditions in which individuals are placed. It is spread out over the whole of the territory of a society. It is common to all occupations or professions etc. It links successive generations to one another. It governs the existence of individuals. The stronger the conscience collective of the society, the greater is the indignation against crime or against any other violation of the social imperative.

Representations Collective: Durkheim abandons conscience collective later on, as it was too all embracing and too static; it failed to discriminate between cognitive, moral and religious beliefs and sentiments. Durkheim used the concept of Representation Collective for the first time in his study of suicide, when he wrote that life is essentially made up of Representations Collectives.

Representations Collectives are the states of Conscience Collective which are different in nature from the states of the individual conscience. They express the way in which the group conceives itself in its relationships with objects which affects it.

Representations Collective refers both to the mode of thinking and conceiving what is perceived. Representations Collectives are collective in the sense that its origin determines its mode and form in its reference to object. They are collective also in that Representations collectives are socially generated and they refer in some sense to society. By using the analogy of the individuals mental states which are intimately related to their substratum brain cells, from whose activity they result. Durkheim argued that representations collectives result from the substratum of associated individuals. They cannot be reduced to & wholly explained by features of individuals; they have sui-generis characteristics.

Representations Collective is either a concept or thought held in a sufficiently similar form by many persons to allow effective communications. These collective symbols have force because they have been jointly created and developed e.g. flag is a political representative and sacred texts are religious representations.

Durkheim wanted a separate branch of sociology to be devoted to the study of representations collectives to be called as Sociology of Knowledge. This examines the social origin, reference, social functions and forms of cognitive thoughts.

Rules of Social Method

Durkheim was explicitly concerned with outlining the nature and scope of sociology. Durkheim laid down the general conditions for the establishment of social science.

Science dealt with a specified area or a subject matter of its own, not with total knowledge.

Science is concerned with things, objective realities.

Science describes types or classes of subject matter. Classification helps in arriving at general rules & discovering regularities of behaviour.

The subject matter of science yields general principles or laws. If societies were not subject to regularities, no social science would be possible.

There is continuity between the natural & social world, the sociology is as distinctive & autonomous a sphere of subject matter, as either the biological or physical.

To discover the uniformities, types & laws of society, we need a method. The methods of science applicable in the field of natural sciences are valid within the social field.

The social method: The social method rests firmly on the experience of biology, which had emerged by then as a science of living beings. The rules of social method are: Observation, Comparison & Classification, and Generalization.

Rules of Observation

Treat social facts as things;

Leave preconceived notions; observation of social facts should be restricted to observable & verifiable aspects.

Voluntaristic aspects should not be perceived before hand; observation should be in their collective manifestation.

Observation should be as definitive as possible.

Rules of Classification

Durkheim built a classificatory typology of social facts. For this each society should be studied in its entirety & then compared- Classification distinguishing normal social facts from abnormal social facts. Any social fact which leads to the improvement of society is normal & that deteriorates the society is pathological.

Rules of Explanation

Social facts can be explained causally & functionally. The causes which give rise to social facts must be identified separately from whatever social function it may fulfill. Although, cause & function have a separate character, this does not prevent a reciprocal relation between the two & one can start either way.

The determining cause of a social fact should be sought among the social facts preceding it and not among the states of individual consciousness or non social facts. The consequences or functions should be seen in terms of our society as whole.

Social Facts: Characteristics:

Exteriority: External to and independent of individual members of the society. They develop as a result of collective living and their origins cannot be traced to organismic or psychic aspects of individual consciousness.

Generality: Social facts are diffused throughout the collectivity and are commonly shared by most of the members.

Constraint: Social facts exercise a coercive power over individual members of the society by which they shape and regulate their behavior. True human freedom lies in being properly regulated by the social norms.

TYPES OF SOCIAL FACT: LIE ALONG A CONTINUUM

1. Structural/ morphological: it includes number and nature of element parts of which society is composed.

2. Institutionalized social fact: it is general in nature and widely spread.

3. Non-institutionalized: it is not yet crystallized, have not obtained a total objective and independent existence. they are also known as social currents.

4. Normal social facts

5. Pathological social facts

In the study of suicide that he had demonstrated his methodology best and the perspective of social realism was also applied. Study of religion studied the functional consequences. Study of suicide was the causal explanation and used the positive science approach. This was the best study. In study of suicide, an attempt towards theory building was done.

Suicide:

There was a sudden increase in cases of suicide in industrial society, Therefore he was interested in this study.

All cases of death resulting directly or indirectly, from positive or negative act of victim himself which he knows will produce this effect is called suicide.

He collected data of 26000 cases spread over a period of 30 years. Then, he went about classifying those data. He discovered that in every society, there is remarkable consistency in the rate of suicide. He was interested in collective manifestation, that is why he computed social rates of suicide. In 1841, in France, there were recorded 2814 deaths and in 1842, 2866 deaths. In Germany, records read 290 and 316 deaths respectively. Therefore he said that every society has an aptitude for the rate of suicide which more or less remains unchanged.

He said abandon all the preconceived notions. These are the notions prevalent at that time:-

1) In winter number of suicides was more than in summer.

2) Some racial groups have higher tendency of suicide than others.

3) Suicide is a result of hardship of life.

4) Alcoholism gives the cause.

5) It is due to psychic morbidity that the people commit suicide.

He said these must be tested in the light of empirical data. He said, the rate of suicide in winter and spring are the same. Racial theories are also discarded because their rates are different in different countries. Percentage of alcoholic who committed suicide is not higher than the representatives of alcoholics in the general population.

As far as psychological factors are concerned, he conceded that psychic factors too play a role. They are predisposing factors, but not the causal factors. There is a tendency within the social structure driving them towards suicide. He said force is coming from society i.e. social in origin. As long as society remains same, the rate of suicide remains same. This is called suicido-genic currents. It is a social force which emanates from social structure impelling from the society. So therefore, there is difference between social determinism and individual predisposition. The social force here is causing suicide whose rate is constant, so it is a social fact whose cause should also be a social fact.

Fashion is a social fact in making. It is basically a social current but when some fashion gets established, it will become a social fact.

Social fact has 3 identifying features:- Exteriority, Generality, Constraining.

In all countries of Europe

Protestants had an invariably higher rate of suicide than catholics. It varies from society to society from 13% to 300%.

Unmarried men have more rate of suicide than married men particularly in France.

Military Personnel has more rate of suicide than Civilians

Men have more rate of suicide than women.

In times of war/revolution e.g. in 1851, when Louis Bonaparte led the revolution, the suicide rate was less. Wartime suicide rate is less than peace time suicide rate. He said is the above said cases; there is a lack of integration & cohesion. Therefore rate of suicide is more.

In Protestant church, hierarchy is not present but Catholics have well defined hierarchy. In Britain, there is protestant ideology but no catholic organisation, therefore rate of suicide is less in Britain.

Being unmarried, means loneliness and lack of cohesion. Those issueless couples also tend to have more rate of suicide. Educated people are more prone to suicide than uneducated. Because education increases individualism and decreases group solidarity.

Similarly, women act like group oriented; therefore, less suicide rate among women. Women tend to be more conformist. Study conducted in India shows male rate of suicide is 200 times more than the women. Therefore where identification with the group is more, rate of suicide is less.

TYPES OF SUICIDE

Egoistic suicide: This is the situation where the individual conscience is in variance with the Collective Conscience. Individual asserts himself or herself by committing suicide. He gains superiority over Conscience Collective.

Rate of suicide is inversely proportional to degree of solidarity.

Altruistic suicide: In various societies, where the group norms demand suicide, the rate tended to be high. In French army, officers rate of suicide is more than that of soldiers. The reason was sense of nationalism, patriotism, is more in officers than in the civilians. Here in words of Durkheim, individual is totally in tutelage of the group. Their life appears to be hindrance to societal goals, therefore they commit suicide. There is no individual gratification, but for the sake of group welfare suicide is committed. Sati is an example of this. This is the suicide which is occurring because of high solidarity, total identification with the group. This is what he called as altruistic suicide. Group is given priority over the self.

Types of Altruistic Suicide

1. Obligatory: Society imposes this e.g. LTTE. You must die for the group.

2. Optional: Where the group admires suicide, no compulsion e.g. Sati, Harakiri.

3. Acute Altruistic suicide: individual renounces his life for the actually felt joy of sacrifice e.g. Religious suicide. kaivalya in Jains. They are the identification of higher group solidarity where it demands.

ANOMIC SUICIDE

He also found in the data, that there was sudden slump in the economy e.g. crop failure etc. if then the rate of suicide increases, he calls it anomic suicide.

In Durkheim words: True freedom lies in being regulated by the society. When this fails, anomie results. When there is failure to put brake on human aspirations, anomie results. Its never ending, no limit, never satisfying, no longer guided by traditional norms and new norms are not there, so normlessness results. Anomic develops and normative order goes. Natural values and beliefs are also gone. E.g Divorce ie breakdown of social regulation.

Suicide, while caught red handed while taking bribe is an anomic suicide.

Anomie is a situation where the normative society breaks down and anarchy is a consequence of that.

Fatalistic Suicide:

He found that married women have more rate of suicide than married men in those parts of Europe where divorce is not permitted. The cause is excessive regulation which leads to suicide. Also this was the case with Roman and Greek slaves. This kind of suicide which is called fatalistic suicide is due to over regulation.

He finds two suicid genic currents

1) Integration

2) Regulations.

Both are social facts.

CRITICAL EVALUATION:

Gabriel Tardy has given thought on imitation as the cause of suicides. Durkheim rejected it. He was contemporary of Durkheim.

Imitation is not a social fact. Durkheims study of suicide is regarded as landmark because first time, the empirical research and theory building was done.

1. Relying on official data as the basis of its empirical data.

2. Phenomenon being considered as an aggregate form rather than individual acts and motives e.g. crime rate, divorce rate.

3. Trying to arrive at generalisations.

Through this, he showed that by applying the methodology, the positive science of society can be studied. Several studies enforce his study of suicide. e.g. In a survey it is found that there was indeed significant variation in suicide rates. Surveys showed that Hungary, Germany, Egypt have constant rate of suicide but rate is different in different country. In India, Kerala had consistently high rate of suicide. One trend in India is, Larger the city, more is suicide. In Kerala, high rate of education and sudden spurt of money from NRIs are the causes. Infact, southern states have more rate of suicide than Northern states. More cohesive the family, less will be the suicide.

In 80s in America, Breffault selected 216 counties from 50 states of U.S. He found that there is consistency in rate of suicide in terms of family formulae.

Halbwachs also carried out the study of suicide with the same approach as Durkheim had done. He arrived at Rate of suicide is directly proportional to degree of complexity of the social structure.

Criticism

Durkheim was criticized both for his positivism and extreme social realism. 1. Positivistic stance criticized by questioning the basis of data he collected.Anti positivists and phenomenologists like Atkinson questioned the authenticity of data that is it reliable. Can we treat it as a factual order. He would say that in Europe, Coroner certifies the death as suicide. He said it is coroner who decides on the basis of evidence found / circumstantial evidence which is not conclusive. It is coroner who puts the label of suicide.

Thereby, raising a doubt that phenomenon like suicide can ever be studied like a positive science. He said official data is not convincing. J.W.B. Douglas: He pointed out that there is built in basis in his study of suicide. he said that in all religions in Europe, suicide is considered as sin. If it is reported, then the stigma will be over the whole family. And in poorly integrated society, the suicide will be higher. Because there will be more reporting than in the previous case.2. Extreme Social Realism: Generally, it is accepted. But the social causes cannot be considered sufficient. There may be contributive factors. There may be extra social factors present which Durkheim rejected at large. Economic Social Factor also play a role.

Douglas pointed out that individual meanings should also be taken into account so here the meanings individual gives should be taken into account, so explanation should not be given only in the social causes. Individual meaning must also be taken into account. Existing theories are based on untested commonsense judgment and ignore actual meaning for those involved. Henry and Short: They pointed out that individual factors have to be taken into account with the external factors. When there will be less external regulation and high internal regulations, that man will commit suicide. It must be supplemented with internal regulation as well. In 1980s, an American Sociologist, Maris adopted a slightly modified methodology, what he called psychological autopsy, who failed in life, failed in suicide also. This is based on an extensive interview of those people who are the survivors of suicide attempt. It was found that they had a suicide career. They had tried; it was since long in their mind. Sometimes, it runs in family.

Sociobiology: It is a branch of sociology which claims that serotonin deficiency which causes the person to commit suicide and in families running with suicide, may be deficiency of it is the cause.

David Phillips questioned Durkheims claims that it cannot be explained in terms of suggestibility. In early 70s, he found that in those weeks in U. S., when celebrities committing suicide, those days rate of suicide becomes more. So imitation does play a role. Particularly, it is strong among teenagers. He said fluctuation is by around 6%.

DIVISION OF LABOUR

The study of division of labour was his first major sociological work published in 1893 even before he published his methodology. Those methodological aspects are only implicit in his study. This study of division of labour was speculative work. No empirical research was carried out and his basic concern was to look into the nature of modern industrial society. Peace and cohesions, stability and solidarity in industrial society. Modern industrial society was seen as consequences of use of modern techniques of production process, which in turn had changed division of labour in society. (He sees rise of Modern Industrial Society as a result of progressive differentiation i.e. increase in division of labour) By division of labour he meant a social arrangement by which a complex task is divided into simpler ones and allocated among different members of society. More the complexity of skills, more the need for division of labour. Durkheim was not he first person to address division of labour. This was done by Comte and Spencer.

More importantly, Classical economists Adam Smith & Ricardo for first time studied division of labour consequences. They saw them in terms of increased efficiency and productivity. DOL resulted in Industrialisation. Classical economists had already explored consequences of division of labour and consequences resulted in economic progress and prosperity. More recently, neo classical economists through their Principle of comparative advantage have extended the same logic used by classical economists to International division of labour. This is highlighted in context of globalization i.e. different countries should go for specialized production. This must be completed with breaking of trade barriers and doing away with self sufficiency concept. Free flow of goods will lead to prosperity and consumers will also be benefited by best quality goods. Consequences of International Division of Labour are also being explored in terms of economics consequences.

Principles of Comparative Advantage: India followed import substitution strategy. Japan followed export led strategy of growth. They followed textile first approach. Instead of producing everything, Japan started by alternative strategy. They had no raw material, but good cotton, so they tried to better cotton growth and exported textiles. Then ventured into ship building, electronics etc. So profits used in other branches of. Comparative advantage principle says that country should produce those things which it is best suited for e.g. Hollad-Cheese, Germany- Automobiles. Comparative Advantage principle is against self sufficiency.

Economists look at consequences of Division of Labour in economic terms alone. Durkheim found this kind of explanation appropriate for economists but inadequate from social point of view. He said it was too narrow approach because Division of labour is phenomenon which encompasses society as a whole. There is nothing like economic Division of Labour alone. There cannot be specialized Division of Labour in economic sphere unless special skills and education are available. Special skills and education cannot be acquired by imitating family members. It is the whole society that witnesses Division of Labour so as to have economic Division of Labour. If Division of Labour permeates whole society, it is a Social fact, but did not call it social fact. As he later on said, consequences of social fact must be seen for total society. So, consequences of Division of Labour must be seen as encompassing whole society. How to make industrial society as a livable place was his basic question. He wanted to acquire scientifically valid knowledge in this concern. Idea of solidarity was his concern. He made a critical evaluation of economists. He suggested alternate questions like how is individual bonded to society and other individuals?

Central issue for Durkheim was why individual while becoming more autonomous do, depends more on society?

How can they be at once more individual and yet more solidarity? That is he was exploring nexus between Division of Labour and solidarity.

Other subsidiary questions:

1. What causes the change in Division of Labour?

2. How is it, there is conflict and disorganization in industrial society? (There should be solidarity)

3. How can this be remedied?

He did not try to seek answers on basis of empirical study. Using common sense assumptions and deductive logic, he sought answers. He saw logical possibilities. He said two kinds of polarities are there:

High Division of Labour

Low Division of Labour

By low Division of Labour, he meant Division of Labour is purely ascriptive (Gender and age are always present as basis of Division of Labour)

Achievement based Division of Labour is an e.g of High Division of Labour.

He took them as two logical possibilities and not empirical situation. No real society would ever resemble his model fully. They are actually typologies. Real societies fall in between them. So his model was a classificatory typology.

Low Division of Labour: It means people of same gender and age performs similar tasks. It is possible only if tasks and skills are simple and they dont call for special effort. Productivity is low, size of the group is small. Such a group is characterized by likeness of parts. Each one can replace the other.

How does solidarity result in such a society? Answer: By only preserving the sense of likeness. They feel united by saying that they are alike. Such a society by trying to preserve the sense of likeness among the parts maintains solidarity.

The Social organisation is based on kinship bonds. They see each other as member of same kin group. Hold of conscience collective is very strong. Conscience Collective envelopes individual Conscience. No scope for individual autonomy. He analyses conscience collective in terms of four parameters: Volume, Intensity, Determinateness, and Content. Volume: Means it is spread. Conscience collective spreads throughout the society. All aspects of social life are governed by conscience collective. Individual consciousness is enveloped by conscience collective; so much is its volume.

Intensity: Force and seriousness which people attribute to conscience collective. Shared ways of doing things are taken very seriously e.g. marrying in own caste is more important in village than cities.

Determinateness: How clearly, specifically is conscience collective defined? E.g. in traditional societies, will defined rules of dressing up otherwise, the issue is scandalized, But in city not scandalized. Determinateness is less in cities.

Content: What is the kind of ideas which constitute conscience collective? In Low Division of Labour societies, the primary concern is to prevent deviations so volume is very high and intensity is also very high. Any deviation is met with resistance. Law tends to be repressive. All deviations are taken as criminal deviations. The main concern of society is to prevent recurrence and this is done by mobilizing societal force. E.g. in Saudi Arabia, on Friday after Namaj, punishment is given like cutting hands publicly. Determinateness is high. Each detail is worked out properly and one has to follow norms in all its details.

Content is predominately religious so divine sanctions follow in case of breach. Social Relations are obligatory and authority is absolute. Only limit may be technology. He called such society segmental society i.e. by juxtaposition of like segments and these segments are mechanically juxtaposed and therefore he calls this solidarity as mechanical solidarity i.e. solidarity based on likeness of mechanically juxtaposed parts. There is no interdependence between parts.

How does Division of labour change?According to Durkheim, increase in material volume and material density which leads to higher dynamic or moral density, the problems created by higher dynamic or moral density can be peacefully resolved through increase in Division of Labour.

Material Volume = Size of population

Material Density = Population Density

These results in increasing intensity of social interaction e.g. urban centres grow rapidly resulting in people in lesser space leading to increasing contacts and increased frequency and intensity of interaction. This is called as moral density. As size and density of population increases, competitiveness for scarce resources increases. The conflict can be resolved by diversification and exchange. Specialization increases efficiency and gratifies everybodys need. When Division of Labour become dependent on acquire special skills, parts tend to become more and more unlike and therefore norms allow high degree of autonomy to individuals so that they can become unlike. Unlike condition relate to each other through contractual and optional relations. Authority is absolute. Volume of conscience collective shrinks. More and more aspects are left to individual choice. Intensity of conscience collective is enfeebled i.e becomes feeble and determinateness decreases. The conscience collective becomes generalized and abstract. Content becomes secular. In such a society, individual freedom is treated as venerated principle. Contractual relationships are reconciliation of individual interests. Individual freedom and interest also need conscience collective. Conscience collective becomes generalized but does not disappear. Norms become specific and codified, the values become generalized. Laws become restitutive i.e. to restore things to earlier stage i.e. status quo e.g. law of contract. It has special organizations and institutions. Religion cannot be the basis of social control because values are generalized. It leads to democratization of authority. The norms are legitimized by a general value which applies to a number of norms. (In simple society, values are less general and norms are more general) The authority is delimited in a manner that it preserves autonomy. It has new value system of social justice and equality of opportunity. Every individual has right to nurture as society is based on merit. Each individuals role becomes more specialized, partial, and dependent on others. New basis of solidarity develops i.e. interdependence. There is unity among unlike parts because of their interdependence -Organic solidarity. This kind of situation is obtained in high Division of Labour which should be normal. In organic solidarity, solidarity is structured because no part can survive without the other. In contemporary Europe, there is pathologically high Division of Labor. Three forms of pathologically high division of labour can be identified as:

1. Anomic type of high Division of Labour

2. Forced type of high Division of Labour

3. High Division of Labour lacking coordination.

Anomic division of labour

He develops the concept of anomie. He says anomie literally means normlessness. Though in actual practice, there is not any vacuum of norms. Anomie manifests as breakdown of regulative pattern of society because in high Division of Labour, conscience collective is generalized and enfeebled. Unlike Marx, Durkheim did not think that sense of anomie felt by members is inevitable. Durkheim believed that it is only a pathological stage that normative state has broken down. So, anomie is manifested in industrial strife or in the violence, crime, corruption, labour unrest etc. Solution to anomie lies in restoring normative regulation. Human beings when left to themselves, tend to behave in arbitrary fashion. Nothing biological or psychological puts limit on human desires. Society can put these restrictions on human desires and make collective life sustainable. Earlier means of enforcing conscience collective are not effective, so alternate mechanisms have to be created in a society based on high division of labour. E.g. since in high division of labour different categories of individuals are to be regulated by different set of norms. Therefore through:

1) Professional Associations, moral regulation can be restored. Each association should create ethical norms and regulate conduct of members in that field.

2) Similarly industrial activity should not be a mere contractual relationship between employees and employers, but organization should serve as corporate and acquire community like character.

3) Present industrial strife, because of unlimited greed on both sides. Trade unions are not the solution as they replace individual greed with collective greed.

Solution: By arriving at mutually accepted norms which will put limits on profit desires of employers as well as wage desires of workers. When such a consensus is worked out, industrial strife would decline. In addition to fact that industrial organisation is concerned with production; it should also be concerned with welfare of labour and acquire character of community. This kind of reorganization into professional Organizations and corporations would on one hand prevent excessive centralism of power in hands of State and therefore preserve democratic character and prevent totalitarian state. On other hand, popularistic mass democracies are also not healthy. It will also facilitate enactment of realistic norms. Legislative bodies should contain members of these professional associations. They will take into account interest of nation as a whole and special interest of corporations. Thus anomie can be mitigated. This will restore normative regulations. He wants to reorganize power between civil society and State. Mob of atomized individuals can easily be manipulated. It tends to degenerate into populism. This is not rational and desirable so mass democracies are also not healthy. May be these are based on wrong morale. There is a need for ethical regulation of moral life. Such a society cannot grow into harmonious industrial society.

Forced Division of Labour

Forced Division of Labour is there because of unjust norms. Society based on high Division of Labour should be meritocratic. So equality of opportunities should be there. Economic disparities are unjust. It is not against unequal distribution of rewards, if this is because of merit, it is just. Merit should not be denied. After death, wealth should be devolved to State and redistributed. Let meritorious reap fruits of labour. Denial of opportunities to the talented leads to conflict.

Steve Fenton: Solution is guild socialism. Guild like organism should regulate the conduct of artisans. Guilds should be subordinate to State.

Lack of CoordinationIf specialization of task is not accompanied by sufficient coordination, it will lead to a situation of anomie where everything is wasted and individuals feel poorly integrated into collective life. Proper coordination of special tasks has to be achieved. But he did not emphasis much on it.

CRITICAL EVALUATION OF DURKHEIMS STUDY OF DIVISION OF LABOUR

One of the major achievements was for the first time that someone explored the nexus between division of labour and solidarity. How nature of social bonds change with changes in division of labour. He systematically highlighted the role of population. How population affects social organizations. New branch of sociology i.e. sociology of occupations/ professions emerged. Among the later day researches inspired by study of Division of Labour, one famous is that of Elton Mayo and Coworkers Hawthorne Study. In this study, they pointed out that it is not only economic self interest that guides human behaviour but need of individual for belongingness to group is important. Fredrick Taylor had viewed the role of economic interests only. Behaviour of individual in organization must be understood in social context.

Elton Mayos Work: Social problems of Industrial Civilization, in this there is classification of Society into Established societies Vs Adaptive societies. (Similar to mechanical/ organic solidarity)

Problems of Modern Industrial Society stems out of fact that adaptive societies have failed to create an alternative basis of social cohesion. The basis provided by established societies is incompatible with high division of labour. It is reflected in increasing suicide, crime etc. Various other researches have also been inspired, particularly researches that tried to explore, Division of Labour at work with social cohesion.

Herald Wilensky speaks of relationship between division of labour and social integration and examines the variable degree to which work situations and experiences with labour force encourage participation in, and integration into secondary social groups.

He found that those who had stable careers (e.g. 9 to 5 jobs) had a better family life and were more integrated in community life. Unstable career results in poor integration with community and family life. So sociology of occupation explores how experience at work has bearing on overall social life of individuals. This dimension was first highlighted by Dukhreim in study of Division of Labour. This is his lasting contribution.

Both American and British Sociology has relied on Durkheims study of Division of Labour.

CRITICISMS1. David Lockewood: Durkheim has failed to make distinction between two level of integration i.e. system integration and social integration.

System Integration: Increasing interdependence of part of a system.

Social Integration: When members come to share common beliefs and values.

With high division of labour, society becomes solidary and yet, says, lack solidarity. This apparent contradiction in terms of normal and pathological can be explained. Normal is not achievable as it is ideal state.

As per Lockewood, high Division of Labour increases system integration and decreases social integration. Durkheims solutions try to enhance social integration. Because of increasing autonomy, social integration decreases and problems stem out of lack of social integration. So anomie becomes a recurrent feature.

2. Herbert Marcusae, Weber, Marx ( Conflict Theorists

According to Durkheim the problems of industrial society can be resolved only by ensuring normative regulations. This was questioned by conflict theorists. Certain problems are endemic to societies based on high division of labour. In his writings, Durkheim uses a simpler mode to thinking. Small scale healthy and large scale economic organizations are bad because in large Scale Organisations, social integration is poor and relationships are more impersonal. It is built in logic of society with high division of labour that should increase in scale.In high division of labour, the problem of deskilling, fragmentation of work cannot be dispensed with. By restoring normative regulations, deskilling cannot be avoided e.g. Assembly line production. They cannot identify with manufactured product. Durkheim appears to glorify high division of labour. Problems can be resolved by decreasing inequalities and more effective regulations of conduct. But deskilling is not rooted in either of two and is inherent to division of labour.

3. Marxists: Durkheims use of concept of Conscience collective, does not recognize that Modern Industrial Societies have different classes and different classes cannot share same idea. So called Conscience Collective represents culture of dominant class which is forced of lower classes by coercion or indoctrination. 4. He seems to be over-emphasizing on role of repressive law in simple societies. This criticism has been put forth on empirical basis. Durkheims study was speculative study. In many simple societies, restitutive law also exists. He can be defended on ground, that he was just constructing a typology rather than describing empirical situation. E.g Nuers of Sudan(If someone commits murder, kin group of murderer can pardon him in lieu of certain fine) and Trobianders. Just as repressive laws exist in advanced industrial societies, so do restitutive laws exists in simple societies

RELIGION

Published in 1912.His study Totemism-the elementary forms of religious life. Durkheim demonstrated as to how a functional explanation can be made in sociology just as in suicide, he demonstrated causal explanationHe also wanted to make positivistic study of religion .He argued that true nature and origin of religious phenomenon can be understood by looking at religion in its simplest form. So,it is elementary form of religion which is universally present. By investigating character of simplest religion we can understand character of great religion as well. In case of complex religion, true nature of religion gets camouflaged because of complexities added by priests and prophets. Religion without priests should be investigated to understand true nature of religion. He evaluated existing explanations of theories of religion as was his methodology that all pre conceived notions must be abandoned. Some of the authors titled religion as belief in supernatural forces. Durkheim said such a definition of religion renders:

1) Religious phenomena incapable of being studied scientifically as realm of nature is realm of mystery.

2) There is no way we can make distinction between natural and super-natural.

Primitive man does not make such dichotomy. It is of recent origin and has developed in European thought. These dichotomies i.e. like rational or irrational, natural or supernatural are characteristics of European society. In simple societies, whole universe including man and supernatural forces are seen as part of single moral order. E.g. People in tribal society believe in spirits. Spirit is also supposed to act in a way as human do. So defining religion in this way is wrong as it will render it incapable of being studied by positive scientific methods.

Tylor, prior to Durkheim had argued the animism is the earliest type of religion. That animism has developed out of the existential conundrums of primitive man. He defined animism as belief in spiritual beings.

Durkheim says, this definition is incomplete because religion is never a matter of belief alone. It invariably has certain practice called Rituals.

Secondly, Tylors explanation of animism makes religion appear to be an illusion. Tylor has tried to explain cause of religion in human curiosity and that is how humans invented notion of soul and then worshipped it. Religion is only make belief as per Tylor. First create God and then worship. According to Durkheim, religion is a real force. It is a universal phenomenon and no human society is devoid of it. It is such a powerful force that people live and die for it, people find meaning of life in it. An illusory entity cannot be a universal phenomenon and survive for so long and act as such a powerful force. Max Mueller in his book, Comparative Mythology studied Vedic religion. He said Naturism is the first religion. He tries to explain genesis of religion in what he called sensuous experience- that in simple societies, forces of nature are so powerful that they invoke fear of religion in human mind. Fear is origin of religion as per max Mueller. They become more significant as man is dependent on these forces. So they are personified and worshipped. e.g. in Rig Veda, worship of Sun, Wind. Durkheim rejected this argument also. He says this argument locates the source of religion in fear, that out of fear, forces of nature are given human like forms and worshipped. This is hallucination. If animism was to be the earliest religion, then, next stage would have been ancestor worship, but this is found only in India and China.

He also rejects the popular view that religion involves worship or belief in God. Many religions dont believe in God e.g. Jainism, Buddhism.

It is not necessary that religion should have notion of God so he did not find these views as scientifically adequate. According to Durkheim, source of religion has to be located in something real, permanent and transcending because religion is real, permanent and transcending i.e. superior. Because religion involves attitude of surrender, so religion deals with superior agency. Then, he developed his own theory of religion. Because of the nature of life experience, human life experience is dualistic and because of duality there develop thought categories which are also dual i.e. thought categories of sacred and profane. Mans thought is consequence of social life experience. He further questions Emanuel Kants idea that human mind has certain intrinsic thought categories like time, space, cause. These thought categories were deemed to be intrinsic to human mind by Kant. Durkheim rejects it and says social life experiences result in development of these categories. Space is a sequential arrangement of objects. When objects are arranged in sequence, they give a notion of space. Notion of space is fundamentally rooted in human perception of objects in a sequential way. It is with respect from some point of reference. This is how man starts thinking especially in terms of space. According to Durkheim, when people started living in groups and some place became their camp and from that they started viewing other objects in relationship to it and that is how notion of space developed. Time is a sequential arrangement of events. Some event is taken as a frame of reference. You are bound to think sequentially. See rising of sun as an event and time between two risings is quantified as a day. Even sequential thinking of events is a result of social life experience that primitive man, as he lived in camps, must have assembled in group for feasting etc., and they become significant events. They started relating other events to these and they become frame of reference and thus developed notion of time.

These might have been linked to natural phenomenon like rain. So this is not intrinsic but result of social experience. Similarly, when people assemble in groups and had animated interaction, it created a sense of well being and effervescence. They started equating it with desirable forces. They started thinking in terms of sacred and profane.

Sacred: What is set apart and forbidden. They were segregated and separated. It was treated with awe and respect. Sacred ideas were those which were to be treated differentially and they were separate from profane because it was believed that profane defies sacred. Access to sacred is strictly regulated and forbidden.

CRIME AND ANOMIE

Crime is a deviation from legal norms. When groups were structured, their happiness in assemblies was referred to totem. So thought categories are product of social life. Sacred demands special reverential treatment through certain rituals. On the basis of this classification, he tried to develop his positivistic definition of religion. Profane defies the sacred. Religion is not only beliefs but also practices. Practices are means of approaching sacred. Religion is a unified set of beliefs and practices related to sacred things that are to say, things which are set apart and forbidden. Unified means belief and practices are interrelated. Beliefs provide legitimization of practices while practices provide concretization of beliefs. Only these things are sacred which are set apart and forbidden. There is nothing intrinsic about an object which makes it sacred. Sacredness is super imposed. Sacredness is non-utilitarian, non-empirical, cannot be empirically validated, so sacredness is often defined in ambiguous way that sacred can be benevolent and malevolent at same time. Sacred rarely follows rationale. If a human being behaves wrong, he is held responsible but God never considered responsible. Sacred is looked at in ambiguous ways. Society imputes superior powers to the sacred and therefore is seen as strength giving, elicits respects, makes ethical demands on the believers and reciprocates and fulfillness of those demand leads to reciprocation. The empirical data for study were provided by some of the ethnographic accounts that were provided in descriptive accounts of way of life late 19th and early 20th century. Spencer and Gillan had published ethnographic account of Central Australian tribes particularly Aruntas.Benjamin Howitt: Native tribes of S.E. Australia described social structure and religious practices. Durkheim went on to claim that totemism is the earliest religion and the most elementary form because totemism is found in simplest of societies. It is not animism or naturism, but totemism. Then, he goes on to observe totemic worship. He says all members of totem group refer to themselves by a tribal name or a common name, even though, they are not blood relatives. Therefore, totem worship binds them as if they were family members. Totem compels them to recognize duties and obligations towards each other like reciprocal aid, particularly in common mourning, vengeance, obligation not to marry amongst themselves. Totemic beliefs involve a system of prohibition and taboos which keep the totem away from profane things. Totemic belief also consists of ideas which represent it as a causal force. Totem was seen as possessed with real force. They are even material forces which mechanically engender physical consequences. Durkheim says it provides underlying basis of religion experience and its powers compel individual to render pious duties. It creates moral obligation. It remains continuous over time while individuals keep changing. Therefore the consequence of totem as sacred object is: to unify and bind totem group together.

- it creates a set of moral obligations towards sacred object and therefore it acts as emblem of the society. So, source of religion should be real transcendental. Sacred is symbolization of society and so sacred is not make belief, but religion is worship of society. The central thesis of Durkheims theory of religion is that through history, men have never worshipped any other reality, whatever the form of totem or God, than the collective social reality transfigured by faith. Religion- Definition: These beliefs and practices bind into a moral community called church, all regulatory those who adhere to them. That is where, he provides final explanation of religion.

1. It is explanatory force for all things.

2. It is unifying force.

3. It regulates their conduct.

Religion is nothing but indirect way of expressing individuals dependence on his society through an emblem.

Believes in religion is not either a victim of illusion or hallucination. Rather, believer is nothing but law abiding member of society because real God is society. So he says society created God in its own image and therefore society based on high division of labour cannot have traditional religion because common belief cannot regulate diversity. So nationalism is new religion, may be humanism tomorrow. Secular ideology can also perform same role as religion ideology does as is to show mans dependence on collectivity. Durkheim believed that he had solved the religion Moral dilemma of modern society. If religion is nothing Modern population need only express their religion feelings directly towards sacred symboilsation of society but indirect worship of society. The source and object of religion- Durkheim pointed out are collective life. A secular sociological definition of religion would say that the individual who tells dependent on some extent moral powers is no a victim of hallucination, but a responsive member of society. The substantial function of religion is the creation, reinforcement and maintenance of social solidarity.

Religion is not only social creation, but social division. The deities which men worship are only projections of the power of society. The disapproval of trade religion need not herald the decision of society. All that is required of modern man is to realize their direct dependence on society which earlier was recognized through medium of religion. On the most general plane, religion as a social institution gives meaning to mans existential predicaments, by trying the individual to that super-individual sphere of transcendent values which is ultimately rooted in his own society. Thus, he advocated a new humanistic religion for the modern society.

CRITICAL EVALUATION

1. Total demystification of religion because religion is nothing but society divinised.

2. Secondly, it is in this study that he developed final explanation of social fact. And therefore it had a profound effect on ideas and approaches that developed subsequent particularly Radcliffe Brown, Malinowski, Parsons, Merton, K. Davis. So Durkheims study laid the foundation of functionalism.

3. In French Anthropology, there developed another approach of structuralism by C. Levis Strauss because of Durkheims influence. Durkheim therefore correspond between thought Structuralism and social Structuralism. He went on to influence the rise of Structuralist approach.

Structuralism: One of the way of understanding social Structure is to approach it through thought Structuralism, in relationship to ideas as they are crystallized to society. By looking at structure of these ideas, we can understand society. These ideas are in terms of binary ideas. Based on analysis of thought Structuralism, we can believed social Structure and explain social behaviour.

One of the disciples of Levi Strauss, Louis Dumont applied Structuralist approach to understand caste system in book Homo-Hierarchious. Concept of purity and pollution. This can be used for explaining Structure of caste system. To analyses social phenomena in terms of ideas. Basis is ideas resemble reality. There is correspondence between thought and social Structure. This idea was carried on further by Levi Strauss. 4. Durkheims view that sacred is symbolic representation of society has been tested empirically by certain social anthopologists particularly, Mary Douglas.

He found correspondence between nature of distribution of power and religion. Douglas also tested it empirically by making certain contribution like Group concept and Grid concept. She meant how clear is demarcation between insiders and outsiders in the society. Some societies are high group societies in which there is clear cut distinction. Low group societies in which there is no clear cut distinction. Grid: if a society has very distinct regulation of conduct

High Grid ( Strict Regulation

Low Grid ( Autonomy

Societies which are high group and high Grid have high ritualism.

Low group and low Grid ( lower ritualism

Criticism1. He claims that by looking at character of religion in simplest pristine form, we can understand the complex form. This assumption breaks down as modern industrial societies are plural societies, while societies studied by Durkheim are simple societies. Religion divides are also in plural societies. This aspect has been ignored. E.g. Indias partition.

2. Durkheims study displays extreme form of social realism i.e. he is looking at religion purely from collectivitys point of view. It has consequences for the individual as per Malinowski. The consequences are of different kinds because individual needs are different from collectivity needs. At the level of individual, religion provides security, relieve anxiety. At societal level it gives solidarity. He has adopted deterministic view point and subordinated individual to collectivity.3. Durkheim said that in advanced industrial societies, religion will disappear. Yet religion has not disappeared because it continues to satisfy individual needs. It answers the unanswerable.

Fundamental limitation of science is that it cannot explain why but just how & What. More the change of complexity of society, more the weakening of social bond and society. More the uncertainty and anxiety, more the need for religion. Now, religion in privatized and this has led to pluralism but has not disappeared.

4. He made absolute distinction between sacred and profane. Edmund Leach pointed out that in reality no absolute dichotomy it is more of a continuum and in between two exists mundane neither sacred nor profane. So it is false at both empirical and conceptual level. 5. Religion exists to provide solidarity. Critique says instead of explaining what causes religion, he is explaining what religion causes. At best, his explanation tells us that once having emerged, what keeps religion going. But doesnt tell us what led to creation of religion in first place. So it is illegitimate teleology. Teleology means explaining something for purpose.

6. Tautology : in his book, at places he says society exists because of religion and at other places, vice versa. So it is circular reasoning.

7. Worstey has criticized Durkheims explanation of religion beliefs and rituals. The explanation for actual religious system are not accounted for at all, but treated as if say the choice of the sacred object or of the actual ritual prescription were arbitrary and unimportant. This is especially regrettable in case of ritual since it has been argued that rituals infact always contain important matter bases in agriculture technique of tribe or group which implies there.

Teleology is a way of explaining anything in terms of purpose.

Lestewards concept of Telesis is similar consequence can only be a cause if it existed for a purpose. E.g. coming to class with previous purpose of learning sociologys consequences. On the most general plane, religion as a social institution serves to give meaning to mans existential predicaments by tying the individual to that supra individual sphere of transcendent values which is ultimately rooted in his own society. Thus, he advocated a new humanistic religion for the modern society.

POLITICAL PROCESSES

Working of democratic political system in a traditional societiesTotalitarian system in Russia is centralized democracy and totalitarian system, in Iran is Islamic democracy. Democracy has become value.

Political system based on liberal ideologyLiberal democracy is seen as manifestation of political modernization. In west, such kind of system evolved gradually as consequences of social and economic modernization. It was preceded or accompanied by social and economic modernization e.g. universal adult suffrage, which was established in Britain by 1949. Till 1927, there was manhood suffrage. By that time advanced capitalist society had emerged. Such political system developed as evolutionary process.

In India, we have traditional form of society, social and economic modernization had not taken place, when democratic political system was adopted. Even now, this democratic political system is not fully through social and economic modernization. Still we are socially and economically modernizing society and traditional structure are still persisting. Traditional political system which developed in India had been feudal monarchical ties. Liberal democratic system was adopted as result of contact with west, through elite preference. Not natural evolutional growth, nor result of peoples preference. Western educated elites who spearheaded the freedom movement adopted liberal democratic political system. While political superstructure has become modernize. Whereas, microstructure remained traditional one, it has generated its own consequences.

Paul Brass

While modern political system in India tries to modernize traditional society. The traditional society at the same time tries to traditionalize the political system.

Salient feature of liberal democratic system that we adopted from west, particularly from Britain:

1. Egalitarianism: Manifested in rules like eg. Equality before law, equal protection of law, equality of opportunity.

2. Individualism: liberal ideology is conceived in society as constituted by autonomous individuals, individuals who enjoy certain inalienable rights eg. Fundamental Rights. Individual is the end. State and society exist for the sake of individual. Only certain reasonable restrictions make individual rights and freedoms compatible with human living.

3. Secularism: One of the fundamental features of liberal democracy (Hindutva/Islamic democracy- antithetical to secularism). In plural societies, political system can not be religious based democracy. Rise of liberal democracy in west followed secularization of social life. State should not govern according to any religious principle. It should be seen on the basis of rational humanistic principles, should not discriminate against any religion (Religious parties can exist in secular state but it is a private matter).4. Federalism: the feature of federalism is very important in liberal democratic system.

5. Representative and responsible government: Egalitarianism and individualism can be made functional through representative and responsible government.

6. Universal adult suffrage.

First instinct of politician is survival, so popular and not ration decision are taken. Poor were gradually brought into suffrage. When they were educated, minimal equality had been achieved. This is fundamental contradiction that political process includes poor and economic process excludes. In Britain, they were able to avoid this contradiction, as only when this contradiction disappeared, they allowed poor to vote.

In Germany- democracy form of govt. stable after world war-II. After world war-I, Weimer constitution failed by 1930s and Nazi party came into power. In Italy, democracy is not stable so far.

Pre-requisite for smooth functioning of liberal democracy:

1. Establishment of certralised nation state, which can effectively enforce the law and maintain order. In Britain, sequences of events are like strong state led to Nation State and finally reached at Democracy. Absolutist monarchy of 16th century was first stage which repressed all lawlessness. Centralised means single authority. In medieval times, multiple centres of authority existed such as religious authority, political authority which was separated. Henry VIII brought religion under control of king. If there are other centres of authority, they function under delegated authority of centre.

2. Liberal democracy emerged with the break down of a social order based on institutionalized ascriptive inequality. In England, blacks death in 14th century resulted in mass deaths. So, hereditary relationship between serfs and lords broke. Wage-labour relationship started developing. 100 years war between nobles sacked strength of feudal order. It drained finances. Private armies paid in cash. Henry VII realized monarchy should be financially strong, militarily strong. So, custom tax encouraged merchants. They heavy handedly suppressed nobles and established rule of law. Inequality was based on achievement, meritocracy principle were evolving. Germany and France took time to destroy feudal order, so democracy did not grow.

3. Liberation of individual from control of corporate groups based on primordial ties like caste, lineage, ethnic ties etc. Groups based on contract relationships. Hindu votes, Muslim votes, upper caste and lower caste votes- show existence of primordial ties. Imam of Jama Maszid asked to issue statement before elections.

4. Secularisation of social life so that religion becomes a private affair and social life is governed by rational humanistic principle. This can be facilitated by spread of secular education which fosters rational outlook.

5. An effective welfare state which ensures that basic needs of all sections of population are met because liberal democratic system operates on peoples consent. People will preserve existing order, if their needs are met, otherwise questions legitimacy.

6. A consensus regarding basic values: without consensus democracy cannot work. Within consensus there can be disagreements.

7. Subsystem autonomy: Every sub-system should be able to function autonomously.

8. Differentiation of interests among diverse groups and articulation of interests of these diverse groups through formation of interests groups.

9. Rise of special avenues for political participation i.e. political parties. They provide channel for articulation of those interests and legitimate seeking of power.

To what extent do these pre-requisite exist:

In case of India, both the nation state and democracy emerged simultaneously unlike west where nation state preceded democracy by more than 100 years. India still has numerous sub-nation identities on the basis of religion, linguistic, regional etc. So India is still a nation in the making. Therefore, compulsions of democracy i.e. need for political mobilization leads to strengthening of these identities separatist tendencies exist eg. Kashmir, Punjab, North-Eastern states. It is generating centrifugal tendencies. Only virulent regionalism is antithetical not regionalism as such. Democracy is respect for India surviving as a nation. Regionalism dies out if democracy sustains eg. Issac Muivah came to negotiation table (Russia, Yugoslavia broke down because of absence of democracy).

On economic front: democracy remains liability. No land reforms, agriculture remains neglected. Democracy depends upon popular support. Redistribution of incomes is major failure. Poverty could not be vanished. State failure led to reforms unable to take rational but unpopular decision.

At political front: because of failure of development of institution of party system which gave rise to vote bank politics. It has also resulted in criminalization because consensus has not been developed.

In India, forged consensus has been developed among diverge segments to form nation. Basis for consensus has to be worked out. Over a period of time, the consensus has broken down. New consensus has to be worked out. But, consensus is being worked on petty methods like regionalism, religion etc. Political fragmentation engenders unprincipled opportunistic alliance. Primordial ties are being used. Even after 50 years literacy rate is less than 75%. In 1950, China was far behind India but now has move ahead. Population control, anti poverty programs have failed. This kind of liberal democratic system in west was consequences of economic modernization. In India it is vice versa. In traditional society, it will not in line with rational elite. But it cannot act in unpopular manner.

Day to day matters of decision making is being decided by executives. Un-executive offices are acting rationally e.g. Supreme Court, High Court etc. Judicial activism i.e. it is a distortion of democracy. No accountability. So system is becoming dysfunctional because of lag between democratic system and traditional system.

Political parties and their social base and social structural helps in origin of political elites and their orientation:

It means that with social strata or with segment of society, the political elite are recruited from and consequences how does it influence their orientation like political attitude, goals and ideological orientation. Elite means those who excel in particular set of activities or a particular set of values. There can be different types of elites such as business, artistic, sports, political elites etc.

Political elite can be defined as group of high stratum decision maker in political structure, which exercise political power, influences major policies and occupies position of political command. In this context of present day India, political elite include those who are elected to central and state legislative bodies and are recruited to executive/ministerial positions. Secondly, those who occupy important positions in the political parties both at the National and the State level and also those individuals who do not hold any formal position either in government or in political parties but still exercise political influence eg. big Industrialists, businessmen, journalists, intelligentsia etc.

Traditional Political Parties:

Traditionally political elites in India were feudal monarchical in character and they were recruited from rather narrow social base i.e. Khatriayas and Brahmins. Kings were from Kshatriyas and councilors, advisors and priests from Brahmins although, kshatriyas were not closed category.

Pannikar: No such things as true kshatriyas. Any group which was able to capture political power successfully at local level and sustain it long enough came to be reckoned as kshatriyas. In principle, the rule continued to be ascriptive that their descendants occupied power as kshatriyas eg. Marathas are from Kunbis (peasant) became mercenary soldiers then became feudatories eg. Maurayas, Nandas were Sudras, Satvahanas were Brahmins, Guptas were Vaishyas and Huns & Sakas (tribal people) were Rajputs. From time to time different sections of society were recruited into rank of kshatriyas. They were traditionally oriented and therefore, mainly pre-occupied with preserving status quo and lacked of progressive orientation.

After 12th Century

Composition of elites changed in most parts of India. Kshatriyas and Brahmins combination lost power to Muslim leaders. Ashroff muslims became new elites, the traditional Indian elite who were parochial in their outlook, mindset confined to local parochial, clannish loyalties, lacked of pan-India outlook.

Unlike them, the Muslim elites tended to have Pan-India vision though this pan-India vision did not lead to formation of National identity because their pre-occupation was political expansion through military conquest than brining social-economic transformation which would facilitate pan-India identity.

Economic and social hierarchy continued to be stagnant and rigid and therefore did not produce modernizing consequences. Though created innovation like new system of administration, standing army to create pan-India empire. But tied to ascriptive principles, authoritarianism etc. Failed to bring economic changes that could have facilitated economic modernization because political centralization is pre-requisite of modern society, means of transport and communication did not develop control was weak. They did not institutionalize rational system. Everything depended on personality of emperor. So shortly after the death of Aurengzeb, everything collapsed.

After 1857 with consolidation of British rule in India, the feudalistic monarchical elite witnessed decline. In second half of 19th century, new type of elite emerged. These elite were recruited from urban middle classes and with a professional background, western education and western outlook. Caste background remained continued as a dominant factor. Urban elites were from upper class.

As a result of their exposure to western education, they were influenced by human, liberal ideas, socio-religious reform movements eg. Debendra Nath Tagore, Brahmo Samaj, so they were committed to Nationalist ideas, egalitarianism and humanism, freedom, industrialism and therefore they became the agents of modernization in Indian society and part of modernization. Anti-colonial struggle was modernizing change, so first they created idea of nation. This was facilitated from their common cultural background belonging to pan-India great tradition. Non-dvijas had localized and parochial identities. Ashroffs had common Persian culture, access to western education. The elite became agent of modern economic and political growth and development. Well before independent, National Planning Committee created by Congress in 1930s.

Social modernization looked at their society with western eyes and were able to identify social evils. These elites were fundamentally different in terms of strong commitment to transformation. Evident from various sacrifices revealed that they were against British rule. Thus, they developed a charismatic personalities. They came to be identified with Nation community. They represented nation consensus and aspirations. They came to be called as modernizers. In provincial parliament of 1947, people of such professional background constituted 85% of part. As late as 1962, they constituted 73% and just participation in freedom movement not only fostered consensus among them but also fostered consensus on nation good and democratic ethos. These elites were able modernize people by forging a nation consensus and this consensus was represented in the various policies identified after independent for nation buildings. These elites lasted till 1960s. By mid 1960s, situation changed, new type of elite started rising. Charan Singh left Congress and became Chief Minister of U.P. and leader of Bhartiya Kranti Dal. Change was result of policies implemented by Congress itself. Rise of new elite from middle classes that started in mid 1960s and established its dominance by early 1980s. These elites arose as a result of policies like abolition of zamindari as kshatriyas witnessed low mobility and upper classes like jats had high mobility and prolonged democracy led to their politicization. That is what Rajni Kothari called as Ascendant castes. They challenged entrenched upper castes. This was last phase of dominance of earlier elite when modernizing elite which led freedom movement continued domination in Indian political system because of Green revolution, land reforms and politicization of people because of functioning of modern political system, new elite from middle class started emerging.

New elite lacked access to western education. They had risen by appealing to local, parochial ethnic, regional (Shiv Sena) etc. Rather than trying to forge alternative consensus at pan-India level which would have facilitate principled pursuit of political goals, they appealed to pre-modern ties to gain expediency based pursuit of political goals. Machevillian approach says ends are more important than the means.

Over a period of time, such pursuit of political goals will lead to loss of legitimacy of state itself. Even traditional upper class elite who were earlier committed to democratic ethos have also expedience based pursuit. So unprincipled means for modern goals, resulting in communalism, criminalization and riots.

Regionalism, Pluralism and Nation unity:

Regionalism:

A region is a geographically contiguous area characterized by distinctive cultural identity, even a distinctive social order, shared economic interests & problems and often also a shared history, common language, religion, castes, kinship patterns, economic aspiration and problems. Region comes close to a nation. Regional identity is sub-nation identity.

Robert Stern: Castism is least harmful problem, India has. Caste can not constitute nation, region can be used for separation.

Regionalism is a manifestation of concern for the region. When people express social concern for their region because of its distinct character, this process is called as regionalism. It can have different forms or expressions like moderate and virulent regionalism.

Moderate: group identifies with regionalism but its interests specific to region are not antithetical to nation interests. Though there is identification with region. People believe regional interests can be acts within the framework of nation identity.

Virulent: regional interests seen as antithetical to nation interests eg. NSCN in Nagaland, Hurriyat in Kashmir.

Causes for the prevalence of Regionalism:

Parties like Shiv Sena, Akalies, TDP are regional in nature, strongly identify with regional identity. Demand for autonomy or separate statehood like Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Telangana, vidharbha, Harit Pradesh, Khalistan. These are manifestation of regional aspiration. Violence in Bihar and Assam is due to regionalism. It has both moderate and virulent expressions in India.

Factors

1. India is a plural society and never developed homogenous nation identity, historically. Process of nation building strengthened regional identities rather than weakening. Linguistic re-organisation of status is acceptance of so many regions. Regional identities are a fact. Federal structure of Indian union must be preserved. It is healthy, otherwise result in Balkanisation of India. India is surviving because of regionalism. Regional identities are historically established identities. Regions became stronger as nation building was attempted.

2. Secondly, excessive centralization. Blatant use of Article 356. Protest against tendencies towards distortion of federalism.

3. After independence, economic development has been uneven. Some areas progressed more than other areas, inspite of avowed balanced regional planning, North vs South, FDI go to south and west. These conditions of disparity will contribute to regionalism because regional disparities create conditions similar to colonial equation. So regionalism grows as a process against uneven growth eg. Telangana is still backward, Coastal A.P. is prosperous.

4. Regionalism is also a result of rise of new groups who have aspirations for political power. Regionalism is populist stance they adopt to stop entrenched political parties. Other grievances when they overlap with aspiration of emergent classes for politial power their appeals are accepted eg. Dravid Nadu was ploy to dislodge Congress from T.N., so it is clearly an attempt to gain political power, so it is populism.

5. Regionalism is another short cut method of political mobilization. Over a period of time, consensus forged during freedom movement has broken down, this resulted in fragmentation.

Caste based parties can only be king makers. Horizontal mobilization gives support of any primordial group, should be vertical mobilization which is based on consensus among different strata. But politic lack vision, so appeal to region as regionalism glosses over caste divisions eg. Khalistan: Sikhs in Punjab marginal majority because Akalis had support of Jats alone. Appealing to regionalism, they wanted to bring all Sikhs together. Regionalism is a case of vertical mobility because of fragmentation, voting public ends up being faction.

6. Changes that have taken place in India because of which needs of different sections have become divergent from formed consensus.

Moderate regionalism is not antithetical to nation unity and must be respected. Regional aspirations should be accommodated to maintain Indian entity. Federal structure must be preserved.

Decentralization of Power: Panchayti Raj and Nagar Palikas:

Decentralization of power has been considered as crucial for bringing about social development. Though the constitutional assembly debated role of local self government institutions, but did not consider it so vital for future India. Local self government were only included in DPSPs in Article 40 which leaves it to the states to take steps to organize village panchayats and endow them with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self government. DPSPs are non-justiciable, lack of commitment in constitution itself. It was a state subject. Different states may think differently. Only two ties: federal and state. High degree of centralization of power is in the hands of bureaucracy at the local level. Although leaders like M.N. Roy and even Gandhi talked about Gram Swaraj and autonomy for village communities i.e. not only administration decentralization but also devolution of powers. Most of leaders who were members of constitutional assembly did not feel need for grass root democracy. After independence, we thought in terms of rural development and therefore community development programs launched in 1952 during first five year plan. Numerous studies including those conducted by local government found largely a failure. Its benefits accrued to relatively better sections of rural society. Whole program was envisaged to function on principle of active community participation. But no such participation took place, lack of institutional structure led to this. Bureaucracy was ill-suited for mobilizing community, suspicion and distrust of community. Some members of constitutional assembly including Ambedkar were opposed to any attempt at devolution of power because they suspected legitimization of land owning upper class and exploitation. Though bureaucracy would act in unbiased manner and deliver benefit for all. Numerous studies have shown this. Bureaucracy tends to identify with vested interests. This is what happened to community development programs, worked for entrenched upper classes.

Balwant Rai Mehta Committee:

This committee was appointed by government to review functioning of community development programs. It strongly recommended that community participation can only take place if there is an institutional framework to facilitate such participation by the people. Therefore, the need for grass root democracy was emphasized. Various other studies in other countries like Brazil, Jordan, South Africa, Botswana and States like Kerala, W.B, M.P., Karnataka etc. have clearly shown the various advantages of decentralization.

Advantages:

1. Faster response to local needs. First hand knowledge of real problems of local people. Administrative delays, when decision making is centralized and correct identification of peoples need.

2. Greater transparency and accountability. If decision making is easily accessible to people, transparency and efficiency increases. Most of primary schools in villages had improved attendance of primary school teachers.

3. Better information flow: Decentralisation provides administration with early warning of potential disasters.

4. Decentralisation makes planning more realistic and development projects become more sustainable as local people get actively involved in design, execution and monitoring the projects. There is participation budgeting and accounting.

5. Peoples motivation increases as they are stakeholders.

6. Local self government act as nurseries of political leadership, provide opportunities for participation. Nurseries of training future political leaders.

7. It acts as safety valve to terrorism, secessionism and other kinds of protest.

Decentralization of power is essential for speedy and effective development of national unity, law & order. This was realized after Balwant Rai Mehta Committee report.

Recommendations

1. Establishment of a three tier Panchayati Raj Sytem i.e. Gram Panchayat at village level, Panchayat Samiti at Block level and Zila Parishad at District level.

2. They should be linked through indirect elections. Village panchayats should have direct elections, whereas Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad should have indirect elections.

3. All planning and developmental activities should be entrusted to these bodies.

4. Panchayat Samiti should be an executive body while Zila Parishad should be advisory and supervisory body.

5. Power and responsibility should be transferred to these bodies and adequate resources must be provided to enable them to discharge functions.

6. District Collector should be chairman of Zila Parishad.

7. System must be evolved for progressive devolution of powers and responsible in future.

Developmental programs should be instituted and planned at local level. As a result of this, on 2nd Oct., 1959, first Panchayat was inaugurated by Nehru in Nagaur, Rajasthan, followed by another on at Shadnagar near Hyderabad.

It was left states to design the structure of local self govt. and timing of their elections. By mid, 1960s almost all parts of India established Panchayti Raj System. Many of them showed encouraging result eg. AVARD in 1962: people felt that they had sufficient powers to mould their futures. Privileges earlier enjoyed by Block Development Officers have come under their control. Attendance of primary school teachers improved in these areas. People were freely able to voice their grievances to pradhans and also had remedies implemented.

Planning Commission conducted all India level study: 114 villages as sample:

Significant change in nature of rural bodies. Younger and more educated leaders were emerging as village Sarpanch. It also contribute to cooperation among groups which were earlier hostile to each other.

Yogendra Singh conducted studies in six villages in U.P.

Although, Local Self Government continued to be in hands of land owning dominant castes but they lost normative basis of right to rule. Now, they rule by winning elections, appease numerical dominance. However, because it was a state subject more than dozen committees were appease in different states to implement recommendation of Balwant Rai Mehta committee. These changes were not appreciated by political elite at state level. They would not like their monopoly over political power to be shared.

In T.N., sixteen times elections were postponed and reasons which were sighted for postponing elections were equally true for state assembly election, but they were not postponed. Where elections were held, there was no power or resources. First general panchayats proved to be a case of failure.

Even central government showed cynicism to panchayati raj institutions. In mid 1960s, idea of community development disappeared. Intensive area development programs were launched instead of Community Development Programs.

In 1967, loss of power of congress in most states (DMK, BKD, Communist party in Bengal) because of three successive rain failures. Indira Gandhi resorted to this by populist politics Garibi Hatao. Bangladesh war won, lot of anti poverty programs, rural development programs, centrally sponsored schemes, bureaucratic administration.

In 1977, Janta party tried to many populist things. Ashok Mehta Committee was appointed. This committee gave its report in 1978 and its recommendations were:

1. Two tier system should be there where population is between 15,000 to 20,000 i.e. Zila Parishad at District level and Mandal Panchayat at group level.

2. Zila Parishad was to consist of elected representatives with elected chairman.

3. Panchayat elections to be fought on party level.

4. Panchayats should be given the right to raise their own resources by taxation.

5. In case of supercession of any panchayats elections must be held in six months.

6. Judicial decentralization i.e. Nayay Panchayat should be established.

7. Developmental functions at village level should be inferred to zila parishad.

8. Every state should have ministry for Panchayti Raj Insititution.

9. Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes must have representation at both levels in proportion to their population.

In 1977, in Bengal CPM government came to power. It went on massive drive for establishment base at grass root level. Shortly afterwards, in early 1980s, in Karnataka and A.P. also non-Congress governments came to power. W.B. followed by A.P. and Karnataka where Ashok Mehta Committee recommendations were adopted. In Karnataka, genuine attempts were made for infer of resources to panch. Again debate surfaced for need of Panchayti Raj Insitution. Because became obvious that tip heavy structure with centralization will collapse. Development delivery through bureaucracy controlled institutions became very insignificant.

In later 1980s, debate surfaced again. In 1985, at AICC session in Bombay, Rajiv Gandhi pointed out how poor are being exploited by power brokers. Bureaucratic administration developmental programs can not succeed. Political compulsions of elections in 1989, he gave employment to 20,000 dalits in govt. services in two months though no services needed. By the President orders, declared funds would be given to village Sarpanch directly and Panchayti Raj institution would be revived. So in 1989, it was realized constitutional support is must. Third generation panchayat with 73rd and 74th amendment bills, Narsimhan Rao passed 73rd and 74th amendment.

73rd and 74th amendments:

Articles 243 to 243 (O), contain the provisions regarding panchayti raj system. In 1996, according to Bhuria Committee, these provisions were amended to extend them to tribal dominate states. Now, uniform system of Panchayti Raj institutions has been established.

Provisions:

This constitutional amendment is not automatically binding. It envisages that every state will pass conformity Act, whereby i