+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Identity Politics and Crisis of Social Sciences

Identity Politics and Crisis of Social Sciences

Date post: 02-Jun-2018
Category:
Upload: silvalero
View: 221 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend

of 4

Transcript
  • 8/11/2019 Identity Politics and Crisis of Social Sciences

    1/4

    Identity Politics and Crisis of Social SciencesAuthor(s): Rajen Harshe and Sujata PatelSource: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, No. 6 (Feb. 8-14, 2003), pp. 525-527Published by: Economic and Political WeeklyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4413186.

    Accessed: 04/09/2013 22:07

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

    content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

    of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

    .

    Economic and Political Weeklyis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

    Economic and Political Weekly.

    http://www.jstor.org

    http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epwhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4413186?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4413186?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=epw
  • 8/11/2019 Identity Politics and Crisis of Social Sciences

    2/4

    erspectives

    dentity

    Politics

    n d

    r i s i s

    o

    S o c i a l

    Sciences

    Identity olitics

    has undermined

    nstitutionalconcerns to

    provide

    sound

    scholarship

    and

    good pedagogy.

    Further,

    t has

    encouraged

    a culture

    of

    intolerance

    n

    academic discourses.

    RAJEN

    HARSHE,

    SUJATA

    PATEL

    e

    are

    provoked

    to

    write

    this

    essay

    because of

    a

    numberof

    discomfortingdevelopments

    related o the

    quality

    of

    thinking,

    evels

    of

    intolerance,

    ndiscipline

    and

    uneven

    standards

    n

    universities

    ealing

    with

    ocial

    sciences n India.Theseconcerns

    pertain

    to

    declining

    practices

    of

    civility

    and

    de-

    mocracy

    s

    well as reasonand

    reflexivity.

    Here,

    reflexivity

    onnotes

    an

    acceptance

    of

    inter-subjective

    ifferences.

    In

    theory

    universities re there o

    pro-

    vide technical

    expertise

    of

    knowledge

    questions

    hat

    emerge

    in

    society.

    In so-

    cially

    plural ettings

    of

    India,

    ducational

    institutions reorganically onnected o

    civil

    society

    concerns.

    ndeed,

    he more

    kaleidoscopic

    and

    competing

    societal

    world

    views,

    the more

    enriching

    social

    sciences can be.

    Though

    social

    sciences

    in India

    grew

    under he shadow

    of

    colo-

    nialism here

    was

    an

    attempt

    o build

    such

    kaleidoscopic

    nd

    ompeting

    worldviews

    and

    practices

    n social

    sciences,

    at least

    in some universities.

    n the initial three

    decades

    after

    ndependence,

    his

    experi-

    ence became hemodelof what

    comprise

    good

    social

    sciences and its

    practices.

    However, ver heyears, he situation as

    changeddrastically.

    n

    practice

    one

    kind

    of

    politics,

    that is

    identity

    politics,

    has

    been

    dominating uring

    he astdecade

    n

    most

    of

    the academic nstitutions.

    We

    explorebriefly

    he

    ourney

    of social

    science

    and ts

    practices,

    articularly

    ince

    the

    forties

    n

    India.

    In the course of this

    discussion

    we

    highlight

    he

    contributions

    of

    public

    ntellectuals nd social move-

    ments

    n

    the

    making

    of

    good

    social sci-

    ences and the

    role of

    identity

    politics

    in

    unmaking

    he

    practices elating

    o

    good

    socialscience.Hereweusethe ermpublic

    intellectuals

    or those who

    display

    nde-

    pendence

    n

    thinking

    hat s

    characterised

    by autonomy

    of

    perceptions

    and

    views.

    In

    expressing

    themselves such

    intellec-

    tuals do not lose the sight of larger

    public good

    while

    intervening

    in

    the

    public

    sphere.

    The

    community

    f

    social cientists

    arely

    understandshat the

    presence

    of

    public

    intellectualsand their

    varying

    contribu-

    tions

    play

    a

    significant

    ole n

    the

    making

    of

    social sciences.

    Thus,

    social

    sciences

    are not

    only

    nurturedwithin nstitutions

    that

    promote

    heir technical

    discourses,

    but heyalsogrowandbloomwellbeyond

    the

    bounds of formal

    institutionalnet-

    works.

    Critical

    o the

    state

    of

    social sci-

    ences is the

    symbiotic relationship

    be-

    tween hese

    deas

    generated

    ithin

    ociety

    and institutions f social sciences.

    Public

    intellectuals such as

    Gandhi,

    Nehruand Ambedkar

    s

    well as similar

    figures

    n the

    regions

    and

    various ocali-

    ties have

    played

    a

    proactive

    role and

    inspired

    scholars in social

    sciences to

    theoriseand

    ncorporate

    heirreflections.

    Their deasand

    visionswere

    ramedn the

    contextof nationalist nd social move-

    ments.Muchof

    contemporary

    ocial

    sci-

    ence literature

    on

    nation, nationalism,

    communities

    ogether

    withclassand

    aste,

    politics,

    andculture raws

    rom he

    under-

    standing

    and

    assessments rom the

    in-

    sights

    of these

    figures.

    The

    perspectives

    they

    offered were

    divergent

    and

    hence

    their

    incorporation

    n the

    technical an-

    guage

    of social science

    discipline

    ed to

    the formation of

    different

    schools of

    thought

    competing

    with

    each other.

    When India

    achieved

    ndependence,

    t

    hada very small numberof institutions

    that

    could

    play

    a

    substantial

    role in

    pursuing

    research

    in social

    sciences.

    Despite

    this

    handicap,

    academically

    significantandsociallyrelevant tudies

    were

    published.

    These

    studiesbuilt new

    perspectives

    of the

    national

    liberation

    struggle

    as well

    as

    envisioned

    he

    course

    of

    developments

    n

    post-colonial

    ndia.

    Disciplines

    uch

    as

    economic

    history,

    o-

    ciology

    and

    political

    cienceas

    theygrew

    in

    Indiaoffer

    evidenceof

    the same.

    This

    could be

    highlighted by citing

    a few

    examples

    of

    social

    scientists that drew

    their

    nspiration

    rom

    deas

    enunciated

    y

    preceding

    public

    ntellectuals

    nd

    social

    movements.nthe

    courseof their

    ravail

    they themselvesbecamepublicintellec-

    tuals.

    D

    R

    Gadgil s

    seminal

    work on The

    Industrial

    Evolution

    of

    India,

    first

    pub-

    lished in

    1924,

    became a

    seminal

    study

    in

    the discussion

    of

    political

    economy

    of

    development

    rom he

    orties. t

    drew rom

    the

    nationalist

    perspective

    embodied n

    the drain

    heory

    elaborated

    y

    Dadabhai

    Naoroji,

    o

    analyse

    how

    colonialism on-

    strained he

    course of

    industrialisation.

    This

    then

    became he

    assumption

    or ater

    technical

    research hat built

    theoriesto

    curtail olonialism ndshapenewmodes

    of

    industrial

    evelopment

    n

    post-colonial

    India within and outside the

    Gokhale

    Instituteof

    Politics and Economics.

    In

    1948,

    A R

    Desai

    published

    is

    book,

    Social

    Background

    f

    IndianNationalism.

    Its main

    arguments

    were drawn

    from

    existing

    debates

    on

    the interaction

    of

    classes and

    nationalism

    mong

    he com-

    .munists n

    India

    and

    the

    world.

    In

    the

    process

    Desai

    elaboratedboth the con-

    cept

    of class and nation

    together

    with

    nationalism

    n

    the Indian

    context.

    This

    perspectivewas importantn shapinga

    Marxist

    choolof modern

    istoriography.

    Subsequently,

    Desai

    elaborated n his

    Recent Trends in

    Indian Nationalism

    (1960),

    the

    contradictions f

    ruling

    class

    projects

    within the

    post-colonial

    state,

    hitherto

    scantily

    theorised within the

    academicworldand

    only

    later

    pickedup

    by

    Marxist

    political

    scientists n the

    late

    1970s.

    Rajni

    Kothari s

    eminal

    tudy,

    Politics

    in

    India

    (1970)

    blazed the

    trail of

    new

    inquiries,

    as

    he

    explained

    he natureof

    one-partydominancen India under he

    Economic and Political

    Weekly February

    8,

    2003

    525

    This content downloaded from 132.204.3.57 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:07:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/11/2019 Identity Politics and Crisis of Social Sciences

    3/4

    Congress

    ystem.

    The

    genesis

    of

    his

    as-

    sessment

    of

    these

    politicalprocesses ay

    in his

    earlier dited

    work,

    Caste

    n

    Indian

    Politics

    (1970)

    wherehe

    argued

    hat

    In-

    dian

    democracy

    was

    drawing

    rom

    corpo-

    rate

    eaturesnherent

    n

    indigenous

    orma-

    tionsof the caste

    system.Obviously

    hese

    arguments

    anbe

    traced o the

    writings

    of

    Gandhiand

    Nehru.

    Gadgil,Desaiand Kothari ried o fuse

    concepts

    nd

    heories hat

    emanatedn

    the

    west

    with

    specificities

    of

    India,

    expressed

    in

    nationalist

    thought

    and

    organically

    articulated

    y public

    ntellectualsn

    India.

    Italso

    needs o

    be noted

    hat he ater

    works

    of these

    scholars

    continue o

    reflect

    this

    intimate association with civil

    society

    institutions

    nd

    movements.

    Desai sbooks

    on

    agrarian

    movementsand later

    on

    hu-

    man

    ights

    raw

    rom

    post-emergency

    ivil

    and

    democratic

    ight

    movements.Like-

    wise

    Kothari

    who

    provides

    a

    critique

    of

    his own theorisationsby drawingfrom

    new

    experiences

    xpressed

    y

    civil

    society

    institutions

    which he

    conceives

    as

    non-

    party

    politicalprocesses.

    To

    put

    t

    simply,

    public

    ntellectuals nd

    social

    movements

    became

    sources

    of in-

    spiration

    n

    setting

    the

    agendas

    of

    social

    sciences.

    Subsequently,

    he

    studies that

    came

    as

    outcomesof such

    agendas

    were

    illuminated

    by

    reason and

    most

    often

    substantiated

    y

    wealthof

    empirical

    vi-

    dence.

    On the

    basis of

    such

    rigour

    and

    discipline

    over

    time,

    social

    science re-

    search ouldshow

    conspicuous

    mprove-

    ment n

    content nd

    qualityby

    establishing

    traditions f

    doing good

    social

    science.

    These

    traditions

    were

    reinforced

    wing

    to

    healthy

    democratic

    ractices

    ponsored

    by

    the

    state,

    which

    entertained

    debates

    on

    a

    range

    of

    issues from

    development

    to

    foreign

    policy.

    There

    was an

    attempt

    to

    uphold

    practices

    of

    civility

    in

    all

    the

    debates in

    the

    public

    sphere,

    especially

    in

    higher

    education

    by

    the state.

    Social

    sciences in

    contemporary

    ndia

    thus

    re-

    flected

    his

    deal.

    As a

    result

    everal

    chools

    of

    thought

    were

    encouraged

    o

    flourish

    and

    appeared

    n

    creative

    tensions

    with

    each

    other.

    In

    a

    word,

    Indian

    ocial

    scientists

    with

    the

    help

    of a

    shared

    and

    convergent

    vo-

    cabulary

    eployed

    ccepted

    ategories

    nd

    tools

    of

    analysis

    in

    scientific

    inquiries.

    This

    gave

    such

    studies

    accessibility

    to

    transnational

    ommunities

    f

    scholars

    who

    were

    working

    n

    Indian

    ocial

    processes.

    Consequently,

    hese

    academic

    ndeavours

    legitimised

    a

    fusion

    of

    indigenous

    ocial

    concerns

    with

    nternational

    ocial

    science

    theories. Within

    India,

    scholars

    from

    liberal

    and Marxian

    raditionsontinued

    to

    flourishand

    coexist

    by

    building

    con-

    tours

    of

    debatesas these

    stemmed

    rom

    within

    society.

    II

    Though

    he

    Nehruvian

    period

    had en-

    couraged ebates nthepublic phereand

    within

    academia,

    he

    practices

    of

    doing

    teaching

    and

    research

    n

    academic

    nsti-

    tutions

    had

    always

    remained

    ragile,

    spe-

    cially

    those

    concerned

    with

    reason and

    reflexivity.

    For,

    the

    true est of

    best

    prac-

    tices n

    social

    sciences

    warrant

    he

    deploy-

    mentof

    democracy

    nd

    civility

    as

    cardinal

    principles

    f

    social

    relationships

    etween

    andwithin

    aculty

    and

    tudents

    n

    teaching

    and

    research.

    nstead,

    academic

    nstitu-

    tions

    continued

    o function

    hrough

    orms

    of

    hierarchical

    relationships,

    hile

    ormu-

    latingand

    transmitting

    nowledge.

    den-

    tities

    such

    as

    caste,

    class,

    gender

    and

    language

    mong

    others

    became he

    modes

    of

    expression

    f

    relationships.

    hus

    while

    the

    contentof

    social

    science

    heories

    were

    framed

    n

    terms f

    commitment

    o

    democ-

    racy,

    civility

    and

    reason

    n

    substance his

    project

    was

    not

    translated

    n

    terms

    of

    establishing

    democratic

    practices

    and

    a

    new

    cultureof

    civility.

    Furthermore,

    he

    Nehruvian

    project

    of

    nation-building

    ame

    under

    contradictory

    pulls.

    For

    nstance,

    t

    provided

    or

    region-

    ally

    uneven ndustrial

    development,

    en-

    efits to

    upper

    peasantry

    nd

    landlords

    t

    the

    cost of

    landless,

    promotion

    f

    higher

    educationat the

    cost

    of

    elementary

    du-

    cation

    and

    universal

    iteracy.

    Whileon

    the

    one

    hand

    t

    underscored

    he

    significance

    of

    scientific

    emper

    nd

    he

    secular

    ocial

    order,

    n

    the

    other

    hand,

    t

    equated

    cience

    with

    technology.

    Within

    higher

    ducation,

    he

    Nehruvian

    phase

    was

    characterised

    y

    two

    distinct

    trends,

    which

    ogether

    with

    the

    above

    sets

    of

    contradictions

    ffectedthe natureof

    social

    science

    practices.

    On

    the

    one

    hand,

    itencouraged

    nthusiastic

    cholarsn

    social

    sciences

    to

    be

    innovative

    n

    expressing

    bold

    formulations

    nd

    go

    through

    ebates

    over

    their

    merits in

    an

    atmosphere

    of

    tolerance

    nd

    ivility

    as

    ormulated

    bove).

    On the

    other

    hand,

    with

    the

    numerical

    growth

    of

    universities

    rom

    the

    sixties

    onwards,

    here

    wasno

    mechanismo

    ensure

    the

    institutionalisation

    of

    scholarship,

    based

    on

    the

    value

    of

    accepting

    differ-

    ences,

    together

    with

    civility

    and

    olerance,

    in

    day-to-day

    unctioning.

    Thus

    he

    map

    of

    higher

    ducation n

    the

    eighties

    was

    characterised

    y

    some

    obvi-

    ous

    contradictionsf

    the

    preceding hase.

    They

    were:

    (a)

    omnipresence

    f

    sciences

    over

    social

    sciencesand

    hatof

    economics

    overother

    ocial

    ciences;

    b)

    use

    of

    English

    language

    or

    teaching,

    research

    nd

    pub-

    lication

    as

    against

    the

    use of

    regional

    languages;

    c)

    commitment

    o

    democracy,

    civilityandreason n theoryandcontinu-

    ation of

    hierarchical

    principles

    in

    the

    practice

    of

    social

    relationship

    withinuni-

    versities;

    (d)

    centralisation f

    power

    in

    capital

    city

    of

    Delhi and

    pre-eminence

    f

    Delhi-based

    academic

    institutions

    over

    those of

    other

    metropolitan

    ities,

    and in

    turn

    he

    weight

    of the

    latter

    over

    mofussil

    ones;

    (e)

    centrally

    funded

    universities

    versus

    tate

    universities.

    These

    contradic-

    tions

    led

    to the

    establishment

    f

    uneven

    academic

    credibility

    within and

    across

    institutionsof

    higher

    educationand be-

    came

    prey

    to

    identitypolitics

    once

    these

    emerged

    n

    society

    and

    overtook

    he

    dis-

    courses

    of

    social

    movementsand

    public

    intellectuals.

    III

    The

    contradictions

    utlined n

    the

    earlier

    section

    surfaced

    hrough

    he

    eighties

    and

    provided

    the

    basis

    to

    unleash

    identity

    politics

    n

    society

    as

    well as

    n

    universities.

    These

    have

    also

    affected

    the

    quality

    of

    social

    movements

    and of

    public

    ntellec-

    tuals.

    n

    urn,

    uch

    contradictions

    avehad

    adverse

    repercussions

    n

    universitiesas

    well

    as

    on

    knowledge-building

    rocesses

    in

    social

    sciences on

    two

    counts.

    First,

    dentity

    politics

    has

    undermined

    institutional

    oncerns to

    provide

    sound

    scholarship

    nd

    good

    pedagogy.

    Now,

    self-

    promoting

    agendas

    of

    individuals

    and

    groups

    within

    academic

    nstitutions

    ave

    a

    telling

    mpact

    n

    both

    scholarship

    s

    well

    as

    pedagogies.

    n

    the

    process

    nstitutions

    have

    becomean

    arena

    or

    the

    interplay

    f

    identities.These identitiesnow influence

    matters

    relating

    o

    recruitment nd

    those

    concerningegulation

    f

    staff,

    aculty

    and

    students.

    orinstance,

    dentity

    as

    become

    among

    he

    dominant

    actors

    or

    selection

    of

    candidates

    from

    vice-chancellor to

    junior-most

    aculty

    and

    taff.

    Hence,

    den-

    tity

    of

    the

    candidate n

    termsof

    gender,

    kin,

    caste,

    religion,

    region

    or

    linguistic

    group

    becomes

    significant.

    More

    often,

    objective

    notions

    of

    academic

    xcellence

    and

    administrative

    apacities

    involving

    refereed

    papers

    and

    books

    and

    clean

    and

    efficient

    dministrativeecord re elegated

    526

    Economic

    and

    Political

    Weekly

    February

    ,

    2003

    This content downloaded from 132.204.3.57 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:07:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
  • 8/11/2019 Identity Politics and Crisis of Social Sciences

    4/4

    to the

    background.

    uch

    dentities reused

    in

    twofold

    ways.

    On the one

    hand,

    the

    individuals nd

    groups

    ulfil

    professional

    ambitions n theirbasis.Andon the

    other,

    identities reused n

    knowledge-building

    exercises

    by

    activating

    social and bio-

    logical

    resources.

    Second,

    t has

    encouraged

    cultureof

    intolerance

    n

    academic

    discourses. t is

    offeringessentialist pistemicconstructs

    for the

    next

    generation

    f scholars.Con-

    sequently,

    ocial science

    scholarship

    has

    degenerated

    into

    utilising

    simplistic

    forms of

    theorising,

    based on

    binary

    opposites,

    such as male versus

    female,

    braminical versus

    dalit,

    Hindu versus

    Muslim,

    modern ersus

    ndigenous,

    aste

    versus

    class,

    state versus civil

    society

    together

    with such

    opposites

    based

    on

    language

    and

    region.

    In

    effect,

    populism

    s

    rocking

    contem-

    porary

    earning rocesses

    n Indian ocial

    sciences,which is full of

    oversimplified

    interpretations

    f social

    processes.

    These

    interpretations

    make

    cause and effect

    synonymous.Especially,

    following

    the

    Mandal-Masjid

    onflicts

    of

    90s,

    it became

    easy

    to

    suggest

    that

    (a)

    support

    or con-

    structionof Ram Mandir s

    support

    o

    Hinduism ndall those

    who

    opposed

    his

    construction are

    anti-Hindu and

    are

    psuedo-secular ;

    b)

    support

    o Mandal

    Commisssion ecommendations

    s

    support

    to social

    justice

    and

    interrogating

    he

    wisdomof suchrecommendations

    s

    going

    against

    social

    justice;

    (c)

    support

    for

    modernity implies being

    western

    and

    obversely,

    o

    be

    indigenous mpliesbeing

    anti-modern.The

    protagonists

    and the

    antagonists

    n

    these

    debates,

    onstrued

    ith

    the

    help

    of

    binary

    opposites, appear

    so

    committed

    o their

    respective

    positions

    that

    hey

    eave

    ittle

    space

    or others o set

    the

    terms

    of debate

    n

    any

    other

    mould.

    Thus one can

    easily

    characterise he

    nature f academic iscourses

    hat

    dentity

    politics

    is

    generating.

    nsteadof

    judging

    anyargument

    n its

    strength,dentity

    tself

    is

    attributed

    o the

    argument.Weaving

    an

    argument hrough

    he

    prism

    of

    identity

    robs

    it

    of its reasonas well as

    empirical

    substance

    and

    yet

    the

    argument

    an be

    paraded

    s validon the

    grounds

    hat t has

    internal

    onsistency.

    Also,

    such

    arguments

    do

    not

    accept

    hevalidand

    ogical

    distinc-

    tion

    between

    particular

    nd

    general.

    Politics based on

    narrowly

    conceived

    identitieson the basis of soil and blood

    have

    proved

    so

    myopic

    that

    protagonists

    who mobilise uch dentitieshave ost the

    sight

    of

    pan-Indian

    isions

    as well as the

    importance

    of the nation state.

    Amid

    anarchy

    of

    identities,

    the

    overarching

    identity

    of Indiaseldom finds

    any place.

    This is tantamount o

    concentrating

    n

    trees

    by

    losing

    the

    sight

    of the forest

    Moreover,

    due

    to an attitudeof live

    and

    let

    ive,

    of tolerance

    nd oexistence

    mong

    the

    diverse communities

    a

    composite

    culturehas flourished

    n India or centu-

    ries.

    Can we afford o

    ignore

    he

    composite

    pan-Indiandentity

    under

    pressure

    rom

    aggressive

    nd

    xclusionary

    endencies

    hat

    are

    getting

    dentified

    withHindutva?

    an

    the divisive

    potential

    f

    identity

    politics,

    including

    hatof

    Hindutva,

    quip

    India o

    encounter he new

    phase

    of

    globalisation

    effectively?

    Rather,

    t

    is the

    pan-Indian

    identity

    built around

    composite

    culture

    thatcan bolster ndia s

    strength

    ndcon-

    frontthe

    challenges

    of

    globalisation.By

    losing

    sight

    of this

    pan-Indian

    dentity,

    India anbecomea

    battleground

    f intrac-

    tably

    divisive

    orms

    of

    identity olitics

    and

    get

    further

    olarised

    romwithin. t would

    thenbecome

    ncreasingly

    ulnerable

    o the

    global

    forces dominated

    by

    the world

    capitalist ystem.

    Indeed,

    issues

    related

    to social and

    economic

    quity

    and

    ustice

    or all

    groups

    in

    society

    warrant mmediateattention.

    However,

    he

    resolution f such ssues

    in

    thecurrentontext s desirable

    y

    strength-

    ening

    the

    nation tateandnot

    attacking

    t.

    Those who

    argue

    or the

    needof

    identity-

    based

    politics

    at hecostof thenation

    tate,

    fall

    into he

    trap

    f

    weakening overeignty

    and

    nner

    unity

    of

    the

    people

    n India.The

    state

    n

    Indianeeds

    o be

    equippedhrough

    a

    constructive

    ritique

    o handle he

    ques-

    tions of

    equity

    and

    justice.

    Ironically,

    a

    good

    deal of recent literature

    n social

    sciences

    is

    legitimising

    he

    displacement

    of the

    stateand

    privileging

    he

    community

    in

    the

    pursuit

    of

    its

    recognition

    and

    realisation

    f

    dentities.

    Thisalso

    displaces

    the

    pan-Indian

    nstitutional

    as well as

    epistemological

    basis

    for

    conducting

    social

    sciences.

    In

    fact,

    n current

    imes,

    social

    scientists

    thatretain heir

    scholarly

    objectivity

    and

    think n the

    ong-term

    nterest f Indiaand

    its

    institutions

    ppear

    ike

    a

    rarebreed.

    By

    and

    large

    the dominance f

    identitypoli-

    tics

    has

    taken such

    a hold of academic

    institutionshat

    nterrogating

    uch

    politics

    can and

    anyone

    n direstraits.

    As a

    viable

    strategy

    of

    survival,

    a silent

    majority

    of

    intellectualsare obsessed with

    political

    correctness o avoid the wrath

    of those

    pursuing dentitypolitics.

    What s

    more,

    in

    every

    other

    university

    breedof

    appar-

    ent academicians urned into full-time

    politicians

    s

    actively

    laying

    dentity-based

    politics

    to

    pursue

    their restrictive nds.

    Moreoften

    they

    use

    theories

    of identities

    as

    part

    of their

    scholarship

    nd therefore

    justify

    their

    pursuing

    hese ends. To

    put

    it

    more

    sharply,

    f

    politicians

    n

    contem-

    porary

    ndia

    have become norm-lessand

    unscrupulousn thepursuit f promoting

    identity

    olitics

    ome

    of

    our

    contemporary

    academicshave

    gone

    one

    step

    further

    n

    rationalising

    nd

    ustifying

    his

    politicsby

    theory

    n

    their

    own

    sphere.

    The

    irony

    is

    that

    politicians

    re at least

    accountable

    o

    peopleevery

    five

    years

    but academicians

    in

    general

    and this

    breed

    of academic

    politicians

    n

    particular

    re

    accountableo

    no one.

    IV

    We have

    argued

    hatthe

    way

    politics

    deploys

    combinations of

    democracy;

    civility,

    reasonand

    reflexivity

    can affect

    both educational

    nstitutionsand social

    sciences

    practices.

    emocracy, ivility

    and

    reason re

    organically

    elatedoeachother.

    Democracy

    has a

    potential

    to

    redesign

    social,

    culturaland

    intellectual ife. It is

    the central

    organisingprinciple

    o weave

    theories and

    practices

    of

    communities,

    institutions nd

    socialities.It rests on an

    agreement

    o

    communicate,

    o

    disagree,

    andto

    accept

    differences.

    Civility,

    on the

    one

    hand,

    sets the tonefor theevolution

    and

    the

    conductof

    democratic

    ractices.

    On

    the

    other,

    by

    affirmingnter-subjectiv-

    ity,

    it

    keeps away marginal

    ndividual

    interestsrom

    operating

    s

    socialresources

    in the

    making

    of

    collectivevisions.In

    the

    process

    it

    shapes

    norms,

    practices

    and

    values

    hat

    mbodyways

    of

    living.

    Lastly,

    an

    acceptance

    f reasonas

    reflexivity

    s

    crucial o

    both

    democracy

    nd

    ivility.

    For,

    reason s the

    only

    tool of

    interrogation

    hat

    can

    subject

    tself to

    scrutiny,

    nd

    thereby

    provide

    a

    bridge

    between

    democracy nd

    civility.

    Politics,

    which has reasonas its

    directing

    orce,

    becomes a

    golden

    mean

    to

    promote

    and evolve

    democratic

    prac-

    tices.

    In

    contrast,

    olitics

    stimulated

    y

    a

    combinationf

    emotions nd

    personal ain,

    suchas

    identity

    politics,

    can

    ncontestably

    undermine

    reason and

    reflexivity

    and

    therefore

    ivility.

    This s thecrisisof Indian

    social sciences.

    E

    Address

    for

    correspondence:

    [email protected]

    spatel

    @

    unipune.ernet.in

    Economic

    and

    Political

    Weekly February

    ,

    2003

    527

    This content downloaded from 132.204.3.57 on Wed, 4 Sep 2013 22:07:14 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

    http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Recommended