The
mimic sociology
N. JAYARAM
The beginning of all colonial situations did generate
a number of myths. So does their end.
– Remi Clignet
THE idea that political emancipation from colonial rule ipso
facto liberates Ôthe captive mindÕ1 fostered by colonialism is a myth. It did
not take long for critical social thinkers in independent India to recognise
this. Articulating his poser for the Seminar issue on ÔAcademic
ColonialismÕ in December 1968, my friend, phil-osopher and guide, the late
Satish Saberwal, had cautioned against the dangers of the persistence of the
captive mind syndrome as a new form of colonialism. Other scholars too have
elucidated this phenomenon in the Global South generally.2
Attempts at
addressing the problem identified by Saberwal and others have yielded little by
way of rectification even after half a century. This essay discusses the
resulting persistent imitative proclivity of sociology in India. Taking off
from a presentation that I had made on the question of indigenisation of Indian
sociology at a seminar at the Ibn Khaldon Centre for Humanities and Social
Sciences, Qatar University, Doha on 26 December 2019, I examine here the shadow
cast by intellectual imperialism over sociology in India and the proposals and
attempts by some of its practitioners to overcome its adverse consequences.
I use the term
Ôintellectual imperialismÕ in its limited second sense as identified by Syed
Farid Alatas, following Alatas Sr in the poser to this Seminar. That is, it
refers to the Ôdomination of one people by another in their world of thinkingÕ;
it is analogous to political and economic imperialism in that there are
parallels between sociology (and other social sciences) as an academic
discipline and the international political economy. In contemporary times, the
intellectual imperialism vis-ˆ-vis Indian sociology is most discernible with
reference to the American, British, and French sociological traditions.
During the
colonial period, the intellectual hegemony of Britain was direct. Not only the
higher education policy in the country, but also the academic institutions and
the knowledge they transacted were determined and controlled by British rulers.
In independent India, there is no such direct imposition by any foreign country.
Both higher education institutions and the academicians working there are
heavily influenced by the flow of sociological and social scientific knowledge
produced in America, Britain, and France. Sociologists and social scientists,
naively or otherwise, are willing partners in this indirect imperialism.
Attempts at obtaining ÔsociologicalÕ
knowledge about India goes back to the late 18th century, deriving from the
scholarly interest of the Orientalists to understand Indian
civilisation, the evangelical enthusiasm of the Christian missionaries,
and the administrative needs of the British officials. However, as a
formal academic discipline, sociology was transplanted in the country in the
early 19th century, with the setting up of the first full department of
sociology (and civics) at the University of Bombay in 1919.
Those who took
up sociology as a vocation in the early decades were indelibly influenced
either by the IndologistsÕ textual perspective of society and culture in India,
or the theoretical propositions and methodological strategies of field-based
empirical studies then in vogue in Britain and elsewhere in Europe. Their mind
became captive by the fact that they were either trained in the West or
strongly influenced by the writings of western sociologists and social
anthropologists.
After
independence, the point of reference for sociology in India gradually shifted
from Britain to the United States of America. This was because of the post-War
changes in the world view of sociology in the West and the shifting of the
centre of gravity in sociology from Europe to America. Just as American
sociologists and cultural anthropologists began taking a keen interest in the
study of India, many Indian sociologists started visiting America for doctoral
or post-doctoral training.
Gradually, sociology and sociologists in the
country came under the shadow of the intellectual imperialism of the West,
mainly that of America and Britain, but supplementarily that of France. This
had many aspects. With the expansion of the subject since the early 1960s and
the persistence of English as the medium of higher education, there was a great
demand for sociology textbooks in English. Both America (under the PL
480-funded Indo-American Textbook Program) and Britain (under the subsidised
book-production programme of the English Language Book Society) contributed to
the production of hundreds of inexpensive editions of social science books in
the country.
Naturally, these
inexpensive though America- or Britain-focused books came to determine the
sociology curriculum taught to students in the country. Saberwal views the
American interest in the development of sociology and social sciences in
general, as Ôthe cognitive edge to post-war American political expansion in the
wake of EuropeÕs colonial withdrawals.Õ3 Generations of students have continued to
be taught this curriculum as the subject expanded with the rapid growth of
universities and colleges.
Influenced by their training in the West and
the academic material produced there, the work of sociologists in India, no
doubt, acquired rigour and sophistication since the 1960s. But their study of
ÔindigenousÕ social reality was invariably guided by ÔalienÕ theoretical
frameworks and methodological strategies. The theoretical concerns and
methodological orientations of western sociology are incorporated into the
sociological agenda sooner rather than later. But the ontological and
epistemological assumptions underlying these theories and methodologies, and
their relevance in the Indian context are seldom questioned.
A casual perusal
of sociological publications in India would reveal that their citations and
references are excessively drawn from the literature generated in the West.
This is facilitated by the revolution in information and communication
technology, which has made surfing for ideas on the Internet an easier option
than serious cogitation and discussion. One also finds proportionately more of
western sociology than Indian sociology on the Internet.
True to the
logic of intellectual imperialism, seldom do we come across western
sociologists citing the publications of Indian sociologists. A review of the
sociological literature leaves us with the feeling that the western
sociologists do not think it is worth citing. The literature of even the few
who find citations in western sociology are of those Indian-origin sociologists
who are working in the West. A latent consequence of intellectual imperialism
is that we Indians seem to have developed an inferiority complex and are unable
to appreciate the contributions of our own fellow sociologists.
An important factor facilitating
intellectual imperialism vis-ˆ-vis sociology (as other social sciences) in
India is the use of English as the medium of teaching and research in the
subject. India is the worldÕs second-largest English-speaking country in the
world; for the West this means a good market for the sociological books and
journals published in English. But hardly 10 per cent of the countryÕs
population can speak it and the percentage of those with proficiency for doing
sociology in that language is still less.
No doubt, in
most regional universities, there is a gradual shift to the vernacular as the
medium of instruction in higher education, but the availability of good quality
reading materials in the vernacular languages remains a problem. This highlights
the chasm between what is transacted as sociology in the English-medium
universities and colleges and their vernacular-medium counterparts in mofussil
areas.
Thus, even as
the academic sociology celebrated its centenary in India in 2019, it has not
been able to overcome the tendency to mimic sociology in the West; the subject
has largely remained a mirror image (distorted though, as all mirror images
are) of its primary counterparts in America and Europe. Indeed, the habits of
the captive mind do die hard.
There is, however, a notable difference
between the academic colonialism of the past and intellectual imperialism of
the present. In preindependence times, both higher education and sociology as a
subject were controlled by the colonial regime. In the post-independence
period, sociologists in India seem to be willingly acquiescing to academic
neocolonialism or intellectual imperialism. That is, if the founding fathers of
the discipline in India were naive victims of academic colonialism generally,
we are willing partners in intellectual imperialism today.
As T.K. Oommen
notes, Ôthe knowledge industry operates in a free-market situation. The
academic entrepreneur of the West É would want to sell his products wherever he
can. However, the transaction can take place only if there are willing buyers.Õ4 These Ôwilling buyersÕ also seek
endorsement of their work from their western counterparts. In recruitment to
faculty positions, our universities and institutes place a premium on the
academic credentials of foreign universities; in career advancement of their
faculty members, the publications in international journals carry greater
weight.
No wonder that
there is a growing sense of cynicism about sociology in the country. Those
pursuing it seldom see in it any purpose beyond career advancement. This is
matched by misgivings among both the policy-makers and the general public about
the practical use of sociology. Not a little of this is due to the persistence
of the captive mind syndrome in the era of intellectual imperialism.
As the child of European Enlightenment,
sociology is imbued with an inherent critical spirit. Paradoxical as it may
sound, this transplanted academic discipline not only fostered a captive mind
among those who took up its study and practice in India, but also provoked a
criticism of its transplantation among some of them. This criticism has mainly
to do with the lack of an ontological and epis-temological fit between a
uni-versalising (read, westernising) social science and a historically
conditioned socio-cultural reality of diverse India.
In the very
first presidential address to the newly born Indian Sociological Society in
1955, D.P. Mukerji castigated the sociological endeavours of his times: ÔAs an
Indian,Õ he said, ÔI find it impossible to discover any life-meaning in the
jungle of the so-called empirical social research monographs.Õ He frankly
admitted that, ÔI am not a sociologist as sociologists would like me to be.Õ He
declared, Ôit is not enough for the Indian sociologist to be a sociologist. He
must be an Indian first.Õ5
D.P. Mukerji
influenced a few young scholars at Lucknow (e.g., A.K. Saran and R.N. Saksena)
to question the positivist approach to sociology and to work out an indigenous
sociology based on IndiaÕs traditional social thought. Although his views on
western sociology in the Indian context attracted the attention of some
scholars (e.g., P.C. Joshi and S.C. Dube), given the captive mind syndrome,
they hardly found many takers. In fact, Ramkrishna Mukherjee blindly dismissed
the view that the approach of the Indian sociologist towards the appraisal of
social reality was imitative in any way.6
A prerequisite for a discipline to fight
intellectual imperialism is the recognition by its practitioners of its existence
and pervasive influence. A review of the presidential addresses delivered at
the successive sessions of the All India Sociological Conference since 1970
reveal the deep concern with the issue of the relevance of sociology in the
context of a changing India and an acute sense of national self-consciousness.
Although this sensitivity has been mainly reactive in nature, there have been
some proactive initiatives.
There has been
an on-going debate, though intermittent, on a Ôsociology for IndiaÕ,
originally initiated, ironically by Indophile sociologists like Louis Dumont
and David Pocock, in the very first issue of the renowned journal Contributions
to Indian Sociology in 1957. This debate has been continued, though
intermittently, in the New Series of the journal published since 1967. The
preposition ÔforÕ in the debateÕs caption reveals the perceived need for
postulating a set of concepts, theories, and methods suitable to study social
reality in India.
An alternative
advanced for addressing the quest for the fit between sociology and its
existential subject matter in the Indian context was the Marxian approach. This
approach was chiefly associated
with A.R. Desai and Ramkrishna Mukherjee. But the Marxian materialist
conception of history is also an alien theoretical/methodological framework.
India, no doubt, had its own brand of materialism in Lokayata or Charvaka
philosophy. Curiously, D.P. Mukerji, himself a critic of colonial implantation
of sociology, invoked Marxian dialectics and called his approach ÔMarxologyÕ.
DesaiÕs case
rests on an important observation made by Don Martindale about the origin and
function of sociology as a discipline:
ÔSociology was born as a conservative answer to socialism É Only
conservative ideology was able to establish the discipline. The linkage between
science and reformist social attitudes É was served. In renouncing political
activism, sociology became respectable in the ivy-covered halls of
universities. It was received as a scientific justification of existing social
order É as an area of study for stable young men (rather than as a breeding
ground for wild-eyed radicals).Õ7
DesaiÕs analysis of Indian nationalism and
MukherjeeÕs analysis of the rise and fall of the East India Company, both from
a Marxist perspective, were contributions that were quite contrary to the
sociology in the heyday of its pioneers. Their analysis yielded rich insights,
but their methodology did not take roots in Indian sociology, as one may have
expected it to. Mukherjee himself later shifted to survey analysis and
quantitative approach to social reality and became a strident critic of
qualitative anthropological research.
Inspired by the
Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, Ranajit Guha set in motion in the University
of Sussex in 1979-80 what has come to be known as ÔSubaltern StudiesÕ.8 These postcolonial studies approach
history from below, focusing more on what happens among the masses than among
the elite. Although some Indian scholars have contributed to this genre of
studies, it has not taken root in
Indian academia. Other important developments have been ÔFeminist SociologyÕ
and ÔDalit SociologyÕ, two alternative approaches to sociology from the
standpoint of women and of the downtrodden caste groups in Indian society
respectively.
Perhaps the most radical proposal to
liberate sociology from intellectual imperialism has come from sociologists
advocating indigenisation of the discipline. The prominent among these
sociologists are Yogesh Atal, Partha Mukherji, and Yogendra Singh. To Singh the
main issues in this regard are that of Ôintegrating the conceptual
and methodological structure with
the Indian worldview É and existential conditionsÕ and of Ôoperational
adaptation of tools and techniques of social research, which cannot be simply
borrowed from other cultures.Õ9
In the call for
indigenisation of sociology, however, there is the real danger of what Oommen
calls Ôacademic nationalismÕ, and worse still
of Ôacademic communalismÕ or Ôacademic parochialismÕ and Ôacademic feudalismÕ.10 He, therefore, recommends
contextualisation of sociology wherever it is practised.
This involves (a)
Ôrecognition of the fact that tradition/past contains both assets and
liabilities viewed in terms of the present needs and aspirationsÕ; (b)
Ôadopting appropriate values and institutions from other societies and
culturesÕ and Ôjudiciously craft[ing] them on to our own societyÕ; (c)
taking into consideration Ôgradual adaptation and reconciliationÕ as the
central tendency in our society; and (d) Ôsocial engineeringÕ in India
– involving Ôthe selective retention of our tradition, informed borrowing
from other cultures and the judicious mutation of the twoÕ – will have to
be Ôa process peculiar to IndiaÕ.11
Oommen rightly emphasises that, Ôif
sociology is to be relevant for India É it should endorse and its practitioners
should internalise the value-package contained in the Indian constitution, the
differing interpretations of these values notwithstandingÕ.12
Mukherji thinks
that we need to go beyond contextualisation. He, in principle, does not see a
contradiction between ÔindigeneityÕ and ÔuniversalityÕ, and argues that Ôwhen
concepts and theories originating elsewhere pass the
indigeneity-generalisability test, that is,
if the general explained the particular, efficientlyÕ, the Ôindigenisation of
concepts and theories developed elsewhereÕ will have Ôa universal import.Õ13
Although Indian
sociologists have been aware of their discipline being under the sway of
intellectual imperialism, their efforts at indigenisation have not been
successful. Their awareness of this predicament is attributable to the
self-reflexivity inherently warranted by sociology.
They are unable to do anything significant about it because it is a systemic
ailment. The colonial legacy in higher education in India is superimposed by
intellectual imperialism. We cannot wish away the bearing of intellectual
imperialism on sociology. But being cognizant of its existence and implications
is in itself a liberating experience; it would put us on guard.14
Given the great diversity of India, it would
be extremely difficult even to minimally define the Indianness of
sociology in India. So, sociology will have to undergo gradual adaptive
indigenisation. This would entail many questions. How to ensure indigenisation
does not result in parochialism or dominance of the majoritarian view,
marginalising the different minority views? How to ensure that the academic
agenda of indigenisation is not hijacked by the politics of cultural
nationalism? From whose point of view is the relevance of sociology to be
judged? There are no easy and categorical answers to these questions.
Obviously,
sociology in India cannot shut its door to advancements in western sociology.
It is neither possible nor desirable. What we need to develop, as Oommen points
out, is Ôa critical capacity to discern what is good and relevant for us.Õ15 In fact, Ôto produce knowledge that is
rooted in the indigenousÕ, Mukherji observes, Ôit is important that we engage
seriously with knowledge emanating from the West and elsewhere in a comparative
frame.Õ16
Saberwal puts
this pithily: ÔThe sociologist in India has to approach [the] Western tradition
seriously – not with apprehension, for it is more than merely a source of
our historic difficulties, but as a foil, a particular historical experience,
which we may hold to ourselves as a mirror much as Max Weber, Louis Dumont, and
others have tried to recognise the West for themselves in the Indian mirror.Õ17
References
A.R. Desai, ÔRelevance of the Marxist Approach to the Study of Indian SocietyÕ, Sociological Bulletin 30(1), 1981, pp. 1-20.
Czeslaw Milosz, The Captive Mind (translated from the Polish by Jane Zielonko). Penguin Books, London, 2001 [1953].
C.W. Mills, The Sociological Imagination. Oxford University Press, New York, 1959.
D. Ludden, ÔIntroduction: A Brief History of SubalternityÕ, in D. Ludden (ed.), Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning and the Globalization of South Asia. Anthem Press, London, 2002, pp. 1-33.
D.P. Mukerji, ÔIndian Tradition and Social ChangeÕ, in T.K. Oommen and P.N. Mukherji (eds.), Indian Sociology: Reflections and Introspections, pp. 1-15. Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1986.
N. Jayaram, ÔTowards Indigenization of an Uncertain Transplant: Hundred Years of Sociology in IndiaÕ, Tajseer 1, 2020, pp. 99-122, doi.org/10.29117/tis.2020.0026 (accessed on 1 May 2021).
P.N. Mukherji, ÔSociology in South Asia: Indigenisation as Universalising Social ScienceÕ, Sociological Bulletin 54(3), 2005, pp. 311-24.
R. Mukherjee, Sociology of Indian Sociology. Allied Publishers, Bombay, 1979.
S. Saberwal, ÔThe ProblemÕ, Seminar 112, December 1968, pp. 10-13.
–– ÔUncertain Transplants: Anthropology and Sociology in IndiaÕ, in T.K. Oommen and Partha N. Mukherji (eds.), Indian Sociology: Reflections and Introspections, pp. 214-32. Popular Prakashan, Bombay, 1986.
S.H. Alatas, ÔThe Captive Mind and Creative DevelopmentÕ, International Social Science Journal 26(4), 1974, pp. 691-700.
–– ÔIntellectual Imperialism: Definition, Traits, and ProblemsÕ, Southeast Asian Journal of Social Science 28(1), 2000, pp. 23-45.
T.K. Oommen, ÔSociology in India: A Plea for ContextualizationÕ, Sociological Bulletin 32(2), 1983, pp. 111-36.
T.B. Bottomore, Sociology as Social Criticism. George Allen and Unwin, London, 1975.
Y. Singh, Image of Man: Ideology and Theory in Indian Sociology. Chanakya Publications, Delhi, 1984.
Footnotes :
1. The idea of Ôthe captive mindÕ was first articulated by the Nobel Prize winning poet and author of Polish-Lithuanian heritage, Czeslaw Milosz in 1953 (2001). The captive mind syndrome in the social sciences was elucidated by Syed Hussein Alatas in 1974.
2. In his poser to this issue of ÔSeminarÕ, Syed Farid Alatas draws our attention to the writings of Johan Galtung on Ôscientific colonialismÕ, Abdur Rahaman on Ôintellectual colonialismÕ, and Syed Hussein Alatas on Ôacademic imperialismÕ, and Ôintellectual imperialismÕ.
3. Saberwal 1986, p. 217.
4. Oommen 1983, p. 119.
5. Mukerji 1986, p. 4.
6. Mukherjee 1979, p. 29.
7. Quoted in Desai 1981, p. 19. Contrary to this view, T.B. Bottomore (1975) in England and C.W. Mills (1959) in USA have viewed sociology as Ôsocial criticismÕ and assigned Ôsociological imaginationÕ a radical function.
8. Ludden 2002.
9. Singh 1984, p. 19.
10. Oommen 1983, p. 123.
11. Ibid., pp. 130-31.
12. Ibid., p. 130.
13. Mukherji 2005, pp. 319-20.
14. It may sound ironical that my critique of intellectual imperialism vis-ˆ-vis is written in English, a language medium in which I have had my higher education. The fact that I am conscious of this irony is itself empowering.
15. Oommen 1983, p. 119.
16. Mukherji 2005, p. 320.
17. Saberwal 1986, p. 228.