Sei sulla pagina 1di 21

Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

brill.com/ajss

Conceptual-theoretical Re-orientation in Social Movement Discourse1


Partha Nath Mukherji*

Former Director (Vice-Chancellor), Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, and former Ford Professor S. K. Dey Chair at the Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi Currently, Professor Emeritus, Institute of Social Sciences, New Delhi

Abstract Western ethnocentrism in the social movement discourse keeps cropping up now and again. An attempt is made to arrive at a theoretical orientation unconstrained by historical contingency, but at the same time, without being a-historical. Conceptually, a distinction is made between social mobilisations and social movements, and between social movements and quasi-social movements. Since social movements are inevitably linked with social changes, a classification of social movements by its intended changes is presented to distinguish between varieties of social movements. Finally, the use of means institutional and non-institutional is factored into the theoretical orientation. Keywords social movement, social mobilisation, social system, social change, contradiction, indigenisation and parochialisation

Social Movement Problematique2 Like some of the classic major mainstream conceptualisations of modernity in opposition to tradition in the post World War II phase, or the ethnic notion of mono-cultural nation the concept of social movement continues to carry a strong impress of western historicism in the works of some distinguished western sociologists. Such an approach could become limiting with
*The paper has benefitted considerably from the seminar interactions at the National University of Singapore where it was presented on 25th November 2010. 1Talk delivered at the National University of Singapore on 25th November 2010, sponsored jointly by the Department of Sociology and the Department of South Asian Studies. 2This paper reflects the evolution of my thinking on social movements since my first paper Social Movement and Social Change: Towards a Conceptual Clarification and Theoretical Framework (1977), and my latest paper, Social Movement, Conflict and Change (2010).
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15685314-12341299

106

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

respect to many situations that are either not circumscribed by similar historically contingent conditions of the west or even those that are. In fact, with the onset of a globalising world, countries western or non-western are subject to externalities over which they have little control, such as immigrants that are pouring into many countries through global labour market forces or the transnational dynamics that may operate in cyber space. Is it possible to attempt a theoretical orientation unconstrained by historical contingency, at the same time, without being a-historical? I propose a conceptual-theoretical framework that permits a more universalistic approach to the study of social movements. I hold the view that social sciences need to indigenise in order to universalise. Indigenisation in this sense is not the parochialisation of knowledge. The act of indigenising social sciences is to look for the universal in the particular. Heberle in 1968 had observed that the concept of social movements could no longer be tagged specifically to its nineteenth century definition as movements by the new industrial working class, with its socialistic, communistic and anarchic tendencies in view of the emergence of peasants and farmers movements, of Fascism and National Socialism and of the independence movements in colonial countries to name only the most important instances (1968: 439). While Heberle was keen on making the concept more elaborate and inclusive of many other kinds of collective mobilisations, Gusfield pointed out that the central concern in the study of movements was its relation to the analysis of change and social conflict. (1970: 8) Underlying the formulations of Gusfield and Heberle was the need for distinguishing between different kinds of social movements. It is advisable, Heberle had proposed, to distinguish between movements which, because of their limited goal, never attract more than small groups of people and those which aiming at comprehensive and fundamental changes in the social order, become true mass movements of historical significance (1968: 439). This led him to distinguish between protest movements and social movements correspondingly. Protest movements need not remain limited in scale, only limited in their goals. In my first article on social movements (1977), I had observed [t]he bewildering variety of phenomena for which this term has been used by politicians and pundits of social sciences has considerably undermined its analytical efficiency, so loose and slipshod has the employment of these words become that they seem capable nowadays of application to any kind of group activity whatsoever (Banks 1972: 7). It was possible, I had argued, not to adhere to the narrow definition of the concept and at the same time retain its essential analytical quality by its suitable reformulation.

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

107

Any collective mobilisation for action directed explicitly towards an alteration or transformation of the structure of a system or against an explicit threat to an alteration or transformation of a system can be properly understood as a social movement. Collective mobilisations aimed at changes within a system are quasi-movements (1977: 4445).

The quasi-movements approximated Heberles protest movements and Wilsons norm-oriented movements which sought not so much as change, as they see it, as the enforcement of already existing agreements, whilst social movement was closer to Wilsons value-oriented movement which was anchored in the belief that the cause of dissatisfaction is rooted in the basic values of society and that change must therefore be radical (Wilson 1973: 28). My position on the conceptual-theoretical understanding of social movements thereafter has evolved further with my studies of social movements in India. Surprisingly, in spite of this kind of discourse in the late sixties and the seventies Charles Tilly is explicit about the western pedigree of social movements. He contends,
As they evolved in the Western countries social movements combined three major elements: (1) sustained campaigns of claim-making; (2) an array of public performances including marches, rallies, processions, demonstrations, occupations, picket lines, blockades, public meetings, delegations, statements to and in public media, petition drives, letter-writing, pamphleteering, lobbying, and creation of specialized associations, coalitions, or fronts in short, the social movement repertoire; and (3) repeated public displays of worthiness, unity, numbers and commitment (WUNC) by such means as wearing colors, marching in disciplined ranks, sporting badges that advertise the cause, displaying signs, chanting slogans, singing militant songs, and picketing public buildings (Tilly 2006: 18384; emphasis added).

He does not go much beyond describing the features of social mobilisation. His view is thatthe evolution of social movements took place in the west and is historically contingent with respect to western experience. The assertion that social movements had never existed anywhere in the world three centuries ago, and that Western Europeans and North Americans were the ones to have put the elements of a new political form in the late eighteenth century which became available to the ordinary people in these countries in the first half of the nineteenth century even as it began spreading to the other parts of the world (Ibid. 18283), is parochial and problematic. It becomes more so, when he excludes from social movements phenomena such as civil war and terrorism, including revolts, rebellions and state sponsored terrorism

108

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

(Ibid. 11850). In short, this view negates the formulations of Heberle, Wilson and many others like us. The position taken by Wallerstein does not improve matters. Spanning 18501970, he distinguishes between social and national movements. The former, relates to the mobilisation and role of socialist parties and trade unions in the class struggles within each state against the bourgeoisie or the employers. The latter, were those which fought for the creation of a national state from the second half of the nineteenth century (2002: 29). When protest mobilisations erupted in the western world unrelated to class or national movements, they had to be dubbed as New Social Movements (NSMs). The classic labour and working class movements got relegated to the position of old social movements as relics of the past. The NSMs were now considered to be products of the post-industrial society and its problems, manifested in social cleavages that generated new identities. The exercise of power was less in the realm of work and more in setting of a way of life, forms of behaviour, and needs (Touraine cited in Edelman 2001: 288). The NSMs reflect the crisis of modernity and focuses on struggles over symbolic, informational and cultural resources and rights to specificity and difference. Collective behaviour that defended the social order, or social struggles directed against the state, were excluded (Edelman 2001: 28889). In North America, resource mobilisation (RM) is a major thrust in social movement theorisation. The rational actor postulate of Olsen and the strategy oriented paradigm of Cohen underlie such theorisation. Consequently, social movement industries, social movement organisations and social movement entrepreneurs figure in mobilising resources and channelising discontent (Ibid: 289). The framework of political opportunity structures introduced the element of perception of challengers posing threats to opportunities, and the response of the authorities by way of facilitation or repression. The European and the North American approaches vary with correspondingly different historicities. If the experiences of collective mobilisation and action differ across the Atlantic, they differ even more across Asia, Africa and Latin America. I seek to propose a theoretical orientation for the study of social movements that permits the analyses of their evolution in their historical and cultural specificity.

Theoretical Orientation Classification plays an important scientific role in any science. It is necessary to work out classificatory schemes of social movements in order to

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

109

make greater analytical sense of the plethora of collective mobilisations that attribute to themselves the status of movements of one kind or another. Theoretically, there can be no limit on the ways scientists choose to classify phenomena. Each such classification is an attempt to move towards greater abstraction for a more efficient generalisable understanding of the phenomena. In this instance, I have attempted to classify movements at two different levels of abstraction: (a) By the changes they wish to bring about with reference to the social system. (b) By the contradictions within societal domains which give rise to them. In my earliest formulation I chose to distinguish between social movements and quasi-movements, denying any and every collective mobilisation the status of a social movement. I have thereafter altered my position somewhat by distinguishing between quasi-social movements and social movements. I realised that to participate in a general discourse on social movements, collective mobilisations of protest for intra-systemic changes having some of the attributes of social movements, can be better conceptualised as quasi-social movements, whilst collective mobilisations that seek change of the system be regarded as social movements proper. Hence, not all collective mobilisations (or movements) are social movements, they may be quasi-social movements. This is without prejudice to the fact that quasi-social movements play a crucial role in the evolution of social systems and they actually predominate, because social systems are not seeking structural changes to happen at the throw of the hat. In fact, over a long stretch of time, accumulative changes brought about by quasi-social movements have cumulated to transformative changes as in the case of transition from feudalism to capitalism. Definitionally, social movement is a collective mobilisation, having some organisational structure, however loose, characterised by a social base and leadership, guided by an ideology, with goals directed towards achievement of (or resistance to) expected change outcome(s) that target an alteration or transformation of a given social system(s) or its societal institution(s), against opposition, involving social conflict. The change outcomes are a mix of consequences that are anticipated and unanticipated, or wholly anticipated or unanticipated, or are rarely, of any consequence. Collective mobilisations, whose change outcomes are not against any opposition but for the furtherance of a cause or programme, are best understood simply as campaigns. Most government initiatives launching ambitious programmes of development or welfare or reform by mobilising the masses fall in

110

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

this category. This distinction between social movements and campaigns is critical in theorising social movements. Whilst campaigns per se are not social movements, social movements may and do use campaigns to further the cause of social movements. Nor do collective mobilisations at times of natural disasters (flood, famine, earthquake, volcanic eruptions, and the like), or for pulse polio or AIDS or elections, qualify as social movements. Campaign, therefore, is an instrument of collective mobilisation, which can feed into quasi-social movements, social movements, and also, be employed to mobilise people for productive, constructive, or even destructive work. Movement Classification by Social Change Since a movement is directed towards change (or resistance to change), it becomes necessary to ask what kind of change it seeks to bring about (or resist). It follows that one way of classifying social movements is to classify them consistent with a classification of social change. For this it is necessary to identify the social system referent in relation to which change is predicated. Very simply, a social system can be conceived of as being constituted of interrelated and interpenetrating parts (or structures), such that changes in any one or more of these will/can have likely consequences for one or more or all of the others.3 It is a system of social interaction of its parts (or structures). Social change can now be comprehended with respect to the nature of change occurring with respect to the system referent family, caste, religion, class, race, tribal, gender, eco-environmental, industrial, educational, bureaucratic, institutions and organisations...society/polity/economic institutions/nation. Both Marxist and non-Marxist theoretical approaches that sport a preference for a structural understanding of society, either in functional or dialectical terms, entertain some notion of social system. What distinguishes various approaches to this conceptualisation lies in how the structures are conceived and in what manner of relationships they are constitutive of the system. In the Marxist approach, for instance, the system is constitutive of basic and super structures with contradictions inherent in the system (Mukherji 2010: 125). Social conflict, our next major concept that is embedded in the relationship of opposition, is a necessary attribute of social movements. Social conflicts are to be distinguished from those involving contentions between individu3I am deliberately not using the term interdependent as this connotes some kind of reciprocity or equivalence of parts that are interdependent, whilst an interrelationship between parts can be clearly asymmetrical.

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

111

als, those lying latent in structural violence, normal conflicts of interests, and so forth. Social conflicts, in this context, are overt manifestations of collective behaviour rather than as potentials for action to subjective states. They refer to conflicts in which the parties are an aggregate of individuals, such as groups, organisations, communities and crowds, rather than single individuals, as in role conflict...[S]ocial conflict encompasses a broad range of phenomena: class, racial, religious, and communal conflicts; riots, rebellions, revolutions, strikes and civil disorders; marches, demonstrations, protest gatherings, and the like (Oberschall 1973: 291). Social conflicts may or may not involve violence. The non-violent movement for overthrow of British imperialism in India led by Mahatma Gandhi rejected the use of violence. In contrast, the Maoist movement for the liberation of China was premised on insurrectionary protracted war. The mere use of violence does not necessarily qualify a collective mobilisation to be a social movement. What is important is the end being pursued by a social movement with reference to the system referent, the means could differ. Social conflicts necessarily involve relations of antagonism, but relations of antagonism may exist irrespective of social conflicts. Social movements involve social conflicts that are inextricably related to social change (or its resistance), but social change does take place irrespective of social movements. Collective mobilisations involve situations where an affected group is brought into action, [i]t is the process whereby people are prepared for active service for a cause which they see as consonant with their own interests...Mobilisation in this sense is the opposite of apathy or inaction (Wilson 1973: 89). I would like to add, in the context of social movements, particularly radical social movements, it is a process by which the general discontent and unrest amongst an alienated collectivity is harnessed around organized groups which gives direction and substance to the alienation and thereby prepares the members of the collectivity for action for a cause which they value as an end rather than as means to an end. Such mobilisations transcend the immediate interests of the collectivity and are rooted in values which promise a better future at the cost of present deprivations (Mukherji 1977: 39). Hence, not all mobilisations for action need be social movements. As stated earlier, the major divide which logically differentiates mobilisations of different types directed towards change with reference to a social system, is based on the crucial criterion of whether the collective mobilisation is seeking to bargain for a greater share of the rewards and facilities by the existing rules of the game or seeking to alter or change the system itself (ibid 43). In order to address the question: what kind of change does a collective mobilisation of a social movement seek to bring about?, leads us to the next

112

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

logical step of classifying social change, so that we are able to classify social movements by relating them to the kind of changes they are seeking or intending to bring about. We are familiar with the wide array of phenomena that are described within the rubric of social change attitude changes, development, progress, evolution, revolution. As noted earlier, whatever the nature and kind of change, this has to be figured out with reference to a social system. Talcott Parsons, interestingly enough gives us the break. The crucial classificatory principle in the analysis of social change is to distinguish between change within and change of the system (Strasser and Randall: 1981). Two points that we need to keep in mind are: Social changes do occur independently of social movements. For example, through changes in the forces of production (technology); following demographic or environmental changes; as a consequence of natural disasters like floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, and so forth. Such social changes occurring independent of social movements, may nonetheless, provide objective conditions and sources of social conflict that lead to the maturation of social movements. There is always a prior situation before a social conflict culminates into a social movement. It is in this sense that a social movement is a product of maturing contradictions within a social system that have change consequences for the social system (Mukherji 1977: 38). How then do we classify social change with reference to social systems? (1) Changes occurring within a social system (accumulative); (2) Changes of the system occurring on account of the emergence of additional structures (alterative); (3) Changes of the system occurring on account of elimination or loss of structure/s (alterative); (4) Changes of the system occurring as a result of replacement of existing structure/s by alternative structure/s (transformative). (Mukherji 1977, 1986) In this schema the kinds of social changes can be distinguished in terms of whether they are accumulative (adaptive), or alterative, or transformative in nature. Collective mobilisations seeking accumulative changes are quasi-social movements; those that seek to bring about alterative changes are social movements, whilst those that seek to bring about transformative changes are social

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

113

movements that are structural-transformative. There is an implicit nominal scaling that moves from adaptive to transformative changes. Obviously, adaptive changes are normal and the most frequent; alterative changes mark a qualitatively greater degree of change; whilst transformative changes reflect far-reaching changes. All these changes are with reference to a given system referent agrarian system, family, caste, class, etc. It follows that collective mobilisation directed towards one kind of change or the other will need to strategise its activities accordingly. The scale or extent of movement is not necessarily the best index of its claim to a social movement status. A massive popular mass movement may target an intra-systemic change, even involving violence. This does not necessarily mean it is a social movement, unless and until its change objectives or goals are alterative or transformatory. The widespread violent tebhaga4 movement in Bengal on the eve of independence, with the tenant-peasants uprising demanding two-thirds share in crop produced by their labour was a quasi-social movement, in as much as it did not seek to alter the agrarian system but only demanded a greater crop share within the system, which the British government had already legitimated. The movement wound up as the movement objective became an issue within the framework of land reforms that the state espoused universally in India, and violence was repressed by the state. Therefore, large scale mobilisations may feature both quasi-social movements and social movements, but ipso facto, they need not be social movements. Large scale mobilisations targeting intra-systemic changes clearly have a better chance of succeeding; targeting systemic changes generally meet with increasing resistance by those who still have faith in the system. The resistance is commensurate with whether the changes sought are alterative or transformative in nature. Resistance to social movements may give rise to counter-movements through collective mobilisation manifesting opposition to social movement goals. Such counter-interactive or reactive behaviour would indicate the severity of the contradiction between the forces of change and its opposition. Counter-movements may also typically incorporate some of the movement goals in an attempt to take the wind out of their adversaries. A theoretical proposition that logically follows from the formulations is: societies that are highly differentiated and evolved in terms of their structures and institutions are less likely to encounter pressures for structural-transformative
4The violent tebhaga movement in Bengal spread like wildfire, with tenant-peasants demanding 2/3rds crop share in place of 1/3rd, which they received. The British had already gazetted the shift in crop share.

114

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

changes through social (revolutionary) movements, relative to societies that are less evolved and differentiated. In the former instance, adaptive mechanisms of change are developed to an extent where contradictions are generally resolved within the framework of existing institutions of the society and the state in an evolutionary mode. For example, leadership in a democratic competitive polity does not generally require a social movement for its ouster. Even the most pronounced protest against misrule is generally taken care of through peoples verdict in fair elections or through institutionalised mechanism of the judiciary, parliament, civil society, numerous pressure and interest groups or through impeachment following the due course of law. In the other instance, social movements may force change in the leadership regime and seek an alteration or transformation of the polity because the relevant institutional mechanisms for succession are either not there, or are underdeveloped. The Shah of Iran had to be dethroned by the masses; President Ramos of Philippines was forced to quit and flee; the Polish socialist regime had to succumb to popular mass pressure ushering in a new constitution; the USSR cracked up and created new democratic institutions releasing forces of change that affected most of its erstwhile socialist republics; President Mubarak had no alternative but to give up his unbridled power; the monarchy in Nepal surrendered before the social movement for structural transformation and cultural emancipation; Yemen, Bahrain, and other Gulf countries likewise are finding it difficult to cope with the demand for dismantling of the authoritarian institution of Sheikhdoms, and so the list can run. In comparison, President Nixon could be removed from office through the judicial process of impeachment; and in India, the volatility of public outcry takes both, democratic forms, as well as, long and protracted insurrections against the state, where the democratic institutions have failed to reach out to the people. Societal institutions that undergo erosion of their legitimacy in the public eye, create the scope for the probability of social movements that may seek structural-transformative changes aiming at replacement of useless institutions by more useful ones. The Maoist movement in India and Nepal, the mass disenchantment in the Middle East against authoritarian ruling regimes Egypt, Libya, and the some of the Gulf countries are some contemporary illustrations of this phenomenon. Table 1 below, provides a schematic classification of social movements in terms of the changes they intend to bring about. We can now distinguish between quasi-social movements, alterative and transformative social movements. This provides an analytical framework to assess the kind of movement with reference to the nature of change it wants to effect. As a corollary, the kinds of movements that a society gives scope to can be indicative of the nature

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

115

of such societies in terms of their level of differentiation and vulnerability to social movements. This classification is important in as much as we are able to establish a theoretical linkage between movements and social change. It enables us to theorise about the structure of social system and the scope it provides for social mobilisations to bring about intra-systemic or systemic changes. When a democratic country like India, with unequal social development and yawning class disparities is suddenly pitch forked to the status of an irrepressible super power of the near future, it faces the problem of differential growth rates within its own boundaries. The so-called inclusive growth is a challenge rather than a clich for easy wish fulfillment of planners and politicians. It is also true that India is one the most highly differentiated societies in terms of its political, economic, social and cultural institutions over the millennia. Ages long plurality of its institutions point to the resilience of the system to radical structural changes. Nevertheless, India has been witnessing all varieties of movements ever since Independence, against social discrimination (caste), gender inequity, class exploitation (Maoism), ethno-nationalist (secessionist), eco-environmental, and others, within the larger framework of the project of nation-state building. Table 1:Classification of Social Change, Conflict and Movement
Description of change Changes occurring within a given system E.g. pressure and interest group activities; redressal of grievances Changes occurring from emergence of additional structure/s E.g. (a) emergence of casual wage labour in a feudal area with only attached labour; (b) emergence of a non-farm sector in a purely agrarian economy; (c) emergence of reverse tenancy; (d) establishment of trade unions etc. Type of change Quasistructural, accumulative, incremental, adaptive Intra-systemic Structuralalterative Systemic Type of conflict Type of movement Quasi-structural social movement.

Intra-systemic

Systemic

Structuralalterative social movement

116

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

Table 1 (cont.)
Description of change Type of change Type of conflict Systemic Type of movement Structuralalterative social movement. E.g. movements for agrarian reform

Changes occurring due to Structuralelimination or loss of alterative structure/s Systemic e.g. (a) abolition of sharecropping; (b) abolition of bonded labour; (c) abolition of suttee5 and kulinism.6 Changes occurring as a result Structuralof replacement of existing transformative structure/s by alternative Systemic structure/s e.g. replacement of state ownership of property by private ownership; change from a secular liberal democratic state to a centralised peoples democracy or an Islamic state.

Systemic

Structuraltransformative, revolutionary social movement. E.g. Maoist movement; Al Quaeda movement

Source: Adapted and revised from Mukherji (2010: 127)

Thus far classification of movements is premised on the intended achievement of ends with respect to social structure and change. If we factor in the means employed by which the changes are sought, we get a more dynamic praxiological model for analysis. The means adopted for achievement for movement goals may be institutional, non-institutional or a combination of both.
5Suttee was a practice in several parts of India, including Bengal, Rajasthan, whereby a woman widowed by her husbands death would immolate herself in the funeral pyre of her dead husband to achieve spiritual emancipation. 6Kulinism was a practice mostly prevalent in Bengal, whereby women who were unable to get married in time attracted the opprobrium from society for crossing the marriageable age. The way out was to get married to Kulin Brahmins, who by marrying them purportedly saved them from disgrace. Even kulin Brahmins who were in their death beds, saved young maidens by such marriages. Many kulin Brahmins in the late 19th century sported multiple wives. They were amongst the most respected clan of Brahmins.

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

117

Institutional means refer to the repertoire of forms of collective actions legitimated by the state for voicing dissent; seeking redressal of grievances; bargaining for better deals in the competition for power and scarce resources; and the like. Social mobilisation in antagonistic relations with others, per se, does not pose a threat to the social system. The rules of the game prevail in the means adopted for the pursuit of legitimate goals. This is the most predominant and pervasive form of social movements. Normally the means adopted are non-violent and within the permissive limits of law and society. Non-institutional means are of the opposite kind. Violent or non-violent, they attract the coercive power of the state and of those constituting the ruling elite, particularly when the threat perception to the system crosses permissive limits of tolerance. They pose a threat to the system; consequently to those entrenched in the system. Social movements dont necessarily have to be directed always against the state (Mukherji 2010: 12829).

We are now in a position to construct a model by introducing an additional dimension of praxis (or means employed) to achieve movement goals. The objective of this schema is not to do a pigeonholing of movements in terms of the coordinates of ends and means in the six situations (Table 2). It is true that at any point of time the location of a movement can be identified in terms of one or the other of these situations. However, over a period of time, a movement is likely to change tracks from one situation to the other, and even get splintered during the process. It should be possible to study a movement in its various stages and phases. This model enables us precisely to do this. The means-ends approach focuses attention on the strategies and tactics employed by the social movement to target change, which itself may undergo change over time. A revolutionary movement may in course of time realise that objective conditions for the radical changes envisaged no longer existed. Structural constraints and choice of alternatives restricted the progression of the radical social movement. Consequently, it may dissipate on a purist note or assign itself a more realistic role consistent with constraining structural realities. We have examples in the past of Maoist parties eschewing violence (annihilation of class enemies) and taking to the parliamentary path even if only as a tactic, hoping that in future objective conditions for radical change can be brought about or could happen. The opposite is equally possible. A quasi or a social movement may graduate to the status of transformatory social movement as the objective conditions mature and the situation is ripe for transformatory social change. The social movements, for instance, in the Middle East are cases in point.

118

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

Table 2:Social Movement, Change and Praxis


Means/praxis Institutional Change promoting/resisting movement Intra-systemic Systemic Quasi-social movement e.g. strikes, lockouts, sit-ins, fasting, petitions, protest marches for legitimate demands and redressal of grievances. Stable state [A] Quasi-social movement tending towards structural change e.g. peasant revolt for 2/3rd crop share from existing , raising the voice claiming: Land belongs to the tiller. Unstable state[B] Quasi-social movement tending towards structuralalterative changes. e.g. Trade and Student Unions claiming decision making powers. Unstable state [B] Social movement using violence or non-violence seeking transformatory change e.g. the anti-colonial movement for national independence in India; or the Naxalite (Maoist) movement led by Charu Mazumdar in India in its underground phase. Unstable state: Flux. [C] Social movement seeking transformatory changes using any and all means Situation of flux. Social transformatory and revolutionary movements e.g. structural changes associated with rebellion, revolution, terrorism, civil disobedience, satyagraha etc. Unstable state: Flux.[C]

Non-institutional

Institutional & non-institutional

Quasi-social movement tending towards structural change Unstable state e.g. riots, rebellions, peasant revolts against oppression, exploitation. Unstable state [B]

Adapted and revised from [Mukherji 2010: 129]

Contradictions and the Domainal Identification of Movements So far we have classified movements by the changes they intended to bring about and the means employed to pursue the objectives. I have made it clear that the notion of social system can be largely weaned out of its functionalist predisposition by replacing interdependency of its parts by the notion of asymmetrical interrelationship of its parts. The theoretical gain lay in being

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

119

able to identify a movement in terms of what kind of change it sought to achieve and process through which it got steered or made its passage. Such a framework does not reach out to question how and why the movement surfaced. To approach this aspect it is necessary to address the theoretical concern at the more substantive level of contradictions within the social system that triggers the movement. Contradictions may be antagonistic or non-antagonistic. Hence the mere presence of contradictions in a society or social system need not give rise to movements. It does, however mean, that if there is a movement, underlying it are discernible antagonistic contradictions. In this sense, movements are indicative of identifiable societal contradictions that need not be visible otherwise. The axiomatic assumption here is that contradictions, whether antagonistic or non-antagonistic, manifest or latent, are ubiquitous and ever present in society; that contradictions may oscillate between antagonism and non-antagonism and vice versa in infinite number of relations of opposition. A society without contradictions is one that is unchanging and frozen over time and space. My understanding of contradictions is influenced by Lenin and Mao, rather than by Marx and Engels.7 Marx does not define or conceptualise contradiction explicitly. He was, in fact, so intrigued by the unchangeableness of the Asiatic societies (as in India) that he even went to the extent of suggesting that if these societies were not destroyed from without, they might endure indefinitely (Levi Strauss 1963: 337). Engels distinguishes between things in motion, and things as at rest and lifeless. The former situation cannot be understood without contradictions, whilst the latter contain no contradictions within. Morgans classic study of the American Iroquois had led Engels to observe that the gentile constitution had grown out of a society which knew no internal contradictions, and it was only adapted to such a society (1954: 214).8 It was Lenin who brought greater clarity to the concept within the dialectical framework. He postulated (Volume 38, 1961: 35960):
7It needs to be underscored that these observations are purely academic and has no connection with the ideological position taken by Maoist Marxist-Leninist parties. 8In his own words (1954: 16568) True, so long as we consider things as at rest and lifeless, each one by itself, alongside and after each other, we do not run up against any contradictions in them. We find certain qualities which are partly common to partly different from, and even contradictory to each other, but which in the last mentioned case are distributed among different objects and there contain no contradiction within. Inside the limits of this sphere of observation we can get along on the basis of the usual, metaphysical mode of thought. But the position is quite different as soon as we consider things in their change, their life, their reciprocal influence on one another. Then we immediately become involved in contradictions.

120

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125 The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps to say their unity, although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and process of nature (including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their self-government, in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the struggle of opposites.

Mao dwells more explicitly on contradictions than his predecessors and clearly takes a position different from Marx and Engels. He distinguishes between external causes and internal contradictions, vesting the latter with greater primacy in the dialectic of change. He argues,
Purely external causes can only give rise to mechanical motion, that is, to changes in scale and quantity but cannot explain why things differ qualitatively in thousands of ways and why one thing changes into another...social development is due chiefly not to external but to internal causes...According to materialist dialectics,...changes in society are due chiefly to the development of internal contradictions in society, that is, the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production, the contradictions between classes, and the contradictions between the old and the new; it is the development of these contradictions that pushes society forward and gives the impetus for the supersession of the old society by the new...(1973: 313314)

Maos postulation of antagonistic and non-antagonistic relations and the universality of contradictions are profound.
Contradiction and struggle are universal and absolute, but the methods of resolving contradictions, that is, the forms of struggle, differ according to the differences in the nature of contradictions. Some contradictions are characterized by open antagonism, others are not. In accordance with the concrete development of things, some contradictions which were originally non-antagonistic develop into antagonistic ones, while others which were originally antagonistic develop into non-antagonistic ones (Ibid 345).

My study of the Naxalite (Maoist) movement in the seventies later led to my attempt at defining contradiction, something I had not encountered before. I defined contradiction as actual or potential oppositions arising out of differences that are socially perceived, sooner or later, and/or ideologically/theoretically constructed, having change/transformation (or resistance to change/transformation) consequences for the social system under reference. (Mukherji 1999: 61) The search for and location of contradictions prompts the introduction of a third level of abstraction domains of asymmetries at the macro-societal

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

121

level. Normally a societal system is conceptualised as a system of social interaction in a variety of ways roles, statuses and stratification system, social institutions (kinship, family, caste, etc), social groups of all varieties, and so forth. I have proposed that we view societal systems in terms of counter-concepts such as systems of discrimination, exploitation, oppression, of iniquitous gender relations, and eco-environmental domination by humankind. In other words, at the macro-societal level, a social system can be conceived of as constituted of domains of social relations of asymmetries in their interrelation. The number of such domains is limited only by the researchers sociological imagination. Nonetheless, the consensus of the scientific community on the major domains is very likely. I have suggested that the society be conceived of as being constituted of five major domains of asymmetries (Mukherji 2010:13132). A reduction in asymmetries signals social mobility and development. Discrimination essentially conveys the context of normatively legitimated relations of asymmetry that are internalised generally from birth through family and childhood socialisation. This is the domain of primordial, ascriptive loyalties that provide major cultural anchorages on the basis of language, caste, race, religion, creed, etc. This is the ethnic domain. Exploitation is best applied in the context of unequal economic exchanges in the normatively defined role of the market, and in the relations of production. Both Weber and Marx are relevant in identifying the asymmetries. This is the class domain. Oppression has to do with the control and exercise of power. It defines the relationship between the dominant and the dominated. It also implies deliberate impediments created to obstruct access to power of the less privileged. This is the power domain. Gender discrimination refers to the iniquitous relationship between male and female in a system of gender relations. Eco-environmental asymmetry is basically the asymmetry between humankind in its relationship of exploitation of nature with differential consequences for the stratified and hierarchical population. A few points need to be clarified. First, embedded in each of these domainal asymmetries of social relations are contradictions antagonistic and/or nonantagonistic. Second, the contradictions can further be categorised as primary and secondary (or subsidiary). The primary contradiction that has given rise to a movement, more often than not, combines with a number of secondary contradictions. Third, the societal system in our scheme is composed of these five domains of asymmetries that are interrelated and interfaced with each

122

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

Table 3:Domains of asymmetries


Relations of asymmetries Location of contradictions Description in domains Discrimination Ethnic Socialisation and internalization of culture; cultural differentiation; ascriptive identities Market, social stratification and mobility; achieved status Dominance; coercive threat; Gendered discrimination, exploitation, and oppression Eco-environmental degradation; differential consequences in a stratified, hierarchic society

Exploitation Oppression Gender Eco-environment

Class Power Gender Eco-environmental

other, such that the whole system is greater than the sum of its domains. The primary contradiction that triggered the movement and the attendant secondary contradictions are distributed in one or more of the five domains (as the five domains are interrelated and interfaced). Fourth, a movement can now be identified with a domain (class, ethnic, power, gender or eco-environmental) depending on the location of the primary contradiction that triggered it. This, and the other subsidiary contradictions, in turn, can be inferred from the issues around which the movement is mobilised. Fifth, the primary and secondary contradictions characterising a movement need not remain fixed for all times in their initial respective domains. A movement may very well experience shift of its primary and other contradiction(s) from one domain to the other in accordance with the change in the objective conditions. Consistent with these changes the movement may alter its tactics and strategies (means) from time to time to sustain its existence for achieving its purportedly ideologically defined ultimate goal(s), if any. Finally, from collective mobilisation, to movement, to its institutionalisation is a path that a movement generally traverses, unless it becomes redundant at any of the intermediate stages. A societal system constituted of domainal asymmetries is a constellation of non-deterministic contradictions that are in motion. Let me illustrate to clarify the theoretical orientation that I have presented. Take For example, the major issues related to the (tebhaga) movement in which the peasant-tenants demand 2/3rd crop share in the agrarian system of

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

123

undivided Bengal in the forties. It was a quasi-social agrarian class movement in the domain of exploitation which sought a change in the crop sharing norms of tenants vis--vis their landlords without seeking to change the landlordtenant agrarian system. The fact that the movement took recourse to armed struggle to attain this intra-systemic objective did not ipso facto make it a social (radical) movement. The overwhelming participation of tribals in this movement led many an analyst to describe it as a tribal movement. This introduced a dilemma what then do we call such movements, class or tribal ethnic? Following our logic, since the main issue (primary contradiction) was agrarian (2/3rd crop share) and not ethnic (discrimination), the movement was clearly agrarian and in the class (exploitation) domain, having a strong tribalethnic interface. That is, ethnic discrimination against tribals was present but it was not the primary issue for mobilisation. The ethnic contradiction was secondary but interfaced. Had the movement been against social discrimination against tribals, the primary contradiction would have been in the ethnic domain, having in all likelihood, secondary contradictions interfaced with class, and/or gender, and/or power and/or eco-environmental domains in some order of hierarchy. Theoretically, it is entirely possible that a tribal-ethnic movement develops into a class movement and vice versa. Further, the domainal interfacing allows the possibility of movement shifts spanning all the five domains. Non-deterministic dialectic is the essence of this theoretical and methodological position. The tebhaga movement in Bengal petered out even as the policy on land reforms became a prime agenda of the state. Interestingly, the land to the tiller slogan of the tebhaga movement was picked up by the Marxist-Leninist Naxalite movement in the northern districts of West Bengal in the late sixties, for a more radical change of the agrarian system of West Bengal and in India. It basically struck at the roots of the feudalistic agrarian system freeing the peasants from the exploitative clutches of landlords. The Naxalbari movement that soon transformed itself into the Marxist-Leninist party crusading for the seizure of bourgeois democratic state power to establish a Peoples Democracy could effectively demolish the power of feudalistic structure in north Bengal. This facilitated the process of tenants in large numbers becoming free of the landlords, something that was in accord with the objectives of land reforms. Non-market forces of feudal exploitation gave way to a free-er operation of the market forces. The movement objective of overthrowing the state by protracted guerilla warfare got dissipated with the Communist Party of India (Marxist) assuming power through democratic election and vigorously pursuing land reforms, including legislation that prevented tenant eviction and raising crop-share to 2/3rd in favour of the tenants. In addition, a ceiling on land holdings was

124

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

imposed and surplus land so generated was distributed among landless and marginal peasants. The Communists in power now suppressed left adventurist communists (Naxalites), whose policy of annihilation of class enemies did not find favour even among many of their own comrades. The splintering of the radical movement into many groups took place under the broad rubric of Maoist politics. Even as the Maoist movement ebbed in West Bengal, it gained ground in the States of Andhra Pradesh and Bihar (including the now Jharkhand areas). The merger of the two powerful Maoist groups in 2004 the Communist Party of India Marxist-Leninist (Peoples War group) operating mainly in Andhra Pradesh and Chhattisgarh States, and the Communist Party of India MarxistLeninist (Maoist Communist Centre) operating mainly in Jharkhand and Bihar, who were all along opposed to giving up the theory of annihilation of class enemies led to a quantum spread and power of the movement across 125 districts, in varying intensities, covering nearly one-third of the 28 Indian States. The fact that the movement that seeks the overthrow of the Indian state is mainly concentrated in backward tribal belts where the discrimination, exploitation, oppression of the tribal population has been most pronounced, and where the rapaciousness of capitalist exploitation of natural resources, blind to eco-environmental degradation, is clearly in evidence, indicates how the formulation of domainal interfacing acquires paramount significance. Conclusion The paper has proposed that the study of social movements should combine (a) classification of movements by a classification of social change and conflict; (b) a means-end linkage to introduce the role of means applied by movements for bringing about the intended changes (ends); and (c) the role of antagonistic and non-antagonistic contradictions (within the framework of non-deterministic dialectic) that lie embedded in the asymmetrical domains in society that are interrelated and interfaced. In this schema, movement is the generic type, whilst its species type are quasi-social movement and social movement (including revolutionary and transformative movements). The theoretical orientation combines a structural approach with the movement as providing the agency for change and transformation. I strongly hold the view that indigeneity in the social sciences is necessary for its universality. Parochialism does not jell well with universality. Context bound social science runs the risk of parochialism. Universality in social science, at the same time, is very difficult to achieve, yet that has to be our aim. What is important is to generalise beyond the context. We need to look for the universal in the particular.

P. N. Mukherji / Asian Journal of Social Science 41 (2013) 105125

125

The theoretical orientation presented here is the outcome of my researches on social movements in India. Hopefully, this will be found to be of relevance in contexts beyond India, in the rest of South Asia, and perhaps even beyond. References
Edelman, Marc (2001) Social Movements: Changing Paradigms and Forms of Politics, Annual Review of Anthropology, available at arjournals.annualreviews.org. Site accessed on 21 January 2008, pp. 285317. Engels, F. (1954) Anti Duhring, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House. Gusfield, J.R. (1970) Protest, Reform and Revolt, New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Heberle, R. (1968) Social Movements, in D.L. Sills (Ed), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, London, The Macmillan and Company and The Free Press. Lenin, V.I. (1961) Collected Works, Vol. 38, Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, pp. 638. Mao Tse-tung (1973) Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.1, Calcutta, Nabajatak Prakashan. Mukherji, Partha N. (1977) Social Movement and Social Change: Towards a Conceptual Clarification and Theoretical Framework, Sociological Bulletin, Vol.26, N0.1, March, pp. 3859. . (1983) From Left Extremism to Electoral Politics, New Delhi, Manohar. . (1999) Nation-State Reformulated: Interrogating Received Wisdom, Man and Development, 21(4), December, pp. 5168. . (2010) Social Movement, Conflict and Change, in Debal K. Singha Roy (Ed) Dissenting Voices and Transformative Actions: Social Movements in a Globalising World, New Delhi, Manohar, pp. 121143. Oberschall, A. (1973) Social Conflict and Social Movement, Englewood Cliffs N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc. Strasser, H. and Susan C. Randall (1981) An Introduction to Theories of Social Change, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Tilly, Charles (2006) Regimes and Repertoires, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wallerstein, Immanuel (2002) New Revolts Against the System, New Left Review, 18, NovemberDecember. pp. 2939 Wilson, J. (1973) Introduction to Social Movements, New York, Basic Books Inc.

Potrebbero piacerti anche