Communication

Isaac Asimov, in the ‘Foundation’ series writes in detail about the imaginary science of ‘Psycho-History’. This science has the means and the tools to quantify current and past societies and make highly accurate, qualitative predictions about the shape and nature of society in the future. In our real world, sociology is the science whose eventual aim or goal comes closest to that of Psycho-History.

Asimov was fully aware of the existence of sociology, and he borrowed heavily from it to create the structures and forms of his imaginary worlds. Yet he chose the term ‘Psycho-History’ to describe his ultimate science of society. This fact raises two interesting and important questions whose answers I believe are of paramount importance in understanding the role, status, function and relevance of sociology. The questions very simply put are (a) what is sociology? and (b) what has sociology contributed to society?

The first is a question that every sociologist must have asked herself many times and which according to Patricia Uberoi has frequently been discussed/debated in the pages of Seminar. What is sociology? Who is a sociologist? What are the boundaries of this discipline? What does it actually study? What does it hope to achieve?

As a student of sociology for the last four years (having joined a BA Honours sociology course after doing science in school), I had the chance to read various texts by foreign as well as Indian authors and also be a part of various discussions on the subject. One of the few conclusions I have arrived at is that sociology is very similar to a work of fiction. While reading the novel the reader fills in/creates the pictures. Thus each reader has her own unique visualisation of the story. Similarly in sociology every scholar seems to have/creates her own singular understanding/vision for sociology and its scope. It seems that sociology as a subject is yet to find/establish an identity for itself.

A look at the process of formation and development of sociology will shed further light on why sociologists are perpetually engaged in self-introspection. A French thinker, who dreamed of a day when society could be studied in the same manner as the natural sciences investigated the physical world, founded sociology, and ended his life believing himself to be the high priest of a new world religion (August Comte). His work is now looked down upon by many.

The classical thinkers of sociology included a man obsessed with the economic divide between the rich and the poor and the exploitation and alienation of labour (Marx); a French philosopher for whom integration with society governed every aspect of social life (Emile Durkheim); and a German professor of economics who interpreted sociology as understanding the meaning behind social action (Max Weber), with Spencer’s evolutionary model thrown somewhere in between. At the same time we also had the new Russian thinkers doing sociological work on peasants.

The 20th century and the Chicago School saw great emphasis on empirical data and the understanding of ground realities. This period also saw the so-called merging of boundaries between social anthropological studies and sociology. The next phase saw an almost total U-turn with the grandest of all grand theories – Talcott Parsons’ theory of social systems – dominating American sociology for over two decades.

At the same time in India scholars like G.S. Ghurye and M.S. Srinivas, anthropologists by training, were laying the foundations of an Indian brand of sociology where field work, or more specifically participation/participatory field work was becoming the epicentre of all research and theory formation. It has taken 50 years and the death of both Ghurye and Srinivas for the foundation stone of Indian sociology to be fully questioned.

In the meantime sociological fashion was also influenced by the communist/marxian wave sweeping the world. The concepts of ‘conflict and change’ became popular. Marx was reinterpreted. The Indian sociologist, in his efforts to keep up with the times included labour studies, urban studies and to some extent class studies as legitimate areas of research along with traditional areas like caste, tribe, village, kinship and so on. The last decade or so has seen a shift towards project oriented sociological research.

From this brief history of sociological trends one can infer that there has been no clear cut pattern or direction in the development of sociology in India. Keeping this in mind if one were to revisit the question (why have sociologists, especially Indian sociologists, sought to air their disciplinary anxieties in public foras and engaged in such public self-introspection) raised by Patricia Uberoi in the article ‘Deja Vu’ (Seminar, November 2000) one will find that though various explanations and reasons for this phenomena have been advanced, one simple and obvious answer seems to have been put at the very bottom of her search for answers and dismissed with a curt ‘so what’s new?’ I refer to the statement that sociology is a discipline in search of itself. It is probable that sociologists (and more so Indian sociologists who, as Beteille points out in the same issue, face the added dilemma of being classified as anthropologists) desperately need to self-introspect in order to give a semblance of clarity, direction and focus to their subject and to find their own worth, position, identity, relevance and being as sociologists.

Uberoi points out that a debate that has erupted at least once a decade for the last 40 years cannot in any way be classified as serendepity. On the point that we keep on reinventing the bicycle or Beteille’s concept of amnesia of the young scholar towards the good work already done, I would like to put in a word or two in defense. One can only keep reinventing the bicycle if one knows and comprehends the already existing object as a bicycle that may be used as a means of travel.

Now the youth, however arrogant they may be, can use this object in three ways. They may use it to make their journey simpler or easier. They may not be able to see the purpose of the bicycle at all, but still try to understand and interpret it. The third option is to dismiss the existing bicycle and go about reinventing it. Young sociologists have made extensive use of all three ways available to them and not just concentrated their efforts on reinventing the bicycle. Anyway the concept of reinventing the bicycle is also related to sociology’s search for itself.

In comparison to other social sciences like economics, political science and public administration, sociology’s goals are not ill-defined or amorphous. They are just grander – for no other social science dares to claim that it aims to study humankind as a whole and the entire social existence. When you aim high there is a price to pay. Finding the means to achieve sociology’s grand goal is not easy and this leads to the debates, reinvention of the bicycle, self-introspection and the search for self.

The second question raised in the first paragraph of this comment deals with the relevance of sociology. This point has once again been raised, both in ‘the problem’ by Satish Deshpande, Nandini Sundar and Patricia Uberoi and in Uberoi’s ‘Deja vu?’ But the question, whether sociological research had ever yielded any results of substantial/practical value, asked by Beteille in the September 1972 issue of Seminar, is yet to find a satisfactory answer. It is true that sociological studies, that range from being grand in nature to the micro-level, have covered nearly every aspect of society. Relationships between social institutions to a dyadic relationship, from race to the type of sexual relations permitted in a particular community – sociology has studied them all. But for a science that has taken so much from society, what has it given back?

It is not that sociology should become an applied science. What I am suggesting is that sociology should encompass something akin to both natural science and technology. The understanding and knowledge gained through science are put to use in technology hopefully to develop, improve and simplify human existence. Similarly, sociological knowledge should be produced in such a manner that it can be used by disciplines like development studies, social work, policy science, economics, management, social activism, or any other field of practical action for that matter, and by sociology itself – so as to improve and simplify the social existence of mankind. Of course the last decade or so has seen a push in this direction. As a first year BA sociology honours student, I had written the following for the sociology association magazine of Sri Venkateswara College, Delhi:

‘A growing number of sociologists believe that they must not only seek to explain development but also become involved in the day-to-day business of formulating development policy, designing social organizations, and planning and evaluating development projects. Despite investing so much time and effort in the study of development, sociology has exerted a minimal impact on the practice of development... A number of factors can be advanced to explain this fact. Most sociologists have a strong dislike towards any form of social engineering. They suggest that their integrity might be compromised and they would only be used to clear the way on behalf of powerful institutions, elites and classes. Others feel that it may be difficult to separate their emotional and ideological preferences from their professional opinions and advice... It can be argued whether sociologists have the right to criticise development plans if they are not prepared to get practically involved in their formulation. By choosing the option of non-involvement, sociologists must be prepared to play the role of permanent but ineffectual critics. Surely that would not be desirable.’

A possible reason why sociological knowledge is hardly ever able to pass the barrier between theory and application is that sociologists tend to present the conclusions of their work in a vague, ambiguous or abstract manner. It seems they work with only one eye on the object of the study, the other being on the critics and their expert criticisms.

Few sociologists are willing to take a well-defined stance on any matter. NGOs, journalists and market research organizations score over sociologists grabbing new avenues of research because they provide answers – and definitive sounding answers. And (rightly or wrongly) answers are what society is looking for and wants.

Rakshat Hooja

M.A. Prev. Sociology,

Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi