-
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:
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