1 Outlining the nature and scope of the statesociety relationship

Manisha Lath

Introduction

From the very onset of its emergence, the political has always been the object of multiple fields of enquiry and investigation. In large measure such an engagement with the political must be accounted for by the fact that the political infuses all dimensions of human society even as society in the totality of its social relations subscribes to and legitimizes the manifestations and representations of the political. Seen in this light, the political as a universal phenomenon exists in all human societies and is present in every kind of human relations. Political sociology as a discipline situates itself on this universal ground claiming for its object of enquiry the diverse mechanisms through which human social relations legitimize the political both as an institutionalized embodiment of power as well as an organizing principle in the everyday world of human relations.

In the broadest sense of the term then political sociology concerns itself with the state-society interrelationship and how this has developed both theoretically as well historically from its early beginnings in the 19th century. It is true that the state-society interrelationship is common for both political science as well as political sociology. Yet as Bottomore (1979), Bendix and Lipset (1957), Neuman (2007) have argued political science deals with the effect of state on society, while political sociology deals with the effect of society’s influence on the state. Such distinctions are however rarely maintained successfully in the real discourse of the political. On the contrary, as the disciplines have evolved there has been a fair amount of blurring that has gone on in both these fields of enquiry. Nonetheless it is important to recognize that for the political sociologist it is the concern of the social and its impact on the political that is of paramount importance to the discipline and its concerns.

Further in seeking to explore the nature of the social in the domain of the political, political sociology must by default be linked up to issues of cultural/historical diversity that prevail across societies in different parts of the world. While the modern state might have its origins in the historical developments that took place in Europe from the 17th century onwards the same cannot be said of the state and its role in non-western societies as and when it begins to make its presence in these different regions of the world. Clearly there is need to consider the concerns of political sociology as and when these develop in the context of specific regions, specific societies and specific cultures.

Hence, the emergence of the state-society interrelationship in the Indian context comes about with the onset of colonialism and the establishment of the colonial state post 1857. Yet the development of this modern state in the Indian context has had to engage with a diverse and contradictory universe of social realities through which the state has come to be influenced and shaped. In this sense, how the state comes to acquire legitimacy in the Weberian sense of this category remains an ongoing field of exploration within the discipline of political sociology in India. For Weber it was only through the modes of legitimation in the domain of the social that power gets realized through its symbols of authority. However, in societies where there exist a crisis of legitimation, the structures of authority also face a similar crisis. In non-Western societies that represent a constant and enduring legitimation crisis, power and authority relations in such societies have often veered towards instability and chaos. Hence how the social responds through the structures of power and authority in any given society is a crucial area of exploration within political sociology.

In the development of this course an attempt has been made to locate the concerns of political sociology within the context of modern Indian society. Even if there is a body of theoretical writings that constitute the bulk of a conceptual understanding of political sociology, such an understanding has often been tampered with by situating these ideas in the context of Indian realities and trying to make sense of the complex realities that emerge from one diverse engagement of the political to another. The history of the modern state as was developed within European society is often linked up to other mega-historical developments like that of capitalism and nationalism. It would be fair to say that in large measure the theoretical constructions that underpin the modern state are linked up with these developments. However, there is a need to be cautious about how scholarship within political sociology must extend the significance of such ideas into the world of non-western societies where the development of both capitalism and nationalism have pursued radically different orientations from those of western Europe. It is this engagement with incompatible constituencies and contradictory realities of between the social and the political in the Indian context that must serve as a challenge for the development of political sociology in the Indian context.

In this module we explore the contours of this course in the way that it has been developed through a series of thirty-five modules. In section one, we look at the structure of the course outlining the various themes that comprise the concerns of political sociology in the Indian context. In section two, we engage with issues of methodology with a view to elaborating the different ways in which such a course can be developed within the Indian context.

Section I: Course structure

The thirty-five modules in this course are distributed amongst nine themes that comprise this entire course. Theme one looks at the discipline and considers what are some of the main concerns of political sociology by engaging with a range of important concerns such as state, class, status, ideology and power. Each of these five concerns are dealt with a view to elaborating how these concepts feature both a modern and premodern engagement in the context of the Society – State relationship within political sociology. Clearly what is being suggested here is that given the different histories and cultures, the development of the discipline has followed very different trajectories both in the west and in India. In this regard, the theme also looks at the historical development of political sociology both in the European context as well as in the Indian context. In both these engagements an effort is made to draw out the important theoretical debates and concepts that are central to an understanding of political sociology in the way that it has developed. Thus while European society sought to construct a society – state relationship against the back drop of a transformation from feudalism to capitalism, such transformations appeared to be largely patchy and incomplete in the Indian context. In exploring the category of the social in the Indian context, political sociology has had to engage with caste society. In its operations be the structural, ideological or experiential, caste has configured the discourse of power in a uniquely different way from that of their European counterparts.

The subsequent three themes from theme two onwards are basically engaged with a theoretical discussion of the main perspectives that have been developed within political sociology. Theme two begins with a Marxist approach and considers how different Marxist scholars have engaged with the category of the social in understanding the political. In doing so an attempt is made to discuss some important concepts within political sociology that have deep roots in Marxist social thought. These include ruling class, state power, ideology and class struggle. Following this the theme looks at several important Marxist scholars with a view to highlighting the role of some important concepts that have been developed by these Marxist thinkers. Thus for example there is a detailed consideration of Gramsci’s social and political thought with a focus on his ideas of intervention, hegemony and domination. Similarly there is an engagement with Louis Althusser and his contribution to the understanding of the ideological state apparatus. Likewise we consider three important Marxist thinkers namely Ralph Miliband, NicosPoulantzas and Ernesto Laclau in the way that they have conceptualized the capitalist state. Finally we also look at JurgenHabermas and the way he has conceptualized the public sphere in modern bourgeois society. Within these various discussions we have also sought to focus attention on an ongoing debate in Marxist social thought which concerns civil society, political society and the reproduction of class structure.

A second theoretical tradition that is dealt with as theme three in this course is the Weberian approach to political sociology. Weber’s influence on the development of political sociology has been enormous: not only did he provide the theoretical legitimization for the study of power from the standpoint of the social, he also made power a core concern of his sociological explorations, in this connection we look at some of the basic concepts of political sociology developed by Weber which include the concept of domination, legitimation, authority and bureaucracy. We also look at Weber’s consideration on power elaborating on his three dimensions of power which is class, status and party.

In theme four, we look at the approach developed by Michel Foucault on his understanding of power and how power operates with a modern political context. We look at how Foucault deals with the knowledge-power relationship and his concept of bio-power. Equally we also look at how Foucault develops an understanding of the modern state in terms of categories like discipline, surveillance and governability.

Theme five looks at the concept of nation, nationalism and citizenship which are central to the development and understanding of the society-state relationship in the modern world. With regard to the concept of nation and nationalism we look at two competing, contemporary perspectives on these subjects in the writings of Ernest Gellner and Benedict Anderson. Both these scholars have attempted to conceptualize nation and nationalism by studying the historical emergence of these categories in different parts of the world especially with the experience of western societies. Equally, we consider the Indian context of this discussion by looking at Partha Chatterjee and his discussion on derivative nationalism. Here again we show how a different conception of the social opens up a completely different discussion of Nation and nationalism, with its own specific set of concerns. In looking at the concept of citizenship, we consider two thinkers namely T.H.Marshall with his explanation on three kinds of citizenship. We also look at Yuval Davis on the place of Gender and its relationship with citizenship.

Theme six looks at the phenomenon of colonialism and how it restructured traditional Indian society. Such an exercise is done essentially with a view of elaborating on the various constituent components that colonialism put in motion leading to the construction of the modern Indian state. Of singular importance here is the construction of the colonial episteme and how this gave expression to ethnography and the representation of the colonial state. On the other hand, we also look at how from within colonial society there emerges the social reform movement of the 19th century with a view to the development of a unified religion called Hinduism. Similarly, we also consider how the colonial context made possible the rise of the shudra and ati-shudra caste who had hitherto remained oppressed and exploited within traditional Indian society. Finally in attempting to theorize this phenomenon of colonialism in the Indian context, we look at how RanajitGuha has attempted to explain colonialism as domination without hegemony. Similarly, we also look at how Partha Chatterjee discusses the growth of nationalism in the Indian context in his work ‘The nation and its fragments’. What both Chatterjee and Guha provide is a radically different rendering of ideas which have a distinctly different history of their origins in the west where they first emerged.

Theme seven deals with democracy and the Indian state. Here the concern is basically with looking at the society-state relationship in the period after India’s independence. The focus is to generally understand the evolution of democracy in modern Indian society. In this connection, we look at how Indian democracy has engaged with the process of development especially in the context of the poor and their rights to development. Similarly we have also looked at how a Marxist approach to class and passive revolution elaborate a particular perception of Indian democracy from the standpoint of a Marxist perspective. Further, we also look at the issue of governmentality in the Indian context paying attention to the role of patron-client in the workings of the Indian state. Finally, we look at the particular role of the political society and its contestations of legality in the post-Independent period to understand a particular role of the social in its engagement with the political.

Theme eight looks at the contested relationship between the society and the state in modern India. The emergence of an independent Indian state was from the very outset marred with the issue of partition, communalism and communal riots. Indian society has been part of an ongoing engagement with these concerns bringing to the fore the phenomenon of majoritarian and minority politics in the country. Similarly, modern Indian society has been plagued with issues of casteism that has divided the polity along the lines of caste hierarchies calling into question the entire nature of electoral politics in the country. Similarly related to the issue of casteism is the rise of the anti-Brahmin movement in Indian politics where lower caste assertions within the electoral arena are posing serious challenges to the continuance of Brahmanical supremacy in society. At yet another level we consider how regionalism, self-determination and ethnic chauvinism have proved to be important facets of the political life of modern democracy in India. These developments point to some of the major tensions that confront the state-society relationship in modern India. Further within such a scenario we also look at the emergence of identity politics and how this has framed a new discourse of insiders and outsiders within various context that mark out the ideologies of inclusion and exclusion that have now come to characterize the modern Indian polity. Finally, continuing with this consideration of the state-society contestation we look at how the emergence of women in Indian politics have not only foregrounded the concern of violence against women but also highlighted the role of feminism and its contribution to Indian politics.

Theme nine deals with contemporary concerns that have a bearing on the society-state relationship within political sociology in the Indian context. Against the backdrop of a growing integration of the nations of the world we look at how the global and the local begin to shape a new political in the context of modern Indian politics. Similarly, we look at the way in which democratic politics with its focus on the electoral arena has given rise to a form of disenchantment that can have serious consequences for the modern Indian polity. Finally, we consider the domain of political activity within modern Indian society that does not necessarily have a bearing on electoral wins and losses. Yet the emergence of non-party political fronts and grass-root movements have provided an important contribution to the state-society relationship in modern Indian politics.

Section-II: Methodology

In seeking to develop a coherent understanding of the theories, issues and concerns that constitute the discipline of political sociology we have mainly been motivated in the direction of developing a critical and historical understanding of the phenomenon under consideration. No doubt a growing body of theoretical work in this field has made possible many relevant and important interpretations of the political. To that extent it is possible to say that in its diverse explorations of the political the course has paid much less attention to the behavioural and the functional. Instead the course pursues an historical approach which engages with the continuities and discontinuities in the making of the social in the context of the society–state relationship. In the Indian context it is important to consider how such transformations have occurred in the domain of the social as it developed from a pre-modern, colonial context to that of a modern democratic nation state. Investing the social with a sense of history not only permits a grounding of the categories of political sociology, equally history draws our attention to the diverse conditions in which the social comes to give expression to the political.

In this course we look at how the social in the Indian context influences and manipulates the functioning of the political. Enough scholarship on this subject [Beteille; 1991, Gupta; 2004, Frankel & Rao; 1989] has shown that Religion, Caste and Region are important determinants that define the manner in which the social is to engage with in any given situation. Modernization scholars [Beteille; 1991, Sheth; 1999] have been keen to point out that with the advent of modernity, both caste and religion would have much less of a defining role in determining the functioning of the social. Yet others [Gupta; 2004, Kohli 2001] have argued that caste and religion in themselves undergo changes adapting to the requirements of modernity, thereby, giving the impression that these categories have reinvented themselves. If modernity as Kaviraj [2000] observes wears itself thinly on the social in the Indian context, others like Singer [1972] have emphasized the ‘compartmentalization of the Self’ pointing to the problematic ways in which the Social receives and reciprocates in its engagements with modernity. Not surprisingly Shah [2004] and others have highlighted the instrumentalist nature of caste in Indian politics. Here caste is made out as if it were an ‘interest group’ functioning with specific agendas and concerns within the framework of electoral politics. While political sociology may accept such instrumentalist formulations of caste in Indian politics, it is equally interested in understanding how caste embeds itself in modern social life becoming the basis of a diverse range of relationships in spheres of both civil society and state. Beyond the instrumentalism, here caste relations foreground sentiments of domination, exclusion and discrimination [Jaffrelot; 2010, Das; 1984]. It is this kind of universe of social relations as is prevalent in modern Indian society that is often at the heart of the tensions and contradictions that define the political in modern Indian society [Kothari & Manor; 2010]Further the advent of democracy in post-independent Indian society has heralded a process of social transformation combined with contestations that has deeply impacted the functioning of the political often threatening the very stability of the very democratic system. The assertive nature of lower caste politics combined with its demographic attributes has created a social which while being deeply embedded in the discourse of caste continues to influence the workings of the political in the arena of electoral politics. From the vantage point of political sociology what such a situation foregrounds is the very difficult and nuanced manner in which categories hitherto invested with elements of consensus are now conceived and represented in domains of conflict and contestations. It is these experiences which must now confront competing discourses of the political that are constantly resisting and confronting traditional modes of authority and legitimacy. Across the non-Western world political sociology must engage with revised and reworked notions of the political in societies faced with large scale social transformations not only from the pre-modern to the modern but also from colonial to post-colonial and from peasant based customary societies to modern urban industrial nation-states. While it is true that these mega processes of structural transformations have deeply impacted the social in the way that it is organized and represented in these non-Western societies, it is equally true that from within the sites of these social transformations, the social has rarely been constituted as a unified homogenous category. On the contrary, what modernity and democracy have construed in the name of the social is the emergence of diverse social formations who are often locked in profound contestations with each other rendering impossible any attempts to conceive of the social and the political existing in a harmonious relationship with each other.

To return back to the issue of methodological coherence outlined in the beginning of this section it is worth noting that any attempt in representing political sociology in terms of the society-state relationship would necessarily have to contend with issues of historical and cultural specificity. In this regard political sociology and the discourse of the political in the Indian context was in the decades following independence represented by a range of social scientists (Kothari, Rudolph) who argued that the engagement with modernity would lead to a dissolution of the social in its traditional attire over a period of time. The general thesis appeared to be that caste was reinventing itself, thereby, becoming more adaptive to the modern political system. Yet accompanying this interpretation of the political was the related idea that foregrounded the assertive role of the lower caste as they began staking their right to be part of the democratic process. The combination of these two sets of ideas gave rise to a construction of the political which in the electoral arena became the instrumentalist quest for power leading to the formation of a variety of caste-alliances whose electoral numbers constituted the basis of their stake for power. On the other hand, the political came to represent an ever increasing spread of caste violence across the length and breadth of Indian society. While Dalits and lower caste were the main targets of this violence by the unleashed by the dominant caste in different parts of the country, it is also important to highlight the fact that in a singular way lower caste assertion in the democratic sphere had destabilized if not severely eroded the power of the upper caste in modern Indian society. It is this construction of the political characterized by the deep fault lines of casteismand caste conflict that continues to frame the discourse of the political even in the contemporary period.

A second dimension in the framing of the political has to do with the construction of communal politics from the onset of independence. Both minority and majority communalisms have invested the political with sentiments of exclusion and hatred thereby threatening the social fabric of society at large. In the decades following independence majoritarianism has grown in both strength and numbers to dominate the discourse of the political in both spheres of state and society. What has persistently deprived majoritarianism from its quest for absolute power and domination over Indian society has been the consistent critique from the lower castes who are convinced that such a construction of the political is ineffect a well-disguised strategy of the upper caste to reinstate Brahmanical rule.

A third dimension of the political that becomes important for political sociology in the Indian context is the manner in which the political comes to be critiqued by the marginalised and weaker sections of Indian society. For these sections the political is deeply embedded in structures of inequality that continue to perpetuate upper caste/upper class domination and control of Indian society. While the development path has often been used by the ruling class to offset growing concerns over inequality, exploitation and oppression, development as a strategy of growth has continued to prove beneficial for those with the resources and capacities to engage with it. For the weaker sections it continues to be a strategy of confronting the political demanding from it equality, justice and accountability.

Framed within the context of caste assertion and caste violence, majoritarianism and communalism, structural inequality and exploitation, the political continues to become the bearer of a diverse range of conflicts and contradictions emanating from the above context. The challenge for political sociology in the Indian context lies in its ability to highlight the nuanced way in which the concerns of caste, identity and inequality intersect one another in elaborating the dynamics of the political.

Conclusion

Political sociology as a discipline we have argued offers us an opportunity to understand how social relations and the social structure at large impact upon the political to create one or another form of legitimation and authority. In this course, while we have looked at how a variety of theoretical approaches have dealt with the construction of the political from the vantage point of the social, we have nonetheless sought to interrogate such understandings from the vantage point of historical and cultural specificities. Whether there are universal laws that must account for the framing of the political is a question that political sociology would prefer to stay away from in the present period. In large measure the discipline has come to acknowledge the specific historical and cultural ways that the political is construed and represented. In doing so political sociology is involved in representing the specific modes of power and the fields of power relations that are operational in a society at a given period. By interrogating the social as a way of understanding the political the discipline widens our understanding of the diverse ways in which institutions and processes are rearranged in keeping with the demands and conditions of an existing social. To that extent political sociology helps us in understanding not only the evolution of the political over a period of time, it also affords us glimpses into the world of social relations and social institutions that contribute to the making of the political.

Further Readings

Blume, S. S. (1974). Toward a political sociology of science.
Cairo, G. (2001). STATE AND SOCIETY RELATIONSHIPS IN INDIA. Asian Survey, 41(4), 669-692.
Dowse, R. E., & Hughes, J. A. (1975). Political sociology. Wiley.
Marger, M. (1987). Elites and masses: An introduction to political sociology. Wadsworth Pub Co.
Bottomore, T. B. (1979). Political sociology (Vol. 1993). Hutchinson.
Skocpol, T., Evans, P., &Rueschemeyer, D. (1999). Bringing the state back in. Cambridge.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions (Vol. 29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Migdal, J. S. (2001). State in society: Studying how states and societies transform and constitute one another. Cambridge University Press.
Migdal, J. S. (1988). Strong societies and weak states: state-society relations and state capabilities in the Third World. Princeton University Press.
Mitchell, T. (1991). The limits of the state: beyond statist approaches and their critics. The American Political Science Review, 77-96.
Mommsen, W. (1965). Max Weber’s political sociology and his philosophy of world history. International
Social Science Journal, 17(1), 23-45. Faulks, K. (2000). Political sociology: a critical introduction. NYU Press.Lipset, S. M. (1968). Political sociology.
Lipset, S. M. (Ed.). (1985). Consensus and conflict: Essays in political sociology. Transaction Publishers.
Rex, J. (1995). Ethnic identity and the nation state: The political sociology of multi‐cultural societies. Social Identities, 1(1), 21-34.
Collins, R. (1968). A comparative approach to political sociology. State and society, 42-67.
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1971). Political sociology.
Gupta, S. K. (2009). Political Sociology in India. Sociology and Social Anthropology in India, 185.
Rudolph, L. I., & Rudolph, S. H. (1984). The modernity of tradition: Political development in India.
University of Chicago Press. Sirsikar, V. M. (1970). The rural elite in a developing society. A study in political sociology. The rural elite
in a developing society. A study in political sociology.
Panini, M. N. (1996). The political economy of caste. Caste: Its twentieth century avatar, 28-68.
Beteille, A. (1991). Society and politics in India: Essays in a comparative perspective (Vol. 63). Berg Pub Limited.
Gupta, D. (Ed.). (2004). Caste in Question: Identity Or Hierarchy?. SAGE Publications India.
Bendix, R., & Brand, C. M. (1973). State and society: a reader in comparative political sociology. Univ of California Press.
Pathak, S. (1997). State, society and natural resources in Himalaya: Dynamics of change in colonial andpost-colonial Uttarakhand. Economic and Political Weekly, 908-912.
Heberle, R. (1951). Social movements: An introduction to political sociology(Vol. 3). Ardent Media.
Gupta, S. K. (2009). Political Sociology in India. Sociology and Social Anthropology in India, 185.
Kaviraj, S. (Ed.). (1997). Politics in India. Oxford University Press, USA.
Shah, G. (2002). Dalits and the state. Concept Publishing Company.
Kaviraj, S. (2000). Modernity and politics in India. Daedalus, 129(1), 137-162.
Singer, M. (1972). When a great tradition modernizes.

Reference bibliography:

Bendix and Lipset (1957). ‘Political Sociology’, Current Sociology, 6:79-99.
Bottomore, T. B. (1979). Political sociology (Vol. 1993). Hutchinson.
Das, A (1984). ‘Class in Itself, Caste for Itself: Social Articulation in Bihar’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 19, No. 37, pp 1616-1619.
Frankel, Francine & MSA Rao (ed) (1989). Dominance and state power in modem India: decline of a social order. Vol. II. Delhi : Oxford University Press.
Jaffrelot, C (2010). Religion, Caste and Politics in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kohli, Atul (2001). The Success of India’s Democracy (ed). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Neuman, Lawrence 2007. ‘Political Sociology’ in Clifton D. Byrant and Dennis L.Peck (eds) 21st Century Sociology :A reference Handbook, Vol 1, Sage Publications.
Shah, Ghanshyam (ed) (2004). Caste and Democratic Politics In India. London: Anthem Press.
Sheth, D L (1999). ‘Secularisation of Caste and Making of New Middle Class’. Economic and Political Weekly. Vol. 34, No. 34/35, pp 2502-2510.