--- title: "Complete Book 0" book: "MA Pol.Sc 201 FInal" category: "MA" publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd." type: "Educational Material" ---  According to Latest Syllabus Read For Sure SuccessIn University Examination RATAN TEXT BOOK CONTEMPORARY DEBATES IN POLITICAL THEORY M.A.Political Science (Sem-II) Dr. Parvati Mishra Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 Copyright Authors & Publishers Published by Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd. 2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002 ISBN :978-81-69604-50-5 Price 526.00 only Printed at : KIDS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD. C-60, 61, 62, 63, EPIP, Shastripuram, Agra - 282007 Ph. : +91 9719004921 Preamble to the Constitution of India WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, Having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens : JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation; IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION. SUCCESS Success is not permanent and failure is not final. Never stop working after success and, never stop trying after failure. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM Notes Block-I Unit-1 NATURE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF POLITICAL THEORY Structure: 1.1    Introduction 1.2    Learning Objectives 1.3    What is Theory Self Check Exercise-1 1.4    Meaning Nature and characteristics of Political Theory 1.4.1    Some Important Definitions 1.4.2    Features/characteristics of Political Theory Self Check Exercise-2 1.5    Scope of Political Theory Self Check Exercise-3 1.6    Normative and Empirical Political Theory 1.6.1    Normative or Prescriptive Political Theory 1.6.2 . Empirical or Descriptive Political Theory Self Check Exercise-4 1.7    Significance of Political Theory Self Check Exercise-5 1.8    Relationship of Political Theory with Political Philosophy, Political Science and Political Ideology 1.8.1    Political Theory and Political Philosophy 1.8.2    Political Theory and Political Science 1.8.3    Political Theory and Political Ideology Self Check Exercise-6 1.9    Summary 1.10    Glossary 1.11    Answers to Self Check Exercises 1.12    Suggested Readings 1.13    Terminal Questions 1.1    Introduction: The term ‘Political Theory’ is generally used interchangeably with other terms like ‘political thought’, ‘political philosophy’, ‘political ideology’, ‘political inquiry’, ‘political analysis’ etc. But, in the real sense, it is different from all these terms. According to Rodee, Anderson and Christol, “it is that branch of political science which attempts to arrive at generalizations, inferences or conclusions to be drawn from the data gathered by other specialists, not only in political science but throughout the whole range of human knowledge and experience.” It is considered the basis and most comprehensive branch of political science. From the ancient Greece to the present, the history of political theory has dealt with fundamental and perennial ideas of political science. Political theory reflects upon political phenomenon, political institutions, political processes and on actual political behavior by subjecting them to philosophical criterion. Before describing the meaning of political theory, it is pertinent to know about ‘theory’. 1.2    Learning Objectives: After going through this unit, the students will be able to: •     Understand the meaning, features, nature and scope of Political Theory. •     Distinguish between Normative and Empirical Political Theory. •     Know about the significance of Political Theory •     Know about the relationship of Political Theory with that of Political Philosophy, Political Science and Political Ideology 1.3    What is Theory? The English word ‘theory’ is originated from a Greek word ‘theoria’ which literally means seeing, or beholding, or taking in. The theorist was the man whose role was ‘to see’ or ‘look into’ the reality and offer an explanation. In simple words, ‘theory’ is used to designate attempts to ‘explain’ a phenomena especially when that is done in general and abstract terms. But mere description or explanation is not theory, nor are the proposal of goals, policy, or evaluations. On the other hand, theory does include ‘prediction’ provided it so follows from an explanation. According to Plano “Theory is an idea or body of thought that purports to explain, predict or prescribe in any field of inquiry.” It may be ‘scientific’ or ‘non-scientific’ according to whether or not scientific principles like empirical verification, objectivity, prediction, systematization, etc. are followed or not. Further, theory covers both ‘values’ and ‘facts’ that determine its normative or speculative character. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    The English world ‘Theory’ is originated from which of the Greek word? 2.    What are scientific principles? 3.    Theory covers ..................... (Values/Facts/Both Values and Facts) 1.4    Meaning, Nature and characteristics of Political Theory: The term ‘political’ refers to something that is ‘public’ i.e. common to the whole community as distinguished from private or something applicable to a limited number of persons. The term ‘theory’ stands for a systematic knowledge. Thus ‘political theory” denotes a systematic knowledge of political phenomena and various political institutions. Political theory is concerned with two different types of knowledge. In the first place, it is concerned with political belief systems of a general and comprehensive sort. Those belief systems may be called ideologies. Secondly, it is concerned with political philosophy which is about political thought. Political theory is largely an attempt to seek the truth. It is not merely an expression of the existing knowledge about politics. It may also direct the way to the acquiring of new knowledge. Sometimes, the word theory is used as a synonym for speculation; idea or conjectures and therefore political theory is political speculations or philosophizing about political and governmental activity. Andrew Hecker writes in his ‘Political Theory’ that theory has broadly two meanings. One of the meanings can be closely associated with traditional political approach, while the other with modern. In the traditional sense, it means history of political ideas whereas in the modern sense it refers to modern political behavior and its scientific study. According to him, in one form or the other, the theorist plays the role of a philosopher and a scientist because in his theory, he is bound to assign some place to facts and values, as both are complementary to each other. The function of a political theorist is to consider facts in all their varied ramifications and suggest conclusions and remedies. The most dominant political theories realize all the three goals such as to describe, explain and predict. In nutshell, we may say that political theory has three main ingredients. The first is its factual and descriptive component in the same manner as history has a purely chronological and descriptive component. Secondly, it is made of generalizations which reduce the huge mass of political data. And, the third component is the moral component. Political theories are the result of thoughts and research of many scholars and exponents of political science. Thinkers on the subject formulate definitions of various political concepts and establish theories. Political theory is the study of the concepts and principles that people use to describe, explain and evaluate political events and institutions. 1.4.1    Some Important Definitions: Numerous eminent theorists have explained the nature of political theory’ by defining it. According to David Held, “Political theory is a network of concepts and generalizations about political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the nature, purpose and key features of Government, state and society, and about the political capabilities of human beings.” Andrew Hacker states that, “political theory is a combination of disinterested search for the principles of good state and good society on the one hand, and a disinterested search for knowledge of political and social reality on the other.” John Plamentaz delineates political theory in functional terms and said that “the function of political theory has come to be restricted to the analysis and clarification of the vocabulary of politics and the critical examination, verification and justification of the concepts employed in political argument.” According to Sabine, “political theory is, quite simply, man’s attempt to consciously understand and solve the problems of his group life and organization. It is the disciplined investigation of political problems not only to show what a political practice is, but also to show what it means, or what is ought to mean, political theory can alter what it is.” Germino has stated that, “Political theory is the critical study of the principles of right order in human existence.” 1.4.2    Features/Characteristics of Political Theory: On the basis of above mentioned meaning and definitions of ‘Political Theory’, some important features/characteristics of political theory can be described as follows: •    Political theory is a separate area within the discipline of political science, the objective of which is to build theory by analyzing political facts and phenomenon. •    It is sum total of generalized statements which may be called laws or prepositions that explain the political phenomenon under various conditions. •    It is a formal, logical and systematic analysis of the processes and consequences of political activity. •    It is an explanation of a situation and also suggests as to how a situation should be. •    Its laws should be deduced scientifically and not in imagination. •    Political theory is concerned with explanation (cause and effect relationship) not merely description. Aristotle gave a theory when he analyzed the cause of revolution. •    In fact, political theory explains the causes and manner of certain political changes and actions. But these explanations should be generalized so that they may be applied to any phenomenon of the future. •    Political theory provides a rational explanation of the facts of present political life and has the importance for further as well. •    Political theory can be scientific and non-scientific according to whether or not scientific principles are followed. Further, political theory can be normative and speculative in character. •    Political theory is mainly a conceptual study, political theorists concentrate more on theoretical claims instead of empirical claims about the nature of politics. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Fill in the Blanks: (i)    The term political refers to something that is ................................ (ii)    The three goals of political theories are to ...............,   ................., 2.    Define Political Theory according to David Held. 3.    Discuss any three characteristics of Political Theory. 1.5 Scope of Political Theory Broadly speaking, political theory is concerned with three types of statements. (1)    Empirical statement, which is based on observation, through senseexperience alone; (2)    Logical statement, which is based on reasoning (e.g. two plus two is four”); and (3)    Evaluative statement, which is based on value judgment (e.g. ideal state, ideal citizen, men are born free and equal, etc.) Political science relies only on empirical and logical statements. It is argued that correct observations and correct reasoning by different persons would lead to the similar conclusions, hence empirical and logical statements are capable of verification. On the other hand, it is alleged that evaluative statements are based on individual or group preferences which differ from individual to individual or group to group. There is no reliable method of determining what is right or wrong, good or bad. One cannot scientifically discover the purpose of the Universe of human life. The champions of scientific method insist on a ‘value-free’ or ‘value-neutral’ approach for the study of politics. But, political theory cannot be confined to the so-called scientific knowledge. It is equally concerned with determining values which come within the scope of philosophy. Values do have a sound logical base unless we mistake them for biased statements. The study of politics can never be ‘value-free’. Determination of values is the basis of a sound public policy or decision. Hence, political theory must comprehend both political science and political philosophy. George Catlin observed that “the theory (of politics) itself is divided into political science and political philosophy.” Catlin identified the nature of political theory by pointing to its two important components i.e. political science and political philosophy. He pointed out that political science deals with the facts of political life (i.e. what is the real situation and which laws govern our actual behavior) while political philosophy is concerned with values (What is good for us). Andrew Hacker also gave importance to these two major components of political theory. Hacker observes; “The theorist whose pursuit is political science is interested in describing and explaining the realities of political behavior. He attempts to draw up generalized propositions about the actual relations between states and citizens and about the role of power in society. On the other hand, the theorist whose interest is in writing political philosophy is concerned with prescribing the goal which citizens, states and societies ought to pursue. His aim is to generalize about right conduct in the political life and about the legitimate uses of power. Adequate knowledge of political science is essential for sound political philosophy. The best political philosophers have always been well aware of the existing realities. Thus, broadly speaking, political theory comprehend both political science and political philosophy. These two components of political theory are of great relevance and taken together perform three main functions which are recognized as the functions of political theory (i) description; (ii) criticism; and (iii) reconstruction. Political science mainly relies on empirical method, i.e. the knowledge based on practical experience, hence it specializes in ‘description’ whereas political philosophy being concerned with value- judgment specializes in ‘criticism’ and ‘reconstruction.” Self Check Exercise-3 1.    What is the scope of Political Theory? 2.    “The theory (of Politics) itself is divided into Political Science and Political Philosophy,” whose statement is this? 1.6 Normative and Empirical Political Theory: 1.6.1    Normative or Prescriptive Political Theory: The normative theory, in a general way, suggests the mode by which an imperfect political or social order could be made perfect. A thinker is primarily concerned with political values which are to be implemented in order to achieve harmony, stability and unity in our common political life. Much of the writings of the idealist school from Plato to Bosanquet and Hegal fall in this category. In the normative approach, there is a prior commitment to certain ideals or values like liberty, equality or social justice and speculation about the type of the state which can achieve those ideals. Normative theory implies “systematic thinking about the purposes of the government.” The normative approach starts with certain basic postulates, ideals or assumptions or values from which other postulates are deduced. It chooses not to concern itself with what was and is but prefers to contemplate on ‘what ought to be’. The normative theory focuses attention on ethical questions or values viz. the good order of society, the ends of the state, etc. It is prescriptive and value-ladden. 1.6.2    Empirical or Descriptive Political Theory: The empirical or descriptive theory is primarily concerned with things like state structure, political process, etc, as they are. The objective of this theory is to describe political institutions and political behavior with as much scientific accuracy as possible. In the simplest terms, empirical political theory is focused on the realities and explaining “what is’. In the early 20th century, political scientists like Max Weber, Graham Wallas and Arthur Bentley gave an empirical dimension to the study of politics. Graham Wallas brought realism to politics by emphasizing the psychological dimension through his book “Human Nature in Politics’ published in 1908. Max Weber contributed to the development of empiricism by a study of bureaucracy and by his seperation of ‘what is to be done’ from the analysis of ‘what is happening’. Arthur Bently contributed by elaborating the sociological dimension of politics and exploring ‘group politics’. Since the 1940s, empiricism has come into political theory with the rise of logical positivism, systems analysis and behaviouralism. The logical positivists insist on the verifiability principle. They denounce unverifiable propositions and sentences as non-scientific and meaningless. According to positivists, political inquiry provides no basis for choice among ultimate values. Systems analysis also seek to provide a value-free analysis of politics. However, philosophers today do not accept the logical positivist view that political values are meaningless and political evaluation cannot be rational but only subjective and preferential. The rationalist philosophers today give more importance to right reason as a source of knowledge than to verification by observation. Broadly speaking, empirical political theory seeks to discover and describe facts whereas normative theory seeks to determine and prescribe values. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Briefly differentiate between Normative and Empirical Political Theory. 1.7 Significance of Political Theory: For a long time, the necessity of political theory was hotly debated. The argument was that theory is an abstraction and hence its study is a waste of time without much utility. However, this view has changed now. Catlin opines that the maturity and advancement of subject is to be judged from the soundness and abstraction of that subject. David Easton was the person who drew the attention of political scientists towards the study of political theory. His contention was that a subject can advance only when its theory and research is regularly conducted. The changes in theory help in analytical study of the subject. Political theory alone can get for political science an independent status, Political theory, whether normative, empirical, or trans-empirical has its own relevance. Political theory has its uses in which lies an answer to the question as to why anyone should theorise about politics. The various advantages of political theory are discussed as under (1)    Makes Political Science a discipline: Political theory is most essential in making political science a discipline. The unity, maturity, coherence, predictability and scientific character of the subject is dependent on it. (2)    Helps in the growth of the subject: No subject can develop or grow without theory. Theory provides a framework of study and a direction towards research and collection of facts and data. It helps in deciding what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected. It gives proper direction like a compass and helps in giving scientific explanation. It is only with the help of theory that new fields can be discovered and new ideas developed. It provides theoretical framework to guide political scientists and make more research. (3)    Prediction: Theory helps political scientists to predict and anticipate about the happenings and the way things were likely to shape themselves in future. A sound political theory is bound to provide a satisfactory understanding of all the important political problems and their causes which help the political scientist to predict and know the future happenings. (4)    Control of Social Life: Scientific analysis of political life enables us to understand and solve the problems of our social life. Just as the knowledge of geology helps us in understanding the causes of earthquake and gives us insights for preventing the havoc caused by it, so political theory enables us to understand the causes of conflict and violence in society and gives us insights for preventing their outburst. The knowledge of political science guides us to understand various political problems and various types of social crises and find remedies for them. (5)    Social Criticism and Reconstruction: The normative aspect of political theory is primarily concerned with right and wrong, good and evil in social life. When we find something wrong in our society and polity, we look for logical grounds for criticizing it and speculate about the creation of a good society. In this respect, political theory helps us. A galaxy of political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Roussean, Hegal, Marx, Mill, Macpherson etc. have pointed to the prevailing ills in the society and they have given their own schemes of social reconstruction. We can draw valuable insights from their thought for finding remedies to the existing ills in the present-day society. (6)    Clarification of Concepts: Political theory helps us a lot in the clarification of concepts used in the analysis of social and political life. In fact, the clarification of concepts in each area of study whether science or philosophy is essential for the development of knowledge. When we use the terms of common parlance in political discourse, it is very important to determine their technical meaning. The terms like liberty, equality, Law, Justice, rights, authority, democracy and social class may be applied by different schools of thought to indicate different ideals. Political philosophy and theory try to determine their precise meaning which should be acceptable to the upholders of different ideologies. Agreement on the meaning of the terms of political discourse does not necessarily mean that they come to accept each other’s viewpoint. But it certainly paves the way for their dialogue. A precise and widely accepted definition of a concept/term enables each thinker to build his argument on sound footing. Further, the existence of a theoretical framework, or a relatively consistent body of concepts also helps in making the research more reliable. (7)    Encouragement to Mutual Respect and Toleration: The tradition of political theory encourages a dignified debate between upholders of different points of view. It inspires the political scientists and philosophers to understand each other’s view points, gives them an opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their thoughts to convince others and be convinced by others when truth is discovered. In short, political theory generates mutual respect and toleration among the scholars and prompts them to resolve their differences peacefully. (8)    Establish a balance between facts, happenings and human values: Political theory helps in finding the facts, finding out what is being done to establish values and what political alternatives may be developed. In this way, it helps in establishing a balance between the facts, happenings and human values. Thus, political theory has its own relevance. Besides, providing political science a scientific character and direction to the further research, its philosophical/normative aspect also serves as an essential guide to the social policy. It helps in solving the various problems of humanity. Today, the emerging concerns with environmentalism, feminism, human rights and social justice for the subaltern groups, etc. call for exploring the new horizons of facts and value-judgment. In this respect political theory can play an important role and serves as an essential guide in framing the right social policies. Thus, taken as a whole, the tasks of political theory are unquestionably demanding. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    How Political Theory has helped in the growth of Political Science? 2.    How Political Theory enables us to control the social life? 1.8    Relationship of Political Theory with Political Philosophy, Political Science and Political Ideology:-1.8.1    Political Theory and Political Philosophy Philosophy is called ‘science of wisdom’—wisdom about this world, man or God. This wisdom is all-inclusive and tries to explain everything. When this wisdom is applied to the study of political phenomena or the state, it is called political philosophy. Political philosophy belongs to the category of normative political theory. It is concerned with not only explaining what ‘is’ but also what ‘ought’ to be. Political philosophy is not only concerned with contemporary issues but with certain universal issues in the political life of man such as nature and purpose of the political organisation, basis of political authority, nature of rights, liberty, equality, justice etc. The distinction between political philosophy and political theory is explained by the fact that whereas a political philosopher is a political theorist, but a political theorist may not necessarily be a political philosopher. For example, David Easton is an eminent political theorist but is not considered a political philosopher. Though theory deals with the same issues as political philosophy, it can explain them both from philosophical as well as empirical points of view. In other words, while political philosophy is abstract or speculative, political theory can be both normative and empirical. A political theorist is as much interested in explaining the nature and purpose of the state as in describing the realities of political behaviour, the actual relations between state and citizens, and the role of power in the society. As has been pointed out by Arnold Bretch, philosophical explanations are theories too, but they are non-scientific. Political theory is concerned both with political institutions and the ideas and aspirations that form the basis of those institutions. However, we must not forget that though we can analytically distinguish between philosophy and theory, yet if political theory is separated from political philosophy, its meaning will appear distorted and it will prove barren and irrelevant. Theory must be supplemented by philosophy. 1.8.2    Political Theory and Political Science As a discipline, political science is much more comprehensive and includes different forms of speculation in politics such as political thought, political theory, political philosophy, political ideology, institutional or structural framework, comparative politics, public administration, international law and organizations etc. With the rise of political science as a separate disciple, political theory was made one of its subfields. However, when used specifically with emphasis on ‘science’ as distinct from ‘theory’, political science refers to the study of politics by the use of Scientific methods in contrast to political philosophy, which is free to follow intuition. Political theory when opposed to political philosophy is political science. Political science is concerned with describing and explaining the realities of political behaviour, generalizations about man and political institutions on empirical evidence, and the role of power in the society. Political theory, on the other hand, is not only concerned about the behavioural study of the political phenomena from empirical point of view but also prescribing the goals which states, governments, societies and citizens ought to pursue. Political theory also aims to generalize about the right conduct in the political life and about the legitimate use of power. Thus, political theory is neither pure thought, nor philosophy, nor science. While it draws heavily from all of them, yet it is distinct from them. Contemporary political theory is trying to attempt a synthesis between political philosophy and political science. 1.8.3    Political Theory and Political Ideology Political theory also includes political ideology. Ideology in simple language means a system of beliefs, values and ideals by which people allow themselves to be governed. We find a number of ideologies in the modern world such as liberalism, Marxism, socialism etc. All political theories from Plato to date reflect a distinct ideology of the writer. Political theory in the form of political ideology includes a system of political values, institutions and practices, which a society has adopted as its ideal. For example, all political theories adopted by Western Europe and America have been dominated by liberalism and the theories accepted by China and erstwhile USSR were influenced by a particular brand of Marxism. Each brand of theory or ideology in this sense claims for itself the attributes of universality and compels others to accept it, leading to what is generally known as ‘ideological conflicts’. Political ideology may also be taken as a part of political theory. We study different ideologies like nationalism, fascism, communism, liberalism etc. in the field of political theory. The scope of political theory is wider than that of ideology. A political thinker may not be an ideologue, but an ideologue is certainly a political theorist. It is also possible that a thinker may be both as we find in the peculiar case of Karl Marx. Marx not only studied the development of society like a dialectical theoretician, he also suggested the picture of an ideal society signifying emancipation of man from all sorts of coercion and exploitation. He sought to establish unity between thought and action and in this way aligned political theory with political action. In short, political theory is associated with the explanation and evaluation of the political phenomena and this phenomena can be examined as a statement of ideas and ideals, as an agent of socio-economic change, and as an ideology. Self Check Exercise-6 1.    How Political Theory is different from Political Science? 1.9    Summary Broadly Speaking, political theory consists of Political Science and political Philosophy. These two branches of political theory taken together perform three functions which are recognized as the functions of political theory: (a) Description; (b) criticism; and (c) Reconstruction. Political Science mainly relies on empirical method, that is, the Knowledge based on our practical experience which is supposed to be most reliable. Hence, it specializes in ‘description’. Political philosophy being concerned with value-judgement specializes in ‘criticism’ and ‘reconstruction’. Advocates of positivism, neo-positivism (logical positivism) and behaviouralism wish to confine political theory to the sphere of political Science. They argue that evaluative statements are based on individual or group preferences which differ from individual to individual, and group to group. There is no reliable method of determining what is right or wrong, good or bad; one cannot scientifically discover the purpose of the Universe or human life. Hence the questions of value Judgment should be dropped from the purview of political theory altogether. However, since the advent of post-behaviouralism (1969) and consequent upon the revival of political philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s, there has been a sub-served emphasis on values in the realm of political theory. It is now argued that value judgement serves as an essential guide to social policy. Indifference to value judgement will leave society in the dark. The emerging concerns with environmentalism, feminism, human rights and social justice for the subaltern groups, etc. call for exploring the new horizons of value-judgment. If political theory tends to relinquish this important function, it may be grabbed by some less competent agency. Thus, the functions of Political theory have now become very important and urgent in the present-day world where most of our problems are assuming global dimensions and they are being recognized as the problems of humanity as such. 1.10    Glossary •     Political Philosophy : A branch of learning which is primarily concerned with moral and substantive dimensions of politics. Its central problems include the pursuit of good life, questions pertaining to norms and values, right and wrong and visions of an ideal state and society. Political Philosophy inquires into the foundations of political life, grounds of political obligation, and moral worthiness of different political systems. •     Ideology : Refers to a set of ideas and ideals which form the basis for a political or economic system. Ideology has a class character. •     Positivism : A theory recognises only that which can be scientifically verified or which is capable of logical or mathematical proof and therefore rejecting metaphysics and theism. •     Generalization : A general, broader and more universal statement that is based on facts or examples. •     Logical Positivism: A school of thought founded by German sociologist Max Weber in the early decades of the 20 century which holds that reliable and valid knowledge in any field of inquiry can be obtained only by empirical method i.e. observation based on senseexperience. 1.11    Answers to Self Check ExerciseSelf Check Exercise-1 1.   Theoria 2.    Scientific principles are like empirical verification, objectivity, prediction, systematization, etc. 3.   Both values and facts. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    (i)        Public (ii) Describe, Explain and Predict 2.    According to David Held, “Political Theory is a network of concept and generalizations about political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about the nature, purpose and key features of Government, state and society, and about the political capabilities of human beings.” 3.  • It is sum total of generalized statements which may be called laws or prepositions that explain the political phenomenon under various conditions. •    It is a formal, logical and systematic analysis of the processes and consequences of political activity. •    Political theory can be scientific and non-scientific according to whether or not scientific principles are followed. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Broadly speaking, Political Theory is concerned with three types of statements:- (a)    Empirical Statement (b)    Logical Statement and (c)    Evaluative Statement. Political theory comprehends both political science and political philosophy. 2.    George Catlin Self Check Exercise-4 1.    The normative political theory does not concern itself with ‘what was and is’ but prefers to contemplate on ‘What ought to be.’ It focused attention on ethical questions or values viz. the good order of society, the ends of the states, etc. It is prescriptive and value-ladden. The empirical political theory on the other hand, is focused on the realities and explaining ‘What is’. Broadly speaking, empirical political theory seeks to discover and describe facts whereas normative theory seeks to determine and prescribe values. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    Theory provides a framework of study and a direction towards research and collection of facts and data. It helps in deciding what is to be accepted and what is to be rejected. Like a compass, it gives proper direction and helps in giving scientific explanation. It is only with the help of theory that new fields can be discovered and new ideas developed. It provides theoretical framework to guide political scientists and make more research. 2.    Political theory enables us to understand and solve the problems of our social life. It enables us to understand the causes of conflict and violence in society and gives us insights for preventing their outburst. The knowledge of political science guides us to understand various political problems and various types of social crises and find remedies for them. Self Check Exercise-6 1.    Please See sub-section 1.8.2. 1.12    Suggested Readings/References •    Bhargava, Rajeev & Acharya Ashok (eds.), Political Theory: An Introduction (Delhi, Chennai :Pearson, 2016). •    Bhargava, R., What is Political Theory and why do we need it? (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010). •   Gauba, O.P., An Introduction to Political Theory (New Delhi: Macmillan, 2004). •   Mahajan, V.D., Political Theory (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd., 2003). •    Johari, J.C., Contemporary Political Theory (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1989). •    Doctor, A.H., Issues in Political Theory (New Delhi : Sterling Pub.,1995) 1.13    Terminal Questions 1.    Define Political Theory. Discuss the nature and scope of Political Theory. 2.    Discuss the relevance of Political Theory. 3.    Discuss the relationship of Political Theory with Political Philosophy and Political Science. ***** Unit-2 MAJOR SCHOOLS OF POLITICAL THEORY Structure 2.1    Introduction 2.2    Learning Objectives 2.3    Major Schools of Political Theory 2.3.1    Classical Political Theory 2.3.2    Liberal Political Theory 2.3.3    Marxist political Theory Self Check Exercise-1 2.3.4    Empirical-Scientific Political Theory 2.3.5    Contemporary Political Theory Self Check Exercise-2 2.4    Summary 2.5    Glossary 2.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise 2.7    Suggested Readings/References 2.8    Terminal Questions 2.1    Introduction Political theory is marked by significant diversity, especially within the Western tradition, where it has evolved as an ongoing conversation across centuries. While the core concerns of political theory have remained relatively consistent, the methods and perspectives used to study these concerns have undergone notable changes over the past two millennia. In the following sections, we will explore some of the major schools of thought that have contributed to the development of essential concepts in political theory. These include: •    Classical Political Theory •    Liberal Political Theory •    Marxist Political Theory •    Empirical-Scientific Political Theory •    Contemporary Political Theory 2.2    Learning Objectives : After reading this unit, the learners will be able to comprehend some major schools which have helped in the development of certain key concepts of Political Theory. 2.3    Major Schools of Political Theory:2.3.1    Classical Political Theory Classical political theory starts from 6th century B.C. and covers the political ideas of a large number of Greek, Roman and Christian thinkers and philosophers. Plato and Aristotle are the two great giants of the classical period who had enormous influence in their own times and on later thinking. Classical political theory includes i) politics. ii) the idea of theory, and (iii) the practice of philosophy. Politics refers to participation in the public affairs, theory refers to the systematic knowledge gained through observation, and philosophy refers to the quest for reliable knowledge, knowledge which would enable men to become wiser in the conduct of collective life. Thus, political theory is a systematic inquiry to acquire reliable knowledge about matters concerning public affairs. Classical political theory has certain specific characteristics. Firstly, it was dominated by philosophy. The great philosophers such as Plato, Aristotle were great because of the comprehensiveness and scope of their thought. They were more than political thinkers. The dimensions of political theory included description, explanation, prescription and evaluation. Secondly, there was no clear distinction between philosophical, theological and political issues. Political theory was not an autonomous subject as it is today. Thirdly, political theory was concerned with probing into issues, asking important questions and serving as a sort of conscience keeper of politics. Fourthly, classical tradition believed that political theory dealt with the political whole, the theory must be all-comprehensive and all-inclusive. It included ruling, warfare, religious practices, economic problems or relations between the classes and also beliefs such as God, justice, equality, etc. The quest for an absolutely best form of government was also an important preoccupation of classical political theory. Fifthly, since classical tradition believed in the ultimate good, political good was a part of it. State was a part of the moral framework of man’s earthly living. State was considered as a natural institution and prior to the individual because ‘the individual when isolated is not self-sufficing and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole’. State was also an educational institution which made man a good citizen, sensitive to the recognition of law and virtue of civic obedience. The end of the state was the promotion of good life. Though there has been a debate about which comes first - the common good or the individual good, but the classical tradition believed that the common good was the good of the individuals as part and member of the society and sought by them precisely as members of society. The common good was more complete than the private good of the individual and it was this completeness ‘which determined the greater excellence of the common good’. And lastly, an important theme of classical political tradition was the search for an ideal state and the most stable system of government. Classical theorists repeatedly asked questions like: Who should rule and why? What is the best form of government? Theory was preoccupied with analysing the sources of conflict and to enunciate the principles of justice which might guide the political organization in discharging its distributive functions of assigning material and non-material goods. The search for an ideal state provided an invaluable means of practicing theory and of acquiring experience in its handling. The trend of an idealist state as set by classical political theory had clear reflection on later political thinking. The classical political tradition -a tradition usually considered to include sixteenth or so centuries sandwiched between Plato and Machiavelli was considerably richer and more varied. But even more important differences and variations were yet to come. With Renaissance, Reformation and industrial revolution, new ideas and events shook the foundation of Western world. During this period a new school of political theory was born, which was later known as liberalism. 2.3.2    Liberal Political Theory The long spell of Plato, Aristotle, S. Augustine, Cicero and other thinkers of classical age was broken in a variety of ways after the twin revolutions of Renaissance and Reformation in Europe from 15th century onwards, coupled with the industrial revolution later on. Renaissance produced a new intellectual climate which gave birth to modern science and modern philosophy and a new political theory known as liberalism. This emerging political theory found its defining articulation in the works of thinkers such as Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, along with many others. Unlike classical political theory, which viewed the moral growth of the individual as inherently tied to the development of the community, liberal political theory introduced the idea of the sovereign individual. At its core, this theory emphasized Individualism. It began with the conviction in the intrinsic worth of the human person and the spiritual equality shared by all individuals, as well as the belief in the autonomy of individual will. Secondly, it championed personal freedom across all areas of life— political, economic, social, intellectual, and religious. Freedom was understood both as liberation from arbitrary authority and as the ability to act in accordance with the principles of 'right reason.' Thirdly, liberal theory advanced the notion of individual rights, asserting that every person is "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," most commonly identified as the natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Since these rights are inherent and exist prior to the formation of any state, they cannot be surrendered when political society is established. Finally, this new perspective held that the state is not a naturally occurring institution but is instead a construct formed by mutual agreement. Its primary role is to safeguard and uphold the rights of individuals. The relation between state and the individual is contractual and when the terms of the contract are violated, individuals not only have the right but the responsibility to revolt and establish a new government. The state was not a natural institution as claimed by classical political theory but a machine devised by men for certain specific purposes such as law, order, protection, justice, and preservation of individual rights. The state is useful to man but he is the master. Social control is best secured by law rather than by command- the law which was conceived as being the product of individual will and the embodiment of reason. Fifthly, the new political theory dismissed the idea of common good and an organic community. Instead it gave the idea that “government that governs the least is the best” and the only genuine entity is the Individual. Political theory during this period was not searching for an ideal State of a Utopia but was preoccupied with freeing the individual from the social and economic restraints and from the tyrannical and non-representative governments. In this context, it redefined the concept of state, relations between the individual and the state, and developed the concepts of rights, liberty, equality, property, justice and democracy for the individual. 2.3.3    Marxist Political Theory Liberal-individualistic political theory faced significant challenges in the latter half of the nineteenth century from Marx, Engels, and their followers through what became known as "scientific socialism." Although the roots of socialism stretch back long before Marx’s era, it was his work that synthesized various critiques of societal issues and infused them with a renewed sense of urgency and relevance. Any comprehensive study of political theory must engage with Marxist perspectives on history, politics, society, and economics. Understanding Marxism allows for a deeper analysis of social and economic transformations. Marxism introduced a revolutionary philosophical approach aimed at the emancipation of humanity. For Marx, the purpose of knowledge extended beyond merely interpreting the world—it was about transforming the material conditions of human existence. He argued that human salvation lies not in the afterlife, but in the fundamental restructuring of the existing social order through revolutionary means, ultimately leading to the establishment of a socialist society. Marx’s criticism of liberal capitalism centered on its creation of a society defined by private property, inequality, and the accumulation of wealth by a minority, resulting in widespread deprivation for the majority. Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and his followers, sought to create the essential—though not necessarily sufficient—conditions for human emancipation. This vision was of a rationally organized society where exploitation would be abolished, individuals could fully realize their potential, and a classless, stateless society would emerge. In such a society, the free development of each person would be the foundation for the freedom of all. Marxist political theory is a theory of social change and revolutionary reconstitution of society. In this context, Marxism consists of three inter-related elements: i) An examination and critique of the present and past societies. This is known as Dialectical materialism and historical materialism; ii) the notion of an alternative model against a society based upon exploitation and divided among classes. The new society is based on the common ownership of the means of production in which human potential will be allowed to freely develop its manifold facets. Such a society will be classless and stateless: iii) how to bring about such a society’. Though there was a general agreement that capitalist system was unstable and crisis-ridden but the advent of socialism required a revolutionary action by the proletariat, whose growing impoverishment will lead to revolution, and establishment of a socialist state and society. The central themes of Marxist political theory are mode of production, class division, class struggle, property relations, revolution and state as an instrument of class domination. Marxism also examined the nature of rights, liberty, equality, justice and democracy but came to the conclusion that in a class divided society, they are the prerogatives of the propertied class. Real liberty and equality can be achieved only in a classless and stateless society. Thus, whereas liberal political theory was associated with the establishment of modern liberal capitalist democratic state, Marxist political theory preoccupied itself with the establishment of a socialist state through revolutionary action. Marxism, as an economic, social, and political theory and practice rooted in the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, has evolved through the contributions of numerous revolutionaries, philosophers, scholars, and political leaders. Over time, it has been interpreted in various ways. In the twentieth century, key figures who have expanded Marxist thought include Lenin, Bukharin, Stalin, Rosa Luxemburg, Gramsci, Lukács, the Austro-Marxists, thinkers of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse, New Left theorists, Eurocommunists, Mao Zedong, and many others. Prior to the First World War, Marxism was predominantly deterministic, presenting a framework for socio-political transformation that eventually led to the Russian Revolution. However, during the interwar years and after the Second World War, Marxism increasingly shifted its focus. Rather than being solely a philosophy of revolutionary praxis, it became a critical analysis of existing socio-economic and cultural realities. This phase, often referred to as contemporary Marxism, placed greater emphasis on examining issues related to the superstructure—such as culture, art, aesthetics, ideology, and alienation—rather than direct revolutionary action. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Name the two giants of the classical Political Theory. 2.    Describe any three characteristics of classical political theory. 3.    What factors have contributed in the development of Liberal Political Theory? 4.    Name some Liberal Political Theorists. 5.    What was the central theme of Liberal Political Theory? 6.    What was the aim of Marxist Political Theory. 2.3.4    Empirical-Scientific Political Theory There is another kind of political theory developed in America popularly known as the Empirical-Scientific political theory. The study of political theory through scientific method (instead of philosophical) and based upon facts (rather than on values) has long history but the credit for making significant developments in this connection goes to the American social scientists. In the early twentieth century, Max Weber, Graham Wallas and Bentley gave an empirical dimension to the study of political theory and advocated that its study should be based upon facts only. Another writer George Catlin emphasized that the study of political theory should be integrated with other social sciences such as sociology, psychology, anthropology etc. However, it was during the inter-war period and after the second world war that a new theory was developed by the political scientists of Chicage University (known as the Chicago School) such as Charles Merrium. Harold Lasswell, Gosnell, and others like David Easton, Stuart Rice, V.O. Key and David Apter. The new political theory shifted emphasis from the study of political ideals, values and institutions to the examination of politics in the context of individual and group behaviour. The new approach advocated that the method of studying should be through the behaviour of human beings as members of political community. The task of political theory is to formulate and systemtize the concept of science of political behaviour in which emphasis is placed on empirical research than on political philosophy. A political theorist should clarify and criticize systems of concepts which have empirical relevance to political behaviour. According to Easton, ‘systematic theory corresponds at the level of thought to the concrete empirical political systems of daily life’. Empirical-Scientific theory differs significantly from the classical approach in several ways. To begin with, scientific theory views political theory as a tool to describe, explain, and predict political phenomena, rather than to evaluate or judge them. It distances itself from the creation of idealistic or utopian political visions. Notably, it breaks away entirely from philosophical traditions, asserting that political theory holds relevance only to the extent that it can be verified through empirical means. Secondly, this approach insists that the study of political theory must be free from value judgments. Its primary focus is on objective facts, not on prescribing what ought to happen in political life. Instead of debating questions like "who should govern and why," empirical theory concentrates on understanding "who actually governs and how they do it." The emphasis is on examining the political behavior of individuals, groups, and institutions without moral or ethical considerations about whether their actions are right or wrong. Third, practical political theory, within this framework, expands its focus beyond just the state. It takes into account the entire political process, analyzing the dynamics and interactions within the political system as a whole. Lastly, the scientific approach to political theory does not adopt a critical stance. It avoids questioning the fundamental foundations of the state or the political order. Rather, its objective is to support the maintenance of stability, social harmony, and equilibrium within society. Fifthly, it developed many new concepts borrowed from other social sciences such as power, elite, decision-making, policy-making, functioning of structures, political system, political culture etc. Because of too much stress on science, value-free polities, methods and its failure to study the pressing social and political issues, empirical political theory began to attract criticism after 1960s. The ‘Behavioural Revolution’ announced by David Easton laid less emphasis on scientific method and technique and showed greater concern for the public responsibilities of political theory. The debates in 1970s resulted in the frank admission that there are segments of human life relating to values or purposes embodied in any political structure that were either ignored or overlooked by the behavioural studies. The core issues of political theory such as liberty, equality, justice were taken up once again by John Rawls, Robert Nozic, Habermas and others which signalled once again the revival of normative political theory. This new revival is termed as contemporary political theory. 2.3.5    Contemporary political theory Since 1970s, there has been a revival of interest in political theory in USA, Europe and other parts of the world. At the heart of this renaissance has been the emerging clash of values on the one hand and the changes in the humanities and social sciences, on the other. Moreover, the passing away of the shadows of second world war, reemergence of Europe, and crisis in the ideologies of socialism and Marxism brought about a new fluidity in political ideologies. Whether it is Marxism or socialism, liberalism or democracy-all stand challenged and new powerful social movements are seeking to redraw the issues in political theory. During the era of domination of behaviouralism, political theory was overpowered by political science. Theory was denied the status of a legitimate form of knowledge and inquiry. Though the hold of empiricism did not last long, yet it left an enduring legacy in the development of political and social sciences particularly in North America in the form of scienticism’. The encouragement for the regeneration of political theory came from many sources. While a number of thinkers (such as Thomas Kuhn) challenged the whole model of what is science, there were others who felt that there are distinctive problesms of understanding the social sciences and social issues which could not be grasped by the model of a unified science. This is because of two factors: Firstly, the object of social sciences is the self-interpreting social being and different thinkers interpret the social issues differently. Secondly political theory cannot be limited to a systematic account of politics; it must also perform its critical role. i.e. its capacity to offer an account of politics which transcends those of lay men. As a result of the great debates, a number of important innovations in the study of political theory followed. Though it is not possible to give a detailed account of these developments, a few distinctive features of the contemporary political theory can be summerized as follows: 1.    An important feature of empirical theory was its break with history. Contemporary political theorists believe that political theory must not be disassociated from history. Political theory has once again been renewed as history of political thought. 2.    All knowledge about human activities involves interpretation and the interpretation can lead to different conclusions. Hence the idea of political theory being neutral and value-free is wrong. 3.    Political understanding cannot escape the history of tradition. Knowledge is a part of the tradition and the process of understanding aspects of the world contributes to our self- understanding. However, the process of selfunderstanding is never complete. History does not belong to us but we belong to History. There is no final truth. As such there can be no such thing as the only correct or the final understanding of the political phenomena. The meaning of a text on political theory is always open to further interrelations from new perspectives. 4.    Political theory is concerned with conceptual analysis. This involves seeing political theory as a systematic reflection upon the meaning of the key terms and concepts like sovereignty, democracy, right, liberty, justice etc. 5.    There is a revival of normative element. Contemporary political theory is concerned with the systematic elaboration of the underlying structure of our moral and political activities, as well as examination and reconstruction of the principal political values such as justice. liberty, common good, community living etc. 6.    Theory is concerned with both abstract theoretical questions and particular political issues. This is due to the belief that consideration of political concepts without detailed examination of the condition of their realization may not be able to bring out the actual meaning of the concept. Political theory should be problem-oriented and should probe issues like democracy, market, equal opportunities in such contexts. Political theory is a theoretical aspect of political science, trying to construct a theory on the basis of observation. In short, according to David Held, contemporary political theory involves four distinct tasks: Firstly, it is philosophical, i.e. it is concerned with the normative and conceptual framework: secondly, it is empirical. i.e. it is concerned with the problem of understanding and explanation of the concepts: thirdly, it is historical. i.e. it is concerned with the examination of the key concepts of political theory in historical context: and finally, it is strategic. i.e. it is concerned with an assessment of the feasibility of moving from where we are to where we might likely to be. It is only through the combination of these elements that the central problems of political theory can be solved. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Name some prominent political scientists of Chicago School. 2.    Whose name is very significantly associated with ‘Behavioural Revolution’? 3.    Discuss the main features of Empirical-Scientific Theory. 4.    Discuss in brief, the main features of contemporary political theory. 2.4    Summary Thus, different schools have contributed differently in the development of political theory. Classical political theory was dominated by philosophy. It emphasized that theory must be all inclusive and all-comprehensive. The classical philosophers consider state a natural institution and gave importance to state and community. On the other hand, liberal political theorists gave importance to individual liberty and rights. They considered state an artificial institution which came into existence to protect the life, liberty and rights of individuals. Marxism introduced a theory of social change and revolutionary reconstruction of society. The focus of empirical-scientific theory was on the scientific factual study of human and group behaviour. In the contemporary political theory, there is again a revival of philosophical and normative element side by side the factual and scientific study. 2.5    Glossary •   Theology : The study of God and religious belief •   Renaissance : The revival of European art and literature under the influence of classical models in the 14-16th Centuries •    Reformation : a religious reform movement that swept through Europe in the 16th century. •    Dialectical Materialism : is a philosophy developed from the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels that Serves as the basis for Marxism. This philosophical approach posits that reality is defined through the material, rather than the ideational world and development takes place due to contradictions. •    Historical Materialism : It Posits that history is made as a result of struggle between social classes rooted in the underlying economic base. •    Euro-Communism : a form of communism that developed in some western European nations independently of the Soviet Union. •    New Left : In the United States, the ‘New Left’ was the name loosely associated with liberal, radical, Marxist Political movements that took place during the 1960s, primarily among college students. At the core of this was the students for a Democratic Society (SDS). •    Behaviouralism : is an approach in Political Science that emerged in the 1930s in the United states. It represented a sharp break from previous approaches in emphasizing an objective, quantified approach to explain and predict political behavour. 2.6    Answers to Self Check ExerciseSelf Check Exercise-1 1.   (a) Plato and Aristotle. 2.  (a) It was dominated by Philosophy. (b)    No Clear distinction between philosophy, theological and political issues. (c)    State was considered as a natural institution and prior to the individual. 3.      Renaissance, Reformation and Industrial Revolution. 4.     Grotius, Hobbes, Locke, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Jeremy Bentham, J.S. Mill, Herbert Spencer, etc. 5.      The central theme of Liberal Political Theory was individualism. It believed in individual freedom in all spheres and certain inalienable individual natural rights. State is considered an artificial institution created by men to protects the rights and liberties of men. 6.      The aim of Marxist Political Theory was the establishment of a socialist state through revolutionary action i.e. establishment of a classless and stateless society in which ‘Man shall not be exploited by man’ a society in which men will have the full opportunity to develop their potentialities and personality. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Charles Merrium, Harold Lasswell, Gosnell, David Easton, Stuart Rice, V.O. Key, David Apter, etc. 2.    David Easton. 3.    (a) Empirical-Scientific theory believes that the political theory is to order, explain and predict the phenomenon and not to evaluate it. (b)    The study of political theory should be value free; it should concern itself with facts only. (c)    It is not only concerned with the study of the state but also with the political process. (d)    Scientific theory is concerned with maintaining the status quo, stability, equilibrium and harmony in the society. (e)    It believes in inter-disciplinary approach. 4.    (i) Contemporary political theorists believe that political theory must not be disassociated from history. (ii)    The idea of political theory being neutral and value-free is wrong. (iii)    There is a revival of normative element. (iv)    Political Theory should be problem oriented. It should be concerned with both abstract theoretical questions and particular political issues. 2.7    Suggested Readings/References •    Richer, William L. (ed.), Approaches to Political Thought. New York : Rowman & Little field Publishers, 2011. •    Heywood, Andrew, Political Theory : An Introduction, London : Palgrave MacMillian Education, 2017. •    Sarkar, Monoranjan, Classical Political Philosophy. New Delhi : Wisdom Press, 2011 •    Mohanty, Bishwarnnjan, Dynamics of Political Theory : The current Analysis, Vol. I. U.P.: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors, 2014. 2.8    Terminal Questions 1.    Make a comparative analysis of classical and contemporary political theory. 2.    Discuss in detail about Liberal Political Theory. 3.    Critically examine the Marxist outlook about Politics and Political Theory. ***** Unit – 3 DECLINE AND RESURGENCE OF POLITICAL THEORY Structure 3.1    Introduction 3.2    Learning Objectives 3.3    Decline of Political Theory : Major Causes 3.3.1    Historicism 3.3.2    Moral Relativism 3.3.3    Confusion between Science and Theory 3.3.4    Hyper factualism Self Check Exercise-1 3.3.5    Conditions in the Contemporary World 3.3.6    Internal Conditions of the Discipline 3.3.7    Ideological Reductionism 3.3.8    August comte and Positivism Self Check Exercise-2 3.3.9    A word on Karl Marx 3.3.10    Max Weber : Neo Positivism 3.3.11    The Waning of Positivism Self Check Exercise-3 3.4    Political Theory : Change and Continuity Self Check Exercise-4 3.5    Summary 3.6    Glossary 3.7    Answers to Self Check Exercise 3.8    Suggested Readings 3.9    Terminal Questions 3.1    Introduction Despite the importance that political philosophy has acquired through the ages, the great tradition associated with the writings of eminent political philosophers seemed to be coming to an end. David Easton, Alfred Cobban and a number of other contemporary writers took the view that political theory, with which they associate political philosophy, was rapidly declining. While David Easton and Alfred Cobban talked of political theory’s “decline”, Peter Laslett and Robert A. Dahl declared it as already “dead” and some others believed that it was “in the dog-house”. Even in Oxford, the home of classical political theory, one frequently came across the expression that the subject was dead or in a serious state of decline. In support of this verdict, it was pointed out that since Marx and Mill (and perhaps Laski) there had been no outstanding political philosophers. Explaining the phenomenon, Easton wrote that political ideas had generally flourished during periods of social turmoil and change, as was borne out by the fact that the writings of the greatest among the political thinkers belonged to ancient Greece when it was undergoing social upheavals, or to England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries when she was torn by religious and political conflicts, or to France in the eighteenth century when political ideas led to a great revolution there. In the middle of the twentieth century, Easton believes, we were again in the midst of widespread social conflicts and fundamental cultural changes. Yet the surprising thing was that political thought had not flourished to any considerable extent in any part of the world. What was worse, even the ground was not being prepared out of which truly creative thinking could be expected to arise. Since this represents an extra-ordinary state of affairs, a number of writers have tried to probe into its causes. 3.2    Learning Objectives : After studying this unit, the learners will be able to •    delineate the major causes of the decline of political theory in view of different political scientists. •    explain the new developments and changes that are taking place in political theory. 3.3    Decline of Political Theory, Major Causes David Easton ascribes the “poverty’, ‘improverishment’ and ‘decline of political theory to contemporary political scientists: (a) living “parasitically on ideas a century old”, and (b) failing to develop a “new political synthesis”, Contemporary political scientists, according to Easton, had been much too busy analysing political thought of the earlier centuries and tracing the political philosophy of individual political thinkers to the peculiar circumstances that existed in their time. This might have been an excellent exercise in the discovery of historical facts, but, in the words of Easton, “this kind of historical analysis has played a major part in destroying the species of mental activity that has prevailed in literate civilizations and which emerges out of universal human needs. This had diverted the attention and energies of political theorists from their traditional task of “re-formulating in each age the content of values”, and building up a systematic theory about political behaviour and the operation of political institutions in their time, a task very well attempted by economists and sociologists, in their respective fields. While the latter had attempted to give unity and coherence to empirical research by constructing general theories for their disciplines, the political scientists had neglected this aspect. Easton found fault not with modern political theory as such but with the entire political theory as it had developed so far. A theory, according to Easton, should deal not only with values but also with facts, and if it has to treat the latter task as important as it regarded the former, it had got to systematize its empirical base. Easton’s complaint was that political theory had failed to do so. It had been speculative rather than based on acute observations of the contemporary political scene and a knowledge of human history. Man was interested not only in knowing what happened in the past, but also in what he would like to see coming up in the future. This involved value-oriented statements, or what Easton has described as a value theory. Easton, unlike other behaviouralists, was not a critic of the value theory, though, like the other behaviouralists, he would give greater importance to causal theory. He would regard value theory as important, but his regret was that even value theory was on the decline in contemporary political writings. 3.3.1    Historicism Easton was very harsh on writers like Dunning, Sabine, Mcillwain and Lindsay, who had spent a good deal of their time on the study of the political ideas of the past. These writers were interested less in analysing and formulating new value theory than in relating information about the meaning, inner consistency, and historical development of contemporary and past political values. Easton divided contemporary political theorists into four categories: 1.    Institutionalists, such as Carlyle and McIlwain, who seemed to be more interested in tracing the history of ideas from the point of view of their helping rationalization of political interests and institutional development than in determining how these ideas influenced the contemporary events. 2.    Interactionists, such as Allen, and sometimes Carlyle, who had tried to discuss the interaction between ideas and institutions and this interaction affecting the entire process of social change at each state. 3.    Materialists, in which category Easton included Dunning, Sabine and a large number of other scholars, whose primary interest in the study of political theory seemed to be to discover and lay bare the historical and cultural conditions which influenced the political thinking of a particular age. These writers, and they represented the majority, had tried to understand ideology in terms of the total cultural matrix. 4.    A fourth group, represented by writers like Lindsay was more interested in certain contemporary values, like democracy and liked to trace their development through history, with a view ultimately to establishing the volume of support that they get from history. They seemed to believe that if certain values had stood the test of time they deserved acceptance. Easton regarded all these contemporary writers as “historicists”, by which he meant that “they do not use the history of values as a device to stimulate their own thoughts on a possible creative redefinition of political goals”, but merely to understand the factual conditions which gave rise to particular ideology of system or values. This might be a good job for the historian to do, but did not deserve all the attention of a political scientist. For more than two thousand years, from Sophists and Socrates to Hegal and Marx, political thinkers had raised fundamental questions and had tried to answer them with a view to laying down certain values for the society. It was only in the twentieth century, Easton deplored that the political thinkers had taken up the role of the historian and had refused to free contemporary social problems or to make efforts to find out their solution. Writers like Dewey, Barker, Croce, and Laski could be exceptions, but the majority of the writers of political science in the twentieth century had been guided by the “historical approach” which, according to Easton, had “managed to crush the life out of the value theory”. 3.3.2    Moral Relativism Easton was inclined to attribute the decline of political theory also to the growth of the relativistic attitude towards values- “moral relativism”, as he calls it- as it emerged in the writings of Hume and was crystallized for social sciences in the twentieth century by Max Weber. Beginning with Hume and ending up with Comte and Marx, an attempt was made to detach values from facts, the values being treated as merely the expression of individual or group preferences, and these preferences, in turn, as reflecting the life experience of an individual or a group. If values merely reflected individual or group preferences all that a writer could do was to relate them to the social, economic and political conditions of the society in which they developed, and to stop there. Values so defined, Easton argued, could not be transplanted from one period of history into another, and it was, therefore, a waste of time to take any further interest in them. Since they represented individual and group preferences, and nothing more, one could not seriously think of them in terms of their applicability to the contemporary situation. This decline of interest in creative values and the growth of moral relativism could be attributed to the historical circumstances that existed in Europe between 1848 and 1918. There was an unprecedented agreement on values throughout the Western world during this period. Capitalism, nationalism, and democracy had become the accepted values of the whole of Europe, and were gradually spreading to the other continents. It was in 1917 that a new political system and a new value system developed in Russia, which challenged the concepts of capitalism, nationalism and democracy (though it quickly adjusted itself with the concept of nationalism), and in the late twenties and the early thirties, with the emergence of the Fascist, the Nazi and the militarist systems in Italy, Germany and Japan, and their challenge to the entire concept of democracy, that a deep conflict started between various value systems. A situation of this kind should have evoked a deep response from political thinkers. Easton was surprised that, even in this new situation, no attempt was being made to subject the old values to “critical analysis and imaginative reconstruction”. A political scientist, according to Easton, should “Sensitively respond” to the urgent problems of society and to the emerging social needs and try to articulate a sophisticated system of values. “Creative political theory in the past”, he writes, “was engaged in the task of attempting to organize for each age its own conception of its own needs- of linking knowledge of political facts to political goals.” If critical theory is revived, it will “provide once again a bridge between the needs of society and the knowledge of social sciences.” There is no reason, writes Easton, why the political scientist should confine himself to the task of seeking to understand political relations as they exist, and not question the old or create new political syntheses. Value theory, understood in this creative sense, should play an important role in political studies. In Easton’s view it is not only the neglect of the value theory as a creative activity, and its substitution by “historicism”, but also the indifference to causal, or systematic, empirically-oriented theory about political behaviour, which has led to the decline of political theory. 3.3.3    Confusion between Science and Theory Another reason, which Easton attributes to the decline of political theory, is that we have been, during the last three-fourth quarters of a century, using both science and theory in a wrong way and confusing science with theory, and forgetting that theory goes beyond science. It is one thing to apply scientific method in a work of research-which in itself is important-but it is quite different to evolve a theory out of the research done, however scientific its character. Those who have described themselves as political scientists have generally tried to accumulate facts and, in the light of facts, they have tried to evolve alternative mechanisms for improving the political structures and processes. This attempt may be quite scientific, but is not likely to lead, by itself, to the development of a theory unless we are able to identify the major variables of political life and establish their relationships with each other. If we leave aside a few political scientists-Merriam, Friedrich, Simon, Lasswell, and a few others- we find that most of the modern political scientists, having deliberately shifted their attention from institutions to processes and sometimes to motives-under the impact of sociology and psychology- have still not proceeded towards evolving an adequate conceptual framework for the study of politics. The study of processes and motivations is important-certainly much more important than the study of institutions-but is not by itself capable of theory-building. The traditionalists and the behaviouralists have both been engaged far too long in the controversy whether what ought to be is more important than what is, or vice versa, and whether insight alone is necessary for a proper understanding of politics, or observation of the concrete political phenomena also is important. The behaviouralists have unanimously advocated the importance of what is, but they have hardly cared to find out why or how ‘what is’ is what it is. Here comes the role of theory. 3.3.4    Hyperfactualism: Political science, in Easton’s view, has been dominated far too long by hyperfactualism. Bryce is generally accused of placing a disproportionate emphasis on hyperfactualism. But it should be said to the credit of Bryce that in his earlier works, in the ‘American Commonwealth’ for example, he had not neglected theory, but was only averse to system building, especially to German philosophies of history and legal analysis-”ideologomachies” as he had called them. Bryce had emphasized, in his earlier writings, the need to collect facts through hypotheses and theories, and disclaimed disparagement on his part of historical generalization or political theory. He had advocated that the study of facts was meant to “lead up to the establishment of conclusions and the mastery of principles, and unless it does this, it has no scientific value. Bat as he proceeded with his later work, and tried to reformulate theory to give it an empirical orientation, theory became subordinate to the accumulation of facts, and there came a time when it was almost lost from sight. Bryce, in fact, was only the product of historical positivism of the late nineteenth century, which stressed upon the accumulation of positive data as a means of recreating the past, and found it difficult to rise above it. The importance of his writings lay in his description of the situation he could see and understand in the light of his observation and study of facts. This was the accepted historical method but, unlike Hegel and others who had tried to evolve a philosophy out of history, Bryce remained satisfied in restricting himself to crude empiricism. This trend continued to influence political science still in the twenties. Political Scientists, undoubtedly, have made very rapid progress in recent years in evolving sophisticated techniques for the understanding of voting behaviour, public opinion, or legislative leadership, but have hardly been able to give a theoretical orientation to their studies, a situation described by Easton as one of theoretical mal-nutrition and surfeit of facts”. Their gaze remained fixed largely on the particular problems requiring solution, and they became less inclined to see the relation of each significant problem in a political system to related questions and to the system as a whole. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who declared that Political Theory is already dead? 2.    Why David Easton ascribes the ‘poverty’, ‘impoverishment’ and ‘decline’ of political theory to contemporary political scientists? 3.    Name some Historicists. 4.    According to David Easton, what are main causes of decline in Political Theory? 5.    How Historicism has contributed in the decline of Political Theory according to David Easton. 3.3.5    Conditions in the Contemporary World Alfred Cobban also, like David Easton, believed that political theory was on the decline and was not too optimistic that it would necessarily survive. There has been an intellectual tradition in the West, he writes, extending over some 2,500 years of belief in a constant interaction going on between ideas and institutions, the one changing the other. But no such synthesis has appeared in our own time. One could always take the position that great political thinkers cannot be produced to order, and a gap of a century or more in the history of political theory may not be a very alarming signal. There have been some gaps in the development of political theory in the past also-as in the centuries following the culmination of Greek political ideas in the writings of Plato and Aristotle. Even if one treats the Natural Law School and the Roman concepts of jurisprudence as some kind of continuity, political thought had certainly ceased to exist during the hey-day of the Roman Empire. Cobban has a fear that the conditions of the contemporary world are frightfully reminiscent of the Roman Empire, and if they last for a longer period, as they very well might, there is a great danger that the streams of political thinking might get completely dried up. Among the conditions which are inimical to political thinking in the modern world; he mentions the irresistible expansion of state activity, the overwhelming control by bureaucracy of all the activities of society and the creation of military machines. In the communist world, the new form of party organization has implied the rule of a small oligarchy, the emergence of a super bureaucrat or party chief in whom ultimate power is concentrated. The dominant political idea in the Western world is that of democracy, but there are hardly any political theorists of democracy today. The concept had originated in the eighteenth century but the nineteenth century made no attempt to recast it in accordance with the changing requirements, and democracy has ceased to be “a living political idea”. What we can trace to the nineteenth century is the beginning of nationalism, communism and facism, and not the growth of democracy. In the absence of such an effort, democracy has become “a sort of incantation”, “a shibboleth, and not even serviceable as such”, “a meaningless formula”. “Coins”, writes Cobban, “can remain valid currency even when they are worn quite smooth. Political ideas need periodical recoining if they are to retain their value.” There have been “writers” during the last few decades “who have had something significant to say about the contemporary political situation”- Cobban mentions the names of Ferrero, Bertrand de Jouvenel, Bertrand Russell, E.H. Carr, Reinhold Niebuhr, Harold Lasswell and Hans Morgenthau-but they have looked on state in terms of power and kept ethical values out of the field of politics. It is therefore not surprising that political theory has declined. Cobban tries later to modify his position slightly, and takes the view that all is not yet lost (at least in one part of the world). “Bureaucracy is not yet the major reality of government in any Western country, nor are pretorian guards or political parties yet our master rather than our servants. 3.3.6    Internal Conditions of the Discipline But if the external conditions of society are not to be regarded as the decisive factor in the decline of political theory, the only alternative explanation could be some internal condition in the discipline, something wrong with the nature of political thinking itself. Cobban is convinced that it is so, that there is “some inherent misdirection in contemporary thinking about politics”. Cobban strongly believes that the lack of purpose among the political scientists of today is largely responsible for the present decline of political theory. All the great political thinkers in the past-Mill, Bentham, Burke, Rousseau, Montesque, Locke, Hobbes, Spinoza, and we can even go back to Plato and Aristotle-wrote with a practical purpose in mind, and with a view to influencing actual political behaviour. Political thinkers were never disengaged from contemporary facts of political life, as the modern political scientists claim to be. The earlier political thinkers were men of purpose-they wanted to change and recreate the society and what was more important, they were men of passion. They committed to what was regarded as the proper social order, and they brought all their force of ideas and language to preach and propagate what they regarded as morally right. Cobban would attribute the change in the outlook of political thinkers-from passionate commitment to a purpose or an ideal to cold and abstract analysis of political phenomenon in a “value free”, unbiassed, objective manner - to the influence of the historical approach, on the one side, and the cultivation of what is regarded as the ‘scientific’ attitude”, on the other. 3.3.7    Ideological Reductionism Like Easton and Cobban, Germino also believes that political theory had a period of decline for the greater part of the nineteenth the earlier part of the twentieth century. He attributes the decline, like Alfred Cobban to positivism in the later period, but also brings in what he calls “ideology”, or the prevalence of “political doctrines”, culminating in Marxism, as an additional factor in the earlier period. However, he disagrees with Easton and Cobban in the sense that he believes that political theory is now again in ascendancy. The traditional political theory, which had been dangerously eclipsed during the last one hundred and fifty year by inimical intellectual forces and political movements, on the one side, and the craze for “science”, on the other, have, in the opinion of Germino, undergone a noteworthy resurgence in our times. Even during the hey-day of the positivist ascendancy there were philosophical currents of resistance in the writings of Benedetto Croce, Henri Bergson, Julien Benda, Max Scheler and others. This was followed by the partial survival of political theory in the elitist school as represented by Guido Dorso, and a full-fledged revival of political theory by Michael Oakeshott, Hannah Arendt, Bertrand Jouvenel, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin. But leaving aside a detailed study of contemporary political thinking, on which Germino has placed great emphasis, we here examine briefly the causes which he has assigned to the virtual eclipse of political theory in the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth century. Among the major causes of the decline of political theory, Germino gives the primary importance to the ‘ideological reductionism’ of Tracy, Comte and Marx. It was Tracy who first used the term ‘Ideology’ as ‘the science of determining the origin of ideas’. Tracy believed that there was no source of ideas other than sensation, that all thinking could ultimately be traced to feeling, sentio ergo sum (I feel, therefore I am). and that by tracing all ideas to sensory experience a new science of man could be created to guide the entire political and economic life of human beings. One who could “radically dissect” ideas (by tracing them back to their origins in sense experience) could use this knowledge for re-constructing a new social order in which human beings could be educated and re-shaped in order to suit the needs of the desired kind of society. The word “ideology” is no longer being used in the sense in which Tracy used it-it now stands for any set of ideas claiming to support or justify a given economic or political system-but Tracy definitely initiated a movement of thought which culminated in the “ideological reductionism” of Karl Marx. 3.3.8    August Comte and “Positivism” It was August Comte who is generally regarded as the “father” of positivism.”Positivism”, as Comte defined it, was the application of empirical and scientific methods to every field of enquiry. It marked the rejection of every form of knowledge based on the supposition that there was any reality beyond inner-worldly material existence. “Sociology”, according to Comte, was the science of discovering laws governing human behaviour in as precise and definite terms as natural sciences. Comte believed that (a) the world was rationally ordered, and there were laws of social development and social inter-action which could be discovered; (b) this discovery was possible, since men had sufficient reason to perform this task; (c) men were not only rational enough to perform this task but also reasonable enough to use their knowledge in their own interests; and (d) reason not only permitted us to discover the laws of social behaviour but also enabled us to discover the concrete goals towards which men did in fact strive, and therefore, towards which they ought to strive. Comte had an inveterate faith in progress. He interpreted historical development in three stages-(a) the “theological stage”, which believed that man’s destiny was governed by divine forces, extending from the beginning of history to the Protestant Reformation, (b) the “metaphysical stage”, which was the age of criticism and revolt, culminating in the French revolution, and (c) the “positive” or “scientific stage”, which could be identified with the contemporary period of history knowledge about man and nature would replace the ignorance, superstition and illusion of the earlier stages, the age of synthesis between “order and progress”, Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Who believes that the lack of purpose among the political scientists of today is largely responsibile for the present decline of Political Theory? 2.    According to Germino, what was the major cause of the decline of Political Theory? 3.    Who is known as the father of positivism? 4.    According to Alfred Cobban what contemporary conditions have contributed in the decline of Political Theory? 3.3.9    A Word on Karl Marx While Spencer too believed in the search for the laws of development and interaction, and is sometimes described, along with Comte and Marx, as one of the triumvirate who dominated the nineteenth century, it was Marx who carried the ideological reductionism of Tracy and Comte to its culmination. For Marx, reality had no structure outside the one imposed by human practical-productive activity. Man himself had no essence or nature but changed through interaction with his natural and social environment. All thought was a reflection of immanent environment in which man found himself. But while Tracy had pointed out that circumstances determined man, and Marx also believed that, throughout history, man had been the slave of extraneous economic forces and religious, philosophical and political illusions, the latter carried the argument further and asserted that man, if he only had the scientific understanding of society, could determine his circumstances. This revolutionary change in the character of positivism could be brought about by the Communist (Marxist) science. While Tracy, Comte and Spencer had believed that laws of human development could be discovered, Marx claimed that he had discovered them. Marx asserted that in future man, the creator, would become the most potent weapon of social change. Marx believed in the unity of theory and practice-”it is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness”. It is the material societal development which has created the false distinction between theory and practice, spirit and matter, this-worldly and other-worldly existence. Theory, according to Marx, is the hand-maiden of practical material interests. Communist “theory” for Marx is not a mere description or explanation of the realities of human life and society, or even prediction of what is to come, but the necessary weapon for the demolition of class society and a blueprint for establishing a new world, based on the knowledge that man can create himself. 3.3.10    Max Weber: Neo-Positivism “By the beginning of the twentieth century, particularly under the impact of Weber’s ideas”, writes Easton, “the social scientists had accepted that political values must be vigorously excluded from empirical research”. Max Weber’s paper, “Objectivity of Knowledge in Social Science and Social Policy”, published in 1904, exercised a tremendous influence on the development of social sciences in the Western world. In this paper, Max Weber tried to make a rigorous distinction between empirical knowledge and value judgements, which he claimed to be not a new approach but merely the application of the well-known results of modern logic to our own problem. He challenged the (Marxian) view that the economic life of society was governed by (a) immutable natural laws, and (b) unambiguous evolutionary principles, and the entire effort to identify it with normative judgment. He did not reject “value relatedness” of all science, ae is usually made out. He made it clear that he meant by the term not that all value judgments were to be withdrawn from scientific discussion in general but that science had only a limited role in the matter of value judgments. The utmost that the scientific treatment of value judgments could do was to bring them to the level of explicitness. The making of the decision itself. “As to whether the person expressing these value judgments ought to adhere to these ultimate standards, is his personal affair; it involves will and conscience, not empirical knowledge.” He made it still clearer when he said that “an empirical science cannot tell any one what he ought to do, but rather what he can do, and under certain circumstances what he wishes to do”. However, he repeated that “to judge the validity of such values is a matter of faith”, and not of science. In a later part of the same paper, Max Weber developed his theory of “ideal types” (Idealtypen), which involves, as Brecht has pointed out, an empirical rather than a normative approach, their purpose being to illuminate social reality by helping us to understand how a particular phenomenon developed, and came to be what it is and not something else. He made it quite clear that these ideal types were mere constructs of the mind and could never be passed on as normative standards. But gradually, it seems, Weber was driven inexorably by the logic of his approach to develop a slightly sneering attitude towards values and place relatively greater importance on science. The impact of Max Weber’s teaching, however, was that normative reflection of the kind that had been the warp and woof of political theory through the ages was devalued. For him, it was not the task of social sciences “to offer binding norms and ideals” or “to provide recipes for practice”. At a time when there was a clash of values going on in the European soul, Weber taught, and practised, ‘ethical neutrality’, little realizing that with the dirty water of ideology, from the bath tub, he was also throwing away the baby of political theory. Political theory, Germino seems to be convinced, cannot grow along with positivism: 3.3.11    The Waning of Positivism By the 1960s, the influence of positivism was on the wane, and one could see the re-appearance of speculative philosophy, even in Britain, which had been the bastion of linguistic analysis. The Europeans, never very much intersted in positivism, continued to be pre-occupied with varieties of phenomenology and neorealism. American social science of a positivistic stamp also was in a slow decline, partly due to the attacks upon it by the new social radicalism with its intensely moralistic fervour and partly due to the very searching criticism of its pretensions to scientific objectivity and value neutrality and of the inadequacy of its scientific base. The objectivity of neo-positivistic social science now began to be regarded as a “disingenuous cover for an ideological bias”, leading to the introduction of comprehensive value-judgments under the guise of scientific inevitability, and its pretensions to be “scientific”. Self Check Exercise-3 1.   Who carried the ideological reductionism of Tracy and Comte to its culmination? 2.   Who tried to make a distinction between empirical knowledge and value judgements? 3.    Who is of the opinion that ‘Political Theory cannot grow along with positivism.’? 3.4    Political Theory: Change and Continuity Still another interpretation given to the alleged decline of political theory is that political theory as such has not declined but has only changed its form. Political theory in the past, it is pointed out, was comprised of two activities: (a) at the practical level, it sought to explain how governments functioned, or what their genesis had been, or why they were obeyed, and (b) at the philosophical level, it tried to lay down the goals and objectives of the state and suggested the lines on which it had to be organised in order to achieve those aims. These, as John Plamenatz points out, are two completely different activities, each useful in itself, but not to be confused with each other. So far as the second, the philosophical aspect of political theory is concerned, being speculative in nature, it varies from time to time, from person to person and from country to country. Since these speculative theories also affected action, it was important historically to study the time and the circumstances in which they had arisen, the class and other antecedents of the people who had propounded them, and the way in which they had affected human behaviour. This does not only not help, but actually hinders the scientific explanation of facts, as the real function of such a theory is only to justify what the philosophers happened to think desirable, though this is no reason to dismiss it as fantasy or mere airing of preferences. It is also possible that some of these theories are spurious or confused. Political theory from Plato to Hegel has been, by and large, the creation of persons who have been primarily philosophers. It was, therefore, natural that their political philosophy should have been a part of their general philosophy. It is being recognised only recently that the “rightness”, or rationality, of a form of political organisation or a political policy cannot be legitimately deduced from ultimate logical and metaphysical principles. But even in the past political theory has not always been the offshoot or a branch of philosophy. There have been thinkers like de Tocqueville, Graham Wallace Bagehot and Baines, to mention a few names, who have taken a sociological view of politics. Even Hobbes, in his Leviathan, was guided more by practical than philosophical considerations. Rousseau was not primarily a philosopher, though Green, Bosanquet and the other idealists evolved a philosophy out of his sociological analysis. What we can say is that these approaches-philosophical, sociological and ideological-have declined in recent years in the face of detailed, empirical political and social enquiry. But this should not lead us to think that political theory, or theorizing about politics, has declined. All that is happening, as Partridge would like to point out, is that political science is breaking away from the parent philosophical stem and, like economics and other social sciences, reaching the point where the specialist himself must deal with the general problems, including conceptual analysis, which at one time was the exclusive role of philosophy, and political scientists are doing this today at a level of sophistication and complexity which the philosophers could hardly reach. Boundaries between philosophy and politics are being redrawn and a sharp distinction is being made between philosophical and empirical questions. Political theory, in other words, is no longer being propounded by philosophers or sociologists-to whom we sometimes go even now in search for it- but by political scientists who are developing adequate sophistication for dealing with problems which fall within their domain. That political theory, even in the sense of political philosophy is not dead, nor even in a state of decline, is a view very strongly advocated by Isaiah Berlin. He challenges the view that there can be any one kind of society-technocratic or utilitarian, Thomist or communist or Platonic or anarchist-and even if one could take such an artificially, oversimplified and monistic view of the goals of society, they would always carry different, perhaps incompatible, meanings for different persons and in different situations. Attempts by the philosophers of the eighteenth century to turn politics into philosophy, and particularly moral and political philosophy, failed, as they seemed to think that politics, which had man as its central subject, could study him by detaching him from what determined his humanness, his values, and values could be treated as matters of induction and hypothesis, though they would always be discussed and challenged. “So long as rational curiosity exists- a desire for justification and explanation in terms of motives and reasons, and not only of cause or functional correlations or statistical probabilities,” writes Berlin, “political theory will not wholly perish from the earth, however, many of its rivals, such as sociology, philosophical analysis, social psychology, political science, economics, jurisprudence, semantics, may claim to have dispelled its imaginary realm.” Political theory, in fact is thriving both at its behavioural and traditional levels. Behavioural political scientists-like Easton, Lasswell, or Deutsch-are opening up new dimensions for the study of matters political. But the kind of social thought which grew out of moral urges is also flourishing today side by side with it. In any case, since 1970s, the dispute between political science and Political philosophy has largely subsided. While David Easton had shown a renewed concern with values in his post-behavioural approach, the exponents of political philosophy did not hesitate in testing their assumptions by empirical method. Karl popper (1902-94), an eminent exponent of scientific method, proceeded to draw conclusions regarding social values. John Rawls (1921-2002) adopted empirical method for arriving at his principles of justice. Then C.B. Macpherson (1911-87) attacked the empirical theory of democracy propounded by Joseph Schumpeter (1883-1950) and Robert Dahl, and advanced his own radical theory of democracy. Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) and Jurgen Habermas have shown a strong empirical insight in their critical analysis of the contemporary capitalism. It is now held that political science, like other social and natural sciences, enables us to strengthen our means but we will have to resort to political philosophy to determine our ends. Means and ends are interdependent; hence political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in our social life. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Who advocated the view that political theory, even in the sense of political philosophy is not dead, nor even in a state of decline? 2.    Do you agree with the view that there has been resurgence of political theory? Give arguments in favour of your answer. 3.5    Summary Today, we find eminent political philosophers engaged in the study of problems which affect society and developing political theories- of anomie, de personalization, atomization, etc., inherent in large scale industrial society, as well as political theories dealing with problems of the supposed dissolution of the “community” and aggrandisement of the state. “Neo-Marxism, neo-Thomism, nationalism, historicism, existentialism, anti-essential liberalism and socialism, transposition of doctrines of natural rights and natural law into empirical terms, discoveries made by skilful application of models derived from economic and related techniques to political behaviour, and the collusions, combinations, and consequences in action of these ideas”, concludes Berlin indicate not the death of a great tradition, but, if anything new and unpredictable developments. 3.6    Glossary •    Critical Theory : an approach to social philosophy that focuses on society and culture to attempt to reveal, critique, and challenge power structures. •    Hyperfactuatism : means excessive dependence upon facts and the failure to relate facts to the theory. •    Shibboleth : a custom, principle, or belief distinguishing a particular class or group of people., especially a long-standing one regarded as outmoded or no longer important. •    Cultural Relativism : is the idea that a person’s beliefs and practices should be understood based on the person’s own culture. Proponents of cultural relativism also tend to argue that the norms and values of one culture should not be evaluated using the norms and values of another. •    Neo-realism : Neorealism or structural realism is a theory of international relations that emphasizes the role of power politics in international relations, sees competitions and conflict as enduring features and seems limited potential for co-operation. •    Historicism : the theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history. •    Moral Relativism : is used to describe several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral Judgements across different peoples and cultures. 3.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Peter Laslett and Robert A. Dahl. 2.    David Easton ascribes the ‘poverty’ ‘impoverishment’ and ‘decline’ of political theory to contemporary political scientists because they are (a) living “parasitically on ideas a century old,” and (b) failing to develop a “new political synthesis.” 3.    Dunning, Sabine, Carlyle, Mcllwain, Lindsay, etc. 4.    According to David Easton, the main causes of decline in Political Theory are: (a)    Historicism (b)    Moral Relativism (c)    Confusion between Science and Theory and (d)    Hyper factualism. 5.    Easton was very harsh on writers like Dunning, Sabine, Mcillwain and Lindsay, who had spent a good deal of their time on the study of the political ideas of the past. These writers when Easton regarded as ‘historicists’ were interested less in analyzing and formulating new value theory than in relating information about the meaning, inner consistency and historical development of contemporary and past political values. ‘They do not use the history of values as a device to stimulate their own thoughts on a possible creative redefinition of political goals’ but merely to understand the factual conditions which gave rise to particular ideology of system or values. The majority of the writers of political science in the 20th century had been guided by the “historical approach” which, according to Easton, had “managed to crush the life out of the value theory.” Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Alfred Cobban 2.    ‘Ideological Reductionism’. 3.    August Comte. 4.    According to Cobban, among the conditions which are inimical to political thinking in the modern world include irresistible expansion of state activity, the overwhelming control by bureaucracy of all the activities of society and the creation of military machines. In the communist world, the new form of party organization has implied the rule of a small oligarchy, the emergence of a super bureaucrat or party chief in whom ultimate power is concentrated. The dominant political idea in the western world is that of democracy, but democracy has ceased to be a ‘living political idea.’ Further, the writers during the last few decades have looked on state in terms of power and kept ethical values out of the field of politics. It is therefore that political theory has declined. Cobban, however, tries later to modify his position slightly, and takes the view that all is not yet lost (at least in one part of the world). “Bureaucracy is not yet the major reality of government in any western country, nor are pretorian guards or political parties yet our masters rather than our servants. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Karl Marx 2.    Max Waber 3.    Germino Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Isaiah Berlin. 2.    It is argued that political theory has not declined but has only changed its form. There is a resurgence of political theory. Today, political theory is no longer being propounded by philosophers or sociologist but by political scientists who are developing adequate sophistication for dealing with problems which fall within their domain. Political theory, in fact is thriving both at its behavioural and traditional levels. Behavioural political scientists like Easton, Lasswell, or Deutsch are opening up new dimensions for the study of matters political. Beside this, the kind of social thought which grew out of moral urges is also flourishing today side by side with it. Since 1970’s the dispute between political science and political philosophy has largely subsided. While David Easton had shown a renewed concern with values in his post-behavioural approach, the exponents of political philosophy did not hesitate in testing their assumptions by empirical method. It is now held that political science, like other social and natural sciences, enables us to strengthen our means but we will have to resort to political philosophy to determine our ends. Today, we find eminent political philosophers engaged in the study of problems which affect our society. Hence, we agree with Berlin, who indicates not the death of a great tradition, but if anything new and unpredictable developments. 3.8    Suggested Readings/References •   Varma S.P., Modern Political Theory. UP : Vikas Publishing house, 1988 •   Gauba, O.P., An Introduction to Political Theory. New Delhi : Macmillan India Ltd.,2004 •    Barry, Norman P., An Introduction to Modern Political Theory. London : Macmillan, 1989. •    Friedrich, Carl J., An Introduction to Political Theory. New York; Harper and Row, 1967. •    Held, David (ed.), Political Theory Today. Cambridge, Polity Press, 1991. •    Easton, David, “The Decline of Political Theory” in Gould and Thursby (eds), Contemporary Political Thought, reprinted from Journal of Politics, XIII, No. 1, February 1951 •    Alfred Cobbon, “Ethics and the Decline of Political Theory,” in Gould and Thursby (eds.) Contemporary Political Thought. Originally Printed in Political Science Quarterly, vol. LXVIII, No. 3, Sep. 1953 under the title, The Decline of Political Theory. 3.9    Terminal Questions 1.   Discuss the main causes of the decline of Political Theory. 2.   Evaluate the views of David Easton and cobbon on the decline of Political Theory. 3.    Write an essay on the ‘Decline and Resurgence of Political Theory’? ***** Unit-4 HISTORICISM Structure 4.1    Introduction 4.2    Learning Objectives 4.3    Historicists’ Challenges to Logical Positivism. Self Check Exercise-1 4.4    Some Prominent Philosophers of Historical School of Philosophy. 4.4.1    Thomas Samuel Kuhn : Science-A Rational Enterprise 4.4.1.1    Early Kuhn (Till late 1970s) 4.4.1.2    Later Kuhn (Early 1980s Onwards) 4.4.1.3    Popper and Kuhn 4.4.1.4    Remarks Self Check Exercise-2 4.4.2    Paul K. Feyerabend : Liberator of Humanity From Science 4.4.2.1 Remarks Self Check Exercise-3 4.4.3    Norwood Russell Hanson : Champion of Theory-Ledenness of Observation 4.4.3.1    Remarks Self Check Exercise-4 4.5    Summary 4.6    Glossary 4.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises 4.8    Suggested Readings/References 4.9    Terminal Questions 4.1    Introduction After the World War II, most of the intellectuals became disillusioned with humanity’s scientific growth. The historical outlook affected many spheres of humanities and new disciplines, like Historical Materialism, Anthropological Historicism, Eschatological Historicism and so on emerged. Historicism, a popular school of thought in Germany by the 19th century, looks at everything in terms of historical developments. Reacting against the normative view of knowledge and cognition of the Enlightenment period, it argues that life and reality are nothing but history. Taking the cue from J. G. Herder’s ‘Outlines of a Philosophy of the History of Man’ (1784) and G. W. H. Hegel’s ‘The Philosophy of History’ (1837), Historicism gives importance to the historical situatedness of each individual consciousness, which is shaped by socio-cultural contextuality, contingency and perspectival nature of our existence. The popular names associated with this school of thought are Leopold von Ranke, Wilhelm Dilthey, J. G. Droysen, Freidrich Meineckes, Benedetto Croce and R. G. Collingwood. The powerful critics of historicism are Friedrich Nietzsche, Walter Benjamin, Karl Popper etc. However Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl and Hans-Georg Gadamer engage themselves in a constructive approach to the whole ideas of historicism. The historical perspective on the knowledge enterprise has significantly influenced the philosophy of science. In the early 20th century, the Logical Positivists, primarily from the Vienna Circle, along with the Logical Empiricists based in Berlin, emphasized the need for philosophy of science to be both precise and systematic. They focused mainly on the logical and linguistic examination of scientific theories and concepts. Thinkers such as Carnap, Hempel, Reichenbach, Schlick, and Popper regarded scientists as rational and objective investigators—almost like 'small philosophers'—deeply engaged in epistemological and ontological questions (Lee, 1999, p. 199). However, historicist philosophers like Hanson, Feyerabend, Kuhn, and Lakatos challenged this idealized view. They sought to deconstruct the logical positivists’ portrayal of science, offering instead a depiction that took into account the real historical progressions and sociological dynamics within scientific practice. To summarize the varying perspectives: Hume viewed science as inductive but lacking in rational certainty; Popper argued it was non-inductive yet rational; Carnap believed it was both inductive and rational. Contrasting all of them, Kuhn suggested that science is neither inductive nor fully rational. 4.2    Learning Objectives : This unit aims to : •    discuss some of the salient features of Historicism (Social Constructivism) School of Philosophy of Science of the 20th Century •    describe the trends of Historicism in general and how it differs from Logical Positivism in its approaches of doing Philosophy of Science. •    familiarize the students with the contribution of Kuhn, Feyerabend and Hanson, some of the prominent philosophers of this school. 4.3    Historicist՚s Challenges to Logical Positivism (a)    Rationality of Science- Logical Positivism claims that science is rational, because it strictly follows scientific method (verification). But Historicism argues that science is non-rational and there can be many methods in science; (b)    Cumulative growth- Science advances cumulatively, with later theories building on and improving earlier ones by adding greater empirical content. This kind of systematic progress is unique to science, unlike other fields where knowledge evolves more loosely. In contrast, Historicism views progress as transformative, where newer theories are not necessarily improvements over earlier ones. (c)    Objectivity in Science - Science aims for objectivity, but historicism reveals it contains both objective and subjective elements. (d)    Monopoly of Truth - Science has long been seen as the primary source of truth. However, historicism challenged this notion, demonstrating that other forms of knowledge and perspectives are also valid and reliable. (e)    Reductionism of science - Reductionism in science suggests that all sciences can ultimately be reduced to physics, relying on a single set of fundamental methods. Historicism challenges this view, arguing that different sciences may require distinct methodologies. As scientific disciplines expand and diversify, the reductionist perspective becomes increasingly debated. (f)    Superiority of Scientific theories - Scientific theories are superior to any other belief system as science is immutable. But Historicism argues that scientific theories do change and there is nothing special about scientific enterprise; (g)    Dichotomy between the context of discovery and the context of justification- This distinction is very important because a hypothesis may arise out of any sort of personal or social consideration, but it has to be justified on the basis of observational evidence; the context out of which it emerges is not relevant to philosophy of science as only its justification matters. But Historicism denies any such dichotomy; (g)    Clear Distinction between observational terms and theoretical termLogical Positivism emphasizes a clear distinction between observational and theoretical terms. Observational terms are directly linked to empirical experiences, while theoretical terms lack such direct observational grounding. In contrast, Historicism rejects this separation, arguing that all observations are influenced by underlying theories, making "pure" observation impossible. (h) Weltanschauung (World view) of the scientists: Logical Positivists argue that  a scientist's personal values,  biases, and worldview (Weltanschauung) have no influence on scientific practice, as scientists are expected to remain objective and detached.  In contrast,  Historicism emphasizes that a scientist's  background,  beliefs, and experiences significantly shape and influence their scientific work, affecting both their perspective and the direction of their research. (i)    Role of History in Philosophy of Science: In the philosophy of science, Logical Positivists view the history of science as unnecessary, focusing instead on logical analysis and the structure of scientific knowledge. In contrast, Historicists argue that understanding the history of science is essential, as historical context shapes scientific development and provides a more accurate picture of how science operates. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    What do you mean by Historicism? 2.    Describe any three grounds on which Historical Philosophers Challenge the Logical Positivism. 4.4 Some Prominent Philosophers of Historical School of Philosophy4.4.1    Thomas Samuel Kuhn (1922-96): Science - A Social Enterprise Thomas Kuhn is widely recognized for introducing Historicism into the Philosophy of Science. After earning his Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Harvard University in 1949, he soon shifted his focus toward the history of science. His groundbreaking book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), sparked widespread and often contentious debates across various academic disciplines. Unfortunately, Kuhn was diagnosed with blood cancer and passed away in 1996 at a relatively young age. A collection of his essays on both the history and philosophy of science was published in The Essential Tension (1977). Kuhn's contributions are typically divided into two phases—Early Kuhn and Later Kuhn—highlighting key concepts such as paradigms, incommensurability, and theory choice. 4.4.1.1    Early Kuhn (Till late 1970s)(i)  Science- a Cycle of Normal Science and Revolutionary Science: Science typically progresses through extended phases of what is known as "normal science," punctuated occasionally by moments of crisis that give rise to brief periods of revolutionary science. During normal science, researchers are primarily engaged in solving puzzles within an established framework. Scientists tend to act more as collaborators than as innovators, using well-accepted methods and theories to address specific problems. However, when new observational data begins to clash with existing theories, anomalies appear. These inconsistencies are often ignored, as addressing them can disrupt ongoing research. For a normal scientist to continue their work, it is often necessary to set aside such anomalies. “The scientist who pauses to examine every anomaly his notes will seldom get significant work done” (Kuhn). But when anomalies grow too many and too strong to tolerate, a crisis sets in, leading to a revolution, where a new paradigm is chosen. Once that is accepted again another period of normal science starts, until anomalies appear, which would ultimately lead to a revolution. (ii)    Paradigm - A Primary Concept Paradigm is almost synonymous with a scientific community, ensuring both the logical and physical closeness. It is a sort of world-view of the community. [E.g. Aristotelian physics, Copernican astronomy, Newtonian physics, Ptolemaic astronomy, the caloric theory of heat, particle physics, quantum physics, etc.]. Paradigms are constitutive of science: Each paradigm has its own problems, its solutions and methodology. It binds the scientists so deeply that the scientists belonging to different paradigms “disagree about what is a problem and what is a solution; they will inevitably talk through each other when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms”. Paradigmas are constitutive of meaning: Paradigms determine the meanings of the terms used in scientific theories. Finally, paradigms are constitutive of subject matter of discourse. Within a paradigm there is a strong consensus-thinking. Kuhn demands a very strict adherence to the paradigm on the part of the scientists. They would do anything to be faithful to it, “even in the face of contradictory evidence” (iii)    Incommensurability During revolutionary period scientists suffer from incommensurability (i.e. communication breakdown). It arises due to the rejection of an old theory, the changes in the problem-field, the standards of solution and even some of basic scientific concepts. The scientists from both: Aristotelian paradigm and the Copernican paradigm may speak of the center of the universe but they mean different realities; for, the former mean the earth, while the latter the sun, which are apart by 150 million KMs. Kuhn says that there is no way in which the communication breakdown can be bridged because the interpreter will have to live in two different worlds and he will end up in mental asylum. (iv)    The Essential Tension There is an inherent tension in the role of a scientist: the need for flexibility and open-mindedness to drive progress, while simultaneously requiring convergent thinking and a deep grounding in established traditions. As Thomas Kuhn observed, meaningful breakthroughs typically emerge from inquiries that are firmly embedded within the current scientific framework—ironically, it is these well-rooted investigations that are most likely to challenge and ultimately transform that very framework. This duality presents a dilemma. Since convergent thinking is systematically reinforced through educational materials and textbooks, stepping outside of the dominant paradigm to foster genuine innovation becomes a significant challenge. Edwin Hung illustrates this with his analogy of railway tracks: while the rails restrict the train’s movement, they also ensure it follows a clear and purposeful path. Balancing the enthusiasm of an innovator with the discipline of a traditionalist is, according to Kuhn, the core of this essential tension. 4.4.1.2    Later Kuhn (Early 1980s Onwards) In the later phase of Thomas Kuhn’s career, his focus shifted increasingly toward the role of language in scientific practice. This is particularly evident in The Road Since Structure, a collection of his essays written between 1970 and 1993, which was published posthumously in 2000. From these writings, four key themes emerge: 1.    Kuhn continued to view science as a cognitive and empirical endeavor aimed at investigating nature. However, he emphasized that scientific progress should not be understood as moving closer to an ultimate truth. Instead, it reflects an ongoing enhancement in the ability of scientists to solve technical puzzles within their paradigms. 2.    He stressed that science operates as a fundamentally social activity. Scientists typically work within established research communities, adhering to shared norms and practices. Only occasionally do they step outside these boundaries to address significant anomalies or challenges. 3.    Revising his earlier concept of scientific advancement—where long phases of "normal science" were occasionally disrupted by brief revolutionary episodes—Kuhn later proposed a model more akin to Darwinian evolution. In this view, scientific traditions develop within coherent lineages but are occasionally split, or "speciate," into separate traditions that pursue different research directions. 4.    Finally, Kuhn introduced a more refined discussion of the concept of incommensurability. He distinguished between languages that are commensurable, where direct translation is possible, and those that are incommensurable, where only approximate paraphrasing can convey meaning. This linguistic approach offered a deeper understanding of how different scientific paradigms may be fundamentally difficult to compare. ( i) Theory Choice in Science When scientists decide from various theories, Kuhn argues that they don’t go by rational and epistemic considerations. There is no neutral algorithm or systematic procedure for theory choice, which takes place not only by the shared (or objective) criteria but also by “idiosyncratic factors dependent on individual biography and personality”. The non- epistemic factors are also of philosophical importance. Kuhn identifies five, among many other, important characteristics of a good scientific theory: accuracy, consistency, scope, simplicity and fruitfulness of the theory. He thinks that they are individually important and collectively sufficiently varied to make a good choice. Each creative discipline is characterized, among other things, by different sets of shared valuesKuhn refers to the common criteria guiding theory choice as values rather than strict rules. In addition to these shared values, he acknowledges the influence of personal and subjective factors in how scientists choose theories. These can include an individual’s prior scientific experience, the length of their engagement in a particular field, and even external beliefs, such as philosophical or religious views. Personal inclinations also play a role—some may favor innovation and be more open to taking risks, while others may prioritize coherence and caution. As a result, adopting a new scientific theory is often not the outcome of a purely deliberate or rational decision but is shaped by a combination of shared values and individual perspectives. 4 .4.1.3 Popper and Kuhn In his 1977 paper "Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research," Thomas Kuhn examines and contrasts his perspectives with those of Karl Popper. Despite their differences, there are several key areas where their views align: 1.    Both emphasize the evolving and dynamic character of science over rigid logical frameworks. 2.    They each highlight the significance of both empirical facts and the practical realities of scientific work, which leads them to focus on the historical development of science and arrive at similar conclusions. 3.    Kuhn and Popper both stress the transformative, revolutionary nature of scientific progress. 4.    They reject the notion that scientific knowledge advances through a simple, cumulative process. 5.    Both question the existence of a completely neutral observational language. 6.    They agree that the fundamental goal of scientific endeavor is the development of explanatory theories. 7.    Lastly, both thinkers recognize the importance of tradition in shaping scientific inquiry and knowledge. However, important distinctions exist between their views: 1.    Popper views falsification as a constant and routine part of the scientific process, whereas Kuhn believes it occurs mainly during periods of scientific revolution, which are relatively rare. 2.    Kuhn introduces the concept of "normal science," where most scientific activity takes place. This notion is absent in Popper’s framework. Kuhn emphasizes that novice scientists are typically trained to work within the existing paradigms rather than to immediately challenge or discard them. 3.    Kuhn disagrees with Popper’s clear-cut separation between the context of discovery (how theories are developed) and the context of justification (how theories are evaluated). 4.    While Popper advocates falsification as the singular method of scientific progress, Kuhn argues there is no universal method that defines scientific practice. 5.    Popper maintains that science is a rational and non-inductive process, whereas Kuhn portrays science as both non-inductive and, at times, nonrational. 4.4.1.4 Remarks i)    Although Thomas Kuhn’s ideas might not be entirely appealing from a logical or philosophical standpoint, they carry a significant persuasive power. ii)    Within Kuhn’s framework, the concept of the ‘paradigm’ holds central importance. However, there remains considerable ambiguity surrounding its precise definition. Kuhn’s descriptions of the term often come across as unclear and inconsistent. Margaret Masterman, in her analysis of the 1962 edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR), identified no fewer than twenty-one distinct ways in which Kuhn employed the term. Additionally, it remains uncertain whether paradigms exert their influence on members of a scientific community through psychological means or logical reasoning. iii)    Kuhn’s perspective on theory choice effectively dismisses the traditional notion that science progresses through an objective, well-defined scientific method. This stance led Imre Lakatos to criticize Kuhn’s view of science, describing it as being driven more by “mob psychology” than by rational methodology. iv) One of the most significant critiques aimed at Kuhn concerns his concept of incommensurability. Critics argue that this idea risks pushing science toward irrationality and relativism. In his later work, Kuhn reframed incommensurability in metaphorical and linguistic terms. He suggested that when scientific theories change, not all terms undergo a shift in meaning. While the meanings of certain key terms may remain stable, some undergo significant changes. According to Kuhn, those terms whose meanings persist across theoretical shifts form an adequate basis for meaningful discussions and comparisons between competing theories. Therefore, he concluded that incommensurability can be understood as a form of untranslatability. Since perfect translation is impossible, scientists cannot make precise, point-for-point comparisons between different theoretical frameworks. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Who is given the credit of bringing Historicism into the philosophy of science. 2.    Kuhn speaks about ‘Essential Tension’. What is the tension he refers to? 4.4.2 Paul K. Feyerabend (1924-94): Liberator of Humanity from Science Paul Feyerabend, born in Austria in 1924, initially pursued studies in physics. However, his academic path was disrupted by the outbreak of World War II, during which he served as an infantry officer in the German army. He sustained a spinal injury from a gunshot wound, leading to lasting health complications that persisted throughout his life. After the war, Feyerabend shifted his focus to the philosophy of science. He spent some time working with Karl Popper, but eventually settled in the United States, where he lived for the remainder of his life. Feyerabend became well-known for his sharp critique of the positivist approach to science. He argued that science, contrary to the claims of positivists, was neither uniquely objective nor purely rational. His most influential works, Against Method (1975) and Science in a Free Society (1978), articulate these views. In these writings, Feyerabend emphasized the non-rational elements present in scientific practice and called for the liberation of human society from what he saw as the restrictive authority of science. (i)    Method(s) in Science Denied Science is claimed to be rational because of its one special method. But history shows that there is no the method, suitable for all the domains of science Feyerabend shows how Galileo systematically went against each of the rules of the methodological monists and this is a strong sign for the need for methodological radicalism and theoretical pluralism. Scientists violated the rules and even chose the opposite rules; they ignored the demands of rationality. Often these violations were factual, deliberate and even absolutely necessary for further growth in science. When a new theory is proposed, it need not have all the empirical support as theories often obtain clarity only after a prolonged usage. To become empirically successful they need non-rational and non-sensical acceptance in the first place. Theoretical pluralism and methodological pluralism are preferable as they don’t impose rigid rules on the scientific community and it is necessary for the growth of science, because, “Variety of opinion is necessary for objective knowledge” (ii)    Epistemological Anarchism - Need not Lead to Chaos! Anarchism, Feyerabend argues, is a requirement for any intellectual enterprise and he calls himself ‘anarchist”. Anarchism may be objectionable in politics but certainly not in epistemology and this epistemological anarchism is needed to give the society the right picture of science. This is the aim with which he wrote Against Method (1999). The absence of fixed rules in an anarchistic science will not land science in chaos. We need to trust in the well-ordered nervous system: that the humans have developed over the millennia and this will save us from chaos. He does not encourage a chaos-like situation, in both theoretical pluralism and methodological pluralism. (iii)    Demands of Empiricism Rejected Radical empiricism sets out two main requirements: the Consistency Condition and Meaning Invariance. According to Feyerabend, these stipulations are described as follows: 1.    Within a specific field, only those theories are considered acceptable which either incorporate the theories already in use or remain consistent with them within that field. 2.    The meanings of terms must stay constant despite scientific advancement; in other words, future theories should be formulated in a way that their explanatory use does not alter the content of existing theories or the factual accounts they aim to clarify. Feyerabend raises significant objections to both these requirements. Historical developments in science demonstrate frequent violations of these principles, particularly during major scientific revolutions. For example, Einstein's theory of relativity conflicts with both the consistency condition and the principle of meaning invariance. Regarding the Consistency Condition, Feyerabend argues that it fosters a bias towards maintaining older theories, even when they are contradicted by new observational findings. Under this criterion, newer theories tend to be dismissed if they are incompatible with established ones. This results in the age and familiarity of a theory becoming the primary reasons for its continued acceptance. Feyerabend highlights that if a newer theory had been introduced earlier, the same consistency requirement would have favored it instead. As for the Meaning Invariance requirement, Feyerabend disputes it by advocating for a contextual theory of meaning, which holds that the meaning of a term depends on the theoretical framework in which it is used. For instance, in Newton’s theory of gravitation, gravity is described as a physical force, whereas in Einstein’s relativity, it is interpreted as a manifestation of the curvature of space-time—a geometrical concept. This shift in meaning across different theories leads to what Feyerabend calls incommensurability—the idea that competing theories may be so conceptually different that they cannot be directly compared. (iv)    A Strong Version of Incommensurability When two competing theories are said to be incommensurable, it means there are no shared standards through which their merits can be objectively assessed. Positivists once believed that by employing statements rooted in purely observational language—language free from theoretical bias—it would be possible to compare such theories. However, this view has been challenged by the argument that no observation is entirely theory-neutral. The meanings of observational terms are deeply embedded within the theoretical frameworks they belong to. As a result, direct comparisons between theories become impossible. This situation gives rise to a form of strict subjectivity in choosing between competing theories. Without a logical or objective method for evaluation, decisions are often influenced by aesthetic preferences, personal tastes, metaphysical beliefs, religious inclinations, or other subjective factors. Consequently, the concept of incommensurability undermines the traditional notion of rationality in scientific theory choice. (v)    Feyerabend A Great Humanist Feyerabend cautions humanity not to be carried away by scientism, the tendency to absolutize science. To ignore science is irrational, similarly to absolutize science is equally irrational. Being taken up by one-sided growth of science, lot of harm is done to humanity and environment and therefore humanity is to be liberated from the clutches of science. Throughout his life, he voiced out his deep concerns for humanity and its liberty, in politics, science and in all intellectual pursuits. That is why he wanted the world to remember him basically as a simple and ordinary human being, who valued love the most. He wrote in his autobiography, on 11 February 1994, just a couple of weeks before his demise: “My concern is that after my departure something remains of me, not papers, not final philosophical declarations, but love... That is what I would like to happen, not intellectual survival but the survival of love”. 4.4.2.1    Remarks i)    Opinions on Feyerabend’s contributions are quite divided. Some regard him as one of the most significant thinkers of the 20th century, while others dismiss him as a frivolous and immature philosopher who permits an "anything goes" approach to science. ii)    Feyerabend criticizes only the conventional notion of rationality, which tends to overlook subjective and rhetorical aspects such as judgment, emotions, intuition, and reasonableness. However, he emphasizes that these elements play a vital role in driving scientific advancement. iii)    It is noteworthy that Feyerabend does not dismiss metaphysics as meaningless. He argues that both theoretical and observational terms rely on a theoretical framework for proper understanding. As Newton-Smith puts it, it’s not simply that our observational judgments might contain ideological elements—they entirely consist of them. For this reason, Feyerabend maintains that “a good empiricist must be a critical metaphysician.” iv) Feyerabend’s concept of strong incommensurability also presents challenges. If two theories were entirely lacking any common ground, we would not even be able to recognize their differences. Shapere suggests that a ‘chain of reasoning’ connects successive theories through the evolution of terms and their meanings. Throughout this process, certain properties are either introduced or discarded for particular reasons. This continuity isn’t based on shared descriptions or references but rather on the interconnected reasoning that provides coherence throughout history. In this way, the issue of incommensurability can be mitigated. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Why Feyerabend criticised Positivist’s view of science? 2.    ‘Feyerabend was a great Humanist’. Explain. 4.4.3 NORWOOD RUSSELL HANSON (1924-67): CHAMPION OF THEORY-LADENNESS OF OBSERVATION. N.R. Hanson, an American philosopher, a versatile personality - a baseball player, a heavyweight boxer and trumpet player, a daring fighter, plane pilot and a creative writer in philosophy and history of science - served as a marine fighter during the World War II. He had his studies in Chicago, Oxford and Cambridge. He became the first university lecturer in philosophy of science. He has made significant contributions to the fields of philosophy of science, history of science, epistemology and aerodynamics. His well-known work, Patterns of Discovery (1958), clearly argued for the theory-ladenness of observational account. His eventful life was tragically cut short by a plane crash on a mountain near Cortland, New York with ten of his books in progress. (i)    The Relevance of ‘The Context of Observation՚ Hamon challenges the views of logical Positivism in his very important book, The Patterns of Discovery. Logical Positivism focusing only on the finished products of science, seems to pay no attention to the context of discovery, as they think only the context of justification is important for philosophy of science. But Hanson argues that since all observations are theory-laden, this distinction between the contexts cannot be very sharp. He explains it with an example : Kepler and Tycho Brahe watch the sunrise, as Kepler believes in heliocentric universe and Brahe believes in the geocentric universe, do they see the same sun or different things? Traditional people would say, following the sensory core theory, that both see the same thing but interpret it differently but Hanson argues that both see two different things. For, interpretation is part and parcel of observation and ‘seeing’ already involves conceptions and theoretical frameworks. Hanson explains this better with the examples employed by Wittgenstein in the Investigations, for instance, the picture of duck/rabbit or faces/vase. Seeing a picture as rabbit and seeing the same picture as a duck amounts to seeing two things. In seeing as such there is no interpretation involved. The change from rabbit to duck takes place fast and spontaneously. What changes is the organization of what one sees. The organization is neither an element in the visual field nor anything that registers on the retina; rather it is the way in which elements in the visual field are appreciated. Such an appreciation involves theories. Thus what we see is influenced by the theories we hold. Hanson argues, therefore, that seeing is always seeing that and ‘that’ is something depends on the background one has. It is not the eyes or the camera that see things, but the people see and they always see with background theories and “there is more to seeing than meets the eyeball”. (ii)    Causality is Theory-laden Hanson denies the traditional, metaphysical type of cause-effect relationship. Following Hume, Hanson sees causal relationship as psychological, with no necessary connection between them. Causality is human way of understanding the functions of nature, rather than a feature of nature itself. We find causality a convenient tool to explain natural phenomena, to simplify and facilitate inferences. The causal connections are limited to rare and accidental happenings. Causes are found with effects, not because of some cosmic bonds that keep them together, but because our theories connect them. (iii)    Logic of Discovery After careful analyses of case studies in history of science, Hanson comes out with a pattern of discovery: To solve a problem at hand, first a workable hypothesis is proposed. This must fulfil some expectations, like it must have initial plausibility for solving the problem, be coherent with the existing background assumptions, logical and empirical methods of testing. So for him the logic of discovery is “inferring novel hypotheses from problematic situations. He agrees that discovery of hypothesis involves ingenuity, creativity, insight and imagination but along with these psychological factors, there are also some logical aspects involved in the process of proposing a particular hypothesis. There are some reasons to propose hypothesis, A rather than B. Testing a hypothesis in different from ‘plausibility considerations’ which help us to decide whether to propose a hypothesis or not. So the plausibility is also determined based on some evidence. At the stage of proposing a hypothesis, it isn't necessary to claim it as 'true'; rather, the focus is on suggesting plausible conjectures. It's important to differentiate between the reasons for accepting a hypothesis and the reasons for initially proposing it. To argue that the process of discovery isn't entirely driven by psychological factors—and that there are rational grounds for why a particular hypothesis is deemed worthy of investigation—Hanson, drawing on the ideas of C.S. Peirce, introduced the concept of abduction. This form of reasoning explores the criteria or norms that help determine whether a hypothesis merits consideration. 4.4.3.1    Remarks (i)    Hanson sparked significant controversy and debate within both philosophical and scientific communities. However, he was unable to attract dedicated followers. His focus appeared to be more on criticizing the views of others rather than constructing a comprehensive and coherent philosophical system of his own. (ii)    If Hanson adopts a view of causality similar to Hume’s—treating it merely as a sequence of events or conjunctions—he is then compelled to address the same criticisms that were directed at Hume. For example, he would need to explain how one distinguishes between coincidental conjunctions and consistent, law-governed causal connections. (iii)    In relation to the logic of discovery, Hanson seems to have conflated plausibility arguments—which assist in selecting one hypothesis among several options—with the actual process of discovery itself. While it makes sense to separate the considerations of plausibility (which guide the proposal of a hypothesis) from the methods used to confirm it, it remains unclear whether these plausibility judgments are purely subjective biases or psychological tendencies of scientists, or whether they play a valid role within scientific methodology. As a result, although Hanson offered insights into the patterns underlying scientific discoveries, he did not succeed in formulating a clear logic of discovery. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Who is the author of the Book ‘The Patterns of Discovery. 2.    Hanson gives importance to ‘The Context of Observation.’ Explain. 4.5    Summary Historicist philosophers of science have challenged the rational and objective picture of science, proposed by the logical positivists. Kuhn, Feyerabend and Hanson and others argue that no methodology or criteria for rationality is to be thrust upon science: rather they emerge from the actual practices of the scientific community. They insist on the need for socio-cultural, historical and moral factors to understand science and to do philosophy of science. However, with this approach, one may make science totally relative and irrational if one is not cautious. This is perhaps taken care of by the historical realists, who treat science as social enterprise while upholding its rational character as well. 4.6    Glossary •     Historicism : A school of philosophy which emphasiges on history of science, subjectivity and the social and cultural background of the Scientist. •     Incommensurability: It simply means ‘communication breakdown’. Since historicists stress the contextual theory of meaning of the terms in a scientific theory, they argue that the followers of different scientific paradigms suffer from the problem of incommensurability in understanding each other. •     Theory-ladenness of observation: Observation is inherently theory laden; there is no such thing as a completely theory-free observation. Unlike instruments that simply record data, human perception is shaped by prior knowledge and beliefs. We do not first see and then interpret—our interpretation is part of the act of seeing itself. It is not just the eyes that see, but the person, influenced by their theoretical framework. •     Eschatology : It is a branch of theology concerned, with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind. It is a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the Ultimate destiny of humankind. •     Paradigm : Scientific Research Programme. 4.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.     Historicism, a prominent 19th-century German school of thought, views all aspects of life through the lens of historical development. In contrast to the Enlightenment’s universal approach to knowledge, historicism emphasizes that reality is fundamentally historical. It highlights how individual consciousness is shaped by its specific socio-cultural context, emphasizing contingency and the perspectival nature of human existence. 2. (a) Rationality of Science - Logical Positivists claim that science is rational whereas Historicism argues that science is non-rational as there can be many methods in science. (b)    Objectivity in Science - Logical Positivists claim that sciences is objective while Historicism shows that science has both subjective and objective elements. (c)    Cumulative Growth - Logical Positivists view scientific progress as cumulative, with each new theory improving upon the last. In contrast, Historicists see progress as transformative, where later theories differ fundamentally and aren't necessarily better than earlier ones. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Thomas Samuel Kuhn. 2.    See Sub-Section 4.4.1.1 (iv) Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Feyerabend criticized the Positivists’ view of science because it was neither unique nor rational. 2.    Feyeraband was a great Humanist as he cautions humanity not to be carried away by scientism, the tendency to absolutize science. To ignore science is irrational, similarly to absolutize science is equally irrational. Being taken up by one-sided growth of science, lot of harm is done to humanity and environment and therefore humanity is to be liberated from the clutches of science. Throughout his life, he voiced out his deep concerns for humanity and its liberty in politics, science and in all intellectual pursuits. That is why he wanted the world to remember him basically as simple and ordinary human being, who valued love the most. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    N.R. Hanson. 2.    Logical Positivism focusing only on the finished products of science, seems to pay no attention to the context of discovery, as they think only the context of justification is important for philosophy of science. But Hanson argues that since all observations are theory laden, this distinction between the contexts can be very sharp. According to Hanson, what we see is influenced by the theories we hold. Hanson argues, therefore, that seeing is always seeing that and ‘that’ is something depends on the background one has. It is not the eyes or the camera that see things, but the people see and they always see with background theories and “there is more to seeing than meets the eyeball.” 4.8    Suggested Readings/References •   Feyerabend, P. Against Method. London : New Left Books, 1975. •    Friedman, M. “Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science.” in Philosophy of Science, Vol. 69 (2002). 171-190. •    Hanson, N.P., Patterns of Discovery, Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1958. Also New York: Cambridge University Press, 1967. •    Kuhn, T.S., The Structures of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1970. •    Kuhn, T.S., The Essential Tension - Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1977. •    Lakatos, I. “Popper on Demarcation and Induction.” in The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp. La Salle. Illinois: Open Court, 1974. •    Varma, S.P., Modern Political Theory. UP : Vikash Publishing House, 1988. •    Popper, Karl, The Poverty of Historicism. Rontledge, 1957 4.9    Terminal Questions 1.    What are main challenges of Historicism to Logical Positivism 2.    Discuss about Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s contribution to Historicism. 3.    “Observation cannot be Separated from interpretation”. Discuss this claim with reference to Hanson’s ideas on observation. ***** Unit-5 KARL POPPER՚S CRITIQUE OF HISTORICISM Structure 5.1    Introduction 5.2    Learning Objectives 5.3    Popper’s Criticism of Historicism 5.3.1    Fundamental Problems with Historical Theory 5.3.2    Common inconsistencies in the arguments of Historicists. 5.3.3    Negative Practical Effects of Implementing Historical Ideas Self Check Exercise-1 5.3.4    Popper’s Alternative 5.3.5    Criticism Self Check Exercise-2 5.4    Summary 5.5    Glossary 5.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise 5.7    Suggested Readings 5.8    Terminal Questions 5.1    Introduction The Poverty of Historicism is a work by philosopher Karl Popper, where he critiques the concept of historicism, arguing that it is both flawed and potentially harmful. The book serves as an examination of the scientific methods used within the social sciences. Popper characterizes historicism as an approach that treats historical prediction as the primary goal of social science research. He points out that the central idea behind historicism is the belief that social sciences should uncover the laws governing societal development to enable accurate predictions about the future. Popper identifies two main forms of historicism. The first, which he calls "pronaturalistic," advocates for the use of methods similar to those employed in the physical sciences. The second, the "anti-naturalistic" approach, rejects such methods. In the first half of the book, Popper outlines these historicist positions, covering both strands. In the second half, he offers a critical analysis and refutation of these perspectives. He concludes by highlighting the ancient roots of historicist thought, contrasting it with the modern claims made by its twentieth-century proponents. 5.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the learners will be able to understand Karl Popper’s criticism of Historicism. 5.3    Popper՚s criticism of historicism Popper’s critique of historical prediction can be summarized in three main points: inherent flaws in the concept, frequent contradictions in historicist reasoning, and harmful practical consequences when such ideas are applied. 5.3.1    Fundamental Problems with Historicist Theory (a) Describing the entirety of society is an impossible task because the number of characteristics that would need to be considered is limitless. Since we are unable to fully comprehend the present condition of humanity, it follows that predicting the future of humankind is beyond our reach. In studying any subject, we must inevitably focus on selected aspects. It is not feasible to observe or describe an entire segment of the world or nature in its entirety. Even the smallest segment cannot be fully captured in a description, because every description is by necessity selective. (b) Human history represents a singular, unrepeatable occurrence. As such, understanding the past does not automatically provide insight into what is to come. The development of life on Earth, including human societies, is a distinctive historical process. Any account of this process is a specific historical description rather than a universal law. According to Popper, creating or testing general laws based on history is not possible. While historical study may reveal certain patterns or tendencies, there is no certainty that these patterns will persist. Such observations are specific to a time and place, and they do not equate to universal laws. Furthermore, historians focus on the uniqueness of past events, and by extension, future events will also have a uniqueness that cannot be predicted. (c) It is impossible to predict human behavior with absolute certainty, and for that reason, the future cannot be foreseen either. Popper highlights that the unpredictability of human behavior is the most uncertain and unpredictable component in social life and institutions. Efforts to completely control this element can only lead to tyranny, where the arbitrary decisions of a few individuals, or even just one person, dominate. Popper also argues that psychology cannot provide a full understanding of this unpredictable "human factor," because human nature itself changes significantly depending on the surrounding social institutions. Understanding human behavior, therefore, requires prior knowledge of these institutions. (d) Whether in natural or social sciences, laws may allow us to rule out certain possibilities, but they cannot predict a single definitive outcome. This idea is consistent with Popper's philosophy of science: scientific theories are hypotheses that are put forward and then rigorously tested in attempts to refute them. If they withstand these tests, they might be regarded as laws, but they remain hypotheses that have not yet been proven false. Similarly, the fact that a theory appears to be accurate in certain instances does not confirm its universal truth. (e) It is logically impossible to predict the future path of human history, particularly because part of that path depends on the future development of scientific knowledge—a factor that, by its nature, cannot be known in advance. 5.3.2    Common Inconsistencies in the Arguments of Historicists (a)    Historicists often believe that humanity must be reshaped or re-educated in order to be suited for the future society they envision, or to accelerate its arrival. However, since societies are made up of individuals, altering human nature to fit a preconceived social model could lead to virtually any type of society. Moreover, if the emergence of this future society depends on the transformation of mankind, it suggests that such a future is not inevitable but contingent upon deliberate human intervention. (b)    One significant criticism of historicism is its difficulty in recognizing circumstances that might disrupt an identified historical trend. As Karl Popper argues, broad historical generalizations can sometimes be reduced to more universal laws—such as those rooted in psychology. Yet, for any prediction based on these generalizations to hold, we also require knowledge of the specific starting conditions. Since initial conditions are often in flux, the same general laws may yield very different outcomes, causing trends to disappear or change direction unexpectedly. (c)    Historicism often confuses historical interpretations with scientific theories. When analyzing the past, we can only consider a limited portion of historical events, which necessitates applying a specific interpretation. Popper emphasizes the importance of recognizing that multiple interpretations can be valid, although some may offer more insight or lead to more productive analysis than others. (d)    Another issue with historicism is its tendency to conflate ultimate ends with present aims. It frequently promotes the belief that societal goals are embedded in the trends of history—implying that whatever is destined to happen is also what ought to happen. Popper argues instead that the goals of a society should be considered a matter of conscious choice, rather than something dictated by historical necessity. 5.3.3    Negative Practical Effects of Implementing Historicist Ideas (a)    Unintended Consequences: When historicist ideologies like Marxism are implemented, they often lead to drastic societal transformations. However, because social systems are highly complex, these efforts frequently produce unexpected outcomes and tend not to function as intended. Moreover, the intricate nature of social dynamics makes it difficult to determine the true causes of specific outcomes. As a result, little can be learned from these large-scale social experiments or revolutions. (b)    Lack of Reliable Information: Broad social experiments struggle to enhance our understanding of social processes. To enforce these grand theories, power typically becomes concentrated, and dissent is suppressed. This suppression makes it increasingly difficult to gauge genuine public opinion and to assess whether the utopian experiment is actually succeeding. This also rests on the questionable assumption that a leader with such concentrated power could remain benevolent and avoid corruption. Additionally, Popper challenges the belief that history can be subjected to scientific experimentation or that historical "laws" can be universally applied beyond specific time periods. He sees these ideas as characteristic of the anti-naturalistic and historicist methods he critiques. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    On which three broad grounds Karl Popper criticizes ‘Historicism’? 2.    Why a description of the whole of society is impossible? 3.    ‘Historicists are bad at imagining conditions under which an identified trend ceases’. Comment. 5.3.4    Popper՚s Alternative As an alternative to historicism, Karl Popper advocates for what he calls "piecemeal social engineering." This approach focuses on implementing small, incremental, and reversible adjustments within society. According to Popper, the inherent uncertainty of the future makes large-scale reforms risky, as their outcomes are often unpredictable and difficult to evaluate. In contrast, gradual changes allow for careful observation and analysis. These limited modifications make it possible to form specific, testable, and falsifiable hypotheses about their social impact, enabling societies to learn and adapt more effectively. 5.3.5    Criticism Popper’s use of the term “historicism” has been criticized for diverging considerably from its conventional meaning. Among professional historians, a historicist typically refers to someone who employs a careful, interpretive, and contextual approach to understanding historical events, focusing on hermeneutics and exegesis rather than attempting to make broad predictions or speculative theories about historical development. This approach aligns more closely with what Popper himself refers to as “historism.” The Marxist philosopher Karel Kosik criticizes Popper’s statement that “All knowledge, whether intuitive or discursive must be of abstract aspects, and we can never grasp the concrete structure of reality itself.” Kosik refers to him as “a leading contemporary opponent of philosopgy of concrete totality.” and clarifies that, “Totality indeed does not signify all facts. Totality signifies reality as structured dialectical whole fact (or any group or set of facts) can be rationally comprehended.” Self Check Exercise-2 1.    What is Karl Popper’s alternative to Historicism? 2.    How Karel Kosik, a Marxist Philosopher, considers Karl Popper’s work “Poverty of Historicism.” 5.4    Summary Karl Popper critiqued Historicism by highlighting key issues with its theoretical foundations, pointing out frequent contradictions in historicist arguments, and emphasizing the harmful consequences that can arise when such ideas are applied in practice. In place of historicism, Popper advocated for what he called “piecemeal social engineering” as a more practical and responsible approach to societal development. 5.5    Glossary •    Omnipotence - is the quality of having unlimited power. •    Unfalsified Hypothesis- is a statement or claim that cannot be tested or proven false because it is not specific or objective enough, or it does not relate to observable phenomena. •    Generalization - a general statement or concept obtained by inference from specific cases, •    Hermeneutical - to help someone understand a subject or matter by making it plain, explain and interpret. •    Exegetical - explanatory; interpretative. •    Dialectical - concerned with or acting through opposing forces. 5.6    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.  (a) Fundamental Problems with Historical Theory. (b)    Common Inconsistencies in the Arguments of Historicists. (c)    Negative Practical Effects of Implementing Historicist ideas. 2.    It is impossible to provide a complete description of an entire society because the number of features and aspects involved would be endless. 3.    Popper argued that broad historical generalizations can often be simplified into more universal laws. However, making predictions based on these generalizations also requires detailed knowledge of specific starting conditions. Since these conditions are subject to change, the application of any law may vary, and patterns or trends that once seemed clear may no longer hold. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Karl Popper’s alternative to Historicism is his preference for ‘piecemeal social engineering’. Whereby small and reversible changes are made to society in order to be best able to learn from the changes made. 2.    Karel Kosik considers Karl Popper’s work to be a part of atomist rationalist theories of reality. 5.7    Suggested Readings/References •    Popper, Karl R. (1957). The Poverty of Histricism. Boston : Beacon Press. •    Lakatos, I (1974). “ Popper on Demarcation and Induction” in the philosophy of Karl Popper. Ed. Paul Arthur Schilpp. La Salle, Illinois : Open Court. 5.8    Terminal Questions 1.    Give a Karl Popper’s critique of Historicism. 2.    Discuss the broad bases on which Karl Popper has criticized Historicism. ***** Unit-6 POSITIVISM Structure : 6.1    Introduction 6.2    Learning Objectives 6.3    August Comte and Positivism 6.3.1    Life and Works of August Comte. 6.3.2    Comte’s Concern and Aim 6.3.3    Philosophy of Comte Self Check Exercise-1 6.4    The Classification of the Sciences and Philosophy of Science Self Check Exercise-2 6.5    Meaning and Attributes of Positivism Self Check Exercise-3 6.6    Later Developments of Positivism 6.6.1    Logical Positivism 6.6.2    A Critique of Positivism Self Check Exercise-4 6.7    Summary 6.8    Glossary 6.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises 6.10    Suggested Readings/References 6.11    Terminal Questions 6.1    Introduction Positivism means the doctrine and movement founded by the French philosopher Auguste Comte in the nineteenth century and also the general philosophical view of knowledge proposed by Francis Bacon, John Locke, Isaac Newton and contemporary thinkers like Mortiz Schlick, Ernst Mach, Rudolf Carnap and others which assert that genuine knowledge should be based on observation and advanced by experiment. In the social sciences positivism is associated with three assumptions; first that knowledge should be founded on experience alone; secondly the belief that the methods of natural sciences are directly applicable to the social world and on the basis of it laws about social phenomena can be established; and thirdly the axiological principle that normative statements do not have the status of knowledge and maintains a rigid separation between facts and values. Bacon believed that philosophers should not attempt to wander beyond the ‘limits of nature’. He held that there are ultimate facts that should be accepted on the basis of experience, and he applied the adjective ‘positive’ to these inexplicable facts and to the doctrine based on them. Gradually, the method of natural sciences which relied on observation and experience came to be termed positive. Saint-Simon applied the term positive in his Essay on the Science of Man to the sciences which were based on facts which have been observed and analyzed. Comte believed that the function of theories in science is to co-ordinate observed facts rather than to explain them in terms of causes and to emphasize this view he used the term positive His Positive Philosophy later on was called Positivism. In the following sections we shall concentrate on the positivism of Comte. 6.2    Learning Objectives : After reading this unit, students will be able to : •    explain the origin, background and development of Positivism. •    know about August Comte’s contribution in the development of positivism. •    know about the later developments of Positivism and Logical Positivism. 6.3    August Comte and Positivism6.3.1    Life and Works of August Comte. Isidore Auguste Marie Francois Xavier Comte. the founder of Positivism was born at Montpellier, France in 1798 to a devout Catholic family with royalist sympathies. However, when he was fourteen, he had ceased to believe in God and also abandoned the royalist sympathies of the family. He studied in the Ecole Polytechnique of Paris and later became a teacher there. In 1817. Comte became secretary to the French utopian socialist Saint-Simon, from whom Comte got certain radical ideas of social reform which animated his entire life. In April 1826, Comte began teaching a Course of Positive Philosophy. About this time, he had a temporary mental breakdown. After recovering, he was appointed instructor and examiner in mathematics at the Ecole polytechnique. He resumed the Course of Positive Philosophy in 1829. Comte also published an Elementary Treatise on Analytic Geometry (1843), the Philosophical Treatise on Popular Astronomy (1844) and The Discourse on the Positive Spirit. In 1845, Comte met Clothilde de Vaus and fell madly in love with her and married her, but within a short time she died. Following Clothilde’s death, an event which brought him close to insanity, Comte began to idolize her. The next year, Comte chose the Evolution of Humanity as the new topic for his public discourse: this was an occasion to lay down the premises of what would become the new Religion of Humanity. In 1848, he founded the Positivist Society, and published the General View of Positivism, as well as the Positivist Calendar. In 1849, he founded the Religion of Humanity. Between the years 1851 and 1854, he published the four-volume System of Positive Polity, and the Catechism of Positive Religion. On Sept 5, 1857, worn out from his intellectual labors and personal tragedies Comte died surrounded by his followers. He was buried in the Pere-Lachaise cemetery, where his Brazilian followers erected a statue of Humanity in 1983. The inscription on his tombstone reads ‘Love as the Principle, Order as the Means, Progress as the Goal’. 6.3.2    Comte՚s Concern and Aim The point of departure for Comte’s thought was the experience of the internal contradictions of the society of his age. The French revolution had fractured the unity that existed in the French Society. So Comte’s main concern throughout his life was resolving the political, social and moral problems caused by the French Revolution. He believed that many of the contradictions were because of the transition that was taking place from the theological-military past in its Catholic feudal forms towards an inevitable Scientific industrial type of society. So far the scientific mode of thought has not completely triumphed over its main rivals and so there was intellectual anarchy, which in turn produces social anarchy. Comte believed that the only way to put an end to the crisis was to bring together the ‘positive ideas’ of the time that are scientific, free from the bonds of traditional theology and metaphysics. He believed that a system of scientific ideas should govern the new social order which will provide unity and cohesion to modern society just as the system of theological ideas governed the social order of the past. Comte’s ambition was to found a naturalistic science of society capable of explaining the past of humankind and to predict its future by applying the same methods of enquiry which had proved successful in the study of nature, namely observation, experimentation and comparison. Comte coined the term ‘sociology’ to designate the science which would synthesize all positive knowledge, explain the dynamics of society, and guide the formation of the positivist society. 6.3.3    Philosophy of Comte According to Comte in order to understand the true value and character of the positive philosophy, we must take a general view of the progress that human history has made so far. This development has followed a definite pattern and a fundamental law. The law is that each branch of knowledge progresses successively through three different theoretical conditions: the theological, or fictitious: the metaphysical or abstract: and the scientific or positive. These three methods of philosophizing, that is making reality comprehensible are incompatible. The necessary starting-point of the development of human understanding is theological stage. It searches for first and final causes and absolute knowledge. Phenomena are explained by reference to the acts of super natural agencies. The highest point of development of the theological stage is reached when all phenomena are conceived as the effect of a single deity. Comte divides the theological stage into three: (a)    Animism - In which everyday objects were turned into items of religious purpose and worship, with godlike qualities. (b)    Polytheism - Explanation of things through the use of many gods. (c)    Monotheism - Attributing all to a single, supreme deity. This period started with the beginning of human history and was dominated by priests and the military and the dominant social unit was the family. In the metaphysical stage the supernatural beings are replaced by abstract forces and underlying entities to which all phenomena are referred. The highest form of development of this stage was when all phenomena were referred to one single entity i.e. Nature. It is a speculative doctrine on the ‘essences’ and ‘causes of phenomena. The middle ages were predominantly metaphysical; the basic social unit was the state and was dominated by churchmen and lawyers. At the third stage, the positive stage, the human mind recognizes the impossibility of acquiring absolute knowledge concerning the origin and purpose of the universe, and applies itself to the study of the laws of the invariable relations of succession and resemblance of phenomena. This science takes reasoning and observation as the means of knowledge. What is now meant by an explanation of facts is simply the establishment of a connection. This is the modern industrial society and the social unit is the whole of humanity and should be guided by industrial administrators and scientists. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who is known as the founder of Positivism? 2.    What are three main assumptions of Positivism in social sciences? 3.    What was the main concern of Comte throughout his life? 4.    Describe Comte’s Law of three stages. 6.4    The Classification of the Sciences and Philosophy of Science In the Positive Philosophy, Comte examines the different sciences and their logical relations to one another. His position is that the most general and inclusive sciences were required first, as the logically necessary preparation for the more particular ones. Mathematics as the abstract or fundamental study of the forms of existence common to all things is presupposed for the successful study of astronomy and physics, and physics is needed for the development of chemistry. Biology, in like manner, depends upon chemistry for its emergence as a lawful science. Biology, though logically depending upon chemistry has laws of its own because living beings behave very differently from nonliving chemical entities. In the same way, human society is far less general than the biological realm as a whole, though society clearly presupposes and depends on the biological laws. Thus Comte rejected methodological reductionism of higher sciences to the lower, despite the fact that the former presuppose the latter. This means that despite the complete grounding of sociology in biology, the laws of human society will inevitably have their own autonomy. The positive scientific study of society is what he calls “sociology” which he believed would be the final. Each higher level science adds to the knowledge, content of the science or sciences on the levels below, thus enriching this content by successive specialization. This ordering provides first of all for the unity of the sciences, as successive branches from a common stem, and secondly for the recognition of the historical emergence of the distinctive methods of different empirical subjects. According to Comte’s classification of the sciences, sociology had to wait for the calming of all prior disciplines to emerge as an independent science. The crowning science, the most complex and consequently the last to emerge as an empirical domain of invariant lawfulness, is sociology. Sociology and positive philosophy finally will provide the much needed reorganization of politics, ethics and religion. Comte, because of the classification of sciences he makes, could also be considered the founder of philosophy of science in the modern sense. Comte’s philosophy of science is based on a systematic difference between method and doctrine. Method is superior to doctrine: scientific doctrines change but the value of science lies in its methods. The positive method of different sciences depends on the nature of the sciences to which it is applied: in astronomy it is observation, in physics experimentation, in biology comparison. Finally, his classification also holds the key to a theory of technology. According to Comte there is a systematic connection between complexity and modifiability: the more complex a phenomenon is, the more modifiable it is. The order of nature is a modifiable order. Human action takes place within the limits fixed by nature and consists in replacing the natural order by an artificial one. Comte’s education as an engineer had made him quite aware of the links between science and its applications, which he summarized in an oft-quoted slogan: ‘From science comes prevision, from prevision comes action’. “There will be few students of the social sciences now who have even read Comte or know much about him. But the number of those who have absorbed most of the important elements of his system through the intermediation of a few very influential representatives of his tradition is very high indeed.” Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Fill in the Blanks:- (a)    The positive scientific study of society is .................. (b)    The crowning science, the most complex and consequently the last to emerge as an empirical domain of invariant lawfulness is ................. 6.5    Positivism : Meaning and Attributes Positivism, a philosophical movement in sociology, holds the view that social phenomena ought to be studied using only the methods of the natural sciences. The system of Auguste Comte designed to supersede theology and metaphysics and depending on a hierarchy of the sciences, beginning with mathematics and culminating in sociology. So, positivism is a view about the appropriate methodology of social science, emphasizing empirical observation. It is also associated with empiricism and holds that the view that knowledge is primarily based on experience via the five senses, and it is opposed to metaphysics-roughly, the philosophical study of what is real- on the grounds that metaphysical claims cannot be verified by sense experience. Positivism as a term is usually understood as a particular way of thinking. For Comte, additionally, the methodology is a product of a systematic reclassification of the sciences and a general conception of the development of man in history: the law of the three stages. Comte.. was convinced that no data can be adequately understood except in the historical context. Phenomena are intelligible only in terms of their origin, function, and significance in the relative course of human history. Positivism is a way of thinking is based on the assumption that it is possible to observe social life and establish reliable, valid knowledge about how it works. This knowledge can then be used to affect the course of social change and improve the human condition. Positivism also argues that sociology should concern itself only with what can be observed with the senses and that theories of social life should be built in a rigid, linear, and methodical way on a base of verifiable fact. The thoughts of Auguste Comte continue in many ways to be important to contemporary sociology. First and foremost, Comte’s positivism-the search for invariant laws governing the social and natural worlds-has influenced profoundly the ways in which sociologists have conducted sociological inquiry. Comte argued that sociologists (and other scholars), through theory, speculation, and empirical research, could create a realist science that would accurately “copy” or represent the way things actually are in the world. Furthermore, Comte argued that sociology could become a “social physics” i.e.. a social science on a par with the most positivistic of sciences, physics. Comte believed that sociology would eventually occupy the very pinnacle of a hierarchy of sciences. Comte also identified four methods of sociology. To this day, in their inquiries sociologists continue to use the methods of observation, experimentation, comparison, and historical research. Many contemporary thinkers criticize positivism, claiming for example that not all data is empirically observable. While Comte did write about methods of research, he most often engaged in speculation or theorizing in order to attempt to discover invariant laws of the social world. Comte also used the term positivism in a second sense: that is, as a force that could counter the negativism of his times. In Comte’s view, most of Western Europe was mired in political and moral disorder that was a consequence of the French Revolution of 1789. Positivism, in Comte’s philosophy, would bring order and progress to the European crisis of ideas. In Comte’s view, the evolution of thought throughout history paralleled his “three phases of intellectual development” for individuals as they mature throughout their lifetimes. The first is the theological phase, where natural phenomena are seen as the results of divine power(s). The second, or metaphysical phase sees these as manifestations from vital forces or takes natural processes to be imperfect imitations of eternal ideas. The positive phase is the last in the sequence, and consists of scientific inquiry as governed by the scientific method. In this phase, one seeks explanations that are descriptive laws: generalizations over several instances that are based on a foundation of positive facts. This phase forms the basis of Comte’s idea of positivism. For Comte, it was a rejection of metaphysics in favor of scientific reason. For Comte, positivism is the belief that societies have their own scientific principles and laws, just like physics or chemistry. Positivism assumes, there are truths about society that can be discovered through scientific studies and that our understanding of society should be based on actual data and evidence. Comte’s positivist philosophy has an important role in shaping modern sociologists because the general perspective today is that theories and ideas in sociology should be based on scientific studies. It’s the general belief that true knowledge is only found through science. In short, Comte’s idea of positivism is definitely a product of the final stage of society, the scientific stage. Comte believed that positivism could both advance science (theory) and change the ways people live their lives (practice). He argued that the upper classes of his time were far too conservative to advocate positivistic change. Women and the members of the working class, however, were well situated to advocate positivism and help to implement its programs of change. Comte viewed the working class as agents of positivistic change because of their ties of affection to their families, respect for authority, exposure to misery, and propensity for self-sacrifice. Comte thought of his positivism as a counter-force against communism, although the latter could provide a foundation for the former. Comte thought that women would support his positivist program for change largely because women, in his view, were more affectionate, altruistic, and feeling than men. He tended to view men as superior in intellectual and practical matters, and thus better suited to planning and supervising change, while women are better suited to moral matters. Comte did not believe in the equality of the sexes. He saw himself and his protégés as the “priests of humanity” who would oversee the religion of positivism. Some of Comte’s most amusing ideas are found in his plans for the future. Comte envisioned a positivist calendar, public holidays. He elaborated a plan for his positivist society that included important roles for bankers and industrialists, positivist priests, merchants, manufacturers, and farmers Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Define Positivism. 2.    How sociology can become a “Social Physics”? 6.6    Later Developments of Positivism Historically speaking, Comte’s philosophy failed to reform society the way he envisaged because it was too idealistic, and his dream of merging science, morality and government was unrealistic. However positivist ideas continued to influence thinking. The later development of positivism in France is best exemplified in the sociology of Emile Durkheim. Durkheim which extended scientific rationalism to human conduct and proposed a set of methodological principles encapsulated by the famous injunction to treat social facts as things’: reject common preconceptions in favor of objective definitions, explain a social fact by another social fact, distinguish efficient cause from function and normal from pathological social states, etc. John Stuart Mill, the 19th-century English philosopher could be considered as one of the outstanding Positivists of his century. In his System of Logic he developed a thoroughly empiricist theory of knowledge and of scientific reasoning. British philosopher and sociologist Herbert Spencer is considered the systematizer of Positivism according to the principles of evolution 6.6.1    Logical Positivism Positivism later made its reappearance under the title logical positivism which arose during the 1920’s mainly in the universities of Vienna in Austria in a group called the Vienna Circle. The Vienna Circle consisted of philosophers, mathematicians and scientists like Mortiz Schlick. Ernst Mach, Rudolf Carnap. Carl Hempel and Otto Neural. The Logical positivists and Logical Empiricists tried a synthesis of Humean empiricism. Comtean positivism and logical analysis in an effort to get rid of metaphysics for ever. The logical positivists wanted to unify all science under a framework of physical laws and scientific method for analyzing the world and gaining knowledge. They incorporated David Hume argument that there are only two types of meaningful propositions which are either about “relations of ideas” or “matters of fact” This along with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s claim in Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus that a proposition is a picture of reality gave rise to the verifiability principle. According to Positivists the verifiability test would determine whether statements were meaningful or not by judging whether they were factual. 6.6.2 A Critique of Positivism The dominance of positivism met with oppositions of two kinds, antipositivisit and post- positivist. Anti-positivists argue that the natural and the human senesces are ontologically and logically incompatible and so the very idea of an explanatory science of society is impossible. Proponents of hermeneutics, interpretative sociology, postmodernism, deconstruction and Feminism maintain that human practices, institutions and belief are inherently meaningful, meanings constituted by the understandings that participants have of them so causal accounts of social behavior cannot be constructed The task of human studies therefore cannot be to specify universal laws of human behavior but to make the behavior intelligible by interpreting in relation to subjective intentions. Self Check Exercise-4 1.  In the 1920’s under which title positivism made its re-appearance in the Vienna circle. 2.  In the 19th century, which thinkers were influenced by Auguste Comte’s Positivism. 3.    Why anti-positivists criticize positivism? 6.7    Summary Today, there are not many proponents of the positivism of Comte or who share in his belief that society can be improved through positive science or that all sciences can be unified under the umbrella of what he called sociology. However the methodology of positivism, its reliance on facts and the attempt to explain the how rather than the why are still the guiding principles of contemporary science. In spite of the drawbacks, his ideal of the well being of humanity and commitment to altruism is worth preserving today when people seem to be forgetting human solidarity because of sectarian manipulations and private agenda. According to Isaiah Berlin, ‘Comte is worthy of commemoration and praise because of the fact that...he has done his work too well. For Comte’s views have affected the categories of our thought more deeply than is commonly supposed. Our view of the natural sciences; of the material basis of cultural evolution; of all that we call progressive, rational, enlightened, western; our view of the relationship of intuitions and of public symbolism and ceremonial to the emotional life of the individual and societies are consequently our views of history itself, owes a good deal to his teaching and his influence.’ 6.8    Glossary •    Axiology : The study of the nature, types and criteria of values and of value Judgements especially in ethics •    Ontological : related to the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality. •    Hermeneutics : The branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary works. •    Altruism : Disinterested and Selfless concern for the well being of others. •    Deconstruction : is an approach which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of undoing the oppositions on which it is apparently founded, and to the point of showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable or impossible. The term was introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida. •    Feminism: Feminism describes a political, cultural or economic movement aimed at establishing equal rights and legal protection for women. 6.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Auguste Comte. 2.    In the social sciences, positivism is associated with three assumptions: First, that knowledge should be founded on experience alone; Secondly, the belief that the methods of natural sciences are directly applicable to the social world and on the basis of it laws about social phenomenon can be established; and thirdly, the axiological principle that normative statements do not have the status of knowledge and maintains a rigid separation between facts and values. 3.    Comte’s main concern throughout his life was resolving the political, social and moral problems caused by the French Revolution. 4.    For Answer See Sub-Section 6.3.3 Self Check Exercise-2 1.  (a) Sociology (b) Sociology Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Positivism, a philosophical movement in sociology, holds the view that social phenomena ought to be studied using only the method of the natural sciences. Positivism is a view about the appropriate methodology of social science, emphasizing empirical observation. It is also associated with empiricism and holds the view that knowledge is primarily based on experience via the five senses, and it is opposed to metaphysics- roughly, the philosophical study of what is real-on the grounds that metaphysical claims cannot be verified by sense experience. 2.    Comte argued that sociology could become a “Social Physics” i.e. a social science on a par with the most positivistic of sciences, physics. Comte believed that sociology would eventually occupy the very pinnacle of a hierarchy of sciences. Comte also identified four scientific methods of sociology. In their enquiries, sociologists use the methods of observation, experimentation, comparison, and historical research. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Logical Positivism. 2.    Emile Durkheim, John Stuart Mill and Herbert Spencer. 3.    Anti- positivists argue that the natural and the human senses are ontologically and logically incompatible and so the very idea of an explanatory science of society is impossible. 6.10    Suggested Readings/References •    Comte, Aguste. A general View of Positivism [1844]. London: Google books, 1856 •    Lenzer, Gertrud, ed. Auguste Comte and Positivism : The Essential Writings. New York: Harper and Raw Publications, 1975. •    Mill, John Stuart, Auguste Comte and Positivism. London : N. Trubner & Co., 1865. •    Outhwhite, William. ed. The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005. •    Pickering, Mary. Auguste Comte : An Intellectual Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Paperback, 2006. •    Richardson, Alan and Thomas Uebal. eds. The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2007. 6.11    Terminal Questions : 1.   What do you mean by Positivism? Describe the various attributes of Positivism. 2.   Critically examine Positivism as developed by the French Philosopher August Comte. 3.    Write a note on the later developments of Positivism. ***** Unit-7 LOGICAL POSITIVISM Structure 7.1    Introduction 7.2    Learning Objectives 7.3    The Goal of Logical Positivism Self Check Exercise-1 7.4    Logical Positivism 7.4.1    Area of Inquiry in Philosophy of Science 7.4.2    Meaning and Verification 7.4.3    The Primacy of Observation 7.4.4    Rationality of Science Self Check Exercise-2 7.5    Critical Evaluation of Logical Positivism Self Check Exercise-3 7.6    Summary 7.7    Glossary 7.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises 7.9    Suggested Readings 7.10    Terminal Questions 7.1    Introduction Logical Positivism emerged in the early twentieth century within the Germanspeaking world, primarily through the work of the Vienna Circle, led by Moritz Schlick, and the Berlin Circle, guided by Hans Reichenbach. This philosophical movement took shape in Austria and Germany during the 1920s, focusing on the logical examination of scientific knowledge. Logical positivists held that claims concerning metaphysics, religion, and ethics lacked cognitive significance, viewing them instead as mere expressions of emotions or personal preferences. In contrast, they argued that only propositions grounded in mathematics, logic, and the empirical sciences possessed true meaning. Prominent thinkers associated with this movement include Rudolf Carnap (1891– 1970), Herbert Feigl (1902–1988), Philipp Frank (1884–1966), Kurt Grelling (1886– 1942), Hans Hahn (1879–1934), Carl Gustav Hempel (1905–1997), Victor Kraft (1880–1975), Otto Neurath (1882–1945), Hans Reichenbach (1891–1953), Moritz Schlick (1882–1936), and Friedrich Waismann (1896–1959). Einstein’s theory of relativity had an indirect yet significant influence on the development of logical positivism, as its members sought to explore and understand its philosophical implications. Additionally, advances in quantum mechanics raised important epistemological and philosophical questions, further fueling the growth of the movement. The progress made in formal and symbolic logic also played a crucial role in shaping their approach. By the 1930s, logical positivism had become a leading philosophical trend in both Europe and the United States. This unit is designed to introduce students to the central ideas of logical positivism, especially its contributions to the philosophy of science. 7.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the students will be able to: •    To situate logical positivism in a historical setting. •    To discuss the meaning of the terms, logical and positivism. •    To familiarize themselves with the central philosophical and epistemological tenets of logical positivism. •    To examine critically the various claims of logical positivism. 7.3    The Aim of Logical Positivism Logical positivism represents a distinct perspective on knowledge, especially concerning science and philosophy. This movement was closely associated with the Vienna Circle, a group comprised of philosophers, scientists, and mathematicians. Their primary motivation was a strong opposition to the influence of metaphysical ideas within scientific inquiry. According to them, metaphysics posed a significant obstacle to the progress of science. The logical positivists were critical of metaphysical concepts such as Aristotle’s notion of Substantial Form and Henri Bergson’s idea of Vital Force. They viewed such notions as lacking empirical basis and argued that they contributed nothing meaningful to scientific understanding. The movement pursued two main objectives: 1.    To demonstrate that metaphysical statements are fundamentally meaningless, both in philosophy and in science. 2.    To provide science with a solid, empirically grounded foundation, free from metaphysical assumptions. In adopting this stance, logical positivism sharply diverged from the approach of the Kantians, who emphasized the role of metaphysics in providing the preconditions for knowledge and science. Self Check Exercise 1 1.    From where did Logical Positivism originated? 2.    What is the goal of Logical Positivism? 7.4    Logical Positivism Logical Positivism represents a synthesis of two key ideas: the principles of positivism and the methodologies of symbolic logic. Positivism is a philosophical perspective asserting that genuine knowledge must be derived from sensory experience. It maintains that claims not grounded in sensory data are devoid of meaning. While both positivists and empiricists emphasize the importance of sense experience as the foundation of knowledge, positivism takes a more rigid stance. Unlike empiricists, who allow for knowledge that extends beyond sensory input, positivists dismiss such knowledge as meaningless. As A.F. Chalmers explains, logical positivism can be seen as "an extreme form of empiricism," where theories are not only validated through observation-based facts but are considered meaningful only if they can be derived from such empirical data. The term logical in logical positivism highlights the movement’s reliance on symbolic logic. This type of logic uses symbols and mathematical formulations to represent logical principles clearly and precisely. For example, if P denotes a particular statement—say, "x is a mother"—and Q represents "x is a woman," then Px → Qx can be read as "if P, then Q." Similarly, Px = Qx illustrates equivalence in symbolic terms. This formal system follows specific mathematical rules, which is why symbolic logic is often referred to as mathematical logic. Logical positivists advocated for employing symbolic logic to analyze scientific language and theories. They believed that expressing scientific propositions through mathematical logic ensures clarity, precision, and lack of ambiguity. Thus, they argued, the role of the philosophy of science should primarily be the logical analysis of scientific knowledge. 7.4.1    Area of Inquiry in Philosophy of Science According to the Logical Positivists, scientific inquiry involves two distinct stages: 1.    The context of discovery2.    The context of justification The context of discovery encompasses the various personal, cultural, historical, and philosophical influences that contribute to the development of a new idea or scientific breakthrough. It includes the circumstances, motivations, and individual experiences that lead a researcher to a particular discovery. On the other hand, the context of justification deals with the logical reasoning, empirical testing, and systematic validation required to establish a theory as scientifically credible. Logical Positivists argued that the context of discovery falls outside the scope of the philosophy of science. They believed that analyzing how a theory originates is better suited to fields like psychology, sociology, and history. In contrast, they maintained that the philosophy of science should focus solely on the context of justification, which involves evaluating the evidence and reasoning that support scientific theories. By dismissing the relevance of the context of discovery, Logical Positivists implied that a scientist's personal worldview—encompassing their cultural background, social influences, religious beliefs, education, upbringing, biases, and preferences— had no impact on the scientific validity of their work. In their view, scientific methods are objective and universal. Therefore, any scientist, regardless of their background or personal circumstances, would reach the same scientific conclusions if they followed proper scientific procedures. 7.4.2    Meaning and Verification Logical positivists proposed the verification theory of meaning, which asserts that a contingent statement is meaningful only if there exists an empirical method to determine its truth or falsity. For example, the claim "light travels in a straight line" can be tested and confirmed through experimentation, making it a meaningful proposition. In contrast, the statement "God exists" cannot be empirically verified, and therefore, according to logical positivists, it is considered meaningless. It is worth noting that most logical positivists tended to be atheists or agnostics in some form. From the perspective of logical positivism, inductivism represents the correct method of scientific investigation. They argue that inductive reasoning alone can lead to genuine knowledge. Through inductivism, one can derive reliable scientific generalizations from factually meaningful statements. The meaningfulness of such statements is determined by their verifiability, which, in turn, relies on observation. Any statement that cannot be observed and verified is deemed meaningless, and meaningless statements are considered inauthentic. Logical positivism distinguishes between two forms of verification: "verification in practice," where direct empirical verification is achievable, and "verification in principle," where it is at least possible to conceive of a method for verification, even if it hasn't yet been realized. Additionally, logical positivists separate human knowledge claims into two distinct and incompatible domains: science and non-science. They maintain absolute confidence in the certainty of authentic scientific claims while viewing non-scientific (or pseudo-scientific) claims as fallible. The criterion for making this distinction is the principle of inductive verifiability. Although scientific hypotheses may not be conclusively verified, logical positivists still regard them as part of authentic knowledge due to their empirical basis and potential for verification. 7.4.3    The Primacy of Observation Logical Positivists drew a clear line between observation (O) and theory (T), distinguishing O-terms from T-terms. According to their view, O-terms—such as those referring to color, length, or temperature—are straightforward and generally unproblematic. In contrast, T-terms—like electrons, atoms, or electric fields—are seen as more complex and potentially misleading. For Logical Positivists, theories had to follow observations, and theoretical terms gained their meaning and significance only through their association with observational terms. If a T-term could be linked to an O-term, it was considered legitimate. Sense experience, or observation, was central to Logical Positivism. Scientific knowledge, in their view, both began and ended with observation. All credible knowledge needed to be grounded in observational data and confirmed through observation. While Logical Positivists did not dismiss theoretical terms outright, they argued that such terms were only meaningful and valid when directly connected to observational terms. 7.4.4    Rationality of Science Logical Positivists regarded science as a distinct and highly privileged form of knowledge. They asserted that scientific knowledge was entirely rational, leaving no room for irrational or non-rational aspects. According to this perspective, once a scientific principle was established, it remained fundamentally unchanged, though it could be refined or expanded in its application. As a result, science was seen as a source of eternal and universal truths. Furthermore, Logical Positivism held that scientific knowledge was purely objective, free from personal biases, emotions, or subjective influences. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Define Logical Positivism. 2.    Which two kinds of verification are recognized by Logical Positivism? 3.    Write a short note on Rationality of Science. 7.5    Critical Evaluation of Logical Positivism In recent times, significant shifts in the philosophy of science have critically undermined the central claims of logical positivism, revealing its limitations and untenability. Once regarded as a dominant framework, logical positivism has largely fallen out of favor, as its rigid and absolutist assertions could not withstand deeper scrutiny. Its decline was both inevitable and necessary due to the overconfidence and sweeping generalizations made by its proponents. Logical positivism advanced an elitist conception of science, which can be seen as a form of rationalistic mythology. In response, newer schools of thought emerged to challenge and dismantle the exaggerated claims made by logical positivists. Notably, Historicism (often linked with Social Constructivism) and Historical Realism (also known as Critical Realism) played pivotal roles in critiquing and moving beyond the narrow confines of logical positivism. Let us explore and critically assess the major claims of logical positivism: 1.    Rejection of Metaphysics Logical positivists were staunchly opposed to metaphysics, arguing that it was meaningless. However, this rejection raises an important philosophical question: can science truly dispense with metaphysics? Ironically, their dismissal of metaphysics amounts to a metaphysical position in itself. Logical positivists placed unwavering faith in empirical observation and maintained that scientific laws could universally explain reality. Yet, the universality of such laws cannot itself be observed directly. This inconsistency calls into question the logical positivists’ reliance on induction and inference. Their denial of metaphysics can be interpreted as an implicit metaphysical stance—one marked by scientific hubris. As Alan Wallace has pointed out, reducing truth to mere observation reflects an overly simplistic and reductive view of reality. 2.    The Discovery-Justification Divide One of the key distinctions made by logical positivists was between the context of discovery (how scientific theories originate) and the context of justification (how theories are validated). However, this strict separation oversimplifies the scientific process. Discovery and justification are often intertwined, and reducing science to an idealized process of justification ignores the creative and dynamic nature of scientific inquiry. 3.    Overemphasis on Mathematics Logical positivists gave mathematics a privileged status in science, believing in the possibility of complete mathematical formalization of scientific theories. However, developments in modern science—especially in quantum physics—have shown the limits of such formalization. Phenomena such as wave-particle duality, quantum uncertainty, and probabilistic interpretations resist comprehensive mathematical expression. Even logical positivists later recognized that only a few scientific theories could be fully mathematized, eventually leading them to abandon their earlier ambitions. 4.    The Notion of Meaning Invariance According to logical positivists, the meaning of scientific theories remains constant over time. They argued that scientific progress merely involves incremental additions rather than radical changes. However, the history of science tells a different story. Paradigm shifts, such as the transition from the geocentric to the heliocentric model, represent fundamental changes in scientific worldviews. Scientific concepts, theories, and explanatory models often undergo significant transformation, challenging the idea that science advances through mere accumulation of knowledge. 5.    The Division between Observational and Theoretical Terms Logical positivists made a sharp distinction between observational terms (O-terms) and theoretical terms (T-terms). Yet, this distinction is far from absolute. As scientific knowledge advances, many theoretical terms become integrated into observational frameworks. Moreover, the assumption of purely objective observation is questionable. Many philosophers and scientists now argue that observation is theory-laden—what we observe is influenced by our theoretical background. A simple statement like "the sun rises in the east" reflects an outdated geocentric perspective. Furthermore, the role of the observer has shifted; modern physics often speaks of the "participant" rather than a detached observer. Reality, in this sense, is seen as participatory. 6.    Verification Principle of Meaning Logical positivists held that the meaning of a statement lies in its empirical verifiability. They promoted inductivism as the only legitimate scientific method, claiming it could lead to infallible generalizations based on empirical facts. However, their verification principle is self-defeating, as it cannot be verified by its own standards. Additionally, inductive reasoning—central to scientific practice—cannot guarantee universal conclusions. For example, the assertion that water is always H2O assumes a universal truth based on limited observation. Logical positivists, by their own criteria, cannot justify such universal claims without violating their verification principle. Their rigid methodology also promotes methodological monism, ignoring the diversity of scientific methods. 7.    Critique by Historicism Historicism emerged as a strong counterpoint to logical positivism. Historicists sought to dismantle the myth of an entirely rational and objective science as portrayed by logical positivists. They emphasized that science is shaped by historical contexts and often contains non-rational and subjective elements. Historicists studied science as it was practiced, rather than prescribing how it should be. They argued that a scientist's worldview (Weltanschauung)—shaped by their background, education, passions, biases, and prejudices—plays a crucial role in scientific practice. This worldview influences how scientists perceive and interpret reality. As such, the claim of science to a unique and absolute truth, as upheld by logical positivists, is shown to be untenable. Science is one way of knowing among many, not an exclusive path to truth. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Tick (/) the appropriate: (a)    Logical Positivists deny metaphysics.                    True/False (b)    Logical Positivists over-emphasized the importance of Mathematics. True/False (c)    According to Logical Positivists, the scientific theories are always changing and evolving. True/False (d)    Logical Positivists did not make a sharp distinction between observational terms and theoretical terms.                            True/False (e)    For Logical Positivists, Verifiability becomes the criterion for meaning fullness. True/False 7.6    Summary Logical Positivism aimed to highlight the lack of meaning in metaphysical statements, both within science and beyond it. It emerged as a synthesis of two main traditions: the empirical focus of positivism and the analytical rigor of symbolic logic. Logical positivists clearly differentiated between observational language, which describes empirical data, and theoretical language, which refers to abstract scientific concepts. They argued that the philosophy of science should focus on the context of justification—how scientific theories are validated—rather than the context of discovery, which deals with how ideas originate. According to the verification principle, a non-necessary proposition is considered meaningful only if there is an empirical procedure to determine its truth or falsity. However, many of the core tenets of logical positivism have faced significant philosophical criticisms and are generally viewed as outdated in modern discussions of science and philosophy. 7.7    Glossary •    Vienna Circle – was a group of elite philosophers and scientists drawn from the natural and social sciences, Logic and mathematics who met regularly from 1924 to 1936 at the university of Vienna, chaired by Moritz Schlick. Members of the Vienna circle had a common attitude towards philosophy, characterized by two main beliefs: first, experience is the only source of knowledge, second, logical analysis performed with the help of symbolic logic is the preferred method for solving philosophical problems. •    Berlin Circle- was a group of philosophers and scientists who gathered round Hans Reichenbach in late 1920s and maintained logical empiricist views about philosophy. Among its other members were K.Grelling, C.G. Hempel, D. Hilbert, R. von Mises. •    Epistemological- relating to the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion. •    Metaphysics- the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time and space. •    Quantum Mechanics- is the field of physics that explains how extremely small objects simultaneously have the characteristics of both particles (tiny pieces of matter) and waves (a disturbance or variation that transfers energy). •    Agnostic- a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God. •    Inductivism – making an inference based on an observation. •    Megalomania- Obsession with the exercise of power. 7.8    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Logical Positivism emerged in the German-speaking world during the early twentieth century, primarily through the efforts of the Vienna Circle, led by Moritz Schlick, and the Berlin Circle, headed by Hans Reichenbach. 2.    This movement represented a distinctive perspective on knowledge in general, with specific emphasis on science and philosophy. The Logical Positivists pursued two main objectives: first, to reveal the lack of meaningfulness in metaphysical claims, and second, to establish a solid and reliable foundation for scientific inquiry. They were determined that this foundation should not be based on metaphysical speculation. In this regard, their approach stood in clear opposition to the methods proposed by the Kantians. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    According to A.F Chalmers, Logical Positivism is “an extreme form of empiricism according to which theories are not only to be justified by an appeal to facts acquired through observations, but are considered to have meaning only insofar as they can be so derived.” 2.    Logical Positivism acknowledges two forms of verification: one is "verification in practice," where actual verification can be carried out, and the other is "verification in principle," where verification may not be currently feasible but is considered possible in theory. 3.    For answer see Sub-Section 7.4.4 Self Check Exercise-3 1.    (a) True (b)    True (c)    False (d)    False (e)    True 7.9    Suggested Reading/References •    Beckwith, Burnham Putnam. Religion, Philosophy, and Science: An Introduction to Logical Positivism. New York: Philosophical Library, 1957. •    Carnap, Rudolf. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Basic Books, 1974. • Friedman, Michael. Reconsidering Logical Positivism. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 1999. •    Nagel, Ernest. The Structure of Science. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1961. • Reichenbach, Hans. Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1944. 7.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the various tenants of Logical Positivism. 2.    Critically Examine the various claims of Logical Positivism. ***** Block-II Unit-8 LIBERTARIANISM (PART-I) Structure 8.1    Introduction 8.2    Learning Objectives 8.3    What is Libertarianism? Self Check Exercise-1 8.4    Political Theory of Libertarianism 8.4.1    Individualism 8.4.2    Individual Rights and Liberty 8.4.3    Civil Society 8.4.4    Political Economy and the Problem of Redistribution 8.4.5    Rule of Law & Limited Government Self Check Exercise-2 8.5    Summary 8.6    Glossary 8.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises 8.8    Suggested Readings/References 8.9    Terminal Questions 8.1    Introduction With the rise of liberalism as a theory of welfare state in the twentieth century, its functions increased manifold. It was during this transformation that the state acquired its present all- pervasive form. However, the fight for classical liberalism was not given up. After the Second World War, an important contribution to the theory of liberalism was made by theorists whose allegiance lay with early classical liberalism. This new movement which became popular in the USA and England in the 1960s is known by the name, Libertarianism. Many libertarian texts have been written by people who only know North American political culture and society. They claim universal application for libertarianism, but it remains culture bound. The libertarian movement received large scale academic attention with the appearance in 1974 of a book ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’ by the Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick. The work achieved great acclaim for its brilliance of argument and was frequently bracketed with Rawls’s ‘A Theory of Justice’. It influenced the Thatcher/Reagan administrations of the 1980s. Etymologically, libertarianism means free will or free advocacy of liberty. It is the most radical form of individualism and advocates pure capitalist economy, as the surest expression and defence of individuality. In political theory, it answers once again the fundamental question i.e., what are the legitimate functions of the state in a radical way. Holding the liberty of the individual as sacrosanct, libertarianism asserts that welfare measures can lead to a collectivist state. Here one can ask if the liberal principles have been rooted in American and English political culture, why has this new term come into use. According to Martin Masse, this is because liberalism since the end of the 19th century has taken up a new meaning, which is not at all compatible with the defence of individual freedom. While in the UK, the so-called liberal parties are only a little more moderate than the socialists parties in their inclination to use state power. In the United States, a liberal was considered a left winger who advocated wealth redistribution and supported a big government that interferes everywhere in peoples lives, a government that tries to solve all real and imaginary problems by taxing and spending and creating bureaucratic programmes for each good cause. In short, today’s liberalism aims at creating a tyrannical state that does not hesitate to trample on individual freedom in the name of an unattainable collectivist utopia. This type of liberalism has nothing to do with classical liberalisin. Libertarianism, on the other hand, is inspired by former periods of liberal progress but after one century during which collectivist and totalitarian ideologies have donated, they realized that classical liberalism was not strong or principled enough to stem the rising tide of statism. They are more coherent or some may say radical than traditional liberals in their defence of personal liberty and market economy and in their opposition to state power. Libertarian scholars have shown that it is the decentralized action of the individual who pursue their own ends, a free market which makes it possible to create and maintain this spontaneous order to bring prosperity and to support the complex civilization in which we live. 8.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the learners will be able to know about the historical background, meaning and key concepts of Libertarianism. 8.3    What is Libertarianism? Much political and moral philosophy over the past three centuries has concerned itself with human liberty. The philosophical outlook on politics known as libertarianism takes this idea to its extreme, proposing to make liberty, the only interest that a state may properly have with respect to its citizen. The libertarian philosophy has been propounded by a number of scholars, prominent among them are F.A. Hayek, Karl Popper, Talmon, Milton Friedman, I. Berlin, M. Rothbard, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand. Taking liberty as the ultimate value, it asserts that in order to protect liberty, a society must have strong private property rights, a free market and minimal government. Some writers have termed libertarianism as ‘freedom’. The best way to understand the various terms is to know what libertarians believe in. In a few words, libertarianism believes that individual freedom is the fundamental value that must underlie all social relations, economic exchanges and the political system. Essentially libertarians preach freedom in all fields including the right to do what one wants with one’s man body insofar as one does not infringe on the property and equal freedom of others. They believe that voluntary cooperation between individuals in a free market is always preferable to coercion exerted by the state. They believe that the role of the state is not to pursue goals in the name of the community. The state is not there to redistribute wealth, ‘promote’ culture, ‘support’ the agriculture sector or ‘help’ small firms, but should limit itself to the protection of individual rights and let citizens pursue their own goals in a peaceful way. Libertarianism supports the formal equality of each and all before the law, but it worries little about the inequalities between the rich and the poor, inequalities which are inevitable and can be reduced only by encroaching on personal freedom and by reducing overall prosperity. For them, the best way to fight poverty is to guarantee a system of free enterprise and free trade and to let private charity initiatives which are more effective and better justified morally than state programmes of wealth transfer, come to the rescue of those in need. Libertarians believe that the only way to ensure the maintenance of personal freedom is to guarantee the inviolability of private property and to limit as much as possible the size of the government and the scope of its interventions. They do not trust the state in protecting individual liberty. Libertarianism is opposed to collectivist ideologies of all types, be it of the left or of the right which stress the primacy of the group, nation, social class, sexual or ethnic group, religious or language community etc. They oppose all whose purpose is to regiment individuals in the pursuit of collective goals. They do not deny the relevance of these collective identities, but claim that it is up to the individuals themselves to determine which group they wish to belong and contribute to. It is not for the state or for institutions that derive their power from the state to impose their own objectives in a bureaucratic and coercive manner. Thus, libertarianism rejects the main political developments of the 20th century, that is, the sustained growth in the size of the state and the range of its interventions in the private lives of the citizens. It is the only one that demands and works for radical change, a drastic reduction of the size and role of the state, they are the only ones who value individual freedom above all else. More and more people realize that libertarianism constitutes the only alternative. The libertarian movement hardly existed in the 1960s but really took off in the Unites States in the early 1970s. Whereas collectivist philosophies and Keynesian economics used to dominate academic life, recently there has been a revival of interest in classical liberalism and free market economy throughout the world. After a century of eclipse, classical liberalism in its libertarian offspring is becoming an influential philosophical doctrine and movement in the 21st century. Like all philosophical movements, libertarianism is varied, containing several schools and sub-groups and one will find no unanimity about its theoretical justifications, its goals or the strategy that should be adopted to reach them. Mainly, there are two types of libertarianism and each has its own answers to the queries. One group, the anarchists or also known as ‘anarcho-capitalists’ advocate the complete disappearance of the state and privatisation of even the basic functions mentioned above. This goal may appear extreme or ridiculous at first sight, but it is based on a theoretically plausible argument. It is for example, easy to imagine that one could replace provincial state or municipal police forces (with the corruption, abuses of power, the incompetence and favouritism which usually characterize them all and often with impunity) with private security agencies. These would make profits only in so far as they really protect citizens and fight real criminals. Anarchocapitalists use the same type of arguments to support the privatisation of the army and the courts which would leave nothing for a state to do. Private firms would then provide all the services that individuals might need in a pure free market. In a context where public spending now accounts for almost half of all that is produced where governments continue to adopt law after law so as to increase their control over our life. A more realistic libertarian goal is simply to reverse this trend and fight for any practical advance of freedom and any concrete reduction in state tyranny. The other branch is known as ‘miniarchists’ who maintain that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts and national defence, foreign relations, justice, the protection of private property and individual rights. All remaining functions should be privatised. In the context of a very decentralized federal state, libertarians accept, however, that local authorities can intervene in other fields and offer various types of social and economic arrangements in so far as dissatisfied citizens can easily move to other jurisdictions. Definitely not included, according to miniarchists, is the power to tax, even to secure money for the functions just mentioned, The question arises: why the libertarians endorse these views so sharply a variance with most political theory? Firstly, libertarians hold an extremely strong doctrine of individual rights, particularly the right of individuals to acquire and hold property. Their concept of property rights and freedom of contract excludes welfare rights, since claims to these rights require in the libertarian view compulsory labour of some on behalf of other. Secondly, libertarians believe that the operation of an unrestricted system of laissez faire capitalism is the most desirable social system. People unfettered by state compulsions would be likely to establish this sort of economic system and it is all for the best that they do. We shall study all these aspects in detail in the next section. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    How Libertarianists are different from traditional Liberals? 2.    Name some prominent propounders of libertarian Philosophy. 3.    Who wrote the book ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’. 4.    Differentiate between Anarcho-Capitalists and Miniarchists. 5.    What is Libertarianism? 8.4    Political Theory of Libertarianism It is claimed that the key concepts of the political theory of libertarianism have developed over many centuries. The first inklings of them can be found in ancient China, Greece and Israel. They began to be developed into something resembling modern libertarian philosoply in the work of such seventeenth and eighteenth century thinkers as John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine. In the twentieth century, they were reinvented by neo-liberal thinkers such as Michael Oakeshott, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman Robert Nozick etc. While these scholars have given a new intellectual impetus to the libertarian movement, a growing concern for personal autonomy has provided personal ground for the sowing of the idea. Some of the important concepts of libertarian theory are as follows: 8.4.1    Individualism While the libertarian ideal of individualism has certain family resemblance with the neo- classical defence of capitalism, anarcho-individualism and classical liberalism, it is reducible to none of these. Libertarianism can only be understood against the backdrop of the emergence of totalitarianism and the modern welfare state since the 1930s. Libertarians see the individual as the basic unit of social analysis. Only individuals make choices and are responsible for their actions. Libertarian thought emphasizes the dignity of the individual, which entails both rights and responsibility. The progressive extension of dignity to more people-to women, to people of different religious and different races-is one of the great libertarian triumphs of the western world. Libertarianism represents the most radical form of individualism, short of outright anarchism. Along with it, it exalts the pure capitalist economy as the surest expression and defence of individuality. Nevertheless, the near anarchism of some libertarian doctrines have prompted the expression ‘anarcho-capitalism’. However, the libertarian defence of capitalism would legitimise a degree of economic inequity that true anarchists could not abide. The works of Ayn Rand are a leading expression of the libertarian ideal of individualism, even if it sometimes takes an extreme and occasionally unrepresentative form. Utterly rejecting any theological notions or ideas that rank the community over the individual, she held that the individual is the basic unit of society, the prime focus of moral concern and the sole source of human creativity. According to her, the root cause of our modern troubles is the philosophy of altruism, a moral position that effectively destroys the supreme value of individuality, Altruism the notion that man should place the welfare of others above his own- is the root of all evils and not money. Indeed, money is cherished as the just reward and fair estimation of the individual’s inherent excellence. For Rand, altruism is a vice and selfishness is a virtue, though selfishness does not mean a petty snivelling self-indulgence but accepting full personal responsibility for one’s life and fate. Altruism is the villain of the peace because it plays upon the morbid guilt feelings of the donor and keeps the recipient in a state of childish subservience. Neither party can develop a mature confident outlook on life which should culminate in a fair and equitable and truly voluntary exchange of goods and services. The ethics of altruism is always gratuitous; it preaches that someone has a prescriptive right to a free ride on someone else’s back. According to this theory, the notion that one person should sacrifice himself for the sake of another is radically evil. It is an affront to human dignity and an open invitation to prefer death over life. 8.4.2    Individual Rights and Liberty Central to libertarianism is the claim that the individual should be free from the interference of others. Personal liberty is the supreme moral good. Hence, one’s liberty can justifiably be restricted only if he consents to the restriction. Any other restriction, including taxing incomes for the purpose of redistribution is unjust. In other words, the libertarians coach their theory in the language of rights. Each individual has natural negative rights to atleast life, liberty and property. No one can justifiably harm him, restrict his freedom, or take his property, i.e., no one can violate his rights without his consent. And since rights invariably have correlative duties, all the people in the world have the duty not to interfere with the rightholder’s life, liberty and property. Each person possesses these rights simply by virtue of his humanity -he does not have to do anything to obtain this moral protection. The possession of rights does not depend upon the consent of others. They are essential moral constituents of personhood. They are not granted by the government or by the society; they are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is intuitively right that individuals enjoy the security of such rights; the burden of explanation should lie with those who would take these rights away. Libertarian theorists often move back and forth between talk of negative rights and talk of liberty. This, according to Hugh La Follette, is because they ultimately see rights and liberty as equivalent or because they held a theory of rights which is grounded in personal liberty. There are no circumstances in which the negative general rights can be justifiably overridden in which one’s liberty can he justifiably limited without his consent. For example, A’s right to properly (or life or liberty) can never be overridden for the benefit of others (to satisfy the alleged positive rights of others). ‘A’ can choose to charitably give his property to someone or he can voluntarily give someone a positive right to his property, Nevertheless, morally he cannot be forced-either by sanctions or moral rules-to give up his life, liberty or property. This moral/legal prohibition insures that an individual’s liberty cannot be restricted in any way without his consent. In the context of rights, what is important to note is that libertarians make a distinction between negative and positive rights. For example, take the general right to life; in its negative version, It says that only others must not kill (or take the life of) the rightholder but in its positive version, it would also require that others do something to help save the rightholder’s life. It is possible for them to do so. The importance of this distinction is that the libertarian holds that people have no basic positive riglits-that all positive obligations have to be in some way assured or undertaken by the obligated Individual i.e. by promising that he will perform the indicated action. Thus, we see two important features of libertarinniam. First the primary purpose of negative general rights is the protection of individual liberty, to ensure that no one’s life is restricted without his consent. Or as Nozick puts it: “side constraints (which are equivalent to negative general rights) upon action reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means; they cannot be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent... (these constraints reflect the fact of our separate existences)’. They reflect the fact that no more balancing act can take place among us. Secondly, the libertarian holds that a sufficient reason to reject any alleged morel rule or principle of distributive justice is that such a rule or principle restricts someone’s freedom without his consent. Hayek, for example argues that we should reject plans to expand governmental roles since such expansion necessarily undermines individual liberty. And Nozick’s primary objection to Rawls is that Rawls’s two principles restrict individual liberty without consent. As mentioned above, much political and moral philosophy over the centuries has concerned itself with human liberty. However, the philosophical outlook on politics known as libertarianism, takes this idea to its extreme, proposing to make liberty the only interest that a state may properly have with respect to its citizens. Libertarianism takes liberty as our sole right (this is also called ‘deontological libertarianism*) against considering liberty as the sole value to be promoted by the government and the individual. The point of malting liberty a general rights is to prevent the government from forcing people to do things. According to it, our sole fundamental right is the right to liberty, all other rights are subordinate to that— they are either special cases of that one or derived from directly or indirectly. Just like the concept of negative rights, libertarianism also emphasizes the negative aspect of liberty i.e., liberty as absence of imposition by other people, specifically those impositions that are caused by their intentional actions. In this version, each person is to be entitled to do as that person likes, or judges best, except only when his or her action would impose on others- would interfere with the intended desired courses of action of someone else or (if this is different) damage that person, in the sense of doing what that person did not want to be done with or to his or her body or mind. It is as Hobbes called ‘absence of external impediments’ or ‘seeking peace’, that is, of not ‘making war’ on others, or as Locke termed it ‘not harming them in respect of life, health, liberty or property’; or Kant’s version of acting only on maxims that can coexist along with the freedom of the will of each and all’. These have been echoed in the contemporary American philosopher John Rawls’ formulation of a liberty principle that ‘each person participating in a practice, or affected by it has an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others’. What is important in all these versions is that the emphasis on the negative liberty; people encounter each other and in doing so they are to refrain from actions that would cause the other person harm, danger, disease and the like. Any other actions are permissible whether or not they have the effect of ‘maximising’ something. Again coercion is also thought to collide with liberty. Libertarians also take liberty as the ‘absence of coercion’ and they condemn it along with overt force. The natural baseline to which libertarians appeal for liberty is our body. The libertarians hold that we ought to make anyone’s liberty into a right, that is, we ought to make it the case that imposition or proposed impositions against anyone’s liberty is a ground for taking action to rectify or prevent them, and that is what the libertarian principle does. This right, is equivalent to the right of self-ownership. Each person would be regarded as ‘owning himself in the same straightforward sense as that in which we can own all sorts of things such as cars and footballs, namely, being able to do what one wants to with the self in question; at the same time, one is not able to do that with others, rather, their willingness or consent must be established before one may do things with others. And last but not the least, why would people value liberty”? For the libertarians, liberty is not another good like peanut butter or a car. It is rather a necessary condition of action, in the sense that if we do x, it has to have been the case by definition that nothing prevented us from doing it. Liberty is the condition of being able to do whatever it is, the liberty to do which is in question. In other words, it is not really up in the air whether liberty is a good thing or not. Liberty is as good as whatever can be achieved by acting. According to libertarians, liberty is not a value, it is a condition of action. 8.4.3    Civil Society A great degree of order in society is necessary for individuals to survive and flourish. It is easy to assume that order must be imposed by a central authority, the way we impose order on a stamp collection or a football team. The great insight of libertarian social analysis is that order in society arises spontaneously, out of the action of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their action with those of others in order to achieve their purpose, over human history. We have gradually opted for more freedom and yet managed to develop a complex society with an intricate organization. The most important organization in human society-law, language, money and markets-all developed spontaneously without central direction. Civil society is another example of spontaneous order. The associations within civil society are formed for a purpose, but civil society itself is not an organization and does not have a purpose of its own. The associations we form with others can make up what we call civil society. Those associations can take an amazing variety of forms-family, churches, schools, clubs, fraternal societies, condominium associations, neighbourhood groups and the myrind forms of commercial society such as partnerships, corporations, labour unions and trade associations. All these associations serve human needs in different ways. Civil society may be broadly defined as all the natural and voluntary associations in society. Some analysts distinguish between commercial and profit organizations, arguing that business is a part of the market and not of civil society, but according to Bauz, the real distinction is between associations that are coercive i.e., the state, and those that are natural or voluntary. Whether a particular association is established to make a profit or to achieve some other purpose, the key characteristics is that our participation in it is voluntarily chosen. It should be noted that the associations within the civil society are created to achieve a particular purpose but civil society, as a whole has no purpose. It is the undersigned, spontaneously emerging result of all those purposive associations. These associations give people connections with other people. No one of them, however, exhausts one’s personality and defines one completely. In this libertarian conception, we connect to different people in different ways on the basis of free and voluntary consent. Ernest Gellner says that modem civil society requires a ‘modular man’. Instead of a man who is entirely the product of and absorbed by a particular culture, modular man can combine into specific purpose, ad hoc, limited associations, without binding himself by some blood ritual. He can form links with others which are ‘effective even though are flexible, specific, instrumental, and as individuals combine in myriad ways, community emerges; not the close community of the village or the messianic community promised by, say for example, by marxism, national socialism and all fulfilling religions, but a community of free individuals in voluntary chosen associations. Individuals do not emerge from community, community emerges from individuals. It emerges not because anyone plans it, certainly not because the state creates it, but because it must. To fulfil their needs and desires, individuals must combine with others. Society is an association of individuals governed by legal rules or perhaps an association of associations, but not one large community, or one family. Membership in a group need not diminish one’s individuality; it can amplify it, by freeing people from the limits they face as lone individuals and increasing their opportunities to achieve their own goals. Such a view of the community requires that membership be chosen and not compulsory: 8.4.4    Political Economy and the Problem of Redistribution Libertarianism claims that the only economic order that respects individual freedom is the free market. To them, the free market is an example of freedom in action. At the heart of the free market is the voluntary bilateral exchange. If two parties exchange some goods voluntarily or make some contract voluntarily, then so long as this does not involve the violation of another’s rights, no one has the right to interfere in it. According to libertarians, the free market is the sum of the voluntary exchanges and contracts going on in a society, nothing more and nothing less Any distribution that occurs in the operation of a free market is therefore, just since at no stage has anyone’s right been violated and all the exchanges were voluntary. For example, Hayek proposed that the rules of conduct in a society are evolving, that they survive because they are useful and help that society survive. The market, he believed, had survived the test of time, in that the most successful societies were market based in some way. The market is superior to other economic systems, since at handles human ignorance by passing information in coded form through the price mechanism which indicates areas where profits could be made and resources efficiently used. It does all this and allocates resources, without being predicated on any specific goals or assuming what the goals of the people are. It also facilitates freedom, in that for it to work, there need to be rules demarcating ‘protected domains” for each person where no other has the right to interfere. The market arises from the fact that humans can accomplish more in cooperation with each other than individually and the fact that, we can recognize this. If we were a species for whom cooperation was not more productive than isolated work, or if we were unable to discern the benefits of cooperation, then we would not only remain isolated and atomistic, but as Ludwig Von Mises explains, “each man would have been forced to view all other men as his enemies, his craze for the satisfaction of his own appetites would have brought him into an implacable conflict with all his neighbours”. Without the possibility of mutual benefit from cooperation and the division of labour, neither feelings of sympathy and friendship nor the market order itself could arise. Those who say that “humans are made for cooperation, and not competition” may fail to recognize that the market is cooperation. Many people accept that markets are necessary, but still feel that there is something vaguely immoral about them; they feel that markets lead to inequality or they dislike the self-interest reflected in markets. Markets are often called “brutal or dog-cats-dog, But libertarians believe that markets are not only essential to economic progress, but that they are more consensual and lead to more virtue and equality than government coercion. This is done through: i) information and coordination, ii) prices, iii) efficiency in production, iv) technological innovations, and v) competition. Firstly, markets are based on consent. No businessman sends an invoice for a product not ordered. No business can force anyone to trade. Businessmen try to find out what is required by the consumers. Whatever is produced is done so in response to or in anticipation of consumer demand, since the only way in which the producers can maximize his own position is by selling his goods to the consuming population. But where do they get the information? It is not in a massive book. In the market economy, it is not embodied in orders from a planning agency. Secondly, this vital information about other peoples’ wants is embodied in prices. Prices do not just tell us how much something costs at the store. The price system pulls together, all the information available in the economy about what each person wants, how much he values it and how it can best be produced. Prices make that information usable to the producer and the consumer. Each price contains within it information about consumer demands and about costs of production, ranging from the amount of labour needed to produce the item to the cost of labour to the bad weather on the other side of the world that is raising the price of the raw meterials needed to produce the good. The information that prices deliver allows people to work together to produce more. The point of an economy is not just to produce more things. It is to produce more things that people want. Prices tell all of us what other people want. The price system reflects the choices of millions of producers, consumers, and resource owners who may never meet and coordinates their efforts. Although we can never feel affection for or even meet everyone in the economy, market prices help to work together to produce more of what everyone wants. Unlike a government which at best takes the will of the majority and imposes it on everyone, market uses prices to let buyers and sellers freely decide what they want to do with their money. Thirdly, competition between producers ensures that the most efficient ones to supply the consumer market since only they will be able to produce goods cheaply. The consumer, in maximizing his economic welfare, purchases only at the lowest available price. Fourthly, since producers can improve their economic position by expanding their market, each producer will be in constant competition with others. Seeking to expand one’s market can be accomplished only by reducing prices (price competition), and this can be achieved only by reducing production costs via technological innovations. The system automatically generates technological change and development. And lastly, the market system is highly competitive. As explained above, it is precisely through competition that it can be found how things can be produced at the least cost, by discovering who will sell raw material or labour services for the lowest price. Any interference with the competition between economic units will defeat the system’s ability to provide automatically the advantages described above. Also rapid and smooth shifts of labour and capital must be possible from one industry to another. People are motivated by material well being and by economic gain. Hence, to the extent that they are deprived of economic incentives, the market mechanism will break down or seriously compromised as a basis for allocation of goods and service. The basic question, according to libertarians, is how to combine all the resources in society including human effort to produce the greatest possible output which will satisfy people most. It is through competition to attract new customers that this coordination is generated. It is possible that many firms may not do well and could be out of business. This, according to libertarians, is the ‘creative destruction’ of the market. Harsh as the consumers judgement may feel to someone who loses a job or an investment, the market works on the principle of equality. In a free market, no firm gets special privileges from the government and each must constantly satisfy consumers to stay in business. Thus, far from inducing self-interest, as critics charge, in the market place the fact of self-interest induces people to serve others. Markets reward honesty because people are more willing to do business with those who have a reputation for honesty. Markets reward civility because people prefer to deal with courteous partners and suppliers. Apart from defending market freedoms and limitations on the use of the state for social welfare policies, libertarians are opposed to any redistributive taxation scheme. It believes that redistributive taxation is inherently wrong, a violation of the people’s right. People have a right to dispose of their goods and services freely. As Nozick put it, people have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, a state and its officials may do. This has been best explained by Robert Nozick in his famous entitlement theory. The central theme of the Entitlement Theory is that if we assume that everyone is entitled to the goods they currently possess (their holdings) then a just distribution is simply whatever distribution results from peoples free exchanges. Any distribution that arises by free transfer from a just situation is itself just. For the government to tax these exchanges against anyone’s will is unjust, even if the taxes are used to compensate the extra cost of someone’s undeserved natural handicap. The only legitimate taxation is to raise revenues for maintaining the background institutions needed to protect the system of free exchange i.e. the police and the justice system needed to enforce peoples’ free exchanges. This entitlement theory is based upon three principles: i) the principle of transfer i.e., whatever is justly acquired can be freely transferred, ii) the principle of just initial acquisition i.e., how people come to own things initially, which can be transferred according to the first principle, iii) principle of rectification of injustice, i.e. how to deal with acquisitions which are unjustly acquired or transferred. To given an example, if I own a plot of land, the principle of transfer tells me to engage in any transfer I wish. The principle of acquisition tells me how the plot initially came to be owned, and the principle of rectification of justice tells me what to do if the first two principles are violated. Taken together, if peoples’ current holdings are justly acquired, then the formula of just distribution is: from each as they choose, to each as they are chosen. Nozick gives two arguments as to why the claim of peoples entitlement should be accepted: i) free exercise of property is more attractive, and ii) property right lies in ‘self-ownership’. The first argument i.e. free exercise of property is more attractive; it is that if we have legitimately acquired something, we have absolute property rights over if. Then we can freely dispose it off as we see fit, even though the effect of these transfers is likely to he a massively unequal distribution of income and opportunity. Given that some people are born with different natural talents, some people will be amply rewarded while those who lack marketable skills will get few rewards. Due to these under served differences in natural talents, some people will flourish while others will starve. These inequalities are the result of unrestrained capitalism. Though he admits that it seems unfair for people to suffer undeserved inequalities in their access to the benefits of social cooperation, but the problem is that people have rights over their income. As he says, ‘no one has a right to something whose realization requires certain uses of things and activities that other people have rights and entitlements.’ The second argument is the principle of selfownership. By this Nozics means that people should be treated as “end-in-themselves”. The heart of Nozick’s theory is that ‘individuals have rights. and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). Society must respect these rights because they reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means. They may not be sacrificed or used for the achievements of others’ ends, without their consent’. Because we are distinct individuals with distinct claims, there are limits to the sacrifices that can be asked of one person for the benefit of others. Libertarian society treats individuals not ‘as instruments or resources’ but as ‘persons having individual rights with the dignity this constitutes’. In short entitlement theory believes that recognizing people as selfowners is crucial to treating people as equal, and only unrestricted capitalism recognizes self-ownership. 8.4.5    Rule of law & Limited Government Libertarianism is not libertinism or hedonism. It is not a claim that ‘people can do anything they want to and nobody else can say anything’. Rather, libertarianism proposes a society of liberty under law, in which individuals are free to pursue their own lives so long as they respect the equal rights of others. The rule of law means that individuals are governed by generally applicable and spontaneously developed legal rules, not by arbitrary commands; and that those rules should protect the freedom of individuals to pursue happiness in their own way, not aim at any particular result or outcome. To protect rights, individuals form governments, but government is a dangerous institution. As stated above, libertarianism arose as a reaction against the social welfare state. Hayek in his book, ‘The Road to Serfdom warned that the adoption of welfare/socialist policies would bring totalitarian government in the long run. Any tolerable future for the western civilization would demand that the socialist ideas be abandoned and classical liberalism may be restored once again. Like early liberals, he considered the state the greatest enemy and any interference with the right to private property as an assault upon the rights of the individuals. On the economic side, Milton Friedman suggested that competitive capitalism promotes political freedom because it separates economic power from political power and in this way, enables one to offset the other. Another writer Ralf Dahrendorf complained that the welfare state produces the iron cage of bureaucratic bondage and to a great extent repeated the traditional liberal attitude of suspicion towards the government and the state. As he writes, ‘there is no such thing as benevolent government. Government is an unfortunate necessity. It is always and by definition liable to encroach upon the individual liberties. More than that, there is a need for less government’. A more powerful definition of the libertarian view of the minimal state has been developed by Robert Nozick in his book ‘Anarchy, State and Utopla’. Nozick talks about the state in the context of individual rights. Following the tradition of John Locke, Nazick speaks of prior and inalienable rights of the individual possessed independent of society. He says that rights are the property of the individual and are so strong and far reaching that they raise a number of basic questions such as: what, if anything, the state may do? How much mom do individual rights leave for the state? What is the nature of the state? What are its legitimate functions and what is its justification? The state, according to Nozick, should be a minimal state, limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contract and so on. Any more extensive state will violate the person’s right not to be forced to do certain things and as such would be unjustified. The minimal state is inspiring as well as right. What is important is that the state must not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizen to aid others, and prohibit activities of people for their own good or protection. Since Nozick strongly believes in the rights of the individuals, he seriously considers the anarchists claim that the monopoly of use of force by the state may violate the individual’s rights and hence, the state is immoral. Against this claim, Nozick argues that the state will arise from anarchy even though no one intends this. Individuals in the state of nature would find it in their interest to allow a ‘dominant protective agency’ to emerge which would have de facto monopoly of force and could constitute a state like entity. The formation of such an entity, if done in an appropriate way, may violate no one’s rights, i.e. if it does not go beyond its legitimate powers of protection, justice and defence. Justifying the minimal state, he categorically asserts that liberty must get absolute precedence over equality. He opposed the policies of progressive taxation and positive discrimination and asserts that realization of liberty should not be inhibited by the policies of the government in providing public health care, education or minimum standard of living. He argued that those who own wealth may voluntarily adopt some redistribution. He is against any redistribution of property by the state because it may transgress the liberty of those who have property. For Nozick, the state is no more than a night watchman, protecting the inviolable rights of the citizens. He asserts that the ‘welfare’ which advocates that it is the society which allocates resources is not only wrong, but illegitimate because there is no such thing as ‘society’ except in the minimal sense of being an aggregate of individuals. There are only individual people with their own individual lives and society is no more than the sum of its individual components. State intervention means appropriation of both ‘one’s resources and one’s self’. And ‘seizing the results of someone’s labour is equivalent to seizing hours from him and directing him to carry on various activities. If people force you to do certain work or unrewarded work, for a certain period of time, they decide what you are to do and what purpose your work is to serve apart from your decisions. This process whereby they take this decision from you makes them a part-owner of you, it gives them a property right to you. Thus, the welfare state is a threat to liberty and independence of the Individuals because individual is the sole owner of himself and his talent How far is the non-interventionist, minimal and market dominated concept of libertarian state justified? Nozick’s views are based on certain inalienable rights of the individual, possessed independent of society. However, a feature of the modern state is that it has recognized a range of individual rights which were not recognized by ancient Greek or medieval society. Rights are socially and historically constituted. In fact, the rights which Nozick defends are actually those rights which were historically specific to the market and were defined and constituted in the context of capitalist relations. They were neither natural nor prior to the state. Secondly, if the resource allocation is to be done by the market, it cannot be equal because in a capitalist society, the market also privileges some groups over others within the system of production and exchange. Hence, the idea of n free and sovereign individual choosing what to do with his resources is a myth. Nozick’s account of the minimum state fails because it contains no theory of taxation. For this reason, other libertarian scholars insist that taxation be according to general rules, uniformly applied. For example, Hayek and Friedman have argued that only a system of proportional taxation is fully consistent with the libertarian requirements. Proportional taxation would prevent the imposition of redistributive taxation on wealthy and unpopular minorities and would, thereby, remove a major area of arbitrariness from public policy. They advocate that the taxation policy be governed by general rules so that governments are prevented in their service activities from curbing economic freedom in subtle and covert ways. In short, the concept of limited government propounded by the libertarians acknowledges the state as a permanent necessary evil, in doing so, it exploits the insights of philosophers such as Adam Smith. As Hayek admits, there is spontaneous order in social life, but qualifies that insight with the recognition that the spontaneous process of society can only be beneficial against a background of legal institutions in which the basic liberties are guaranteed for all. The libertarian concept of the state eschews no less firmly the revisionary conception of government as the guardian and provider of general welfare, empowered to act on its own discretionary authority in the parsuit of the common good - a conception whose reality is everywhere that of a weak government, prey to collusive interest groups and incapable of delivering even the security in enjoyment of basic liberties which is the state’s only title to authority. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    What are the key concepts associated with libertarian theory? 2.    Why libertarians are opposed to any redistributive taxation. 8.5    Summary Libertarianism is one of the streams of liberalism. It accepts self as unencumbered and is suspicious of state. Libertarians are normally considered comfortable with conservatism. But as argued by libertarians they rapidly accept changing situations and change their policies accordingly. They believe that human beings are capable of looking after their own affairs if they are not disturbed. The role of the state is minimum. With the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1980s, libertarianism came into mainstream philosophical discourse. Margaret Thatcher was a fan of Hayek’s philosophy and tried to implement ideas exhibited in Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty. The free market capitalism continued to rise in the policies of different countries. It also got impetus from rapid globalization. 8.6    Glossary •    Anarcho-Capitalism : It is an anti-statist, libertarian and anti political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralised states in favour of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies. In the absence of state, anarcho-capitalists hold that society tends to contractually self-regulated and civilize through participation in the free-market, which they describe as a voluntary society involving the voluntary exchange of services and goods. •    Laissez-faire Capitalism : It is an economic philosophy of free market capitalism that opposes government intervention. •    Anarcho Individualism : It is the branch of anarchism that emphasizes the individual and their will over external determinants such as groups, society, traditions and ideological systems. •    Totalitarianism : It is a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the State. •    Altruism : the notion that man should place the welfare of others above his own. •    Deontological Libertarianism : It is the form of Libertarianism officially supported by the Libertarian Party in the United States. •    Hedonism : The doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life. 8.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Libertarianists are more coherent or some may say radical than traditional liberals in their defence of personal liberty and market economy and in their opposition to state power. 2.    Some prominent propounders of libertarian philosophy include F.A. Hayek, Karl Popper, Miltion Friedman, I. Berlin, M. Rothbard, Robert Nozick, Ayn Rand, etc. 3.    Robert Nozick. 4.    Mainly, there are two types of libertarianists. One group, the anarchists or also known as ‘anarcho-capitalists’ advocate the complete disappearance of the state and privatization of even the basic functions of the state including army, police and courts. The another group, miniarchists, on the other hand maintain that government may appropriately engage in police protection, enforcement of contracts and national defence, foreign relations, justice, the protection of private property and individual rights. All remaining functions should be privatized. 5.    For answer See Section 8.3 (Second Para) Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Some of the key concepts associated with libertarian theory are: individualism, individual rights and liberties, civil society organizations, free market economy, rule of law, limited government, laissez-faire policy, etc 2.    Libertarians are opposed to any redistributive taxation scheme. It believes that redistributive taxation is inherently wrong, a violation of the people’s right. People have a right to dispose of their goods and services freely. As Nozick put it, people have rights and there are things no person or group may do to them (without violating their rights). So strong and far reaching are these rights that they raise the question of what, if anything, a state and its officials may do. They may not be sacrificed or used for the achievement of other’s ends, without their consent. In this line, the libertarians consider a welfare state with welfare policies for its citizens as immoral. 8.8    Suggested Readings/References •    Cohen, G.A. “Nozick on appropriation”. New Left Review, 150, 89-105, 1985. •    Friedman, D. The machinery of freedom: Guide to a radical capitalism. Illinois: Open Court, 1989. •    Hayek F.A., New studies in philosophy, politics, economics, and the history of ideas. London: Routledge, 1978. •    Kukathas, C., Hayek and modern liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 •    Mises, L.V., Liberalism: A socio-economic exposition. Kansas : Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, Inc, 1948 •    Nagel, T., “Libertarianism without Foundations”. Yale Law Journal. (K/29/A4) 8,1975 •    Narveson, J., The libertarian idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1988. •   Nozick, R. Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974 •   Rothbard, M., The ethics of liberty. New York: New York University Press, 1998. •    Russell, P. Nozick, Need and charity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 4(2), 1987, 205-216 •    Scheffler, S., “Natural rights, equality, and the minimal state”. In E. Paul (ed.), Reading Nozick. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. pp. 148-158, 1982. 8.9    Terminal Questions 1.    Explain in your own words the meaning of Libertariatism. 2.    Discuss the views of Libertarianists about individual rights and liberty. 3.    Discuss the Key concepts of Libertarian Theory. ***** Unit-9 LIBERTARIANISM (PART-II) Structure 9.1    Introduction 9.2    Learning Objectives 9.3    Form of Libertarianism Self Check Exercise-1 9.4    Libertarian Political Thinkers 9.4.1    Robert Nozick and Entitlement Theory 9.4.2    Friedrich Hayek Self Check Exercise-2 9.5    Critical Evaluation of Libertarianism Self Check Exercise-3 9.6    Summary 9.7    Glossary 9.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises 9.9    Suggested Readings/References 9.10    Terminal Questions 9.1    Introduction This unit is in continuation to the last unit. In the previous unit, we discussed about the background, meaning and key concepts of libertarianism. In this unit, our focus will be on the various forms of libertarianism; Libertarian thinkers like Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek; and the critical evaluation of Libertarianism. 9.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the learners will be able to: •    Know about the different forms of Libertarianism. •    Understand the views of some important libertarianists like Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek. •    Make a critical evaluation of libertarianism. 9.3    Forms of Libertarianism Libertarianism is not a monolithic doctrine. There are various trends in it. Feser says that there are at least three varieties that we can clear-cut identify that differ in extremeness. If we begin from the least strict end of the libertarian, we have economists like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman who argue for the free market and the ideal of limited government and, thus, stand at the least strict end of the libertarian thinking. They believe that many important works like welfare education and health care could be done better by the private sector, that is, private corporations, communities, and individuals. But they have no objection if the government also works in many of these areas. Hayek for instance advocates a minimal state and its policy to provide safety measures for those who are incapable of supporting themselves. Friedman also suggests some schemes for providing financial support for the education of child by the state. These libertarians do not outright reject the role of state in the welfare of the citizens but advocate squeezing of functions and power of state at appropriate places. The stream to which they belong may be called moderate libertarianism. On the other extreme stands libertarian anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. Thinkers like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman belong to this stream. They believe that there is no legitimate reason for the existence and continuation of the state. They argue that even the work of police protection and national defence be given to private firms. In between these two extreme stands the standard or canonical version of libertarianism that believes in the limited role of the state. The state exists for protecting individual rights of life, liberty, and property and for that it should provide internal and external security to the citizens and also administer justice through courts of law. The state does illegitimate work if it goes beyond these functions. Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, and Robert Nozick represent this stream. This stream is known as minimal state libertarianism. Along with streams, there are two types of major arguments for the defence of libertarianism as provided by Kukathas and Pettit. These are pragmatic and principled defences. The pragmatic argument is based on empirical data whereby historical and sociological studies suggest that free market policies are better than welfare state policies. Principled defence on the other hand emphasize on the moral superiority of the libertarian position over other philosophies. A free market regulated by ‘invisible hand’ (notion popularized by Adam Smith) is the best way not only to attain economic efficiency but also justice, protection of rights, and the good life. The invisible hand theory is the only plausible explanation of smooth running of the economy. Post crisis, twists, and turns, economy recovers in unexpected ways. It exhibits as someone did this. A similar unexplainable phenomenon is known in biological realm. As per evolutionary theory, complicated organisms have evolved through a genetic mutation of natural selection in an unthinkable, impersonal process. Same is the case of language in human beings. The development of language requires a level of intelligence that is possible only through possession of language. This development is also unexplainable in rational terms while upholding the right of freedom as the ultimate right of human beings. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    What are main forms/trends in the spectrum of Libertarianism. Name them alongwith their main exponents. 9.4    Libertarian Political Thinkers9.4.1    Robert Nozick and Entitlement Theory Robert Nozick wrote ‘Anarchy, State and Utopia’ in 1974, and that bolstered philosophical libertarianism. Nozick’s appeal for libertarianism is on moral grounds. It is for the protection, respect, and naturalness of rights that we require libertarian government. Accepting the argument of Immanuel Kant that individuals be taken as an end and not as a means, Nozick describes human beings as owner of oneself. It means that they own their bodies, mind, abilities, and labour. To define one’s own we require rights, particularly of life, liberty, and property. These rights delimit the ways person is to be treated. From this description, Nozick concludes that taxation is morally illegitimate. Taxation is a forcible extraction of time, labour, and money of citizens. In this line of argument, a welfare state with welfare policies for its citizens is also immoral. In such a case, the only moral state is minimal state that governs the least. The critics of minimal states argue that for distributive justice, a state that is more powerful and with more work in hand is required. Nozick answered by saying that the notion of distributive justice is wrong. The concept of distribution of justice, primarily in terms of material distribution, requires such wealth or material benefits be distributed justly. It does not care about how this wealth has come into existence. It is something given. What we require is an entitlement theory of justice. It is more practical and moral. There are three principles. Principle of acquisition- Appropriation of natural resources that no one has ever owned before. John Locke gives one example of this principle when he argues in his theory of property that by mixing his labour with previously unknown part of nature one owns it as their property. Principle of transfer- It explains the manner in which transfer of something from one owner to another is justified. Nozick believes that only voluntary transfer is morally justifiable where both parties agree on the terms of transfer. Principle of rectification- If some injustice in done in the first two principles then this principle paves the way to rectify that injustice. So if anyone gets things as per these three principles they are entitled to them. So the distribution of wealth as per distributive justice is to be done based on the theory of entitlement. This distribution is just even if it looks unfair or unequal. Nozick argues that the theories of justice are (1) either end-result or historical, and (2) either patterned or unpatterned. End-result theory of justice is concerned with the end of justice. After choosing an option, what determines the justness of action is the end result and whether the end-result is just or not. The process of reaching that end is not important, nor it is required that there be some historicity in that decision. Rawlsian theory represents end-result theory. Individuals choose principles behind a veil of ignorance rationally while assessing the fate of individuals who chose different principles. The historical theory on the other end looks at the question of justice from the point of view of its history of coming in the state of justice. It is interested in the process of coming to justice. Whether the procedure to obtain justice is just or not is important for historical principle. Entitlement theory of justice is historical in this sense. A patterned theory of justice requires justice be done in a specific pattern or what Nozick says ‘some natural dimension’ or a combination of natural dimensions. For instance, any pattern that guarantees that those who worked the hardest have the most shares or the resources should be distributed such that any deviation from equality is to the benefit of least advantageous. Rawlsian theory is such a theory. Non-patterned theory is that resources are distributed in an ad hoc manner without any natural sequence. For instance, resources should be distributed such that they belong to whoever owned them, or to whomever they were given to or traded with. Nozick says this is not a patterned distribution, because there is no natural feature or people in this type of distribution. He further argued that his theory is not patterned. Thus, entitlement theory is both historical and unpatterned. So the distribution resulting from the three principles may not be patterned (not related with anything else like merit, need, utility, etc.). Nozick argues that individuals are entitled to that which they got by chance or gift. Nozick argues that all non-entitlement theories of justice are not appropriate. He also points out that distributive justice is not a just theory because it prohibits redistribution of wealth rather than indulge in it. A minimal state is better suited for distributive justice and is, in fact, the only institution for implementing it. Nozick believes that minimal state is a utopia in which aspirations of all rational human beings can be fulfilled. He also clarifies that libertarianism does not force people to live in a laissez faire capitalist ethos. One can opt to form communities on egalitarian principles within the boundaries of minimal state and are free to choose any principle, including socialism. The core of libertarianism is freedom. It thus allows different socio-political setups to coexist in a minimal state on the bare minimum condition of not forcing anybody to accept any doctrine. Nozick also argues that taxation is forced labour. It means taking a proportion of earnings of a person who works extra for state which uses that money for others. But it does not mean that Nozick is averse to welfare schemes in all circumstances. Nozick says, ‘It is possible that some tax-financed welfare programme, or even Rawls’s rule of favouring the worst-off group, may be justified as a means of rectification, if it can be assumed that the better-off are beneficiaries of past injustices, and the worse-off victims”. He warns that his entitlement theory cannot be used to condemn any welfare scheme unless it is clear that it cannot be justified as a means of rectifying past injustices. Nozick appeals to Kantian doctrine of categorical imperative. In his second dictum Kant says, ‘Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another always as an end and never as a means only.’ It simply implies that no person be used as a means for another person. All are rational, moral beings with freedom of choice and can use their freedom to the extent it does not interfere with the freedom of others. It also means that an individual has an inherent right of not being used as a resource for the benefit of others without his consent. Nozick argues that human beings are not mere cells making up body of the society or are cogs in a social machine but a single entity that recognizes and respects the separateness of persons. While criticizing utilitarianism for sacrificing individual interest for the sake of maximum happiness to maximum numbers, Nozick says, There is no social entity with a good that undergoes some sacrifice for its own good. There are only individual people, different individual people, with their own individual lives. Using one of these people for the benefit of others uses him and benefits the others. Nothing more. What happens is that something is done to him for the sake of others. Talk of an overall social good covers this up. In the entitlement theory, Nozick says, ‘a distribution is just if everyone is entitled to the holdings they possess under the distribution.’ But rules are not followed by everyone. Nozick warns, ‘some people steal from others, or defraud them, or enslave them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges.’ Here the third principle of ratification is required. Nozick gave three arguments for establishing minimal state as the only viable state. First is based on criticism of anarchism that a state is necessary for the protection of rights. This is a justification for the minimal state to secure property rights against assault, theft, and fraud. The second argument is related to the entitlement theory of justice, which supports minimal state for its implementation, and the third argument is concerned with the social structures that support a minimal state. Nozick’s theory is about the process by which justice is achieved. On the other hand, other theories, including Rawlsian theory, are based on the pattern of distribution at the time of disposal of justice. Nozick believes that justice is primarily a moral understanding that involved respecting an individual’s natural rights and rights to own oneself. It is for the individual’s freedom to decide what they want to do with what they own. Individuals are end in themselves and are not recognized as member of a group but are separate and autonomous, and we cannot use them in any way even if that result in some supposed ‘greater good’. It is therefore wrong to take property from some and redistribute it in a pattern as it violates their rights. Property rights are important, as they are derived from self-ownership. Because of selfownership people have the right to use their property as they choose, and this liberty is anathema to patterns as patterned theories of distributive justice restricts people’s freedom. Criticism of Robert Nozick A general criticism of entitlement theory is that by using this theory acute unequal distribution of property can be justified without considering what people deserve or what they need. It also does not take into consideration that the needs of people who are worse-off may be given priority. Rawls believes otherwise. He says that much of what people own is the result of people’s social position and their natural talents; both these qualities are morally arbitrary. So any inequalities in ownership are unjust. People have rights to property only to the extent distributive justice allows them. Regarding the second principle of entitlement theory, it can be said that rules governing transfer of property should be sensitive to many political values like equality, fraternity, and so on, not just liberty. If we argue like Nozick that justice protects liberty and it is obvious that property is important for freedom, then it is necessary that everyone has enough property. To ensure this, a redistribution of property from haves to have-nots is a must on the basis of a pattern. Another important criticism of entitlement theory is that it ignores the historical facts that most of the initial acquisitions of property were unjust. It was either a result of a theft or colonization or spoils of war. This type of unjustly acquired property is unjustly held and cannot be transferred in just manner. History is thus not in favour of entitlement theory of justice. G.A. Cohen criticized Nozick for arbitrariness in his theory of entitlement. He states that Nozick gives arbitrary advantage to those who hold property under the initial allocation of resources. He highlights inaccuracy in the second provision of entitlement theory of justice in acquisition that defines the baseline from which private acquisition starts. Nozick believes that prior to private acquisition, property of any kind had no owner, but Cohen says that prior to private acquisition, land or other things were under common ownership. If in common ownership everyone gets their due, then private ownership will indeed create problems, but it is not always so. Giving ownership for one and denying others their ownership may worsen the situation of others. Another important critique is given by Paul Russell in his article “Nozick, Need and Charity”. Nozick objects to every plan like tax to appropriate the legitimately earned money by people in the name of charity as it obstructs their freedom. Paul Russell challenges this understanding about charity, which he thinks obligatory on the part of those who have more money than required. Russell argues, we are not always entitled to everything we legitimately acquire because we may, depending upon our circumstances, be obliged to be charitable. What charity requires of us, we have no rights over and we must relinquish. Accordingly, if we fail to be charitable, our property rights are not violated when that which we are not entitled to is forcibly taken away from us. Russell concludes, ‘If an individual owes charity then he is not entitled to keep all of his wealth, even though all of his wealth may have been legitimately acquired. In short, as charity is an obligation or duty it should be regarded as not so much given as owed. This terminological difference is of some importance because it emphasises the fact that as there exists an obligation to be charitable, one is not entitled to keep that which must be relinquished for the benefit of the needy. Another critic, Samuel Scheffler, says that if someone is in genuine needs then they have the moral right to means of subsistence and that Nozick’s ignoring this aspect in the name of freedom is morally wrong. Scheffler gives another theory of rights. He explains that the rationale that Nozick uses for justifying his theory of rights more appropriately support Scheffler’s theory. Scheffler says ‘Every person has a natural right to a sufficient share of every distributable good, whose enjoyment is a necessary condition of the person’s having a reasonable chance of living a decent and fulfilling life, subject only to the following qualification. No person has a natural right to any good which can only be obtained by preventing someone else from having a decent and fulfilling life. It thus justifies distribution of goods for making poor’s life enjoyable and peaceful. Along with Nozick, there are other libertarians, like Gauthier, J. Buchanan, and Hayek, who have given their own theories to enrich libertarians. Gauthier interprets libertarianism as mutually advantageous. He argues that there are no natural moral precepts, like not to hurt others, which are morally binding on people. There is nothing naturally right or wrong about one’s actions, even if they involve harming others. But it is prudent that I should not harm others and others should not harm ‘me’ so that we can live in peace and pursue our own goals in life. This convention against injury is mutually advantageous. This type of agreement can replace traditional morality and thus provide a moral scaling. Gauthier says that this moral code is ‘generated as a rational constraint from the non-moral premises of rational choice’. This type of theory is described as ‘moral artifice’ by David Gauthier. 9.4.2 Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992) F.A. Hayek was an Austrian-British economist who received the Noble Prize for economics with Gunnar Myrdal in 1974 primarily because of his thesis that changing prices give vital information so that individuals can change their life plans. He wrote several texts like Road to Serfdoma (1944) and Constitution of Liberty (1960). He was a supporter of classical liberalism and suspicion of the role of state in society. Hayek believed that ‘a government ideally, operates only within a stable and known framework of rules’ But he doubted that rules can be formed properly. Lawmaking is a difficult and complex process, similar to market process. Instead of legislative law, common law is more practical and is needed to supplement legislative law. While law is formed on the basis of untested ideas, common law is a time-tested law. As Hayek was suspicious of the activities of the state, he was also against social justice because, for the execution of social justice, state is required. In one of his famous utterances Hayek said that one of his chief preoccupation for more than ten years was to realize that the idea of social justice is a mirage. For Hayek social justice meant distributive justice (where justice is a feature of outcome rather than of procedure), of which John Rawls was a champion. Distributive justice is possible when there is someone who distributes. But in a market that is governed by invisible hand, there is no possibility of distributive justice. Hayek believed that in such a market, the question of justice cannot be raised as there is nothing just or unjust and there is no one to decide what is just or unjust. One’s birth in society, in a particular class or condition is simply a natural fact and nothing to do with just/unjust situation. Rawls in his theory of justice says, “What is just and unjust is the way that institutions deal with these facts.” Hayek argues that bad things like cleft palates are not unjust things. For instance, there is an accident involving a car that is damaged, and there is no one to blame. This situation cannot be evaluated by justice, as it is neither just nor unjust. The situation is different when accident occurs on account of someone’s mistake. Schmidtz says, ‘in Hayek’s mind, we should want from a system of justice what we want from a system of traffic management: a framework that helps us form mutual expectations about who has the right of way. An effective system of traffic management allows us simply to coordinate on a set of mutual expectations that we each find useful in helping us stay out of each other’s way as we each set a course for our individually chosen destinations. A traffic management system does not pick our destination for us. Neither does it require us to justify our destination to others. Indeed, a traffic system’s utility largely lies in people not needing to justify themselves.’ Hayek is not happy with social justice because it cannot be implemented without a central authority to distribute things as per merit. But it does not mean that Hayek is against merit. It simply means that Hayek believes that the central authority will reward obsequiousness and not merit. Hayek argues that maintaining the rule of law is the only role that the state should play with minimum interference. In his various works, including Road to Serfdom, Hayek argues that it is in socialism that central economic planning is required and such planning system ultimately brings totalitarian government. Hayek was not averse to the suggestion that state has a minimum role in economy, specially in creating safety valves. Chandan Kukathas argues, Hayek’s defence of liberalism is unsuccessful because it rests on presuppositions that are incompatible. The unresolved dilemma of his political philosophy is how to mount a systematic defence of liberalism if one emphasises the limited capacity of reason.’ Hayek was very influential on the development of economic thought. Hayek is credited with helping Milton Friedman to develop his ideas. Hayek again became popular with the rise of neoliberal governments in the USA, the UK, and Canada in the 1980s. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    What are the principles of Robert Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. 2.    Give any two points of criticism of Nozick’s Entitlement Theory. 3.    Explain the views of Hayek on Social Justice. 9.5 Critical Evaluation of Libertarianism Libertarianism has been criticized on many grounds such as its theory of rights, nature of liberty, role of the state, political economy, problem of redistribution of resources etc. Let us have a look at these : •    Some libertarianism argue that we are born with a set of rights-the rights to life, liberty and property - which must be respected. But the question is why these rights and not other! The libertarianists, answer is that they are essential to allow people to lead their own lives, that they reflect the imperative to treat people as ends in themselves and not merely as a means to some ends and that they recognize the separateness of individuals. But this does not answer the question of why these rights are natural. According to Hamunerton, there is no reason to believe that the rights are natural, pre-existing rights independent of the laws of a society. There is no doubt that treating individuals as ends in themselves is good. One can also agree that people cannot plan ahead effectively if they cannot rely on being able to keep their possessions. However, one can also argue that providing people with the necessary resources for survival is also consistent with respect for others. If a person has no shelter, no job, no money, then one cannot plan effectively since one is subject to the decisions of others to the extent that one cannot even be certain of survival. Hence, to give enough resources to lift oneself out of the predicament helps on both the counts: of treating one as an end and in enabling one to plan effectively. This can be done by taxing the rich which the libertarians do not like. But if you do not do this and let the poor go hungry, you are also violating the principle and claiming in effect that allowing people to keep every last penny of their money is more important than preventing someone from starving. The simple point is that in a libertarian society those without any property are unfree- they cannot act without other people helping them and allowing them to use their property-unless you view freedom as the freedom to act within your rights. However, since it is the rights themselves being discussed here, the libertarian cannot fall back on this view of freedom to defend those rights. In short, the libertarian view as to what are legitimate rights cannot be accepted. •    Critics also do not accept the libertarians’ definition of freedom as ‘absence of coercion’. If we take this definition of freedom, then the amount of freedom a person has is the extent to which they act without being coerced to do (or not to do) something against their will. In a libertarian society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with another’s property if they do not want you to, so your only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. This has the consequence that someone with no property has no guaranteed freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater is your guaranteed freedom. In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom, as the libertarians themselves define it. Thus, taking this definition of freedom and a belief in the free market together, the libertarians are saying that best way of promoting freedom is to allow some people to have more of it than others, even when this may lead to some having very little freedom or even none. In other words, though the libertarians want everyone to have an equal sphere of guaranteed freedom, yet the market does not give everyone such a sphere and does not guarantee anyone any freedom at all. Again taking property from someone definitely restrict one’s freedom in some way, but all societies restrict peoples’ freedom in some way and libertarians themselves accept some restrictions on freedom-such as the restrictions of not violating other peoples’ property rights. In fact, there is no harm in taxing the wealthy in order to prevent the poor from starving since the resulting restrictions of freedom on the wealthy can be very small indeed. In short, libertarians need a way of defining freedom in such a way as to dissect it from the distribution of property. •    Libertarians also define liberty as the ‘absence of the initiation of force’. Again this definition also does not help much. Force can be initiated in order to protect property rights, and property rights can be violated without initiating force (i.e. copyright violations). Libertarians who use this definition cannot claim, as they would like to, that they are always opposed to the initiation of force. This amounts to saying that you are allowed to act within your rights without anyone initiating force against you. However, this leads us back to the consequence of your property rights determining the extent of your guaranteed freedom. What determines freedom is what the legitimate rights of an individual are. Given the libertarian claim that the right to property is absolute, Freedom and property become one and the same. Hammerton calls this ‘Propertarianism. Moreover, non-coercion is not the absolute good: other values override it. For instance, other things being equal, it is not wrong to secure justice by coercion. And when the alternative to coercion is non-innovation, then coercion to secure innovation is also legitimate. Libertarians say that they believe in political freedom. But even to simply enforce the principles of free market, the apparatus of a state would be necessary - an army to prevent invasion, a police force to suppress internal revolt and a judicial system. Most libertarians go much further; they want a libertarian regime, a political system. Some of them have written complete and detailed constitutions. But like any state, a libertarian state will have to enforce its constitution or it will remain a proposed constitution. States which fail to enforce their own political system against opposition will ultimately collapse or disappear. If libertarian states want to survive in such circumstances they will use political repression against their internal opponents. •    Anti-statism is a central element of libertarianism, but it rests on no foundations other than the libertarian principles themselves. Often libertarians suggest that the state is inherently wrong. But even if they say it explicitly, it is simply their belief, that is all. By its nature, the state uses coercion of the type that libertarians oppose, but that is not inherently wrong either. In return, the state can end coercion of the type that libertarians tolerate and welcome, especially in the free market. And the state is almost by definition the only means to implement large scale change and innovation in society - as opposed to simply letting market forces shape the future. The fundamental task of the modern liberal democratic state is to innovate. To innovate in contravention of national tradition, to innovate when necessary in defiance of the ‘will of the people’ and to innovate in defiance of market forces and market logic. Apart from the protective functions, the state acts as the final arbiter of disputes with the highest authority to avoid endless arbitration processes. Many libertarians seek partial or total privation of the tasks being done by the government at present, but that is not the only issue. Paradoxically, to enforce such privatisation of the state would require the exercise of state power by libertarians, and a functionally libertarian state. •    Critics of libertarianism also claim that the redistribution of wealth is not wrong. Libertarians argue as if it was self-evidently wrong to steal the legitimately owned property of the rich and give it to the poor. For example according to Nozick, the most important right is the right over oneself- the right of self- ownership. It means that ‘what one owns and what is owned are one and the same and the whole person’. That is, if I own myself, then I own my talents and also what proceeds from my talent. Hence, the demand for redistribution taxation from the talented to the disadvantaged violate self-ownership. However, the egalitarians like Rawls believe that though a person is a legitimate possessor of his talent, still talent is a matter of brute luck. Hence, the right over talent does not include the right to accrue unequal rewards from the exercise of those talents. Those who are naturally disadvantaged have a claim on those with advantages. The talented only benefit from their talent if it also benefits the disadvantaged. Others believe that redistribution of wealth is inherently good, infact, it is a moral obligation of the state. Excessive wealth is thereto be redistributed; the only issue is what is excessive. And, of course, this may lead to coercion, but it is still not wrong, not wrong at all. The libertarian view that the liberal welfare programmes by limiting property rights unduly limit peoples’ self-determination is also not accepted by the egalitarians. Redistribution programmes do restrict the self-determination of the well- offs to a limited degree. But they also give real control over their lives to people who previously lacked. Liberal redistribution does not sacrifice self-determination for some other goal. Rather, it aims at a fair distribution of the means required for selfdetermination. The libertarian view allows undeserved inequalities in the distribution, which harm those who need help in securing those conditions. As mentioned in the beginning, libertarianism is a pact of the Anglo-American liberal tradition in political philosophy. Infact, it is a legitimation of the existing order, atleast in the United States. All political regimes have a legitimising ideology which give an ethical justification for the exercise of political power. It is not a revolutionary ideology in the sense of seeking to overthrow fundamental values of the society around it. In fact, most US libertarians have a traditionalist attitude towards American core values. Libertarianism legitimises primarily the free market and the resulting social inequalities. Libertarianism is a legitimation for the rich. Also, libertarians are conservative; they are not really interested in the free market or the non- coercion principle or limited government as such, but in their effects. Perhaps what libertarians really want is to prevent innovation, to reverse social change, or in some way to return to the past. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Why libertarianism has been criticized? Give any two arguments. 9.6    Summary Thus, there are different forms of libertarianism including moderate libertarianism, extreme libertarianism and minimal state libertarianism. Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek are two important figures of libertarianism. After 1980’s, it came into mainstream philosophical discussion, but Neoliberal policies came under attack when the global (2008-2009) financial crisis happened. With the rise of terrorism, state is becoming powerful. State is not only gaining more striking power, it is also spreading its tentacles of power to control more and more population. The growing control of the state on media, Internet, and many activities of the citizens in the name of security is threatening minimal state. The expansion in state functions and powers, in the name of countering terrorism and protecting national interest, is threatening libertarianism in contemporary times. 9.7    Glossary •    Obsequiousness – overly eager to help or obey at the wish or command of another person especially to gain power. •    Coercion- the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats. •    Neo-liberal- is a political and economic philosophy that emphasizes free trade, deregulation, globalization, and reduction in government spending. 9.8    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    The main forms/trends in the spectrum of libertarianism are as under: (i)    Moderate Libertarianism- F.A. Hayek and Milton. (ii)    Extreme Libertarianism (Anarcho-Capitalism)-Marry Rothbard and David Friedman. (iii)    Minimal State Libertarianism- Ayn Rand, Ludwing Von Mises and Robert Nozick. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    There are three principles of Nozick’s Entitlement Theory of Justice. These are:- (i)    Principle of Acquisition. (ii)    Principle of transfer. (iii)    Principle of Rectification. If anyone gets things as per these three principles, They are entitled to them. 2.  (i) A general criticism of entitlement theory is that by using this theory acute unequal distribution of property can be justified without considering what people deserve or what they need. It also does not take into consideration that the needs of people who are worse-off may be given priority. (ii)    Another important criticism of entitlement theory is that it ignores the historical facts that most of the initial acquisitions of property were unjust. It was either a result of a theft or colonization or spoils of war. This type of unjustly acquired property is unjustly held and cannot be transferred in just manner. History is thus not in favour of entitlement theory of Justice. 3.    As Hayek was suspicious of the activities of the state, he was also against social justice because for the execution of social justice, state is required. For Hayek social justice meant distributive justice and it is possible when there is someone who distributes. But in a market that is governed by invisible, hand, there is no possibility of distributive justice. Hayek believed that in such a market, the question of justice cannot be raised as there is nothing just or unjust and there is no one to decide what is just or unjust. Hayek is not happy with social justice because it cannot be implemented without a central authority to distribute things as per merit. Hayek believes that the central authority will reward obsequiousness and not merit. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Libertarianism has been criticized on many grounds. (i)    Some libertarianists argue that we are born with a set of rights-the rights to life, liberty and property-which must be respected. But the question is way these rights and not other! The libertarianists argue that these are natural and essential to allow people to lead their own lives. But according to Hamunerton, there is no reason to believe that the rights are natural, pre-existing rights independent of the laws of a society. (ii)    Critics also do not accept the libertarian’s definition of freedom as ‘absence of coercion’. If we take this definition of freedom, then the amount of freedom a person has is the extent to which they act without being coerced to do (or not to do) somethings against their will. In a libertarian society, one cannot (legitimately) do anything with another’s property if they do not want you to, so your only guaranteed freedom is determined by the amount of property you have. This has the consequence that one-one with no property has no guaranteed freedom, and that the more property you have, the greater is your guaranteed freedom. In other words, a distribution of property is a distribution of freedom. 9.9    Suggested Readings/References •    Cohen, G.A. “Nozick on appropriation”. New Left Review, 150, 89-105, 1985. •    Friedman, D. The machinery of freedom: Guide to a radical capitalism. Illinois: Open Court, 1989. •    Hayek F.A., New studies in philosophy, politics, economics, and the history of ideas. London: Routledge, 1978. •    Kukathas, C., Hayek and modern liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990 •    Mises, L.V., Liberalism: A socio-economic exposition. Kansas : Sheed, Andrews and McMeel, Inc, 1948 •    Nagel, T., “Libertarianism without Foundations”. Yale Law Journal. (K/29/A4) 8,1975 •    Narveson, J., The libertarian idea. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1988. •   Nozick, R. Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974 •   Rothbard, M., The ethics of liberty. New York: New York University Press, 1998. •    Russell, P. Nozick, Need and charity. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 4(2), 1987, 205-216 •    Scheffler, S., “Natural rights, equality, and the minimal state”. In E. Paul (ed.), Reading Nozick. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. pp. 148-158, 1982. 9.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the different forms of libertarianism. 2.    Describe the contribution of Robert Nozick and Friedrich Hayek in the development of Libertarianism. 3.    Critically evaluate the Libertarian Political Theory. ***** Unit-10 COMMUNITARIANISM Structure 10.1    Introduction 10.2    Learning objectives 10.3    Issues before Communitarianism Self Check Exercise-1 10.4    Communitarian Political Theory 10.4.1    Community : Characteristics, Forms and Values Self Check Exercise-2 10.5    Communitarian Political Thinkers 10.5.1    Michael J. Sandel 10.5.2    Alasdair MacIntyre 10.5.3    Michael Walzer Self Check Exercise-3 10.6    The Communitarian Critique of the Liberal Individualism 10.6.1    Critique of the Individualist conception of the Self 10.6.1.1    Two Main Limitations of Individualism 10.6.1.2    Critique of the Idea of State Neutrality. Self Check Exercise-4 10.7    Summary 10.8    Glossary 10.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises 10.10    Suggest Readings/References 10.11 Terminal Questions 10.1    Introduction: Communitarianism is a political theory that emerged as an alternative to liberalism; the theory came out of hibernation after the publication of Rawls’s ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971). The theory criticized liberal egalitarian’s postulates and prescriptions. Although it operated largely within the liberal framework, it claimed to provide a viable alternative of liberalism. It gives primacy to community life, traditions, and culture and postulates that these should be a necessary part of state policies It believed that no individual has a separate identity, except for the identity of the individual as a member of a community, individual self is also not unencumbered as claimed by liberals but is formed by various influences of society. Identity of the ‘individual’ is also defined in relation to others. The golden period for communitarianism was the 1980s. After that, it declined gradually in importance, and in the late 1990s it almost withered away as most of its postulates were absorbed by liberalism itself; the proponents of liberalism modified its tenets to make it more comprehensive, less radical, and more accommodative. A notable example is John Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) with his modified version of liberalism incorporating some of the important communitarian features. The major representatives of communitarians were Michael Sandel, Michael Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Amitai Etzioni. It is generally accepted that the term communitarian was first used by John Goodwyn Barmby in the 1840s to denote an associate of a communalist society. But the contemporary usage of this term, which became popular in the 1970s, had a different meaning. It is a philosophy that gives primacy to community and society in the place of an individual. 10.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the learners will be able to: •    Understand the meaning and main tenets of Communitarian Political Theory •    delineate the major issues before Communitarianism •    know about the characteristics, forms, and values of community •    know about the political thinkers who have contributed in establishing communitarianism. 10.3    Issues before Communitarianism Daniel Bell in an article on communitarianism in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy discussed major issues between liberalism and communitarianism under three categories: 1.    Universalism vs particularism. Communitarians attack the claims supporting the ‘universality’ of liberalism. Communitarians argue that liberalism has wrongly assumed that individuals are fundamentally of same nature and are universally committed to maximizing freedom. They say that priorities of rights and freedom change with cultures. Even a theory of justice cannot claim to be universally true as substance and procedures of justice are attached to traditions and society and can vary from culture to culture and context to context. Michael Walzer for instance argues that there is  no single overarching principle of governing distributive justice. He believes that a particularist approach to distributive justice is more appropriate. In any complex society, there are different prevailing traditions and ‘goods’ (e.g. diversity in culture) that are to be prioritized within their respective spheres. Communitarians try to present an alternative perspective to many issues that are dear to liberals. For instance, about human rights, communitarians think differently. They believe that there are some rights that are definitely universal, as there is consensus among different cultural and political groups concerning these rights. These rights include prohibition against genocide, torture, racial discrimination, and so on. There are also other rights like criminal law, family law, and women’s rights that vary between cultures. Charles Taylor favours a global dialogue among different ethnic groups so that they can know about each other’s traditions and rights inherent in those traditions. It will help them understand the limitations and uniqueness of each culture and, subsequently, assist them in forming a universal consensus on human rights. Taylor may be right at a philosophical level, but in practice it is difficult for different cultures to leave their prejudices behind while arriving at a consensus. 2.    The debate over what is self. Liberals believe that an individual is defined, motivated, and propelled to act to fulfil their own or ‘self’ interests. This self may be constituted by various external influences arising from different sources, such as society, group, environment, and family. Nevertheless, ultimately, the ‘self interest’ is defined by the ‘self’ only regardless of the external inputs or influences. Thus emerges the ‘atomistic’ or ‘unencumbered’ self. Communitarians do not agree with this view. They believe that self is always the ‘social self’. Without being a member of a group, an individual has no identity. Membership of a group gives them identity, so self is always the social self. Charles Taylor, for instance, believes in the Aristotelian dictum that man is a political/social animal. Aristotle assumes that man is not selfsufficient outside polis. Some liberal values like freedom and rights are of no use, if an individual does not belong to the society. These values are social values and definable only in the context of a society and not outside of it. Without society, freedom is useless and rights have no meaning. But liberals think otherwise. They believe that liberal values are choices that one should make on the basis of their capacity to exercise such a choice. For the ‘liberal’ concept of self and autonomy, capacity to make a choice is crucial. Some liberals, like John Rawls, were aware of the social responsibility of the self; that is why in Rawlsian contract an individual as a party enters into a social contract not just on their behalf but also on behalf of their family. After the contract is made, it is to be honoured by the next generations. Communitarians disagree with liberals on the value of choice. They believe that by giving undue importance to freedom of choice liberals have misread human nature and misunderstood morals and ethics. Morals and ethics are not things that can be purchased from market but are embedded in our psyche and in how we live our lives. They wonder how the self can be said to exist prior to society or community or exist outside social settings without attachment to its community. Michael Sandel (1982) attacks the ‘liberal’ notion associated with the unencumbered self and explains how the very notion of ‘unencumbered self’ is logically flawed even if we accept that the concept of ‘self’ exists before the ‘self’ goes on to make choices and pursue the means to fulfil those choices or end-objectives. For communitarians the ‘self’ is pluralistic. They argue that generally speaking individuals do not exercise freedom of choice in the real sense because they are bound by their background and their choice-making is essentially driven by their habits or inheritance. The infinite choice is an illusion. It is only when someone wants to ‘exist’ in the existentialist sense- that is, to stand out from crowd then they exercise their freedom of choice. This is not a routine affair and does not happen regularly and not with everyone. This is an exceptional case and should not be taken as normal practice. Liberals on the other hand argue that even if this is true, it is desirable that human beings value freedom of choice. Communitarians say that choice is not intrinsically valuable and moral, compared to the characteristics of habit we inherit from our family and our living environment. For instance, one’s love for their mother is not based on a rational choice but out of habit with which we grew and which is in no way morally inferior. 3.    The politics of community. One of the practical concerns of communitarians has been how to deal with the new emerging social problems like alienation loneliness, and urban crimes. They believe that the breaking down of community life is responsible for such problems. They blame liberal policies for ignoring community life by emphasizing on individualism too much and giving importance to such marginalized issues like gay rights at the cost of critically important issues like education for children. For encouraging community life they are not pleading for the revival of traditional communities but are interested in creating new communities based on common interest. Daniel Bell identifies the categories of new communities. First, communities of place or communities identified by their geographical location. Such communities are associated to a locality in a physical or geographical sense of a community that is located somewhere. It can refer to a small village or a big city. Such communities are also referred to as residing communities of a place one calls ‘home’, a place where one is born and bred. In terms of political understanding, it cautions the state to take into account the needs of the local communities when preparing plans for development. Second, communities of memory, or groups of unknown people who share a morally significant history. Bellah used this term for the first time. It refers to imagined communities having a shared history of a long time covering many generations. These groups not only have a common past but also aspire for a common future, thus helping communities to consolidate and prosper. Ethnocultural groups which are based on nation and language are clear examples of this. Third, psychological communities, or communities of face-to-face personal interaction governed by sentiments of trust, cooperation, and altruism. This refers to a group of persons who participate in common activities and experience a psychological sense of togetherness as shared ends are sought. One example is family; other examples include small-scale work or school settings founded on trust and social cooperation. Communitarianism thus favours reviving communities, but all of communitarians do not agree on the methods and types of community to be revived. Self Check Exercise-1 1.  Name some communitarians. 2.  Tick (/) the Appropriate. (i)    According to Communitarianists priorities of rights and freedom change with culture. (True/Fales) (ii)    Communitarians believe in ‘atomistic’ or ‘unencumbered’ self. (True/Fales) (iii)    For communitarians the ‘Self’ is pluralistic. (True/Fales) 3.    Which three categories of new communities are identified by Daniel Bell? 10.4 Communitarian Political Theory As a political theory, communitarianism does not have great abstract assumptions or epistemological foundations. Fareed Zakaria believes that to understand communitarianism, we should know our ABCs. A stands for Aristotle. Aristotle for the first time emphasized that state is prior to individual. In his time, the state and the society were the same. He argued that only in a state individual has the proper environment to exhaust their potential. So, without the presence of the society, the individual is not complete. Michael Sandel, William Bennett, and other communitarians take clues from Aristotle and argue for primacy of community. B stands for bowling. Robert Putnam expressed concern about the breakdown of community life by giving an example of bowling game popular at that time. The decline of social capital became the cause of many social problems related to loneliness. C stands for civil society. Civil society stands for organizations, institutions, and groups that exist between family and state. Alexis de Tocqueville was full of praise for civil society for doing good work for democracy in the America of the 1830s. In recent times, Robert Putnam reiterated Tocqueville’s position with an empirical data from Italy. He explained that northern Italy has a better civil society network in comparison to southern Italy and because of this north Italy is better governed. Some communitarians like Daniel Bell believe that communitarianism is a distinct, complete ideology. Beli elaborated communitarian vision and political framework that can be actualized. It is an alternative to Rawlsian liberalism where state is neutral and does not seek or promote common good Bell is worried that such a state cannot adequately respond to, ‘communitarian concerns about loneliness, divorce, deracination, political apathy, and everything else concerned with the breakdown of community in Western societies’. Communitarianism on the other hand is concerned about common good and appreciates the responsibility and duties of individual that emerge from sources other than the individuals themselves. Communitarians believe that every solution to social problem lies in the restoration of community spirit. But communitarianism is not without its detractors. While criticizing communitarianism Derek Phillips argued that communitarianism is based on a wrong perceptions about character, quality, and collective behaviour of community of the past. Community life was not always virtuous in the past, and not all the problems of society have occurred due to autonomous self and neutral state. Philips defines community as ‘a group of people who live in a common territory, have a common history and shared values, participate together in various activities, and have a high degree of solidarity. There is no evidence that these communities historically lived in a harmonious manner and there was no conflict whatsoever. The main plank of communitarians’ attack of liberalism is its insistence on unencumbered self and its indifference to community. Rawis says, ‘the self is prior to the ends which are affirmed by it.’ It means that the self is prior to its roles and responsibilities given by the society. Sandel criticizes this assumption of Rawls and argues that self is not prior to its roles and responsibilities bur is rather constituted by its ends. Self is situated in the social settings. He believes that the boundaries of self are fluid and not fixed as liberals assert. Communitarians believe that social approval is necessary for the self for any action it takes and, hence, the importance of community. Communitarians define justice in terms of a community’s shared understandings. As per Kymlicka, there are two objections to this. First, we the liberals disapprove of injustice like the system of slavery because it is wrong. Its wrongness is a reason for, not the product of, our shared understanding. Second, it is almost impossible to come to a consensus about shared understanding of justice in a heterogeneous society with various group interests of different classes, religions, ethnic groups, and so on. People disagree about various public issues. To resolve such disagreements, we need to resort to a more general conception of justice. Although community is the basic unit of analysis for communitarians, there is no unanimity in the definition of community. If we take the definition of community for granted and take traditional community as the ideal context for individual’s welfare, we would do so at the risk of ignoring and conveniently forgetting the darker side of these communities. Communitarians are divided into two groups. One is nostalgic about the old community way of life and want to return to that old golden age, while other group believes that we cannot go back in history and so we will have to create new communities that can accommodate new realities and also retain community feelings. The powerful critique of liberals by communitarians urged liberals to mend their ways and reconcile with communitarianism. One such important attempt to combine the liberal philosophy and the communitarian philosophy was made by Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift. They provided a combined philosophy. After a critical exposition of both isms, they concluded that it is possible to formulate liberal theory by adopting communitarian belief in community’s contribution to making the self-identity real. There is a modified version of liberalism provided by John Rawls in his Political Liberalism (1993), where he argues that his theory of justice is not simply an abstract philosophical theory but can be applicable to the real world where liberal states exist. Rawls modified his position by adopting communitarians thinking about the socially constructed self. Another liberal, Joseph Raz, argued that perfectionist version of liberalism acknowledges the autonomous self and it is the policy of liberal states to protect the autonomy of the self. But this autonomous self is constituted by a specific political culture. To protect and help in developing this autonomous self, state must nurture such types of communities in which this autonomy can be sustained. Thus, Rawls’s political liberalism and Joseph Raz’s perfectionist liberalism are examples of flexible liberalism that accepts its limitations and takes help from communitarianism. One may agree with Michael Walzer’s famous comment on communitarian critique that it is a ‘communitarian correction’ of liberalism generated by and applicable within liberal framework. Echoing the same spirit, Robert Bellah argues that for the preservation of the rights of individuals, communitarian perspective is necessary. He enumerates four values of democratic communitarianism. 1.    The sacredness of the individual. Anything that oppresses the individual is contrary to the philosophy of democratic communitarianism. However, individual is defined not by the market or the state but by a community to which they belong. A healthy, strong, and morally vigorous community is a prerequisite for a strong, healthy, and morally vigorous individual. 2.    Solidarity. It means individual’s relationship with their family and other social institutions in making them what they are. The values of reciprocity, loyalty, and shared commitment resulting in solidarity with the group define an individual. 3.    Complementary association. It denotes a commitment to a variety of social groups such as family, cultural or religious groups, local community, professional groups, and political parties. One community may not be able to satisfy all the needs of its members. An individual can and should belong to many communities simultaneously. 4.    Participation. It means participation in societal acts. It is more like the Aristotelian concept of citizenship in which more and more participation in community life makes an individual aware of their belongingness to various communities. As already mentioned, the liberal versus communitarianism debate reached its peak in the late 1980s and gradually waned in the late 1990s. The reason for this decline was that some communitarian ideas were absorbed within the liberal framework, and so, instead of accepting it as a viable alternative to liberalism, communitarianism was reduced to be a reformist movement within liberalism. Communitarianism was not simply a new political theory but a practical social philosophy. Some of the communitarians were concerned with crumbling social structure, and others were advocating more participation in politics. Amitai Etzioni is one such social communitarian who wants to bring a communitarian perspective on contemporary social programmes and promote common good. He also emphasized that either the society or the state must ensure that what constitutes a good life be based on morally right decisions as it ensures the protection of individual rights. Communitarians also emphasized ‘particularity’ over ‘universality’. Different cultures require different treatment, as they have different traditions, and no single universal policy can do justice to them. Multiculturalists also agree with them. Communitarians also give importance to participation and do not rely on rule of law and judicial decisions as liberals do. They believe that by relying on judicial procedures, the rights of individuals may be safe; however, for the protection of group rights participation of groups in political process is necessary. They also advocate that society should articulate what is good and that this task of identifying goodness is too important to be left for individuals to decide. Communitarianism is interested in community, including societal units such as family, schools, and voluntary associations, and is also curious about the values that are generated and trans- mitted through such units. As we are aware the term communitarianism was used for the first time in the mid-nineteenth century, but the ideas inherent in it appeared in some form or the other much earlier in the writings of Ferdinand Tonnies, Durkheim, George Herbert Mead, and others. Communitarians believe that liberals have a defective view of the ‘person’, which originated from Hobbes, who famously said, ‘man as if but even sprung out of the earth, and suddenly like mushrooms, come to full maturity, without all kind of engagement to each other’. Margaret Thatcher echoed the sentiment of atomism in her often-quoted statement: ‘there is no such thing as society.’ Atomism denies that we are social creatures by nature who happily engage themselves in social activities without having any self-interest. Liberalism primarily is not interested in the nature of human beings. It preaches moral individualism. Liberals argue that institutions and policies be evaluated from the point of view of individual and they believe such an evaluation will lead to the emergence and acceptance of reasonable social norms that appeal to the normal sensibilities of the ‘self’ in a the social milieu or public sphere. They responded to communitarians by modifying their conception of the self. John Rawls (1993) for instance emphasizes that his liberal view of the self is a political conception of the person and not a metaphysical truth. He thus modified his stance from his previous book, A Theory of Justice (1971). While other liberals accept that no self can exist without a social setting, the question is of priority that is to be given to the self-interest of an individual, irrespective of how that ‘self’ is constituted. Selfinterest may be the basis for determining the life goals for individuals, and these goals may change as per individual needs. No goal of human beings is immune to revision. But communitarians argue that there are goals that we cannot change. Daniel Bell says that there are some attachments to specific goals or belief systems in life that are so fundamental that if one were to detach themselves from them they would suffer psychological damage. For instance, one cannot ignore the bond one feels for the family that brought them up. 10.4.1    Community: Characteristics, Forms, and Values Communitarians firmly believe that community is necessary for human beings to progress and prosper. There are many types of communities-political, racial, neighbourhood, family, and others- and not much is common among them. There are significant differences among them, but there are also some common features that unite them to form a community: (1) Members of a community are united by shared goals and values, where these are not just their coinciding individual interests. (2) Members of a community value their relationships for their own sake, not just for their instrumental value in pursuing their own ends. If a football team is a community, members enjoy playing football together even if they lose and each of them would be more likely to win by joining the opposite team. (3) Members of a community consider their membership as part of their identity. When asked who they are, most people will mention their nation or at least the place they are from. These three characteristics, including the shared goals and relationships that are not merely instrumental, and a sense of identity determine the existence of a community. Merely becoming a member of a soccer team may not qualify us to become a member of a community. Communitarians like Alisdair Macintyre and Michael Sandel emphasize on such communities where membership is not a matter of identity. Communitarians differ from Marxists in their view of communities. While communitarians accept the existing communities and want to nurture them, Marxists believe that existing communities are regressive in nature and are to be destroyed for the progress of human beings. Common good is another term that is a matter of dispute between liberals and communitarians. Liberals believe that common good is nothing but an aggregate of individual goods. Communitarians believe that common good is the criterion to judge individual’s conception of good life. The value of individual good depends on its contributions to or realization of the common good. Liberals on the other hand argue that shared language, culture, and traditions are valuable to the extent they help individuals to realize their conceptions of the good life. While the basic unit of analysis for communitarians is community, it is a difficult term to define. With this difficulty of universal definition in mind, Bell and Newby argue, ‘There has never been a theory of community, not even a satisfactory definition of what community is.’ In another text, Bell, and Newby write, ‘But what is community?... It will be seen that over ninety definitions of community have been analysed and that the one common element in them all was man!’ Amitai Etzioni claims to define community with reasonable precision. He says community has two characteristics: first, a web of affect-laden relationships among a group of individuals, relationships that often crisscross and reinforce one another (as opposed to one-on-one or chain-like individual relationships), and second, a measure of commitment to a set of shared values, norms, and meanings, and a shared history and identity- in short, a particular culture. The critics however point out that communities are not democratic by nature. They force people to conform. Communities use their moral authority to tyrannize people. Will Kymlicka for instance argues that this oppression by community is severe. It enforces subordination, limits the individual potential of the people, and threatens them psychologically. Derek Philips argues that communitarians tend to forget their pasts and fail to acknowledge that the fundamental characteristics of community is that some dominate and others are subordinates. While criticizing liberalism and politics of rights, communitarians ignore individuals’ protection against abuses of power and authoritarianism of the state. While emphasizing the importance of community in individual’s daily life, communitarians fail to recognize the fact that attachment is more important value for individuals than the membership of a community. Whereas old communities were bound by geography, orthodoxy, and traditions, new communities of today comprise persons with multiple memberships, such as residence, ethnicity, religion, and work. This multiplicity of membership limits the scope of community and dilutes its power over its members. When people are members of only one community, then the moral voice of the community is more powerful. The problem is such community is almost always authoritarian in nature and dominates and controls its members in every possible way, including their life interests. But dominance and authoritarianism are not the essential features of a community. Community requires genuine commitment from at least most of its members if not all because without the majority of the community members supporting it, it is not possible for the community to sustain its core values and identity. Early communitarians were accused of being social conservatives who wanted to revive traditional communities or their values, but contemporary communitarians, who are known as responsive communitarians, do not want to return to traditional communities and, instead, want to build new communities based on open participation and shared values. The communitarians attempt to re-establish a moral voice of the society in the Aristotelian fashion - building a ‘politics of the common good’. Detractors criticize this dominance of community, as they believe that community has both conservative and authoritarian elements. They allege that communitarians have a conservative bias towards existing social structures and moral codes. In particular, feminists have criticized communitarians for supporting traditional sex roles and suppression of women under the disguise of defending the family. It is alleged that the authoritarian nature of communitarianism is reflected in its tendency to give priority to the duties and responsibilities of the individual over their rights and entitlements. Communitarians of more contemporary times, during the 1970s, carried out a focussed attack on John Rawls’s theory of justice. They advocated duties rather than rights; for example, all communitarians agree that community is important, but they do differ on how to hold community together and how much importance to be given to individual rights and freedom. Some communitarians maintain that political liberties and individual rights be curtailed. Others want to maintain social order in support of the state (e.g. Malaysia and Singapore). The ‘Responsive Communitarian Platform’ drafted by Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, and William Galston in November 1991 outlines the basic programme of the responsive communitarianism. It argues for giving importance to family by the society, as it is the primary unit of moral education. It also criticizes divorces. Revival of moral education in school is another programme. Etzioni elaborated his brand of communitarianism in his magnum opus, The Spirit of Community Rights, Responsibilities and the Communitarian Agenda (1993). He believed that there should be an equal emphasis on liberal rights and on community responsibilities. Mary Ann Glendon compares communitarianism with environmentalist movement for creating an awareness of civic virtues and providing political correctives. Communitarians believe that society has three components: the state, the market, and the community. They are critical of neoliberalism, which supports the rolling-back of the state from the market. Communitarianism is considered the forerunner of ‘the third way’ alternative. It is primarily concerned with the role of community, culture, and values. It supports mandatory national service and financial reforms and appreciates two-parent family. Etzioni, like neoconservatives (from whom he has taken inspiration), is more interested in influencing policy than tackling philosophy. Even though Etzioni was less inclined to take a philosophical angle in support of communitarianism in his works compared to Sandel, MacIntyre, or Charles Taylor, he is the most powerful opponent of liberal, individualistic ideas propounded in Rawls’s Theory of Justice. At the height of the communitarian movement, President Bill Clinton told Etzioni he was his inspiration, but the movement faded away in late 1990s as it became clear that it was more about style than substance, or form over function. Gradually, people started believing that Etzioni’s proposals were either simply obvious or absurdly utopian. People agreed that communitarians were reformers rather than revolutionaries. Communitarianism was liberalism restated as a new ideology. Modern liberalism did adapt some features that are unique to communitarianism (e.g. giving importance to family, in the personal relation and broadening the definition of ‘self). While in the West communitarians were getting absorbed in liberalism, the success of East Asian countries in the economic field attracted the attention of scholars towards the cultures of Asian countries. Scholars realized that Asian countries have cultures that contain communitarian values. Thus, communitarian values as ingredients in Asian countries posed a challenge to liberal values in the 1990s. Brian Barry was among the first to indicate this as miracle of economic development and that brought Asian values in focus. In these values, family and social harmony were given precedence over individual freedom. Daniel Bell highlighted three findings of Asian cultural particularism to be in contrast with Western liberal universalism: 1.    Culture affects the prioritizing of rights. In East Asian societies, for example, the right to education, is more important than the right to be elected, or in China the right to equal opportunity to economic development is more important than say the right to form independent labour unions. 2.    Culture affects the justification of rights. Any justification of protection of rights should be based on historical experiences of a society rather than on an abstract universalism. In Asian societies, for example, a moral language is more suitable than a rational argument for the justification of a right. 3.    Culture also provides a moral foundation to distinct political practices and institutions. Under the influence of Confucianism, children of East Asian countries are taught to care for their old parents, and this may be reflected in the political policies of these countries. Sometimes, these political considerations also resulted into demands for establishing alternative political structure and minimizing or altogether banishing Western liberal democratic institutions. These alternative institutions and practices are to be based on Confucianism or other Eastern thinkers, Korean scholars like Hahm Chaihark and Jongryn Mo for instance plead for the need for revival of practices of the past empires that were beneficial for the public and encouraged community feelings that subscribed to Confucian philosophy. However, the Asian economic miracle seems to be evaporated in 1997-1998, and, consequently, Asian values were questioned. Thus, the Asian values were also not considered a guarantee for economic success, and the question whether communitarianism was a viable alternative to liberalism remained unanswered. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Give two examples of flexible liberalism that accepts its limitations and takes help from communitarianism. 2.    Which four values of democratic communicarianism are enumerated by Robert Bellah. 3.    Describe the common features of community. 4.    What was the main cause of the decline of communitarianism in 1990s. 10.5    Communitarian Political Thinkers Many political thinkers have contributed in establishing communitarianism as a way of life and as fundamental to the existence of a robust society. Some of them are as follows: 10.5.1    Michael J. Sandel (1953-) Michael Sandel is an American political philosopher, communitarian, and a popular speaker of justice and ethics and has published many books, including the popular ones like Justice: What Is the Right Thing to Do? (2010) and What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (2012). He articulated communitarian arguments in criticizing John Rawls in his book, Liberalism and Limit of Justice (1982). He argued that justice is a remedial virtue and not the first virtue of society as claimed by Rawls. Fraternity is the prime virtue and when it fails and makes a society defective then justice is required. He also finds fault in the Rawlsian notion of a person. According to Sandel, it is inconsistent with his difference principle. In the difference principle, socio-economic inequalities are to be arranged in such a manner that the least advantageous gets maximum benefit. This means there will be others whose rights are curtailed and who will be used as means for the benefit of the least advantageous. Thus, some are used as a means for others and that is in contradiction to the concept of person in Rawls, which he borrowed from Kant. Sandel also pointed out the incapability of Rawlsian concept of ‘unencumbered self’ to choose wisely keeping in mind the common good. Sandel argues that liberalism, or at least a version of ‘deontological liberalism’ that he associates with philosophers Kant and Rawls, ‘stands opposed to the possibility of community in the constitutive sense’. This means the notion of unencumbered autonomous self is defective, as self is constituted by many factors, including its association with the community. Self is recognized in relation with others, and in this recognition, the association of self with various agencies and group makes a difference. 10.5.2    Alasdair MacIntyre (1929-) Alasdair MacIntyre is a moral philosopher and communitarian who is known for reviving Aristotelian ethics in contemporary moral theory. His best-known book is After Virtue (1981) in which he analyses morality and its role in pragmatic rational behaviour of human beings. He rejected ethical theory of modern liberalism which uses abstract, objective, universalistic moral principles as criteria for judging human behaviour. At the practical level, these objective moral principles are misused to justify arbitrary decisions. The moral principles and their practicability are lost in rhetoric. Macintyre pleads for excellence and practical reasoning as an effective alternative as advocated by Aristotle. Macintyre uses the term ‘modern liberal individualism’ in a broad sense to include almost all major modern ideologies, including liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, and anarchism. All these ideologies use the autonomous individual’ as the unit of base for theory-building and have ignored the concept of ‘common good’. He popularized the concept of common good and Aristotelian ethics in place of the liberal concept of ‘autonomous individual’ and abstract universal moral principles. 10.5.3    Michael Walzer (1935-) Michael Walzer is an American political theorist and prominent communitarian. He wrote an important text on communitarianism - Spheres of Justice (1983). He criticized speculative and abstract theories of politics like liberalism of John Rawls. He believes that political theory should be applied in practical politics and should be grounded in the traditions and cultures of different societies. He says that a just society is not one that treats its members on the basis of some abstract universal principles of justice; he argues that ‘a given society is just if its substantive life is lived in a certain way— that is, in a way faithful to the shared understanding of its members’. Walzer further argues, ‘justice is rooted in the distinct understanding of places, honours, jobs, things of all sorts, that constitute a shared way of life. To override those understandings is (always) to act unjustly’. Walzer’s innovative idea is his theory of particularistic conception of justice where particular conception of justice that includes rating of goods of individuals and of a particular society is taken into consideration. The Western values of freedom and rights may not be applicable in non-western societies. Justice is culture specific. To clarify further, he introduces his theory of complex equality’. This theory means that when different goods are distributed according to different procedures then a just society is formed. Thus, the criterion of judging just equality is not simply a single material or moral good. It is imperative that in egalitarian justice each good be distributed as per its social meaning and no good be allowed to affect the distribution of goods in other spheres. To conclude, in Walzer’s concept of particularistic justice, no good can be used without taking into consideration its social meaning and with complex equality some people will be better off in some spheres and others will be better off in some other spheres and, consequently, we will have a reasonable equality of status. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    According to Sandel, what is the prime virtue of society? 2.    Who is known for reviving Aristotelian ethics in contemporary moral theory? 3.    Who has given the Particularistic conception of Justice? 10.6    The communitarian Critique of Liberal Individualism10.6.1    Critique of the Individualist Conception of the Self A great deal of communitarian thought has presented itself in terms of an explicit reference to and a rejection of the individualistic conception of self. The general shape of this communitarian claim is that individualistic political theory takes us (as individuals) to be too distant/separate from our social ends and conceptions of the good in a way that simply fails to correspond to the way in which we actually relate to these ends. 10.6.1.1    Two Main Limitations of Individualism Communitarians point to two main limitations of the liberal individualist understanding of the self as detached and separate from social ends: first, it devalues, discounts and downgrades the importance of the community; and second, it presupposes a defective conception of the relation between the self and its ends, Regarding the first criticism, communitarianism challenges liberal individualism for downgrading and discounting the importance of the community and more specifically, for ignoring the extent to which it is the society or the community which people live in that shape who they are and the values they have. As seen above, individualism understands people to be self-sufficient outside of society and not in need of any community context in order to develop and exercise their capacities for self-determination. In other words, individualism does not recognise the importance of community membership in shaping a good life for the individual. Communitarians argue that the liberal picture of individuals picking and choosing their conceptions of the good is facile. Sandel and MacIntyre argue that Rawls exaggerates our capacity to stand back from and question our social roles and views the self as “unencumbered”. On the contrary, communitarians argue that the self is “embedded” in existing social practices. For communitarianism, however, the community is a fundamental and an irreplaceable ingredient in the good life of the person. However, resilient and independent people may be human existence outside social and community life is unthinkable. People, according to communitarians, are not Robinson Crusoes able to live in complete and permanent isolation. Rather individuals are constituted, and their identity is shaped, by the community to which they belong. We, as human beings, are essentially members of a family, religion, tribe, race and nation. As such, rather than being distant from social and community ends and values, we have a history and are placed in specific social circumstances. The attachments and the moral engagements from these community membership determines “who we are” and shape “the values we have”. Communitarians, thus, criticise liberal individualism for producing a particular conception of self, which is divorced from the social reality that constitutes it. As for the second criticism, communitarianism, criticises individualism for holding a mistaken or a false understanding of the relationship between the individual self and its ends. As discussed above, individualism understands the self to be prior to its ends in the sense that individuals reserve the right to question, revise and reject their most deeply held convictions about the nature of good life, if these are found to be no longer worth pursuing. According to communitarianism, to accept this understanding of self is to see oneself as disembodied, unencumbered and sharing a voluntary relationship with one’s social ends and attachments. They oppose this voluntaristic picture of the relationship between the self and its ends assumed by individualism. According to them, this picture ignores the way we are embedded or situated and partially constituted by social roles and community membership. Criticising the individualist conception of the self, communitarians ask whether we can really step back from particular values that we have and change them for new ones, or are we rather made the very people that we are by the values that we endorse so that detachment is impossible? Human beings, they argue, are essentially social beings. As such, we neither choose nor reject our social and community ends and attachments; rather we discover them. We are neither free nor standing at a distance from our social and community ends; instead, we find ourselves located/ situated in them. For instance, we do not choose our family, caste or nation; we find ourselves located in them. We, then, determine our conception of the good and ends given our place, position and situation in a family, religion and nation. According to communitarianism, we are never free from all social roles and community identities. Our membership of social groups and communities determine and constitute our identity and understanding of good life. We cannot always stand back and opt out of social relations and community membership. Our social relations and roles, or at least some must be taken as given. As Sandel notes ‘I can interpret the meaning of the roles I find myself in, but I cannot reject the roles themselves, or the goals internal to them as worthless. Since these goals are constitutive of me as a person, they have to be taken as given in deciding what to do with my life; the question of good in my life can only be a question of how best to interpret their meaning. It makes no sense to say that they have no value for me, since there is no ‘me’ standing behind them, no self prior to their ends or constitutive attachments. The self is constituted by and not prior to its ends’. In this way, communitarians denounce the historical, asocial and disembodied conception of the person found in individualism. According to them, this conception overlooks the way in which it is the kind of society in which people live that affect their understanding, both of themselves and of how they should lead their lives. A valuable life, they argue, is one that is filled with commitments and relations. And what makes them commitments is precisely that they are not the sort of things that people can question every day. 10.6.2    Critique of the Idea of State Neutrality The other main focus of communitarian critique of liberal individualism is the latter’s understanding of the nature and functions of the state. As discussed above, liberal individualists characterise the state as a minimal and neutral political authority, whose functions are limited to protection of individual rights and maintenance of law and order. Since individuals are free, rational and capable of self-determination, the primary value in political order, according to individualism, ought to be neutrality of the state. As mentioned above, a neutral state is one that is not committed to any particular conception of the good, and remains equidistant from and tolerant of all conceptions of the good. Communitarians oppose this connection between individual self-determination and state neutrality. According to them, the view that the state should be valueneutral and individuals should be free to make their own choices stems from an atomistic belief that autonomy is protected only when judgements about the good life are taken out of political realm and made on an individual basis. Rejecting such “atomism”, communitarians argue that, in reality, individual judgements require sharing of experiences, the give and take of collective deliberation and collective evaluation of shared practices. In other words, individual choices about good life can only be exercised in a particular sort of community and not a cultural marketplace guided by freedom and neutrality, of the type guaranteed by liberal individualism. The communitarian perspective, therefore, argues for abandonment of liberal neutrality in favour of politics of the common good. Communitarians conceive of the common good as a substantive conception of good life that defines the community way of life. Rather than being neutral to different individual conceptions of good life, the common good provides standards by which individual preferences and values are evaluated. In other words, the common good forms the basis on which individual conceptions of good are ranked, and the weight given to an individual’s conception depends on how much it conforms or contributes to the common good. In the communitarian view then, a just state is not one that remains neutral towards all individual conceptions of good. Rather, a just state is one which encourages its citizens to adopt conceptions of good that conform to the common good, while discouraging conceptions of good that conflict with it. According to communitarianism, the nature of the state should not be neutral or minimalist; rather it ought to play a role in guiding its citizens in leading a good life. Hence, while liberal individualism encourages each person to define and seek his own “good”, communitarianism believes that a political structure has an important role to play in defining and in helping people seek the “good”. Further, communitarians argue that the common good is required not only for guiding people’s decisions about the good life, but also for establishing a just and legitimate political community. According to Taylor, the idea of the common good is required to enable citizens to accept the demands of justice demanded by a welfare state. At the heart of the theory of justice in a welfare state is the claim that the privileged ought to sacrifice a portion of their rights and rewards for the sake of others (the underprivileged). For instance, in a liberal capitalist society, the propertied classes are required to sacrifice some of their property (derived in the form of taxes) for the benefit of the non-propertied and for sustaining a just society. According to Taylor, however, the demand for such a sacrifice, in a individualistic society would seem improper as citizens would be required to sacrifice their rights for the sake of those with whom they share no community identity or common way of life. If we are distanced from a community or a shared way of life, we would necessarily be unwilling to shoulder the burdens of liberal justice. In the communitarian view then, justice is rooted in a community whose primary bond is the shared understanding of the good of both man and community. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    What are two main limitations of the liberal individualist’s understanding of the self according to Communitarians? 2.    Explain the Communitarian perspective of common good. 10.7    Summary Communitarianism raised many important issues regarding the relationship between the self and the society. It reemphasized the significance of the state and the community. It favoured the increasing role of community in deciding various social issues, including moral ones. It firmly believes that autonomy of self is an illusion. Self is constituted by various agencies and, hence, society plays an important role in forming the individual self. Communitarianism has greatly contributed in advancing liberal thinking but failed to sustain itself as an independent political theory. Fareed Zakaria gave the final verdict by saying, ‘Communitarianism was supposed to be a third way, neither liberal nor conservative, that charted a new course for philosophy and politics. But... it has become a collection of meaningless terms, used as new bottles into which the old wine of liberalism and conservatism is poured. Community means one thing if you are a conservative and another thing if you are a liberal- the same with civil society, and even bowling.’ 10.8    Glossary •     Hibernation : is a type of deep sleep some animals (like bears) go into during winter; an extended period of remaining inactive or indoors. •     Unencumbered : not having any burden or impediments •     Existentialist : a person who believes in a philosophy according to which the world has no meaning and each person is alone and completely responsible for his or her own actions. •      Enlightenment : the period of rigorous scientific, political and philosophical discourse that characterised European society from the late 17th century to the ending of the Napoleonic wars in 1815. •     Nostalgic : Remembering happy times in the past. 10.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Michael Sandel, Michacl Walzer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, and Amitai Etzioni. 2.    (i) True (ii)    False (iii)    True 3.    Danie Bell identifies the following three categories of new communities: First, communities of place or communities identified by their geographical location. Second, communities of memory, or groups of unknown people. Who share a morally significant history. Third, psychological communities, or communities of face to face personal interaction governed by sentiments of trust, co-operation, and altruism. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Rawls’ Political Liberalism and Joseph Raj’s perfectionist liberalism. John Rawls in his political liberalism argues that his theory of justice is not simply an abstract philosophical theory but can be applicable to the real world where liberal states exists. Rawls modified his position by adopting communitarians thinking about the socially constructed self. Another liberal, Joseph Raj argued that perfectionist version of liberalism acknowledges the autonomous self and it is the policy of liberal states to protect the autonomy of the self. But this autonomous self is constituted by a specific political culture. To protect and help in developing this autonomous self, state must nurture such types of communities in which this autonomy can be sustained. 2.  (i) The sacredness of the individual. (ii)    Solidarity which means individual’s relationship with their family and other social institutions. (iii)    Complementary associations such as family, cultural or religious groups, local community, professional groups and political parties. (iv)    Participation in societal acts. 3.  (i) Members of a community are united by shared goals and values, where these are not just their coinciding individual interests. (ii)    Members of a community value their relationship for their own sake, not just for their instrumental values in pursuing their own ends. (iii)    Members of a community consider their membership as part of their identity. 4.    The reason for this decline was that some communitarian ideas were absorbed within the liberal framework, and so, instead of accepting it as a viable alternative to liberalism, communitarianism was reduced to be a reformist movement within liberalism. Communiarianism was not simply a new political theory but a practical social philosophy. Some of the communitarians were concerned with crumbling social structure, and others were advocating more participation in politics. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Fraternity 2.    Alasdair MacIntyre 3.    Michael Walzer Self Check Exercise-4 1.      The two main limitations of the liberal individualist understanding of the self as detached and separate from social ends according to communitarians include: (i)    It devalues, discounts and downgrades the importance of the community and (ii)    It presupposes a defective conception of the relation between the self and its ends. 2.     For answer see Sub-Section 10.6.2 10.10    Suggested Readings/Reference •     Mulhall S. & Swift A., Liberals and communitarians. Oxford : Blackwell, 1992. •     Bell D., Communitarianism and its critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. •     Etzioni, A. The Spirit of community : Rights, Responsibilities and the communitorian Agenda. New York : Growss Publishers, 1993. •     Dadhich, Naresh, Contemporary Political Theory. Jaipur, New Delhi : Rawat Publications 2019. •     Phillips, D. Looking Backward : A critical Appraisal of communitarian Thought. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, 1993 10.11    Terminal Questions 1.     Write a detailed essay on Communitarian Political theory. 2.    Discuss the Characteristics, forms and values of Community. 3.     Discuss the Communitarian critique of the individualistic conception of the self. 4.    Explain the views of Sandel, MacIntyre and Walzer on Communitarianism. ***** Unit-11 Marxism Structure: 11.1    Introduction 11.2    Learning Objectives 11.3    Development of Marxism Self Check Exercise-1 11.4    Main Principles of Marxism 11.4.1    Dialectical Materialism 11.4.2    Materialistic Interpretation of History 11.4.3    Theory of Class Struggle 11.4.4    Theory of Surplus Value Self Check Exercise-2 11.5    Other Principles of Marxism 11.5.1    Theory of Revolution 11.5.2    Dictatorship of the Proletariat 11.5.3    Classless and Stateless Society 11.5.4    Theory of State 11.5.5    Theory of Alienation 11.5.6    Views on Religion Self Check Exercise-3 11.6    Aims and Objectives of Marxism Self Check Exercise-4 11.7    Critical Evaluation of Marxism Self Check Exercise-5 11.8    Summary 11.9    Glossary 11.10    Answers to Self Check Exercises 11.11    Suggested Readings/References 11.12    Terminal Questions 11.1    Introduction In the contemporary world, Marxism stands as a scientific philosophy, revolutionary programme and progressive movement of ‘exploited classes’. If liberalism is the socio-economic and political philosophy of the bourgeoisie, Marxism is the philosophy of the scientific outlook of the working class. The working class was the essential product of capitalistic development. After the Industrial Revolution, the condition of the working class in the European world was extremely miserable. Marxism came into being as a ‘Protest movement’ against the liberalism and to protect the interests of working class in the 19th century. It provides a revolutionary programme for the emancipation of the ‘exploited classes’ and suggested revolutionary method for changing the present society. According to Marxists, private property is the root cause of all the evils in the society and capitalists are mainly responsible for the miserable condition of workers. So in order to establish a just exploitation free egalitarian society, it is necessary to abolish the private property and capitalism as well. Marx gave a revolutionary call for changing the society-”Workers of the world unite, your have nothing to lose but your chains and you have a world to win”. Marxism challenged the whole liberal system which was based on private property, market model of society, unbridled individualism, and the capitalist mode of production. It is a scientific philosophy of socio-economic and political change. It is scientific, because it not only interprets the material world, but also suggests the ways of transforming the world into a new one. 11.2    Learning Objectives After completing this lesson, the learners will be able to: •     Have a knowledge of the ideology of Marxism which is also known as scientific socialism or revolutionary socialism. •     Understand the basic principles of Marxism and •     Make a critical evaluation of the ideology of Marxism. 11.3    Development of Marxism No doubt, voices against exploitation of man by man have been heard from times immemorial. Many theories emphatically pleaded for an equitable and just socio-economic order. But Marxism differed from all these because it provided a scientific theory of revolutionary change. Marxism not only shows us a way of understanding the world but also provides us with a scientific philosophy with the help of which it can be changed. Marxism is not only a revolt against the capitalist system but also a sound alternative to that system. Earlier, the ‘utopian’ socialists-Thomas More, Fourier, Robert Owen, Saint Simon, had also vehemently denounced ‘capitalism’ in their philosophy. But they could not provide the means of ending capitalism or provide an alternative sound system. It was Karl Marx who not only suggested the means to wipe out capitalism but also suggested an alternative system for it. Marxism is based on the views of German intellectual Karl Marx. He was a calm thinker and passionate fighter. Throughout his life, he had to suffer due to poverty. He devoted himself to deep study, philosophical analysis, and the establishment of revolutionary organizations of the working class. His friendship with Friedrich Engles lasted for 40 years and both of them are regarded as the fathers of Marxism. Their important works include; •     The Communist Manifesto (1848)-Karl Marx and Engels •     Das Capital (1867)- Karl Marx •     The Poverty of Philosophy (1844)-Karl Marx •     A critique of Political Economy (1859)-Karl Marx •     Value, Price and Profit (1865)-Karl Marx •     The Gotha Programme (1875)-Karl Marx •     The Origin of the family, private property and the state (1884)- Engels. •     Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (1892)-Karl Marx Marx scientifically analysed the socio-economic, political, moral and cultural systems of Capitalism, and proved their exploitative character. Not only this, he pointed out the revolutionary way of changing the exploitative system, and replacing it with communist society. Thus, Marxism is not merely a way of understanding the world, but also a scientific philosophy of social change. The other intellectuals who contributed in the development of the ideology of Marxism G. Lukas include Lenin, Stalin, Gramsci, Mao-Tse-Tung, Trotsky, Rosa Luxumberg, etc. They gave their own interpretation of Marxism. Apart from these writers, many other Western Marxist writers have also helped in the development of Marxism e.g. G. Lukas, K. Korch, H.Marcuse, etc. They have interpreted Marxian theory and practice in the changing circumstances and have made it a living creed and philosophy. Marxism is a body of doctrine, usually known by different names such as Marxian Socialism, Proletariat Socialism, Scientific Socialism and Communism, etc. Marxism has divided the whole world into two hostile camps. Self Check Exercise-1 1.   Why Marxism came into being? 2.    According to Marxists, what is the root cause of all the evils in a society? 3.   Name the Utopian Socialists. 4.    Name the intellectuals who have contributed in the development of the ideology of Marxism. 11.4 Main Principles of Marxism: Following are the four basic Principles of Marxism: (i)    Dialectical Materialism (ii)    Materialistic Interpretation of History (iii)    Theory of class struggle. (iv)    Theory of surplus value 11.4.1    Dialectical Materialism: Dialectical means contradiction. It implies the process through which development or growth takes place. Materialism means matter, which indicates the basic principle of development. Karl Marx adopted the dialectical process from the philosophy of Hegel. According to Hegel, this world moves and changes constantly. The basis of this movement is the Idea or the World Spirit. According to him, history is not merely the chronology of events, but is an orderly scheme of growth. This development is possible through dialectic process which is based on contradiction or tussle. According to Hegel, all development or evolution proceeds not in a straight line but in a zig-zag manner following the formula of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. He describes three stages of growth. According to Hegel, ‘Idea begins with thesis. Contradiction to idea appears naturally. This is called anti-thesis. Now, the tussle between thesis and anti-thesis begins, and new idea emerges which contains the plus points of both ‘thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’. This is known as synthesis. Later on, this synthesis becomes thesis, facing conflict again and synthesis emerges and this process ever go on. Thus, Hegel tried to point out that development is a continuous process, and all development is the ‘struggle of opposites.’ Every development has within it its own anti-thesis, a negating element which prevents it from remaining immutable. This dialectical development is from the lower to the higher. Though Marx was greatly impressed by this Hegelian concept of ‘dialecticism’, yet he rejected his ‘idealism’ which regarded ideas as the principle cause of the historical process. Marx held that matter not the spirit or idea was the ultimate reality. He believed that different social ideas and theories which appeared at various periods of history were merely a reflection of the material laws of society. Marx held that the causes of historical development are economic causes and not ideas. The goal towards which the dialectical materialism is moving is the society perfectly organized for production in which there shall be no class distinctions and no exploitation. Thus, Marx made use of the dialectical principle to interpret history. But, he replaced world spirit of Hegel by Matter. He turned Hegelian dialectic, right side up. 11.4.2    Materialistic Interpretation of History or Historical Materialism: Marx has made materialistic interpretation of history which he has called Historical materialism. He tried to explain history in terms of material or economic foundations of society. According to Marx, history is the history of man’s productive activity. The determining factor of the development of history is the forces of production. Production is a process which creates definite relations between man and man. A change in the forces of production brings about a corresponding change in the relations of production. He believed that material or the economic factor is mainly responsible for all historical changes. The way in which a society uses its resources and produces goods determines its political and social structures. According to him, all political institutions, social systems, trade, industry, art and craft, customs and practices, traditions, religion and every aspect of life of any country of any age are determined by the material conditions prevailing there. Marx called the economic foundation of society as the substructure and everything else, such as government, religion, and culture as the superstructure. Any meaningful change in the mode/forces of production means a change in the sub structure. And a change in the sub-structure brings about corresponding changes in the super- structure. Thus, according to Marx, every society is characterized by its mode of production. Marxism, interpreting the development of western society, maintains five specific modes of production and five different kinds of societies-Primitive Communist Society, Slave owning society, feudal society, capitalist society and socialist society. Stages of the Development of History (a)    Age of Primitive Communism: This was the first stage of the growth of society. The means of living was simple including eating fruits and roots, hunting, etc. It was a classless society without class struggle. The idea of private property did not exist. Everyone was equal. The conditions of exploitation did not exist. That is why Max called it the age of Primitive Communism. (b)    Age of Slavery: With the change of material conditions, individuals started farming and rearing animals. Private property appeared. Those who possessed land and other means of production, became masters. They enslaved others and forced them to labour for them. (e)    Age of Feudalism: Material conditions changed again. Means of production improved and crafts developed. Feudal lords possessed all the lands. All other means of production including small industries and crafts were controlled by these feudal lords. Farmers/serfs were not the owners but tillers of land. According to Marx, these two classes, the land lords and the farmers, clashed with each other for their economic interests. (d)    Age of Capitalism: After industrial-revolution, there appeared the Industrial Age when big industries were under private ownership. A new class of capitalists emerged. The capitalist owned the means of production and state power also. Now society was divided into two classes, one the propertied capitalist class and the other was the have-nots labour class. The motive of the capitalist/bourgeoisie class is always to exploit the labour/proletariat class because it ignores the interests of the labour class for more profit making. Due to massive exploitation the labour class becomes conscious of its interest. This results in class struggle. According to Marx, present industrial society is passing through this stage of capitalism. (e)    Age of Dictatorship of the Proletariat/Socialism: According to Marxist theory, the clash between the capitalists and the working class will result in the advent of the fifth stage when proletariat class will revolt against the capitalist class and the state power will be captured by the labour class. Then, the working class will own the means of production. This will be the age of Dictatorship of the proletariat. Marxists also called it the age of socialism. In this stage, the working class will apply all power of the state to destroy the remnants of capitalism. In Communist countries like China, this stage prevails. 11.4.3 . Theory of class struggle: According to Marx, the history of all existing human societies is the history of class struggles. In every society, in every age, there exists two conflicting economic classes. Marxism does not define class in terms of work functions, income or consumption, caste or religion, but rather in terms of the relations it bears with the prevailing mode of production. In every class divided society, there are mainly two classes-one that possesses the ownership of the private property and have control over the means of production and another the property less class, those who have nothing except their labour to sell. Marx maintained that in a class-divided society, the interests of both the classes are contradictory to each other and, because of this antagonistic nature of their class interests, class struggle is fundamental and class interests, irreconcilable. In history, we find the struggles between the freemen and the slaves, feudal-lords and the serfs. In the modern industrial capitalist society, this struggle finds expression in the antagonism which exists between the capitalist and the workers. The interest of these two classes can never be reconciled, because the profits of the capitalists, depend on the exploitation of the workers. Marxism maintains that all changes in history have been the consequences of class struggle. Therefore, class is the agent of social change and class-struggle is the driving force of social and political change. According to Marxism, all the revolutions and struggles in history can be understood on the basis of class-struggle. It is the conflict between the haves and have- nots that moves history forward. Intensification of class struggle leads to revolution through which the progressive class takes over the power: Marx concluded that the result of the organized struggle of the working class against the capitalist would be the victory of the working class against the capitalists, end of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of proletariat class. 11.4.4    Theory of Surplus Value: The theory of surplus value has been explained by Marx in his book ‘Das Capital”. He gave this theory to show how the capitalists exploit the labour. He said that the capitalists do not give just wages to the workers. They pay according to their will and monopolies the profit. Marx based his theory of ‘Surplus Value’ on Recardo’s ‘Labour Theory of Value’. According to this theory, the value of a commodity is determined by the labour applied for the production of the commodity. According to Marx also the actual value of a Commodity is determined by the cost of labour. But the market value of the commodity is higher. Workers are paid only a fraction of the value. The difference between the actual price and the market price of a commodity is the profit which is monopolized by the capitalists. Marx calls this surplus money monopolized by the capitalists as Surplus Value Marx said, “surplus value is the difference between the value of the wages which a labour produces and which he actually receives.” Capitalists earn through the labour of the workers, but denies them of any share and in this way exploit them. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    From whom Karl Marx adopted the dialectical process? 2.    In which book, Karl Marx has explained his theory of Surplus Value? 3.    Mention the stages of the Development of History according to Karl Marx 4.    Write a short note on the theory of class struggle. 11.5 Other Principles of Marxism: Apart from the four basic principles of Marxism, there are also some other principles which form the integral part of Marxism. 11.5.1    Theory of Revolution: Revolution is the direct consequence of the Marxian materialistic interpretation of history. The class struggle in society will move ahead in the direction of revolution. Marx emphasized the inevitability of revolution for social and political change. The excessive exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists would make a social revolution inevitable. Marx maintained that the economically dominant class will not leave its economic and political power through evolutionary methods or of their own will. It is to be removed forcibly-through revolution by the oppressed class The revolution will be an armed uprising of the proletariat who are not willing to be exploited any more. The capitalist can do nothing to stop the revolution because capitalism itself has created these irresistible forces that will destroy it. Marxism does not maintain the revolution will come on its own, without the revolutionary activity. But this revolution has to be carried out by the proletariat class because of its organization, cohesion and numbers and because of class consciousness, that will arise from deplorable conditions. According to Marx, the immediate aim of the socialist revolution will be to capture the political power by the working class. It will be a beginning and after that dictatorship of proletariat class will be established, then a massive task of social and economic transformation of society will be started, which will pave the way for a classless and stateless society. 11.5.2    Dictatorship of the Proletariat: After the destruction of the bourgeois state, the power of the state and the administration of the new order will pass into the hands of the proletariat. The Marxists have described the new political system as the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. It will be a short transition stage between the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of new order, it will be socialist democracy of the proletarian majority against the bourgeois minority. It is a dictatorship only in the sense that it is a domination of the minority by the majority. The ‘dictatorship of proletariat’ which is also called as ‘socialism’ will however, be a transitional phase. This transitional period, according to Marx, is necessary because the destruction of capitalism cannot be accomplished in one comprehensive stroke of revolution. The labour/proletariat class will now use the power of the state as an instrument to gradually socialize national resources and to stamp out the last remaining of capitalism. One function of this dictatorship is destructive (end of capitalism) and the other function is constructive (economic socialist reconstruction). One is political and the other is economic. 11.5.3    Classless and Stateless Society: With the end of the capitalism, there will emerge a just, productive society in which there will be no class distinctions, no exploitation. In other words, there will be a classless society which will operate on the principle; “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” At a certain stage, this society will reach a level of perfection and there will no longer be any need for police or even government. There will be no private property, so there will be no police to protect it. Since government is simply an instrument of class domination, with the abolition of distinct classes, there will be no need for a government. Then the state will wither away. With the withering away of the state, the society will reach to the ultimate stage of communism. Thus, communism will be a stage of classless and stateless society. There will be no classes left, means of production and exchange will be publically owned, discrimination and exploitation will cease, no individual or group will be permitted to live by the toil of other and work will be available for everyone able to work. It will be governed by the principle, ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. 11.5.4    Theory of State: Marxism holds that the genesis of the state should be traced to the emergence of private property and class contradictions. With the coming into existence of private property and its consequent economic inequality, the society was divided into two hostile classes. Under these conditions, the exploiting classes captured the dominating powers and since they constituted insignificant minority, these classes had to depend on coercive methods for maintain their economic powers. It was in this way that the state came into being. Thus, it becomes manifest that the state was built-up for perpetuating the domination of one class over other. In ‘Communist Manifesto’, Marx and Engels described State “as the executive committee of the bourgeoisie.” Political power is merely the organized power of one class oppressing another. According to Marxists, state is an instrument in the hands of propertied class to exploit the propertyless class. This is true of monarchy and democracy. As pointed out, state is the product of class contradictions. With the disappearance of the class contradictions, the state will also wither away’. 11.5.5    Theory of Alienation: Alienation means losing freedom when human being becomes like object. Alienation means when individuals or human beings are separated from society, productive activities and more over from control over himself. Marx said that in capitalist form of economy human beings are alienated from the world, which is created and made by human beings. This Idea of young Marx is drawn from Philosophic and Economic manuscript (1844), Popularly known as Paris Manuscripts. He pointed out about uniqueness of human being. He said that capacity to labour is specific quality of Human being. They reflect their creativity though labour. Human being enjoy, while doing labour. Human beings are different from animals. Animals do something only for fulfilling their physical need. Act of Humans is conscious. Human being never engaged in a work for fulfilling merely physical need. In capitalist economy labours are working for taking care of their bodily need. Workers lost enjoyment in their work. Work becomes compulsion. It creates alienation in human being. Forms of Alienation 1.    Production: It is based on division of labour, competition and compulsory labour. Alienation starts from productive forces itself. Role of individual workers minimised. 2.    Society: Capitalism creates atomistic society where individuals become selfcentric fraternity, lost due to cut throat competition. 3.    Environment: - Marx speaks like Rousseau and says that “Go back to nature”, which means human beings should live social life with enjoyment and creativity. 4.    Alienation from himself:- The extreme form of alienation is alienation from himself. Where human being become like an object and behave like machine. In young age, Marx described about alienation but he couldn’t tell measures for ending alienation and these measures were propounded by Marx in his adult age. He believes that man wants to end his alienation. He should get himself liberated not only from religion and God but also from-entire structure of alienation, i.e., capitalism, which according to him was real cause of alienation. Capitalism destroys individual’s freedom and dehumanizes him. Marx defines freedom as end of necessity. Capitalism promotes compulsion. End of necessity refers, human being will choose the work according to their wish. Marx further argued that, there are two types of world. Natural as well as social world. Social or artificial world is created by labours. They are feeling alienation in world, which is created by themselves. Marx is romantic and humanistic in young age. He is more subjective and psychological in young age. 11.5.6    Views on Religion: Marx condemns religion as the opium of the people and the friend of the privileged class. Marx’s opinion is that religion is an illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. Religion takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them, projecting them onto an alien and unknowable being called ‘a god”. Marx has three reasons for disliking religion. First, it is irrational, Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being by accepting the status quo. Third, religion is hypocritical. Although, it might profess valuable principles, it sides with the oppressors. Religion makes people fatalist. Instead to know about the causes of sufferings and the ways to remove them, people held their fate responsible for their deplorable conditions. Religion makes the poor to accept their poverty. Religion taught individuals to focus on otherworldly concerns and not on the immediate poverty they were suffering. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    What do you mean by Dictatorship of the Proletariat? 2.    When the society will reach to the ultimate stage of communism? 11.6    Aims and Objectives of Marxism: Marxism aims at the establishment of a ‘classless and stateless’ society, a real socialistic, society. It also provides a revolutionary programme for the emancipation of the ‘exploited class and suggests revolutionary methods for changing the present society. It wants to establish society on a rational basis-a society in which man would not be exploited by man. It would be a society in which all will live in peace, harmony and comfort, enjoy true freedom and liberty and will have a full opportunity to develop their potentialities and personality. In fact, this society will be really an ideal society. The two basic ingredients in the Marxist theory to achieve its objectives and aims are ‘class-struggle’ and the ‘Revolution’. According to Marxists, Class struggle is a very important factor in the historical evolution from the primitive society to the feudal society and the modern bourgeoisie, i.e. industrial society. This class-struggle is destined to wipe out capitalists and to lead to the establishment of a classless and stateless society. The class struggle will end in the final victory of the proletariat who will alternately usher in communist society. Revolution for Marx was a social, political, legal, technological and historical necessity. He maintained that ‘class struggle’ and ‘revolution’ are the driving forces of history. The revolution would be a violent revolution, not confined to a single nation but would be international in character. In 1872, Marx expressed the opinion that in the developed liberal democracies like Britain and America, a peaceful transition to socialism was possible because of the increased strength of the working class. However, Lenin did not agree with this formulation. In recent times also, some Marxists have again emphasized the possibility of a peaceful transition to socialism. Yet, another equally influential group of Marxists does not agree with this possibility and, therefore, the place of revolution in bringing social and political transformation has become a controversial issue in the contemporary Marxist philosophy. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    What is the aim of Marxism? 11.7    Critical Evaluation of Marxism: Marxism has been criticized by different writers and thinkers on different grounds. Liberal writers like Popper and Hayek, economists like J.M. Keynes; social democrats and revisionists like Bernstein, Kautsky and Euro-Communists have criticized it on various grounds. 1.    Marxian Materialistic Interpretation of History is one sided: Marx’s view that history of the whole world is nothing else than the history of the different economic systems of the different ages of the different countries, that all changes that have hither to occurred anywhere can be attributed to the economic factor, is not true. Broadly speaking, the course of history has been immensely influenced by the geographical, psychological, religious, social, political factors, etc. But Marx ignores these factors. 2.    Dialectical Materialism is vague and defective: The Marxian philosophy is based upon Dialectical materialism, but unfortunately, Marx did not elaborate this important concept clearly. He has left it vague. It is very difficult to understand the dialectical process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Further, according to Marx, development takes place due to contradictions and clashes, but co-operation is an equally important factor in development which Marx has ignored. Again, Marx maintained that development is a continuous process. It never ends. The capitalism will pave the way for communism but what would come after communism and what would be the fate of communism, he is silent. 3.    Impossible to determine the different ages of history: The way Marx had divided history into different periods is faulty. He made a wrong interpretation of history of various countries. Anthropologists reject the Marxist imagination of primitive communism. The current history cannot stop at the stage of stateless society. 4.    The basis of social life is co-operation and not class-conflict or classstruggle: The idea of Marx that struggle is the basis of social life is wrong. In practice, common social life is based on co-operation, good feelings, sacrifice, sympathy and other virtues. Marx ignored this important aspect of man’s life. 5.    The society is not divided into two classes only: Marx divided society into two classes. But in practice, there is a large middle class in between. (Higher middle class, lower middle class, etc.) Thus his idea is wrong. 6.    Theory of Surplus Value is not complete truth: Marx’s theory of surplus value has been criticized severally because it gives too much importance to labour ignoring the other factors of production. To produce a commodity, beside labour, raw material, machines, energy, etc. are also needed. Moreover, the capitalist has to take the risk, has to invest the capital, has to pay to many taxes and charges, so in this situation it is not possible and justified that the whole value of commodity is given to the labourer. So, the theory of surplus value is not correct. 7.    Capitalism did not come to an end: According to Marxist, capitalism will end through the class struggle, and Dictatorship of the working class will be established. But, it is seen that capitalism has tried to reform itself. It flourished further. In fact, the class-struggle between the capitalists and workers does not exist, they are complementary and supplementary to each other. Even if the class struggle exists, there is little possibility of the dictatorship of the working class. Further dictatorship of every kind is condemned. 8.    State is not an instrument of exploitation: Marxists believe that state is an instrument of exploitation in the hands of capitalists to exploit the workers. It is not true. The modern states are welfare states and they are committed to the well-being and welfare of the workers, peasants and others alike. 9.    State is not transitory: According to Marxists state is not a natural institution. It was created by the propertied class to exploit the propertyless class. In the primitive communism, there was no state, because there was no private property, no class divided society. In a socialist state also, after the end of capitalism; there would not be class-division, no private property, hence no need of state. So, in a socialist society, the state will wither away. But this prophesy of Marx did not prove true neither in U.S.S.R. nor in China. In China state is still existing even after more than seven decades of communist revolution. 10.    Attack over Religion is unjustified: Marx does not give importance to religion. He regards it as an opinion which makes people fatalist. But religion has a significant role for the highest spiritual development of man. Religion helps the individual to become good and moral. 11.    Change in Society can be brought by Peaceful Means: According to Marxism, revolution is essential for bringing about fundamental changes in the society. But critics, especially the supporters of evolutionary socialism maintain that socio political changes and development in society can be brought about through reforms, and evolutionary methods (piecemeal engineering) rather than through revolution. Revolution is destructive and implies violence. In modern liberal societies, the working class has ceased to be a revolutionary class, it has been integrated into the system. The thinkers of ‘new left’ maintain that intellectuals rather than workers, will bring revolution. 12.    Marxism destroys the individuality of Man: Marxism destroys the individuality of man by making him a prisoner of society and the law of social development. It gives no importance to individual rights and liberties which dampens his initiative and hamper free development of his personality. 13.    Marxism is undemocratic: Marxism is considered as undemocratic because Marxists are in favour of one party rule and intolerant to opposition, whereas the opposition party as well as opposition is the soul of democracy. To give the name of democracy to Marxism will be a mockery of democracy. 14.    Private Property is not bad: Marxists are against private property and consider it as the root cause of all the evils in the society. But they ignore its merits. It gives incentive to the individuals to put in hard work which yields greater production in its return. Besides, to pass a generalized judgement that each individual makes property by exploitation or foul means is also wrong because there are persons who make property by their hard work in a fair manner. 15.    Imperialist Theory: The Marxists want to spread Marxism all over the world and stand for making it as an international movement. So Marxism is considered an imperialist theory. 16.    Too much importance to Economic Factor: Marx lays too much emphasis on the economic factor. In fact, the other factors like geographical, social, cultural, political and environmental etc. also play a significant role in shaping the society. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    Name some critics of Marxism. 2.    Tick (/) the appropriate:- (i)    Marx’s Theory of Surplus Value gives too much importance to labour ignoring the other factors of production. (True/False) (ii)   Marx regards religions as an opium which makes  people fatalist. (True/False) (iii)  According to Marxists changes in the society can be brought through peaceful methods. (True False) 11.8    Summary Despite all its criticism and shortcomings, Marxism is well accepted as a revolutionary philosophy of the working class, and in the present century it has helped in bringing about socialist revolutions. It is a great revolutionary, humanistic philosophy and has facilitated the emancipation of millions and millions of downtrodden. Further, it is a scientific philosophy which helps in understanding the laws of social development and suggests the revolutionary ways of changing the present society. It aims at the end of exploitation of man by man. It is a revolutionary message that the world should be changed into an exploitation free world; it should be erected on rational basis; it should be a classless world, in which man will not be a wolf to another man. 11.9    Glossary •    Proletariate : A Class comprising of propertyless workers under capitalism; the working class. •    Dialectical : Concerned with or acting through opposing forces. The main tenants of dialectical outlook are; 1) all things are inter-connected; 2) all things are in flux; and 3) contradictions are the stuff of reality. •    Euro-Communists : Refers to the new version of Communism which was espoused by some communist parties in Western European democracies. The two most important parties to pursue this line have been the Italian Communist Party and the Spanish Communist Party. The root of the development lies in the need of Communist parties in Western democracies to compete electorally with socialist and conservative parties if they are ever to gain political power as a result of an election. •    Anthropologists : Persons who made scientific study of human behavior and societies in the past and present. •    New Left : New left is a broad range radical leftist political movement arose in Western Europe and North America in the late 1950s and early 60’s against Soviet hegemony over the international communist movement, particularly in opposition to the American intervention in Vietnam and the military occupation of Czechoslovakia by Soviet Union backed East-European countries. Eventually, it came to embrace the intellectuals of varied origins including dissident communists, anarchists, left-wing socialists and cultural critics concerned especially with antiwar, anti-nuclear, feminist, and ecological issues. 11.10    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Marxism came into being as a ‘Protest movement’ against the liberalism and to protect the interests of working class in the 19th century. 2.    According to Marxists, private property is the root cause of all the evils in society. 3.  Thomas Moore, Fourier, Robert Owen and Saint Simon. 4.  Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles are regarded as the fathers of Marxism. The other intellectuals who contributed in the development of the ideology of Marxism include Lenin, Stalin, Gramsci. Mao-Tse-Tung, Trotsky, Rosa Luxumberg, etc. They gave their own interpretation of Marxism. Apart from these writers many other western Marxist writers have also helped in the development of Marxism e.g. G. Lukas, K. Korch, H. Marcuse, etc. They have interpreted Marxian Theory and practice in the changing circumstances and have made it a living creed and philosophy. Self Check Exercise-2 1.   From the philosophy of Hegal. 2.    ‘Das Capital’. 3.    Karl Marx mentioned five stages of the development of history in western societies: (a)    Age of Primitive Communism (b)    Age of Slavery (c)    Age of Feudalism (d)    Age of Capitalism (e)    Age of Dictatorship of Proletariat/Socialism 4.    For answer see Sub-Section 8.3.3 Self Check Exercise-3 1.    After the destruction of the bourgeois state, the power of the state and the administration of the new order will pass into the hands of the proletariat. The Marxists have described the new political system as the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. It will be a short transition stage between the destruction of capitalism and the establishment of new order, will be socialist democracy of the proletariat majority against the bourgeois’ majority. One function of this dictatorship is destructive (end of capitalism) and the other function is constructive (economic socialist reconstruction). One is political and the other is economic. 2.    With the end of the capitalism, there will emerge a just, productive society in which there will be no class distinctions, no exploitation. In other words, there will be a classless society which will operate on the principle, “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” At a certain stage, this society will reach a level of perfection and their will no longer be any need for police or even government. There will be no private property, no police, no government. Then the state will wither away. With the withering away of the state, the society will reach to the ultimate stage of communism. Thus, communism will be a stage of classless and stateless society. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Marxism aims at the establishment of a classless and stateless society, a real socialistic society. It provides a revolutionary programme for the emancipation of the ‘exploited class.’ It wants to establish society on a rational basis-a society in which man would not be exploited by man. It would be a society in which all will live in peace, harmony and comfort, enjoy true freedom and liberty and will have full opportunity to develop their potentialities and personality. In fact, this society will be really an ideal society. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    Liberal writers like Popper and Hayek; Economists like J.M. Keynes; social democrats and revisionists like Bernstein, Kantsky; and Euro-communists have criticized Marxism on various grounds. 2.   (i) True (ii)    True (iii)    False 11.11    Suggested Readings 1.    Jain, M.P., Political Theory: Liberal and Marxian. (Delhi: Authors Guild Publication, 1987). 2.    Asirvatham, Eddy & Misra K.K., Political Theory. (New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd. 2001. 3.    Mahajan, V.D., Political Theory. New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd, 2003. 4.    Singhal, S.C., Political Theory. Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal. 11.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss in brief the main principles of Marxism. 2.    On which grounds, Marxism is criticized. 3.    Discuss Marxian Theory of Alienation. ***** Unit-12 NEO-MARXISM Structure : 12.1    Introduction 12.2    Learning Objectives 12.3    The Marxism in Crisis and the Orthodoxy of Economic Determinism Self Check Exercise-1 12.4    The Foundation of Gramscian Neo-Marxism as Hegelian Marxism 12.4.1    Theory and Practice : Hegelian Marxism's Stress on Praxis 12.4.2    Unity of Subject and Object : Reified Consciocesness 12.4.3    The Gramsci as Hegelian Marxist Self Check Exercise-2 12.5    "Destanilization" as the Next crisis and Althusser's Structural Marxism 12.5.1    'Destanilization" : Revisionism and Marxism 12.5.2    History without a Subject 12.5.3    Marxist Dialectics as Over-determination Self Check Exercise-3 12.6    The Crisis of Capitalist Society in General : The Critical Theory of Habermas 12.6.1    The Critical Theory : Subjectivism and Praxis 12.6.2    The Problem of Dialectics 12.6.3    Habermasian Neo-Marxism : The critical Encounter with Marx as the Foundation. Self Check Exercise-4 12.7    Summary 12.8    Glossary 12.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises 12.10    Suggested Readings/References 12.11    Terminal Questions 12.1    Introduction Neo-Marxism represents a broad framework of social theory that builds upon the foundational ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, while also expanding and adapting them through engagement with other intellectual traditions. This theoretical approach spans multiple disciplines and areas of inquiry. George Ritzer, a well-known contemporary sociologist, identifies several key schools of thought within the Neo-Marxist tradition. These include Economic Determinism, Hegelian Marxism, Critical Theory, Neo-Marxian Economic Sociology, Historically Oriented Marxism, and Neo-Marxian Spatial Analysis. In A Dictionary of Sociology, Gordon Marshall describes Neo-Marxism as a term that generally refers to any social theory or sociological analysis that draws inspiration from Marx and Engels but revises or extends their ideas, often by integrating perspectives from other schools of thought. Additionally, scholars Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis argue that Neo-Marxism emerged largely in response to what they describe as "the crisis of Marxism" at the start of the twentieth century. They suggest that this movement represented an attempt by various theorists and intellectual collectives to reinterpret and innovate within the Marxist tradition, challenging the prevailing orthodox interpretations. This analysis begins by examining the crisis that gave rise to orthodox Marxism. We will first define what is meant by orthodox Marxism and then explore how NeoMarxism initially developed as a reaction to this orthodoxy, particularly through the emergence of Hegelian Marxism. Following this, we will address the subsequent crisis faced by Marxist theory during the 1950s, which led to the rise of Althusserian Structural Marxism as another form of Neo-Marxist response. Finally, we will briefly consider how Critical Theory, another prominent branch of Neo-Marxism, responds to the broader crises inherent in capitalist society. 12.2    Learning Objectives : After reading this unit, the students will be able to : •    develop an indepth understanding of Neo-Marxism •    Understand how various Neo-Marxist thinkers challenge, amend and innovate the orthodox Marxist principles/thinking •    make a distinction between Marxism and Neo-Marxism 12.3    The Marxism in Crisis and the Orthodoxy of Economic Determinism The concept of socialism existed well before Karl Marx. Early socialist thinkers criticized the injustice, oppression, and exploitation present in society, often basing their arguments on moral and ethical grounds. They advocated for change because they believed it was the right thing to do for the betterment of humanity. However, Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, took socialism beyond moral appeals and established it on what they described as a scientific foundation. Rather than urging society to act out of conscience to fix the wrongs of capitalism, Marx and Engels analyzed the system of capitalism itself. They argued that capitalism is inherently unstable and contains contradictions that would ultimately lead to its downfall. According to their analysis, the transition to socialism was not something that depended on the goodwill or voluntary actions of a few individuals or any specific group. Instead, it was seen as a necessary and inevitable outcome of historical development. Marx and Engels viewed history as a continuous process shaped by class struggles. In their study of history, they concluded that capitalism would eventually give way to socialism. The conflict between the working class (the proletariat) and the capitalist class was seen as the driving force behind this transformation. Through their struggle, the proletariat would become aware of their role in this historical process and push society towards socialism. The scientific discovery of human history, that Marx and Engels made, hinges on the discovery of the dialectic relationship in which society is structured. In its fundamental form in any epoch, a society can be thought of consisting of two elements: the base (or economy) and the superstructure (ideology, culture, politics and state etc.). The relationship between the two is dialectical. The ways in which the economy in a society is structured influences way in which its legal institutions, ideology, culture will shape; on the other hand, the latter will have impact on the organization of economy. So according to Marx and Engels, studying a society is to study these organizations of economic activities, various relations within it and relationships between the economy and other institutions. Depending of various combinations of the unity of base and superstructure, Marx and Engels show, human history has passed through various stages to reach today’s capitalism. There was, however, a certain tension within this Marxist framework. While Marx and Engels adopted the dialectical method from the German philosopher Hegel, they diverged significantly in their philosophical orientation. Unlike Hegel, who was an idealist, Marx and Engels were committed to a materialist perspective. For materialist thinkers, the primary focus is on the material conditions and realities of life, whereas idealist philosophers, like Hegel, emphasize the importance of ideas and concepts. Hegel viewed elements such as the state—part of what Marxists later termed the "superstructure"—as central to understanding the course of human history and societal development. In contrast, Marx and Engels argued that the economic structure, or the "base," which organizes the material life of society, should be the starting point for analyzing social systems. The underlying tension in their theory revolves around the extent to which economic factors (the base) should be seen as the determining force in shaping society, and how much weight should be given to the superstructural aspects—such as culture, ideology, state institutions, and human agency—which often appear more immediate and significant in people's daily experiences. The debate appeared to reach a temporary conclusion in 1876 when Friedrich Engels published Anti-Dühring. In this work, Engels thoroughly explored the concept of dialectics, specifically materialist dialectics. He drew on contemporary scientific advancements to argue that dialectics function as a natural law. By "natural law," Engels implied that dialectics operate independently of human perception or intention, much like the law of gravity, which affects us regardless of our awareness or desire. According to Engels, dialectical processes are inherent both in nature and in human society. By the early 20th century, prominent Marxist theorists such as Karl Kautsky began advocating for this view of dialectics as an objective force, existing independently of human will or action. Under Kautsky's leadership, the Second International embraced the idea that capitalism would inevitably give way to socialism as a matter of natural progression. Kautsky and his followers, building on Engels' arguments in Anti-Dühring, asserted that the transition from capitalism to socialism was an unavoidable outcome of societal development. They likened this process to the law of gravity: just as an object thrown into the air is certain to fall back down, society, whether it wills it or not, is destined to move towards socialism. This perspective eventually became known as "orthodox Marxism" and was characterized by a strong element of economic determinism. Economic development—the material base—was viewed as the primary driving force of historical change, while political action and revolutionary struggle were seen as secondary concerns. This orthodoxy often led to a reformist approach among socialists, who believed there was little need to hasten the revolutionary process since socialism was bound to arrive naturally in due course. Their strategy became one of patience: to advocate for reforms that would improve workers' conditions in the meantime, while waiting for the inevitable arrival of socialism to resolve society’s problems. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Define Neo-Marxism. 12.4    The Foundation of Gramscian Neo-Marxism as Hegelian Marxism In the aftermath of the First World War and the Russian Revolution, the 1920s witnessed a renewed effort to reinterpret Marxism. Many intellectuals and activists voiced criticism against the way the Second International had reduced Marxism’s revolutionary potential to a rigid and mechanical doctrine. From these critiques arose a distinct approach often referred to as the Hegelian school of Marxism, shaped by the contributions of three influential thinkers: Georg Lukács, Karl Korsch, and Antonio Gramsci. Although these figures did not collaborate to create a unified or systematic interpretation of Marxist theory, later scholars recognized significant connections in their work. Over time, these connections have led to the identification of Hegelian Marxism as an important current within Neo-Marxist thought. 12.4.1    Theory and practice: Hegelian Marxism՚s Stress on Praxis During the era of the Second International, Marxist theory, under the influence of prominent figures like Nikolai Bukharin and Karl Kautsky, became heavily inclined towards economism. The longstanding debate between the economic base and the ideological superstructure was effectively settled in favor of the base. This perspective suggested that the dynamics of the capitalist economy itself were sufficient to explain the inevitable transition to socialism. Consequently, this interpretation of Marxism, focused narrowly on economic determinism, had significant practical outcomes: Communist parties across the world shifted their efforts toward pursuing reforms rather than engaging in revolutionary struggle. Hegelian Marxism offers a strong critique of these tendencies, arguing that they represent a deviation from the revolutionary essence of Marxism. In the hands of Second International theorists, Marxism moved away from revolutionary politics and embraced reformism. Instead of inspiring the working class toward active revolution, these theorists became preoccupied with analyzing the capitalist system and predicting its collapse in purely theoretical terms. This approach, according to Hegelian Marxists, demobilized the working class by undermining the urgency and necessity of revolutionary action. The core criticism Hegelian Marxism makes is that orthodox Marxism, as practiced by the Second International, placed excessive emphasis on the economic base and the so-called objective laws of capitalism. By focusing on these laws in theoretical isolation, they overlooked a crucial element: social change depends on the conscious actions of human beings. It is through the will, ideas, and collective actions of people—expressed in their culture and social practices—that revolutionary transformation becomes possible. For Hegelian Marxists, the central lesson of Marxist dialectics is the inseparable connection between theory and practice—a concept referred to as praxis. Praxis emphasizes that theory without active struggle is incomplete, and practice without a guiding theory is directionless. Revolutionary change can only emerge from the unity of both. Karl Korsch, one of the leading voices of Hegelian Marxism, argued that Marx and Engels themselves embodied this unity. According to Korsch, they successfully combined the revolutionary practice and critical consciousness of the working class with the scientific advancements of bourgeois economists like Ricardo and Adam Smith. While thinkers like Ricardo and Smith analyzed the capitalist system through an economic lens, they lacked the critical perspective of the proletariat, which could challenge the very foundations of that system. Marx and Engels bridged this gap, integrating rigorous economic analysis with the revolutionary aspirations of the working class. In doing so, they developed Marxism as a scientific framework aimed at guiding proletarian action toward revolutionary social change. Korsch insisted that understanding Marxism as praxis is essential; any interpretation that divorces theory from practice risks betraying the revolutionary heart of Marxism. 12.4.2    Unity of Subject and Object: Reified Consciousness The argument for praxis, understood as the dialectical unity of theory and practice, opens the door to discussing another significant contribution of Hegelian Marxism to Marxist thought and action. While this theme appears in the works of thinkers like Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci, it is Georg Lukács, particularly in his influential book History and Class Consciousness, who offers an extensive elaboration on the unity of subject and object. To recall, Friedrich Engels, in Anti-Dühring, asserted that dialectics operates like a natural law, universally present and functioning within nature. The Marxism of the Second International took this further, elevating dialectical materialism to the status of an objective law governing human history, akin to the immutable laws of physics or other natural sciences. The implication of this stance is that the dialectical movement of society unfolds independently of any subjective intervention; its laws operate regardless of human awareness or participation. Lukács, however, challenges this interpretation. While he does not dispute the existence of objective laws in the natural sciences, he argues that dialectics within Marxism cannot be treated as an external, objective mechanism detached from human consciousness and practice. Drawing on the principle of unity between theory and practice, Lukács contends that the awareness of society’s dialectical dynamics is accessible only through the revolutionary practice of the proletariat. In simpler terms, although phenomena like the earth’s gravitational pull are objectively measurable, the dialectical processes within society cannot be understood in the same way. From a bourgeois standpoint, one cannot fully grasp the dialectical nature of social reality. It is only from the subjective position of the proletariat that one gains the capacity to comprehend and analyze society dialectically as an objective reality. This synthesis of subject and object, or the emphasis on subjectivity, is a defining feature of Hegelian Marxism. Lukács’ concepts of reification and false consciousness are grounded in this unity of subject and object. Reification explains why the proletarian standpoint is uniquely positioned to recognize social reality in its dialectical form. The concept traces back to Karl Marx’s discussion of commodity fetishism in Capital, Volume I, where Marx argues that under capitalism, all human relationships are reduced to exchange relations. Commodification extends to every aspect of life, including human labor itself. As commodities become pervasive, people begin to perceive them as autonomous entities, existing independently of the human labor and social relations that produced them. Lukács expands this idea beyond the economic sphere, applying it to the entire structure of capitalist society. In his analysis, capitalism progresses to a stage where individuals perceive all social institutions—not just the economy—as objective, external realities beyond their influence. As this separation between subject and object deepens, Lukács argues that false consciousness takes hold in capitalist society. Each class, based on its position within the system of production, develops a distorted understanding of the social order. The bourgeoisie, for example, remains trapped within a reified consciousness, perceiving social reality as fixed and external rather than historically contingent and changeable. In contrast, the proletariat holds a uniquely privileged position. Under capitalism, the working class has the potential to become fully aware of its true class condition. This historical privilege enables the proletariat to understand the actual dialectical processes underlying capitalist society. As the conscious subject within the system, the proletariat can overcome the reified consciousness that obscures the reality for other classes. Through revolutionary practice, they are capable not only of interpreting society dialectically but also of transforming it. 12.4.3    The Gramsci as Hegelian Marxist: Against the backdrop of Marxism understood as praxis—that is, the inseparable unity of theory and practice—alongside the unity of subject and object, and the emphasis on subjectivism (the notion that the subject and its consciousness are the true drivers of societal transformation), we can situate Gramsci’s theoretical contributions. Hegelian Marxism explicitly draws on these ideas from Hegel, and within this intellectual tradition, Gramsci makes a significant intervention. Gramsci was deeply convinced that, in the historical context of the 1920s, the proletariat represented the key subjective force capable of aligning its collective practice with the historical necessities of the time. He believed that the working class had the potential to develop its own culture—a broad and comprehensive expression encompassing dominant ideas, forms of consciousness, and common sense that guide humanity. For Gramsci, the task confronting the proletariat was to forge a new cultural framework, one that could enable the emergence of an alternative configuration of power. This endeavor required the generation of new intellectual work that could elucidate the intricate relationship between politics and the economic structure. In Gramsci's perspective, the proletariat needed what he termed "organic intellectuals." These were not merely members of an intelligentsia who approached reality with scientific detachment. For Gramsci, the idea of pure objectivity was a myth. He rejected any strict separation between intellectual reflection and political action. Therefore, the role of the organic intellectual was to emerge from within the working class itself, to speak the language of the masses, and to articulate their feelings and thoughts—something the masses were not yet in a position to do independently. The pivotal role Gramsci assigns to intellectuals is inseparable from his concept of hegemony. Hegemony, for Gramsci, refers to leadership or dominance that is maintained not by force but through consent, by shaping and controlling the intellectual and cultural life of society. The ruling class exercises hegemony by embedding its worldview within the cultural institutions and practices of everyday life. Consequently, Gramsci argued that for the working class to achieve political power, it must first engage in a cultural struggle—seizing control of these cultural instruments, transforming them, and reorganizing them to assert intellectual and moral leadership over society. In other words, the working class needed to establish its own hegemony. This required the creation of a distinct proletarian culture, one that would gradually expand into ideological dominance. Such cultural leadership was essential as a precursor to achieving and consolidating political power. And it is precisely for this reason that Gramsci saw the development and work of organic intellectuals as central to the revolutionary project. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Name three key figures of Hegelian School of Marxism. 2.    Describe Gramsci as a Hegelian Marxist. 12.5    “Destanilization” as the Next Crisis and Althusser՚s Structural Marxism Althusser’s interpretation of Marxism has often been labeled as structuralist interpretation of Marxism. Althusser is believed to use structuralist framework, made popular by famous anthropologist, Levi Strauss, in Marxism. However, this may not be entirely true because in some writings, Althusser appears to be highly critical of Levi Strauss. But many continue to call this strand of Neo- Marxism as structuralist or structural Marxism to point out Althusser and his followers’ stress on primacy of structures as processes in thinking about Marxism afresh. This emphasis on structure and processes, contra subjectivity or agency, is a key feature of his NeoMarxism. But to situate Althusser’s insistence on structure and processes, against Lukacs, Korsch or Gramsci’s subjectivism, we must take a detour and revisit the new crisis of Marxism in the wake of Stalin’s death in 1953. 12.5.1    ‘Destalinisation՚: Revisionism and Marxism Following Stalin’s death, within three years, Nikita Khrushchev emerged as the new leader of the Soviet Communist Party. At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev publicly condemned Stalin, attributing the brutal excesses within the Soviet bloc to Stalin’s paranoid disposition and the expansion of his personality cult within the party. Determined to correct Stalin’s errors, Khrushchev sought to steer Soviet Communism back toward what he described as a more humanistic form of socialism. On the international stage, the Soviet Union soon embraced a policy of peaceful coexistence. Rather than confronting imperialist powers through military aggression, the USSR began positioning itself as a global advocate for peace under socialism. However, this shift was met with strong resistance from the Chinese Communist Party. Chinese leaders denounced Khrushchev’s de-Stalinization efforts and his move toward the social democracy reminiscent of the Second International, labeling it as revisionist. The Chinese critique of Khrushchev’s emphasis on humanistic and democratic socialism gained further validation, particularly in France, where the French Communist Party had adopted similar reformist approaches under Khrushchev’s influence. During this period of ideological crisis across Europe, the French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, himself a member of the French Communist Party, recognized the need for philosophical and political intervention. Althusser identified an ironic convergence between Khrushchev’s humanist socialism and the tendencies of Hegelian Marxism. Together with a group of younger philosophers—such as Étienne Balibar, Jacques Rancière, Alain Badiou, and Nicos Poulantzas—Althusser initiated a new intellectual movement later known as Structural Marxism. This school of thought sought to overcome both the subjectivism associated with Hegelian Marxism and the residual economism present in traditional communist political practices. Structural Marxists developed groundbreaking reinterpretations of Marxist theory, offering fresh insights into concepts such as ideology, the role of the state as an institution, historical periodization, and cultural analysis. Central to these reinterpretations were two major conceptual advances. The first was their view of history as an objective process without a subject, rejecting the humanist and teleological assumptions of Hegelian Marxism. The second was their redefinition of the Marxist dialectic through the concept of overdetermination, which challenged the reductionist economic determinism often found in orthodox Marxism. These theoretical innovations would profoundly influence Marxist thought and practice in the years to come. 12.5.2    History without a Subject Structural Marxism argues that there is a significant rupture within Marx’s body of work. According to this perspective, the early Marx—deeply influenced by Hegel and German idealism—was preoccupied with themes such as human essence, alienation, and consciousness. This phase is best represented in works like The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. However, the later, more developed Marx shifted focus towards constructing a scientific, materialist analysis of historical processes, as exemplified in Capital. Structural Marxists maintain that the true core of Marxism lies in Capital, where Marx fully articulates his dialectical method and applies it rigorously to the study of history and society. Proponents of Structural Marxism reject Hegelian Marxism, which they argue mistakenly clings to the early Marx’s humanistic concerns. Hegelian Marxists, by emphasizing subjectivity and the consciousness of the working class as the key driver of historical change, are accused by theorists like Althusser of perpetuating a form of ideology rather than advancing scientific Marxism. In this view, the humanism at the heart of Hegelian Marxism remains an ideological distortion. On the other hand, traditional economic determinism—sometimes labeled as Marxist orthodoxy—interprets history as an evolutionary progression of economic systems. According to this model, feudalism, riven by its internal contradictions, gives rise to capitalism. As capitalism, in turn, reaches a crisis point through its own contradictions, it is expected to be replaced by socialism. Structural Marxists critique both Hegelian Marxism and economic determinism for presenting history as driven by a single dominant force—whether it be human consciousness or economic development. Rather than focusing on the economy as the exclusive engine of historical transformation or the awakening of human consciousness (especially that of the proletariat), Structural Marxism offers a different approach. It rejects the humanistic view that places humanity at the center of historical change—a perspective it sees as fundamentally idealist because it prioritizes human thought and awareness. Instead, Structural Marxism advocates for studying history as a "process without a subject." This means analyzing history not as the unfolding of human consciousness, but as an impersonal, material process shaped by the complex interplay of various social structures and relations. For Structural Marxists, history operates independently of human intentions or awareness. It is “unconscious” in the sense that its movement is driven by material conditions and structural relations that exist beyond human will or understanding. Human consciousness, they argue, is always embedded in ideology. People’s understanding of their social reality is shaped by ideological frameworks, which are merely representations of the actual material relations that structure society. One is justified to wonder at this point that how this view of history is different from orthodox Marxism’s view of history. Orthodox Marxism reduces the whole history to economy. In contrast as a major difference, structural Marxism sees history consisting of at least four elements: ideological, theoretical, political and economic. All these elements, which structural Marxism prefers to call practices, are active in shaping human history, it is just not economy. Human history in various epochs (like say feudalism. capitalism, socialism) is actually various combinations of these practices. They have their own autonomous processes and structures. Marxism needs to study them in their specificity. So for a Marxist as economy is important so is studying ideology or politics. A Marxist analysis also needs to study the ways in which these practices are interrelated to compose the society as a structured whole. The structural Marxism proposes that society as a structure is over-determined. The claim is that the structure of society is a complex whole. The complexity lies in the fact that society is just not determined; it is determined twice over and thereby over-determined. So we already know that the economy in Marxism is considered the determining factor. It determines the nature and relationships of superstructural elements. Structural Marxism agrees to this Marxist interpretation. However at the same time, they argue that dialectics process that Marx or later Marxists like Lenin had in mind do not end here. The economy determines how the other elements like ideology, politics and theory would be hierarchically ordered. At the same time it also determines which one out of all four elements (i.e. including economy, not excluding) will be the dominant one. The dominant element then in principle comes to determine the hierarchical order for the second time. This over-determined structure is the society as a whole. So in feudalism, economic structures determine other instances in such a way that the state as a part of political practices becomes dominant and regulates the society in general. But in capitalism economy determines these relationships in such a way that it itself remains dominant. This understanding of dialectic ensures that the primacy of other instances like polity, ideology or theory and their analysis remains as crucial for revolutionary Marxism as understanding the economy. This also reflects in Althusser’s own work and the theoretical questions structural Marxism has taken up. Althusser’s own celebrated essays on the state, ideology, art, theater etc. relating these with class struggle in existing society - demonstrates that Althusser’s Neo-Marxism was not prisoner of Marxist orthodoxy, despite its negation of subjectivism. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Discuss Althusser’s structural Marxism. 2.    What do you know about Young Marx and mature Marx. 12.6    The Crisis of Capitalist Society in general: the Critical Theory of Habermas Jurgen Habermas’s Neo-Marxism, as a branch of Critical Theory, did not arise directly from a crisis within Communist politics or traditional Marxist philosophy. Instead, the Critical Theory school that initially shaped Habermas was composed of scholars with shared interests in topics such as knowledge, ideology, rationality, and the dynamics of capitalism during the rise of fascism. Many of these thinkers were not Marxists in the conventional sense, unlike figures such as Gramsci, Lukács, Korsch, or Althusser. For them, Marxism represented a dynamic and evolving tradition of critical inquiry. However, they also sought to apply their own critical lens to Marxism itself. It was within this intellectual context and ongoing engagement with Marxist thought that Habermas developed his work. 12.6.1    The Critical Theory: Subjectivism and Praxis In the early 1930s, as Critical Theory was beginning to take shape, social science was largely following the model of the natural sciences. The prevailing approach in social science assumed that objective facts existed independently in the world. The task of the researcher, it was believed, was to observe these facts, derive generalizations, and formulate laws that could describe social reality. Critical theorists, however, challenged this notion of external, objective facts. According to their perspective, facts are not simply "out there" waiting to be observed; rather, they are shaped by historical and social conditions. Furthermore, they argued that observation itself is never neutral. The observer’s perceptions and interpretations are just as historically situated as the facts they claim to perceive. This idea can be illustrated with a simple example: when we make the statement, “X is good in sociology,” Critical Theory would argue that this is not an objective fact that can be validated or refuted through mere observation. The concepts contained in the statement—what we mean by “good,” our definition of “sociology,” and even the criteria for being “good” in sociology (perhaps high scores or scholarly contributions)—are all historically and socially constructed. These standards are established by society, and they shape our judgments. Critical theorists go even further, suggesting that we ourselves, as observers making such statements, are already conditioned by these historical definitions and social norms. Long before we make any observation, we are shaped by the very criteria we are applying. Therefore, they argue, true neutrality in observation is impossible. This understanding leads to another key claim in Critical Theory: that critical thinking itself is a form of social practice. Critical Theory is self-reflective, aware that its own theorizing occurs within a particular social context. This creates a dual challenge for critical theorists. On one hand, they must recognize that their thought is grounded in the social realities they seek to analyze. On the other hand, they must attempt to take a critical stance outside of that society, in order to question and critique the categories and concepts through which society understands and organizes itself. Drawing on ideas from Georg Lukács, Critical Theory holds that capitalist societies are structured in such a way that reality appears as something external and independent, beyond the control of individuals. This perception fosters a sense of alienation. The role of critical thought, then, is to confront this alienation and work toward a reconciliation between individuals and their own human essence. Critical Theory envisions a future in which the divide between subject and object is overcome through society’s collective self-awareness. However, unlike Lukács, who believed that the proletariat was the privileged subject capable of achieving this unity through revolutionary consciousness, Critical Theory rejects the notion of a singular, absolute subject of knowledge. Instead, it sees the realization of subject-object unity not in one class’s perspective, but through the development of society’s broader selfknowledge. 12.6.2    The Problem of Dialectics In the long-standing debate within Marxism regarding the relationship between the base and superstructure, different interpretations have emphasized the primacy of one over the other. Critical Theory, particularly in the work of Theodor Adorno, takes a distinct stance by challenging traditional notions of dialectics altogether. Adorno critiques philosophy as a whole—including the dialectical methods of both Hegel and Marx—for consistently prioritizing one side of fundamental dualities. Whether the focus is on subject or object, theory or practice, philosophy has often reduced complex, interdependent realities to a single dominant category. Adorno identifies this tendency as a form of philosophical totalitarianism, where one aspect is granted absolute authority at the expense of its counterpart. In contrast, Critical Theory aims to resist this by maintaining an open-ended dialectical approach. Rather than asserting the primacy of one category over another, it emphasizes the dynamic and contradictory relationships between them. For instance, when considering the relationship between base and superstructure, Critical Theory insists that neither should be viewed as entirely determining or explaining the other. Instead, their interplay must be understood as a continuous process of mutual influence and contradiction. This approach seeks to prevent any reductionist interpretations that could lead to rigid, totalizing explanations. 12.6.3    Habermasian Neo-Marxism: The Critical Encounter with Marx as the Foundation The social and philosophical assumptions mentioned earlier play a central role in Habermas’s critical engagement with Marx. Significantly, Habermas’s departure from Marx’s framework lays the groundwork for his own theories on communicative action, the public sphere, and deliberative democracy. Marx emphasized that humanity’s relationship with nature, and their ability to dominate it, constitutes the true domain of sociological inquiry—particularly concerning labor, productive forces, modes of production, and the superstructures that emerge from each mode. Habermas acknowledges Marx’s valuable shift away from Hegelian idealism, which focused exclusively on consciousness. Instead, Marx rooted his dialectical method in material conditions by examining how humans interact with nature and how societies are produced and reproduced through these interactions. However, Habermas argues that Marx makes the mistake of giving exclusive priority to this dimension. In his attempt to distance himself from Hegel, Marx, according to Habermas, ends up neglecting a crucial element of human social life: intersubjectivity. As a result, Marx presents a partial understanding as though it were complete—focusing on production and reproduction while overlooking the significance of communication and the intersubjective relationships between individuals. Habermas’s insistence on the dialogical and communicative dimensions of human society reflects his grounding in the tradition of Critical Theory. This emphasis forms the foundation of his work on discourse ethics, his analysis of the public sphere as a space shaped by intersubjective communication, and his vision of deliberative democracy. For Habermas, communication and dialogue are essential pathways for addressing the challenges of modernity and fostering democratic participation. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Write a short note on Habermasian Neo-Marxism. 12.7    Summary Neo-Marxism covers new areas since Marx and Engels. These areas primarily consist of understanding subjective consciousness, dynamics of culture, ideological practices, state and its legal apparatuses as part of production and reproduction, and finally even symbolic universe as the part of material reality. However, all these avenues have opened up due to these thinkers serious mediations on the issue of base and superstructure. Inspirations have come from various sources, but as a common agenda. Neo- Marxists across the spectrum take up social-philosophical questions on methodology in studying society (dialectic), structure and agency, relationships between theory and socio-political practices etc. The socio-philosophical ideas developed within Neo-Marxism are essential for comprehending key concepts like Gramsci’s notion of hegemony, Althusser’s theory of ideological state apparatuses, and Habermas’s concept of the public sphere. These ideas have had a profound impact on sociological theory and have significantly shaped both theoretical frameworks and empirical research across the social sciences. 12.8    Glossary •    Corpus : A collection of written texts, especially the entire works of a particular author or a body of writing on a particular subjects. •   Economic Determinism : A Socio-economic theory that economic relationships are the foundation upon which all other societal and political arrangements in society are based. •    Proletariate : Working class people regarded collectively. •    Second International : It was an organisation of Socialist and labour parties, formed on 14 July 1889 at two simultaneous Paris meetings in which delegations from twenty countries participated •    Praxis - the dialectical Unity of theory and practice. •    Reification - Unity of subject and object. •    Subjectivism : The doctrine that knowledge is merely subjective and that there is no external or objective truth. 12.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    For Answer See Section 12.1 (First para). Self Check Exercise-2 1.   Georges Lukacs, Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci. 2.   Gramsci developed the concept of hegemony, which is exercising power without coercion. It is the controlling of the intellectual life of a society by its ruling class through cultural means. This readily implies for Gramsci, to attain political power, first the working class must seize these cultural means, destroy, transform and rearrange them to have required intellectual control over society’s life. Or in other words it must establish its own hegemony. And this is exactly why working class needs its own organic intellectuals working towards creating proletarian culture in time extending into ideological dominance in the society to seize political power. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Louis Althusser’s approach to Marxism is frequently described as a structuralist interpretation. Drawing on the structuralist methodology made prominent by anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, Althusser reinterpreted Marxist theory through a structural lens. Although Althusser occasionally critiques Lévi-Strauss in his work, scholars often refer to this school of thought as "structural Marxism." This label highlights Althusser’s and his followers’ focus on structures and processes as central to rethinking Marxist theory. A defining characteristic of Althusser’s neo-Marxism is its emphasis on objective structures and systems, rather than on human agency or subjective experience. 2.    Marx’s writings reveal a significant shift in focus over time. His early works, such as The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, were deeply influenced by Hegelian philosophy and German idealism, with an emphasis on themes like human nature, alienation, and consciousness. However, in his later work, particularly Capital, Marx adopted a more scientific and materialist approach to analyzing history and society. Structuralist thinkers argue that Marx’s mature writings, especially in Capital, represent the true core of his thought. Here, Marx clearly demonstrates his dialectical method and its application to understanding historical development. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    For answer see Section Sub-Section 12.6.3. 12.10    Suggested Readings : •    Callinicos, Alex. Althusser’s Marxism. Pluto Press : London, 1976. •    Jacques Biddet and Stathis Kouvelakis. “Introduction : Marxism, PostMarxism, New-Marxisms.” in Critical Companion to Contemporary Marxism, edited by Jacques Bidet and Stathis Kouvelakis. Brill : Leiden & Boston, 2008. pp. XI-XV. •    Ritzer, George. “Varieties of Neo-Marxist Theories.” in Sociological Theory (8th Ed.). The McGraw-Hills Companies: New York, 2011. pp. 277-330. 12.11    Terminal Questions 1.    Write a detailed note on Neo-Marxism. 2.    How the Journey of Neo-Marxism began as a response to orthodox Marxism in the form of Hegelian Marxism? 3.    Elaborate the views of Antonio Gramsci about Neo-Marxism. 4.    In what respect Neo-Marxism differs from mainstream Marxism. 5.    Discuss the Neo-Marxism of Jurgen Habermas as a Strand of Critical Theory. ***** Block-III Unit-13 POST-MODERNISM Structure 13.1    Introduction 13.2    Learning Objectives 13.3    original Evolution of Post-Modernism 13.3.1    Transformation of Modernism into Post-Modernism 13.3.2    The Basic Themes of the Era of Post-Modernism or Po-Mo 13.3.3    Post-Modernism in Politics Self Check Exercise-1 13.4    Post-Modernism : Meaning, Definitions and Key Protagonists 13.4.1    Politics in the Era of Post-Modernism 13.4.2    Main Ideas of Key Protagonists of Post Modernism Self Check Exercise-2 13.5    Salient Features OR Basic Themes of Post-Modernism Self Check Exercise-3 13.6    Modernism versus Post-Modernism Self Check Exercise-4 13.7    Post-Modernism : A Critical Appraisal Self Check Exercise-5 13.8    Summary 13.9    Glossary 13.10    Answers to Self Check Exercises s13.11    Suggested Readings/References 13.12    Terminal Questions. 13.1    Introduction One of the most popular terms which is being increasingly heard in the classrooms and corridors of academic institutions has been Post-Modernism. However, it is discussed and debated in several different ways and words. This indicates both the popularity of the topic as well as its complex and even confusing meaning and nature. Andrew Heywood writes, “Post-Modernism is a controversial and confusing term that was first used to describe experimental movements in Western architecture and cultural development in general.” Gradually it began getting the attention of almost all social scientists. In contemporary times, Post-Modernism is being hotly discussed and debated in all social sciences and literature. It now happens to be a major topic of study and research. Since the eighth decade of the twentieth century, Post-Modernism has been becoming increasingly popular and many scholars deem it a matter of privilege to get associated with it. 13.2    Learning Objectives : After reading this unit, the students will be able to : •    understand the meaning, definitions, salient features and basic themes of Post-Modernism •    describe the transformation of Modernism into Post-Modernism •    describe the main ideas of Key Protagonists of Post-Modernism •    make a critical appraisal of Post-Modernism 13.3    Origin and Evolution of Post-Modernism Arran E. Gare, in his work ‘Post-Modernism and the Environmental Crisis’, observes that: “the term Post-Modernism has been used with astonishing frequency in a surprising variety of ways. Its popularity seems to derive from the way it can mean anything to anyone. It signifies participation in the debate about whether there has been a radical cultural transformation in the world, particularly within Western societies, and if so, whether this has been good or bad. To define Post-Modernism is not just to define a term. It is to characterise the present age and to assess how we should respond to it.” The whole of European civilisation, from ancient times to modem age got moved by the concept of progress with its underlying belief in the superiority of Western civilisation and the merit of dependence upon reason, tradition, science, knowledge and technology. In the age of Imperialism and colonialism, the European states were in a position to advocate and impose their values as universal values and objective truths. This was identified as the age of Modernism, the age of progress and the age of science, technology and Industrialisation. However, in the second half of the 20th century, the process of decolonialisation came to develop and it led to the resurgence of Asia, Africa and Latin America. It got symbolised in the rise of a large number of new sovereign states in these continents. The world began experiencing a rapid and comprehensive social, economic, political and intellectual transformation. Modernism began giving place to Post-Modernism. The age of universal and objective values and truths began getting replaced by a new faith in the principle that there could be nothing absolutely certain and final. The world was bound to develop on the basis of socio-economic-politico-cultural-intellectual-value pluralism. In this period, Post Modernism came to believe and advocate that there could be nothing absolutely certain, definite fully structured, foundational and universal. There could be no universal and objective truths. It rejected Modernism and Enlightenment Project. It rejected the view that dependence on science and reason could provide definite, universal and objective principles and foundations capable of ensuring all social and moral reforms. That was why the term Post Modernism came to be sometimes used interchangeably with anti-structuralism and anti-foundationalism. The present age is described as the age of Post-Modernism. To sum up, it can be safely stated that the origin and evolution of PostModernism came as a challenge to Modernism. It can also be observed: “PostModernism has been virtually a revolt against Modernism.” It has been because of this fact that every attempt to define and understand Post Modernism must essentially begin by comprehending the meaning and nature of Modernism. 13.3.1    Transformation of Modernism into Post-Modernism. The shift from Modernism towards Post-Modernism began taking place in the later half of the twentieth century when several scholars started perceiving the twin features of science and reason to deliver progress. In the era of Cold War in international relations, no one could really think of objective and universal values. Even there could be no agreement as to what really constituted progress and development. The foundationalism of the modernists, i.e., the belief that it was possible to establish objective truths, universal values usually associated with progress, came into question at the hands of several scholars. It was now advocated that there could be no such thing as certainty or absolute and universal truths. The ideas of Modernists were held to be arrogant pretences. It was now projected that social, economic, political and cultural diversities could not be uniformly unified or integrated on the basis of some supposed universal truths, values and rational principles. Therefore, individualism and socio-economic-politico-intellectual-cultural pluralism constituted the natural order of human living on the planet earth. Several scholars realized and started advocating that dependence on science, reason, knowledge, and technology in the era of Modernism had led to neither the emergence of universal justice, freedom, rights and prosperity nor had made the life of the individual more meaningful and worth-living. In the age of Enlightenment and Modernism, domination, cruelty, wars, oppressions, suppressions, exploitations, inequalities, violence, disorders, unrests, poverty, injustice and under-development continued to be present. “In more than 300 years of its popularity, Modernism had failed to deliver the promised truths, values and progress.” Modernism had virtually failed to bring in the promised developed and rational world. A large and increasing number of scholars, therefore, got squarely disenchanted with Modernism. The two world wars, the Cold War between East and West in the post-1945 period, the conflict between Liberalism and Marxism, the nuclear and armament race between the USA and (erstwhile) USSR and the resulting Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) situation the tensions, strains, wars and violence, racialism, inequality, gender injustice and growing inequality between the developed and under-developed countries of the world, all combined to make the environment of human living stressful and unhealthy. Progress and development registered in the era of science, industrialization and urbanization was found to be unreal and hollow as was demonstrated by environmental pollution, impending ecological disaster, threats and dangers resulting from epidemics like AIDS and Cancer, and ethnic violence made the humankind live with anguish, anger and despair. Decline of moral values got reflected in the increasing incidence of violence, war, coercion and terrorism. Literature, philosophy, economics, politics and in fact all social disciplines found themselves in crises. The thesis of Modernism got fractured and several thinkers, philosophers and social scientists began talking of PostModernism, Anti- Foundationalism and Anti-Structuralism. The new realization in favour of the need for acceptance and encouragement of social, economic, political, cultural and intellectual pluralism further shook the faith in Modernism. Several scholars now came forward to reject the thesis of universal and objective truths and values and principles, as was advocated by the Modernists. They proclaimed themselves as Post-Modernists. Post-Modernism then started replacing Modernism and contemporary age came to be popularly described as the age of Post-Modernism. 13.3.2    The Basic Themes of the Era of Post Modernism OR PO-MO The contemporary era is being popularly described as the age of PostModernism. Its basic themes have been : (i)   Different people and cultures are just different, neither better nor worse, (ii)  Rejection of the thesis of certain firm, definite, objective and universal values and principles for the whole of humanity, (iii)    Individuals and cultures have similarities and convergences but these can be neither reduced and nor joined to project abstract and universal values and principles of human life in all societies of the world, and (iv)    Socio-economic-politico-intellectual-cultural pluralism is natural and essential for each society and the world at large. 13.3.3    Post- Modernism in Politics The development of Post-Modernism in Politics began taking place in around 1970s when several political groups and struggles began to emerge under the impact of various social movements, particularly in France and the United States. Several scholars came out with their theories of post-modern politics. They placed emphasis on individual struggles, cultural identities of various groups of people, individual identities of persons, features and activities of everyday life. In place of universal values and reforms, the emphasis now came to be on individual identity of each society/community, social-cultural-political intellectual pluralism, individual freedom, progressive change, continuous activity, piecemeal reforms, local institutions, local strategies and a shift from macro-politics to micro-politics. Post-Modernist view of politics projected the view of identity politics in which individuals construct their cultural and political identities through their own initiatives, struggles and associations. They work for advancing their respective group interests. Post-Modernism accepts particularity, difference and localization in politics. Identity politics differs from modernist politics which upholds universalism and collectivity. In Politics, Post-Modernism stands for identity politics and accepts value of social, political and cultural pluralism. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Fill in the blanks: (i)    Since the ________ decade of the 20th century Post-Modernism has been becoming increasingly popular. (ii)    Post-Modernism has been virtually a revolt against __________. (iii)    In Post-Modernism, there is a shift from macro politics to ________. 2.    Describe two basic themes of the Era of Post-Modernism. 13.4    Post-Modernism : Meaning, Definitions and key protagonists It is indeed very problematic to define a complex and widespread movement like Post-Modernism. The exercise becomes doubly difficult due to the presence of several different ways in which its different protagonists define it in arts, philosophy, history, politics, economics, architecture and other disciplines. Yet, we can definitely attempt to define it on the basis of its basic features and themes. At the outset, it can be said with certainty that Post-Modernism involves a rejection of Modernism. It affirms that nothing can be affirmed with certainty. “There cannot be firm, objective and universal values and principles because individuals and cultures are different and these are bound to remain so.” Despite some similarities and convergences, individuals and cultures are bound to develop differently. Andrew Heywood writes, “Although by its nature Post-Modernism does not constitute a unified body of thought, its critical attitude to truth-claims stems from the assumption that all knowledge is partial and local.” Elaborating further, Heywood observes that Post-Modernism stands for a social and intellecutal shift from Modernity to Post-Modernity and a related cultural and intellectual shift from Modernism to Post-Modernism. Modern societies (Modernism) were seen to be structured by industrialization and class solidarity in which social identity was largely determined by one’s position within the productive system. Post-Modern societies (Post-Modernism), on the other hand, are increasingly fragmented and pluralistic information societies in which individuals, their groups and communities have separate and distinct identities and values. Post-Modernism projects the view that there can be nothing absolutely certain and final in values, principles and knowledge. The use of reason, science and knowledge can neither explain everything nor finally solve all problems and nor even meet all needs of all societies. Social world and the individuals are always in a dynamic situation, always in the process of becoming, which requires continual activity. All values are dynamic and so are rules, regulations and traditions. “The self and society are constructed by the actions of individuals and without fixed rules or norms.” Post-Modernism upholds individualism and socio-economic-politico-cultural-intellectual pluralism. 13.4.1    Politics in the Era of Post-Modernism In the sphere of Politics, Post-Modernism rejects the attempts of modern politics (Politics or Political Theory in the era of Modernism) to lay down universal values, basic rights, the common good and guarantees that allow democratic rights. It also refuses to accept the vision of complete emancipations as offered by the ideologies of Liberalism and Marxism. Post-Modernism Politics rejects all totalizing theories or grand theories or meta narratives which ignore differences and individualist-expressions of different individuals and groups. It places emphasis on heterogeneity, plurality, dynamic and continuing attempts at arriving make-shift consensus-decisions and solutions. Post-Modernism politics accepts and stresses difference and particularity and not unity, uniformity and universal consensus. It stands for identity politics, meaning politics in which individuals construct their own cultural and political identities by engaging themselves in struggles and associations that advance the interests of the groups with which they themselves identify. Post-Modernism refuses to accept anything as universal values and conclusions. It places emphasis on discourse, debate and democracy in all processes of politics. 13.4.2    Main Ideas of Key Protagonists of Post-Modernism Among the key figures of Post-Modernism, the names of Frierick Nietzsche, Martin Heidegger, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, Jean Francois Lyotard, and Jacques Derrida occupy a central place. I.    Friedrick Nietzsche (1844-1900) Most of the contemporary scholars regard Nietzsche as the precursor of PostModernism. He stressed the importance of will, especially the will to power and held that people create their own worlds and make their own values. Like a nihilist, Nietzsche was not prepared to accept any existing moral and political principle. His main works were ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, ‘On the Genealogy of Morals’, ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ and “The Birth of Tragedy’. The first three influenced PostModernists to regard truth as fiction and link beliefs and values to the assertion of power. II.    Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) This German philosopher can also be described as the precursor of PostModernism. He described ‘Being’ (existence) as a self-conscious being or existence. Instead of making human nature as the basis of his thinking, Heidegger talked of human essence as a ‘realm of disclosure’ and called upon humans to develop a receptive relationship to being and do not get dependent on technology. III.    Michel Foucault (1926-1984) Foucault was a French philosopher and a radical intellectual. He tried to construct a ‘history of present’ and attempted to blend philosophy with history of ideas. He was guided by the objective of uncovering the implicit knowledge which underlies social practices and institutions. He analysed different branches of knowledge as archeologies. He placed emphasis on discourse. He held that truth was always a social reconstruct and it differed both from society to society as well as from time to time. ‘Knowledge is always deeply enmeshed with power, and power can be both productive as well as prohibitive.’ Foucault attempted to show that the basic ideas that people normally accept as permanent truths about human nature and society, always change in the course of history. He offered new concepts that challenged people’s assumptions about prisons, police, insurance, gay rights and welfare. He even tried to encourage the people to resist the welfare state by developing individual ethics in which each one may turn ones life into something that others can respect and admire. Foucault also explored the shifting patterns of power within a society and the ways in which power related to the self. He accepted Nietzsche’s view that human behaviour was motivated by will to power and that traditional values had lost their power over society. Foucault also advanced the view that “there were different ways of understanding things. and that each way had its advantages and dangers.” These words of Foucault upheld the Post-modernist view that there could be no certainty or definite firmness in any truth, idea or value. Post-Modernism got its roots and first principles under the influence of Foucault’s works, which included ‘Madness and Civilisation’, ‘Birth of Clinic’, ‘Discipline and Punishment’ and ‘The Order of Things”. Foucault did not give any place to the thesis of firm objective and universal values. IV.    Jean Francois Lyotard (1924-84) Lyotard was a French philosopher who popularized the term Post-Modernism by giving it a definition. He observed that Post-Modernism meant: “An incredulity towards meta-narratives (so called higher and absolute ideologies, principles and theories)”. He expressed strong doubt about all creeds and ideologies which were based on universal theories or narrations of history, and which described society as a coherent totality. He did not accept either Liberalism or Marxism which had tried to lay down alternative universal values as ultimate theories or truths. He was not prepared to accept truth as the standard of value. His work, “The Postmodern Condition’, published in 1979, got recognition as a standard work on PostModernism. V.    Richard Rorty (1931) He is an American philosopher who mainly focuses attention on political issues. He rejects the idea that there are objective and absolutely true ideas and standards for judging beliefs. He holds philosophy is nothing more than conversation. Rorty is a strong critic of foundationalist and metaphysical aspirations of traditional philosophy, He, however, supports a pragmatic liberalism. He also expresses some reservations about Post-Modernism. His key works are ‘Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature’, ‘Pragmatism and Contingency’, ‘Irony and Solidarity’. VI.    Jacques Derrida (1930) He was born in Algeria but got his education in Paris University. Naturally, he got influenced by Post-Modernism which was in the air in 1960s. He became a proponent of Post-Modernism by rejecting both construction in favour of deconstruction and structuralism in favour of Post-Modernism. In his concept of ‘Difference’, Derrida rejects the idea of fixed differences in language and expresses a belief in continuous changes in meanings. He strongly criticises the objectivity of structures. He founded the school of criticism with the name ‘Deconstruction’. His major works have been ‘Writing and Difference’, ‘Margins of Philosophy and ‘Spectres of Marx, and Dissemination.’ The basic features of Post-Modernism can be encompassed from the works of these and some other Post-modernist scholars. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    What is meant by Post-Modernism? 2.    Name the Key protagonists of Post-Modernism. 13.5    Salient Features OR Basic Themes of Post-Modernism The following can be described as the main features or themes of PostModernism: (1)    Rejection of Modernism. The first and fore most feature of Post-Modernism can be described as ‘the Rejection of Modernism’. It holds that Modernism has failed to provide a clear and real picture of human beings, human behaviour, society and socio-economic-politico-cultural relations of various peoples and their societies. Modernism wrongly tried to lay down certain values and principles as universal truths, objective knowledge and valid principles of all spheres of human life on this earth. (2)    Rejection of Enlightenment Project. Post-Modernism rejects the thesis of rational and universal values and principles which were projected by Enlightenment movement. It rejects meta-narratives as well as the view that use of reason, science and knowledge can lead to the emergence and acceptance of firm, objective and universal values. (3)    Rejection of Foundationalism and Structuralism. Post-Modernism opposes and rejects the thesis that there could be universally and eternally valid objective truths and structures. There could be no such thing as certainty because everything continuously changes. All knowledge is partial and, in fact, local in nature and content. Foundationalism and structuralism wrongly claim objectivity and definiteness. There could be nothing like single unified history and philosophy. Post-Modernism involves anti-foundationalism and anti-structuralism. (4)    Reason and Science cannot lead to definite, certain and universally valid Truths. Post-Modernism holds that reason and science can neither explain nor lead to universally valid values and principles. Even in the enlightenment era, i.e., age of Reason, science and technology, values and principles kept on continuously changing. There could emerge no finality about social, economic and political values. Consequently, rather than pursuing truths, Post-Modernism advocates the acceptance of uncertainty. Truths, values and local ideas are always bound to differ from society to society and from time to time in every society. Modernist advocacy of universal truths has been nothing but ‘arrogant pretences”. (5)    Rejection of Ideologies of Liberalism and Marxism. Post-Modernism rejects the ideologies of ‘Liberalism and Marxism’ as irrelevant metanarratives. Each of these wrongly projects certain values and principles as universal truths. Against this, Post- Modernism accepts and advocates the freedom of each individual and his groups to evolve or accept their own values and ways of social, economic, political and cultural preferences and features. (6)    Faith in Social, Economic, Political and Cultural Diversities and Pluralism. Post-Modernism places emphasis on the fact that different people and cultures are just different, neither better nor worse than each other. No one can be and should be judgemental in projecting some systems as superior or better than others. There is to be no determinism in the of all areas of social relations. Pluralism and multi-culturalism are natural to the world. (7)    Post-Modernism seeks to move away from the Idea of Society as a Totality. Post-Modernism does not take society as a totality because such a view smacks of totalitarianism. Further, such a view of society is dangerous because it ignores differences, fragmentations and heterogeneity which characterize each society. Post-Modernism holds that societies have now become post-modern societies and hence these cannot be explained with the help of the values and principles advocated by Modernism. (8)    Social Sciences of the era of Modernism have become irrelevant. All existing social sciences, i.e., the social sciences of the age of modernism, are irrelevant because of the changed nature of post-modern societies. Consequently, the concepts, methods, approaches and theories developed by social sciences have become obsolete and these cannot explain and understand the nature and behaviour of contemporary Post-Modern societies. Post-Modernism rejects the modernist emphasis and conclusion about reason and rationality, normality and deviance as well as the judgements about best ways and means for dealing with the practical issues of Post-Modern societies. The need for accepting and incorporating continuously coming changes in social sciences is advocated by Post- Modernism. Social relations are always continuously changing relations, the social science have to continuously undergo changes. In fact, these have been actually undergoing continuous changes. There cannot be any finality or certainty in social sciences. The contents of rights, liberty, equality, and justice have been continuously changing. Political Science cannot lay down any final judgement about their nature and content. In all periods of history, there have been and there are bound to be different conceptualization of all major concepts of politics. (9)    Emphasis upon Micro studies against Macro studies and Theories. All societies are culturally different. Individuals, their groups, their communities, their values, needs and views always differ from society to society. There is an element of locality or localism in every culture and society. Hence, micro studies must enjoy precedence over macro studies and theories. (10)    Post-Modernist Societies need Post-Modernism. Contemporary societies are held to be post-modernist societies and these are increasingly fragmented and pluralistic information societies. In these, individuals have got transformed from producers to consumers and the individualists. These have adopted new class, religious and ethnic loyalties. It is the age of post-materialism, societies no longer depend upon manufacturing industry. These have been relying more on a variety of information, knowledge and communications. These are permeated by new views about all dimensions of social relations. Modernistic concepts, theories, methods, approaches, values and preferences have changed and are still changing. New issues and problems have come to the surface, for example, gender injustice, terrorism, ecology, violence, problem of rights and justice and new meanings of power. Post-industrial societies are post-modern societies. Modernism has become obsolete, Post-Modernism is the way out. (11)    Post-Modernism recognizes natural and continuing Differences among different Cultures. Post-Modernism accepts that different individuals and cultures, despite some similarities and convergences, are bound to remain different and keep their individual identities. It is, therefore, wrong to work for establishing universal truths and values as well as adopt abstract models on the basis of similarities. Post-Modernism upholds particularity and difference and accepts that different people and cultures are just different, neither superior nor inferior, neither better nor worse and neither higher nor lower. These are the basic features of Post-Modernism. To conclude, we can say that Post-Modernism rejects the idea of universal truths, values, ideologies, determinate and abstract models of human nature, society, history, politics, economics and culture. It refuses to accept that reason, science, rational principles and ideologies can explain and determine all aspects of human life. In the sphere of Politics, Post-Modernism rejects totality approach in analyzing. criticizing and transgressing the present. It places emphasis on difference, particularity, heterogeneity, plurality, tension, shifting consensus and access. It even rejects the notions of community and unity as hollow and without any content. Difference and particularity, and not unity and consensus, is the model of Post-Modern Politics. Post-Modernists like Foucault, Lyotard and Rorty reject modem politics as well as attempts at large-scale macro transformations. They advocate piecemeal reforms, local strategies, local initiatives, individual freedom and progressive changes. Post-Modernism upholds identity politics in which individuals construct their own political and cultural identities and advance the interests of their respective groups. Identity politics stands for particularity, difference, local initiatives, local struggles, different localized cultures and different political activities and relations. Post-modem Politics consequently differs from the Modernist politics, which stood for universality and collectivity. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Discuss some salient features of Post-Modernism. 13.6    Modernism versus Postmodernism Frederic Jameson argues that postmodernism is not some kind of artistic or architectural style that could be used in lieu another style but constitutes a particular historical phase. He argues that modernism and postmodernism are cultural manifestations of capitalism at different stages of the evolution of capitalism, and, thus, both modernism and postmodernism are cultural formations that emerged in line with capitalism’s transformations. Jameson outlines three primary phases of capitalism that dictate particular cultural practices (including what kind of art and literature is produced). The first is market capitalism, which occurred between the eighteenth century and the late nineteenth century in Western Europe, England, and the USA (and all their spheres of influence). This first phase is associated with particular technological developments, namely, the steam-driven motor, and with a particular kind of aesthetics, namely, realism. The second phase occurred between the late nineteenth century and the mid-twentieth century (around the Second-WorldWar period): this phase of monopoly capitalism is associated with electric and internal combustion engines, and with modernism. The third, the phase we’re in now, is multinational or consumer capitalism (with the emphasis here is on marketing, selling, and consumption of commodities, not on producing them) that is associated with nuclear and electronic technologies and correlated with postmodernism. There are discernible differences between modernism and postmodernism. Modernity is about systematization of process and order in society, which is possible through rationalization of everything, including human behaviour. This is what creates order from chaos. The underlying assumption is that a society functions better if it is organized in an orderly fashion. Such (modern) societies are always on their guard and try to find elements of ‘disorder’ or ‘chaos’ that might disrupt order. Thus, modernity believes in the existence of binary opposition between order and disorder and tries to establish the superiority of order over disorder. To show the contrast between order and disorder, modern society requires to create or construct disorder if that does not exist at the appropriate time. This disorder is called the ‘other’ in the modern societies and is defined in the context of binary opposition. In Western societies, this disorder is defined in terms of the other’, which means anything that is non-white, non heterosexual, non-male, non-rational, and so on, concluding that these are creating disorders so to protect order they are to be eliminated, subjugated, or marginalized from the modern society. The objective behind this attempt at defining order and disorder arbitrarily by modern societies is to maintain status quo or stability. Lyotard termed stability as totality or a totalized system. He argues that this order or stability (he calls it totality) is the hallmark of modern societies and is maintained by metanarratives. These metanarratives are expressed in the form of stories and myths that convey the practices and beliefs of a culture. He gives examples of American culture. Here, the grand narrative is that democracy is the most enlightened or rational or just form of political system and will be the perfect route to gain overall happiness. Lyotard further asserted that every ideology has its own meta/grand narrative. For instance, in Marxism the grand narrative is that capitalism will collapse one day and workers will win the final war to establish a classless global society. A grand narrative is a kind of meta-theory or meta-belief system that represents and expresses an ideology, for example, Marxism. It contains a story that is narrated to explain and justify the existing belief system. Lyotard believes that all aspects of modern society, including science as the objective form of knowledge, depend on these metanarratives for their legitimation and dissemination. Postmodernism on the other hand criticizes such metanarratives because these narratives are created to conceal contradictions inherent in any social organization or social practice. It is in the nature of things that order attracts disorder. Any attempt to create order demands the creation of phenomenon to the contrary, namely, disorder. In modernity, metanarratives ignore this demand for disorder by explaining disorder as opposite to order. Order is rational and good while reality is chaotic and bad. Postmodernism rejects metanarratives and advocates small/ mini-narratives. Mini- narratives are stories that explain small practices and local events rather than large-scale, universal or global concepts. Postmodern ‘mini-narratives’ are always situational, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason, or stability and are vulnerable to change from time to time. Language is a very important part of modernity. In modernity, it is assumed that in language ‘signifier’ points to the ‘signified’ and that the reality exists in the ‘signified’. Postmodernism depicts only the signifiers because it does not accept any permanent reality; hence, there is no signified. Jean Baudrillard explains this differently. Lyotard says that in a postmodern society originals do not exist - only copies, or what can be called, ‘simulacra’, exist. For instance, in modern times, a painting or sculpture is made by a famous artist and with the use of technology thousands of replicas can be made, but original work remains original and commands the highest value. On the other hand, in the postmodern era, we have copies of music recordings in the form of CDs, and there is no original because millions of copies are made and sold and all copies have the same value. Baudrillard also mentions the existence of virtual reality, a reality created by simulation for which there is no original, for example, computer games. Finally, postmodernism also depicts knowledge in a different way. In modern society, true knowledge is viewed as scientific knowledge. It is acquired for its own sake. Knowledge is acquired for its own sake so that one becomes knowledgeable for self-satisfaction. That is the objective of liberal education. The other type of knowledge is narrative knowledge, which is considered a fallacy by many modernists. It is bad, it confuses, it is irrational, and it is generally associated with children or those with mental illness or the uneducated or the women. It is absorbed through myths, religious discourses, stories, and so on, which are essentially non-scientific. In the postmodern society, knowledge becomes utility-oriented. One learns things not for their own sake but to use them in practice to gain something concrete (eg money, status, power, etc.). The storage of knowledge is also different in postmodern societies. Knowledge is distributed, arranged, and communicated differently. The computer technology has revolutionized the way we store, disseminate, and consume information in our society. If there is anything that cannot be digitalizable then it ceases to be knowledge. Here, binary situation is either knowledge or noise (not ignorance). Noise is that which is not recognizable as anything within the system. Lyotard further argues that in postmodernism the most important concern is who is deciding what is knowledge and what is not (means noise), as there is no objective criterion of deciding what constitutes knowledge. It is also important to identify who knows what needs to be decided. Such a decision about knowledge is not based on modern criteria like truthfulness (quality), justice (ethics), or beauty (aesthetic). Lyotard says that the criterion of knowledge is language games, a term he borrowed from Wittgenstein. With the rise of postmodernism, the desire to go back pre-postmodernism (modernism or some of its different versions) also rose. One of the manifestations of this desire is the rise of religious fundamentalism. It is a form of resistance to the attempts of postmodernism to question the metanarratives of religious myths. The backlash in clearly evident in attempts like banning postmodern texts like Salman Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’ that deconstruct metanarratives. Postmodernism is for fragmentation and multiplicity, and that is why feminists like Butler supports it. It also focusses on limited, local effective action plans that are beyond the capacity of an individual but are not trapped in the dream envisioned by the metanarratives like liberated working class or classless society. It is confined to local and immediate attainable goals. Postmodern politics is concerned with local issues while maintaining that local conditions are fluid, flexible, and unpredictable and are influenced only in small measures by global trends; hence, the popular slogan of postmodernism, ‘think globally, act locally.’ Postmodernism is not a monolithic theory; rather, it advocates fragmentation and plurality and that makes us think about politics in a different way. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    What is meta narratives? 2.    Differentiate between Modernism and Post-Modernism. 13.7    Post-Modernism : A Critical Appraisal Post-Modernism constitutes a pragmatic, comprehensive and dynamic attempt to describe contemporary society and politics. It rejects modernism, and it basis Enlightenment Project as inadequate, wrong and unacceptable. However, critics point out the following weaknesses of Post-Modernism. (1)    A Complex and Confusing Collection of Ideas. Post-Modernism lacks a unified body of thought. It means different things to different post-modernists. (2)    Ignores the ideal of Universalism. Post-Modernist view that there is no such thing as universal truth and that all knowledge is partial, local and continuously changing is not fully acceptable. It constitutes a thesis in favour of continued discourse, debate and struggle without any certainty or end product. (3)    Unduly big importance to Subjectivity. It gives undue and big emphasis on individual and subjectivity in all spheres of life. (4)    Ignores the importance and need of Macro studies of Politics. It places all emphasis on micro politics and gives little importance to macro-politics or global level common issues, problems and struggles. (5)    Wrong to deny the importance of Reason and Science. Post-Modernism wrongly gives little attention to the importance of reason, science, and rational principles for society and politics. (6)    Parochial view of Science. Post-modernist view that even science cannot lead to reliable knowledge is parochial and limited. (7)    Ignores the fact of Inner Human Unity. In stressing cultural and political heterogeneity, difference and distinctiveness (localization), Post-Modernism overlooks the fact of an inner unity in all cultures, societies and individuals. Human beings constitute humankind and it has several universal features. Po Mo gives all importance to differences and diversities and assigns little place to the fact of some unity among all diversities. (8)    Post-Modernism is the creation of thinkers of highly Developed States. Post- Modernism cannot operationalise in all such societies which are yet to undergo modernization, industrialization, urbanization and development. It is the brain child of Westernism and developed West. (9)    It is not a good alternative to Modernism. While rejecting enlightenment project, foundationalism, structuralism and modernism, Post-Modernism provides no basis for the construction of an alternative vision of social order. Post-Modernism has been wrong in rejecting the value of normative aspect of modernism. (10)    Post-Modernism can lead to an increase in ethnic and local conflicts and disputes in various states. Post-Modernism places undue emphasis upon social, economic, political and cultural differences and identities. Such a view can lead to an increase in conflicts, ethnic conflicts, political struggles and disintegration of nations. (11)    Fails to accept the contribution of Modernism to Society. It is indeed wrong and unacceptable to project that Modernism has been all bad and nonproductive of any worthwhile results. (12)    Post-Modernism can be viewed as the possible next stage of Modernism. In fact no rigid and definite line of division can be made between Modernism and Post-Modernism. The latter has been having its growth and popularity not out of a failure and rejection of Modernism, but as a possible next stage of the evolution of Modernism. Post-Modernists wrongly disown their traditional roots. On the basis of all these points, the critics highlight the limitations of PostModernism. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    Write any four points of criticism of Post-Modernism. 13.8    Summary In fact, neither Modernism has been all evil nor Post-Modernism is all good. The need of the time is, as Dr. Suneera Kapoor observes: “To combine modern notions of solidarity, alliance, consensus, universal rights, macro-politics and institutional struggles with post- modem notions of difference, plurality, multi-perspectivism, identity and micro-politics. What is required is a progressive community which reflects solidarity and consensus over basic values and goals without suppressing differences”. No one can or should uphold any ideological or value-domination (value) in the disguise of universal values and truths. However, at the same time no one should uphold only differences, subjectivities, overindividualism, controversies...discourse, debate and Conflict within and among societies. Along with socio-economic-politico-cultural diversities, the humankind has a sort of inner unity, collectivity and commonness. Commonly shared issues and problems demand collective and global level ideas, efforts and solutions. These can neither be final nor eternally valid. But these have to be accepted and followed at least for several years and even decades. 13.9    Glossary •    Structuralism : A way of studying human culture, for example language, literature, art, or anthropology, that emphasizes the importance of its basic structures and the relationships between its parts. •    Foundationalism : The view that if there is any knowledge or justified belief then that knowledge or justified belief rests on a “foundation” of knowledge and justified belief. •    Modernism : Advote the Universal and Objective truths, values and Principles. •    Pluralism As a political philosophy pluralism is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful co-existence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. •    Archeology : The Study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture. •    Pragmatic : Dealing with the things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. 13.10    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    (i) 8th. (ii)    Modernism (iii)    Micro Politics 2.    The basic themes of the Era of Post-Modernism are as under:- (i)    Different people and cultures are just different, neither better nor worse. (ii)    Socio-economic politico-intellectual-cultural pluralism is natural and essential for each society and the world at large. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Post-Modernism involves a rejection of Modernism. It affirms that nothing can be affirmed with certainly. Despite some similarities and convergences, individuals and cultures are bound to develop differently. Post Modern societies are fragmented and pluralistic in which individuals, their groups and communities have separate and distinct identities and values. PostModernism upholds individualism and socio-economic-politico-cultural-intellectual pluralism. 2.    Friedrich Nietizsche, Martin Heidegger, Michal Foucault, Jean Francois Lyotard, Richard Rorty and Jacques Derrida are the key protagonists of PostModernism. Self Check Exercise-3 1.   (i) Rejection of Modernism (ii) Rejection of Enlightenment Project (iii) Rejection of Foundationalism and structuralism (iv) Rejection of ideologies of liberalism and Marxism (v) Faith in social, economc, political and cultural diversities and pluralism. (vi) Emphasis upon Micro studies against Macro studies and theories (vii) Post-Modernism recognizes natural and continuing differences among different cultures. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Meta-narratives are expressed in the form of stories and myths that convey the practices and beliefs of a culture. According to Modernists order and stability is the hall mark of modern societies and is maintained by metanarratives. 2.    Modernism believes in the existence of binary opposition between order and disorder and tries to establish the superiority of order over disorder. Order is the hallmark of modern societies and is maintained by meta-narratives. Postmodernism on the other hand, criticizes such meta-narratives because these narratives are created to conceal contradictions inherent in any social organization or social practice. Postmodernism rejects meta narratives and advocates small/mini narratives. Mini-narratives are stories that explain small practices and local events rather than large-scale, universal or global concepts (in which modernists have faith). Postmodern ‘mini-narratives’ are always situational, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason, or stability and are vulnerable to change from time to time. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    Criticism of Post–Modernism. (i)    A Complex and confusing collection of ideas. (ii)    Ignores the ideal of Universalism. (iii)    Undue importance to subjectivity. (iv)    Ignores the importance and need of macro studies of politics. 13.11    Suggested Readings •    Anderson, P. The Origins of Postmodernism London. : Verso, 1998. •    Butler, C. Post-modernism : A very short Introduction. Oxford University Press: 2002 •    Lyon, D. Post-Modernity. Milton Keynes : open University Press, 1994. •    Heywood, Andrew, Political Theory. •    Pande, Durgesh, Essentials of Political Theories and Approaches. New Delhi : Cyber Tech Publications, 2011. •    Ghai, U.R. Comparative Polities and Government. Jalandhar : New Academic Publishing Co.,1998. 13.12    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Post Modernism? Briefly discuss the ideas of Key exponents of Post-Modernism 2.    What are the basic tenants of Post-Modernism? Explain its main themes. 3.    Attempt a critical appraisal of Post-Modernism. ***** Unit-14 MULTICULTURALISM Structure 14.1    Introduction 14.2    Learning Objectives 14.3    What is Multiculturalism Self Check Exercise-1 14.4    Forms of Multiculturalism 14.4.1    Multiculturalism as Communitarianism 14.4.2    Multiculturalism within a Liberal Framework 14.4.3    Multiculturalism as a Response to Nation-Building 14.4.3.1    National Minorities 14.4.3.2    Immigrant Groups 14.4.3.3    Isolationist ethno-religious Groups 14.4.3.4    Metics and 14.4.3.5    African Americans Self Check Exercise-2 14.5    Role of Culture 14.5.1    Why Multiculturalism Self Check Exercise-3 14.6    Critique of Multiculturalism Self Check Exercise-4 14.7    Summary 14.8    Glossary 14.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises 14.10    Suggested Readings/References 14.11    Terminal Questions 14.1    Introduction Multiculturism as a political theory emerged in the 1990s, reflecting the emergence of new political realities in the world. With the decline of communism in the early 1990s, Eastern Europe witnessed the rise of ethic nationalism as an alternative to liberalism. The movement for ethnic autonomy spread in Western Europe also and resulted in demand for secession in some countries, for example, Quebec (Canada), Flanders (Belgium), Catalonia (Spain), and Scotland (UK). Political thinkers began to explore the possibilities of framing a policy to deal with this new reality and, in particular, the question whether such a policy would fit within a liberal framework. Multiculturalism thus emerged as a political theory and scholars and proponents of Multiculturalism seemed to want to explore in fine detail the issue that this question gave rise to. Multiculturism stands for ethnic or cultural pluralism in a society wherein different ethnic groups collaborate with each other without losing their identity. It advocates equal respect for various cultures alongwith maintaining cultural diversity. Because of these characteristics of a society, some define Multiculturism as ‘Salad bowl’ or ‘Cultural mosaic’ contrasting it with another oft-used term, ‘melting pot’, to describe plurality of cultures in a society. Over the year, this change has happened in American society with the number of immegrants coming to USA became larger in 1970’s and 80’s with professionals started coming here in large numbers. They started keeping their culture and did not mixup with the dominant culture of USA. Multiculturalism has also promoted identity politics, politics of recognition, and the politics of difference among others. Although multiculturalism talks of cultural groups, it also includes religion, ethnicity, race, language, and nationality. Culture is considered an open-ended concept. Claims of recognition is not limited to recognition only because such claims also demand a rewriting of history to acknowledge the identity and subordination of specific groups dominated by the more powerful upper-class groups, usually the majority in a society. Group-differentiated rights are crucial for multiculturalism. Such rights are ascribed to a minority cultural group and members of such a group use those claims in order to decide whether or not to adhere to and conduct their life on the basis of their religious/cultural obligations in a generally secular or nonreligious society while maintaining their fundamental identity as lawful citizens, or basic units, of such a society. These group-differentiated rights manifest themselves in many ways. For instance, these groups get exemptions from general laws (e.g. religious exemptions). They get government’s help in doing certain things for which the majority does not require such help (eg, funding for minority language schools, affirmative action, multilingual Signboard, notices, ballots, etc.). These groups get representation in government bodies (reservation in jobs, promotion, ethnic quota for party lists, etc.). Some minority religious groups have traditional legal codes (e.g. the Sharia in the case of Muslims in India) that get recognition and legal sanctity in decisions related to matters such as family law or religious courts. In some cases, minority groups get limited self-government rights. 14.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the learners will be able to : •    understand the concept of Multiculturism •    discuss the various forms of Multiculturism •    know the arguments of different scholars in favour of Multiculturism and points of its criticism. 14.3    What is Multiculturalism? The term ‘multiculturalism’ predates its use in political theory, but not by very long. Although nationalism is an old concept which has been much discussed in the past century, multiculturalism did not appear until the 1960s and 1970s, when it was used to describe a new public policy, first in Canada and then in Australia. In both of these cases, this development marked an explicit movement by federal governments away from policies of assimilation of ethnic minorities, and immigrants in particular, toward policies of acceptance and integration of diverse cultures. The term did not enter the American (or British) lexicon until the 1980s. When it did enter American debates, however, it did so in the first instance, in discussions about public education. ‘Multiculturalism,” according to Nathan Glazer, ‘is just the latest in [a] sequence of terms describing how American society, particularly American education, should respond to diversity’. Multiculturalism, then, is a term that describes one particular way of responding to ethnic diversity. “It is a position that rejects assimilation and the “melting pot” image as an imposition of the dominant culture, and instead prefers such metaphors as the “salad bowl” or the “glorious mosaic”, in which each ethnic and racial element in the population maintains its distinctiveness. Yet in reality there is no single multiculturalist position. but rather a range of views of what multiculturalism requires. For some, multiculturalism requires moderate changes to social and political institutions to enable cultural minorities to preserve their languages and their distinctive customs or practices. For others, however, multiculturalism requires much greater social transformation to turn modern society into one in which racism has been eliminated and ‘difference’ is nurtured rather than repudiated, or simply tolerated. But if multiculturalism is a way of embracing diversity, this still leaves open the question of how diversity is to be embraced. If a multicultural society is one in which different religions, cultures, languages, and peoples can coexist without some being subordinated to others, or to a single, dominant group, how can this be achieved, and what principles would describe such a society? This issue arises because even if there is diversity, there must surely be some kind of unity for a society to exist. Unless we aspire to a borderless world, in which people could move freely unimpeded by national (and other) boundaries, even a multi- cultural society would have to settle on some basic institutions, decide what it would accept as official languages, and define itself as a nation, membership of which it controls by determining who (and how many) may join it. The real question, in other words, is what does multiculturalism mean in practice? This question, however, was not addressed systematically until the 1990s when political theorists began to consider what might be the principled basis of a multicultural society. It was only then that the case for multiculturalism began to receive any kind of sustained defence - and criticism. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    What do you understand by Multiculturalism? 14.4    Forms of Multiculturalism Multiculturalism has gradually expanded its base in recent years by taking initiatives to deal with the problems of other disadvantaged communities such as African Americans, LGBT, indigenous peoples, and even the disabled, giving them an identity of a separate cultural group. At a practical level, multiculturalism deals with diversity and immigrant integration into the mainstream. It has been an official policy in several Western countries since the 1970s. Canada adopted this policy in 1971, and Australia followed it in 1973. But it is a truism that multiculturalism has a history that goes way beyond the decline of communism. Will Kymlicka, divides the history of multiculturalism into three stages. 14.4.1    Multiculturalism as Communitarianism In the early 1980s, in the debates on liberal-communitarianism, communitarian argued that individuals are an integral part of community and the interest of community is not equal to the collective interest of its members. They favoured multiculturalism as a social policy appropriate for protecting communities against excessive assertion by individual autonomy. The minorities of ethnic-cultural nature require more protection as their community life is more under threat. Eventually communitarianism gradually had converted into some form of multiculturalism. 14.4.2    Multiculturalism within a Liberal Framework Will Kymlicka’s writings in the 1990s forcefully argued in favour of the suitability of multicultural policies within a liberal framework. He asserts that most of the minority groups want to live in a liberal state but with better access to education, employment, technology, and communication. Some groups want to secede but want to create their own liberal state in the process. Even those who have migrated from non-liberal societies are comfortable with liberal values, or rather, prefer such values. Kymlicka argues, ‘In short, the overwhelming majority of debates about multiculturalism are not debates between a liberal majority and communitarian minorities, but debates amongst liberals about the meaning of liberalism. These are debates between individuals and groups who endorse the basic liberal-democratic consensus, but who disagree about the interpretation of these principles in multiethnic societies-in particular, they disagree about the proper role of language, nationality and ethnic identities within liberal-democratic societies and institutions.” Some minority groups are emphatic that protecting their language, culture, and practices is not only necessary for their survival but is consistent with liberal principles and rather insisted upon by liberal principles. Now the question that needs to be addressed is why there are demands for special rights and privileges by some groups and not for other groups. This poses the more familiat question: Why are these groups not satisfied with the rights given to them as common citizens in a liberal state? Joseph Raz and Will Kymlicka among others tried to answer this question. They argue that cultural membership is necessary for individual autonomy. This position in liberal theory is called liberal culturalist position. This acknowledges group rights along with individual rights. But all minority rights are not consistent with individual autonomy, the centralist concern of liberal thought. There are some traditions and cultures that undermine individual autonomy, especially that of women, like dressing code or restrictions of movements and so on. Kymlicka says, ‘I have proposed distinguishing two kinds of rights that a minority might claim. The first involves the right of a group against its own members, designed to protect the group from the destabilizing impact of internal dissent (e.g. the decision of individual members not to follow traditional practices or customs). The second kind involves the right of a group against the larger society, designed to protect the group from the impact of external pressures (e.g. the economic or political decisions of the larger society). I call the first “internal restrictions”, and the second “external protections”. One involves intragroup relationships while other involves intergroup relationships. Kymlicka concludes, ‘Given the commitment to individual autonomy, I believe that liberals should be sceptical of claims to internal restrictions. Liberal culturalism rejects the idea that groups can legitimately restrict the basic civil or political rights of their own members in the name of preserving the purity or authenticity of the group’s culture and traditions. However, a liberal conception of multiculturalism can accord (a) group’s various rights against the larger society, in order to reduce the group’s vulnerability to the economic or political power of the majority.’ In another instance, Kymlicka says that the rights of minority are compatible with liberal culturalism, if first they protect the liberty of individuals within that group, and second, encourage equal relationships between groups. Thus, in this second stage of development in multiculturalism, the focus is on the extent to which claims of exclusive rights and facilities of minority group are viable within a liberal framework. 14.4.3    Multiculturalism as a Response to Nation Building It is assumed that a liberal state is indifferent to religion and culture and does not have an official religion, language, and even history. History shows that every liberal state has tried in the past or has been trying to create and sustain a single national culture to accelerate the process of nation-building. Some examples in this case include the USA, where English is the dominant language and is considered essential for living a life in the USA. Consolidation of English was ensured by various means in the society and the state; for example, immigrants below the age of fifty years have to learn English to become a citizen. This is perceived as a big help in nation-building and creating national identity. This type of nation-building invariably favours the majority. Charles Taylor explains, “If a modern society has an “official” language, in the fullest sense of the term, that is, a state-sponsored, inculcated, and defined language and culture, in which both economy and state function, then it is obviously an immense advantage to people if this language and culture are theirs. Speakers of other languages are at a distinct disadvantage. Now the question is how the minorities respond to such a nation building exercise.’ Kymlicka discusses five models of multiculturalism using responses from five categories of ethno-cultural groups that exist within Western democratic states: (a) national minorities, (b) immigrant groups, (c) isolationist ethno-religious groups, (d) metics, and (e) African Americans. 14.4.3.1    National Minorities By national minorities, Kymlicka means those groups already formed and existing before they joined the existing states. They can be divided into two classes: sub-state nations and indigenous peoples. Substate nations are such groups termed as nations that at present do not constitute a state but have had a state in the past or are seeking to become a separate state. Indigenous peoples are those groups who have lost their traditional holdings of land to settlers and who have then joined the state either by force or by a treaty entered into with the settlers. These national minorities try to gain more autonomy to protect their culture. This upheaval was a very visible phenomenon during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, during which period liberal democracies tried to crush such demands by force. Over the end of the past century, things have changed, however. It is being realized that suppression of minority nationalism is not a solution that is theoretically or practically viable. The need now is to develop a theory within liberal framework to allow minority to subscribe to nationalism in the same manner the majority already did. 14.4.3.2    Immigrant Groups Those who have left their homeland and emigrated to another society, often for economic as well as political reasons, also constitute these groups. These groups can be divided into two factions: groups that are accorded citizenship and groups that are denied citizenship. This difference is of vital interest for political theory. Immigrant groups do not object to majority nation-building but only seek some concessions while negotiating their integration. They do want to integrate into mainstream society but sometime demand that there be not any restrictions to maintain their ethnic identity and traditions in both public and private sphere, such as dress code or way of dressing, recreation, religious rituals, and food or culinary habits. History shows that liberal democratic states have consistently denied these demands, as too much public display of ethnic culture by immigrants was considered unpatriotic till the 1960s, during which period the ‘melting pot’ model came into existence and was generally accepted. This policy of assimilation was considered necessary for unhesitant integration of immigrants into the mainstream society. Since the 1970s, this policy of assimilation was considered unnecessary or even detrimental to national growth, as there were no evidences that keeping one’s ethnic culture intact necessarily makes one less patriotic. As per Kymlicka, the immigrants merely negotiate for flexible terms in their integration. Their demands usually have two important aspects: a) it is important to recognize that integration is not a fast process and cannot happen overnight. It is a difficult and long-term process that takes even decades to conclude. For this reason, sometimes special facilities (e.g. use of mother tongue) are required for immigrants. b) Immigrants require the same degree of respect and recognition as the majority does when they join common institutions. The respect and freedom given to pursue their identity and cultural practices should be equal to the extent afforded to the majority. To achieve this, Kymlicka argues, our social institutions should systematically explore that whether immigrants are at a disadvantage due to the rules and symbols of majority. The need is to reformulate policies of liberal state that can offer fair terms of integration to immigrants 14.4.3.3    Isolationist Ethno-religious Groups While most of the immigrants want to assimilate with the majority group, some of them do want to remain isolated from politics or civil society. The ideology and religious dictums of these groups require them to avoid all contacts with modernity; for example, the Amish or Hasidic Jews who immigrated to northern America, to avoid persecution want to be exempted from many US laws (like military service) to maintain their isolation and avoid inter action with the majority or participate in nation-building. Liberal democratic states in the past have accepted these demands because at the time of immigration both the USA and Canada needed immigrants, and the immigrants were also numerically small and least troublesome while nationbuilding was going on in these countries. This acceptance of immigrants is still strong, as they are law-abiding, do not create trouble for others in the society, and generally keep to themselves. 14.4.3.4    Metics These are groups who have never been given a real opportunity to become citizens although they want to assimilate into mainstream. These are composed of diverse types of people. Some are irregular migrants (e.g. illegal migrants) and others are temporary migrants (e.g. guest workers). They are not supposed to stay on in the migrant country, but, nonetheless, in practice, they prolong their stay in the host country to such an extent that they never leave; for example, Mexicans in California and North Africans in Spain or Italy form a sizeable community. Michael Walzer, borrowing the term from ancient Greeks, calls them metics, that is, those long-staying people who are not allowed to participate in the activities of polis. Traditional immigrant countries like the USA and Canada have grudgingly accepted immigrants’ demand for citizenship through periodic amnesties while countries like Germany, Austria, and Switzerland initially resisted such a demand. But now being more realistic, even non-immigrant countries are liberal in allotting citizenship to their temporary workers and their children. 14.4.3.5    African Americans African Americans are descendants from the people of Africa who were made slaves during the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries and were brought to the USA. Under slavery, blacks were not seen as citizens or even persons but treated simply as the property of slave owners. Although slavery was abolished in the 1860s and blacks were granted citizenship, they were still treated inferior with segregation laws till the early 1960s. Even today blacks are disproportionally concentrated in lower class, poor neighbourhoods and are subject to informal discrimination. These unique and complex circumstances and their tragic history propelled African Americans to demand for equal civil rights. The Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was an attempt by the blacks to demand their integration into the mainstream with a scrupulous enforcement of anti-apartheid laws. For better integration of black, in society many measures are required. These include ‘historical compensation for past injustice, special assistance in integration (e.g. affirmative action), guaranteed political representation (e.g., redrawing electoral boundaries to create black-majority districts), and support for various forms of black-focussed education’. Black population wanted to participate in the nation-building but with some conditions involving ethno-cultural justice. Kymlicka stated, ‘majority nation building in a liberal democracy is legitimate under the following conditions: (a) no groups of long-term residents are permanently excluded from membership in the nation, such as metics or racial caste groups. Everyone living on the territory must be able to gain citizenship, and become an equal member of the nation if they wish to do so; (b) insofar as migrants and other ethnocultural minorities are pressured to integrate into the nation, the sort of sociocultural integration which is required for membership in the nation should be understood in a “thin” sense, primarily involving institutional and linguistic integration, not the adoption of any particular set of customs, religious beliefs, or lifestyles. Integration into common institutions operating in a common language should still leave maximal room for the expression of individual and collective differences, both in public and private, and public institutions should be adopted to accommodate the identity and practices of ethnocultural minorities. Put another way, the conception of national identity, and national integration, should be a pluralist and tolerant one; (e) national minorities are allowed to engage in their own nation building, to enable them to maintain themselves as a distinct societal culture.” Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Describe Multiculturalism as communitarianism. 2.    Kymlica discusses five models of Multiculturalism on the basis of responses from five types of ethno cultural groups that exist within western democratic states. Name these. 14.5    Role of Culture Multiculturalists emphasize that cultures should be treated equally. They use culture in the same manner as liberals use self in their theory. Iris Young contended that in the context of social groups our identities are formed. Treatment given to groups affects individuals belonging to those groups. Identity is primarily a social construction that is formed by multiple overlapping influences in a plural society. One of the major influences on individual is culture. Young gives primacy to ‘social’ over the individual’. As a communitarian Bhikhu Parekh also gives importance to culture, which he defines as cluster of inherited values. He also believes that individual identity is shaped by group membership. Culture is an important aspect of group identify, more important than even nation-state or the sense of nationalism. Parekh thus argues that a threat to cultural values be considered threat to the individual. Parekh gave an example of liberals’ failure to grasp the hurt felt by the Muslims with the publication of Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses and the subsequent fatwa issued by the Muslim clerics. Kymlicka also agrees with Parekh that an attack on culture is an attack on individual identity. He further asserts that care for community values is compatible with individual autonomy. He successfully argued that multiculturalism is compatible with liberalism. For the development of minority groups, while Will Kymlicka proposes ‘group differentiated rights’, Kukathas advocates extreme measures like leaving them free of state interference. Some religious rights are entertained by individuals on account of their religious practices; others are group rights, like education. The claims are primarily cultural claims and are justified on many accounts. Charles Taylor argues for ‘politics of recognition’; We are dependent on others for recognition. Another set of justifications have been provided by Kymlicka. He developed a liberal theory of multiculturalism on the basis of Rawlsian framework. He defined membership in a culture as cultural membership, which is important in determining people’s self-identity. He maintains that there is a direct relationship between the respect given to the culture group to which an individual belongs and the individual’s own self-respect. He further argued that minority groups are at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting and accessing their culture and, therefore, the members of the minority group are unfortunate to have been born in that group. They are suffering from unchosen inequalities and, therefore, rights of minority groups are justified. Multiculturalism may be a new term to denote the existence of cultural diversity, but different cultures have coexisted historically for a long time since ancient Greece. Multiculturalism does not simply denote a culturally diverse society; it also refers to a policy that is meant for protecting cultural diversity. This policy has also been adopted by governments like Ottoman Empire in the past. To understand multiculturalism, it is necessary to understand culture, which is a contestable concept and has at least five aspects that are prominent in contemporary vocabulary: semiotic, societal, normative, anti-essentialist cosmopolitanism, and economic/rational choice. The semiotic culture is an offshoot of classic social anthropology, and Parekh is one of its proponents. He believes that a system of meaning and significance is historically created to mould human life and that system can be termed as culture. Taylor also endorses Parekh’s view. Communitarianism accepts normative conception of culture. The term ‘culture’ means a category of distinct beliefs and norms. The social conception of culture is used by Will Kymlicka. He talks of two types of diversity: polyethnic minorities and national minorities. He says that technically speaking culture and nation are one and the same. Kymlicka does not make a distinction between a nation, a culture, or a people and says, ‘I am using “a culture” as synonymous with “a nation” or “a people”- that is, as an intergenerational community, more or less institutionally complete, occupying a given territory or homeland, sharing a distinct language and history. In the rational choice approach to culture, the individual chooses culture based on their self-interest evaluated rationally. Laitin a culturalist, defines culture as ‘an equilibrium in a well-defined set of circumstances in which members of a group sharing in common descent, symbolic practices and/or high levels of interaction- and thereby becoming a cultural group- are able to condition their behaviour on common knowledge, beliefs about the behaviour of all members of the group’ All these conceptions are criticized as an essentialist interpretation of culture that does not depict the true picture of culture. The cosmopolitan conception of culture as defined by Waldron is a dynamic and flexible concept that emerges out of an uninterrupted process of creation and interchange. The result is that cultures intermingle with each other and, consequently, make it impossible to an essentialist culture to emerge and prevent amalgam of cultures. 14.5.1    Why Multiculturalism? Multiculturalism has been advocated by different protagonists by using different arguments, moral responsibility, and practical necessities. The first and foremost is the initial communitarian argument. Taylor, for instance, argues that human beings become fully human beings in relation with others, as we cannot isolate our identity from others. He says that our identity is defined in relation with others; even if the others are adversaries or supporters, we have to relate to them for the recognition of our existence. We are dependent on others for our recognition. If others do not take cognisance of us or misrecognize us, we feel annoyed or depressed. He elaborated his argument by saying that we suffer psychologically if we do not get expected response from others. Identity is a social construct, and whatever we may say we cannot exist without others. He is echoing the assertion of Aristotle that man is a social animal. Taylor makes a distinction between the politics of recognition from the liberal politics of ‘equal respect’ that is inhospitable to difference, because (a) it insists on uniform application of the rules defining these rights, without exception, and (b) it is suspicious of collective goals’. The politics of recognition, on the other hand, is concerned about the judgements that define what constitutes a good life. These rulings clearly state that culture has an important place in the integration of society. Taylor indicates that the French culture in Quebec, Canada, is such an example. The French language represents collective good and binds the residents of Quebec. There are others who believe that multiculturalism is possible in liberal framework and further argue that it is not only possible but is also obligatory on the part of liberal theory to promote multiculturalism. Kymlicka is the most vocal representative of this viewpoint. He has articulated it through his various writings. In his earlier writings, he chose the Rawlsian framework of justice as fairness and difference principle; later on, he switched to Joseph Raz’s theory that autonomy is a condition where number of options exist from which one can choose. For an individual, culture gives them a variety of alternatives from which to choose. Using the egalitarian argument, Kymlicka says that members of minority groups are in an unfavourable position to access their own cultures and that they deserve to get special privileges and protection. This egalitarian argument is based on what is known as ‘luck egalitarianism’. The luck egalitarians like Dworkin and Rakowski believe that individuals should not be held responsible for the inequalities arising from unchosen circumstances. Individuals are responsible for the inequalities that result from their own choices. The inequalities one suffers because of bad luck are the collective responsibility of the citizens. Luck egalitarians insist that the state must assist and collective support must be given to those who are born into poverty as they are entitled for this support. Kymlicka modified the definition of unchosen inequality by adding cultural membership to it. Those who are born and brought up in the culture of majority are lucky and those who are born in minority cultures suffer disadvantages. That is why minority group rights are justified. To rectify this injustice liberal theory be used, Kymlicka argues, ‘within a liberal egalitarian theory... which emphasises the importance of rectifying unchosen inequalities’. Another justification for a multicultural policy comes from the value of liberty. Liberty from domination is important for many reasons. For instance, love for civic republicanism as developed by Phillip Petit and Quentin Skinner or as per Lovett domination is a serious threat to human progress. There is a difference between liberty as non-interference (liberalism) and liberty as non-domination (civic republic tradition). Petit argues that this civic republic tradition’s focal point is on a person’s ‘capacity to interfere, on an arbitrary basis, in certain choices that the other is in a position to make’. It is clear that we are not free even when we do not face any interference, as a slave’s life is not encroached upon by a benevolent master. Pettit argues that we feel domination to the extent we depend on another person or that a group exercises some form of arbitrary power over us. It is argued that to choose between two evils, the lesser evil may be accommodated. For instance, in France, a controversy erupted about the dress code of Muslim girls. They were subject to wear headscarves compulsorily. If allowing this practice may help the girls to study in a liberal atmosphere which gives them multicultural exposure then such a practice may be allowed. Otherwise, the parents may withdraw their daughters from liberal schools and admit them to madrasas where their exposure will be limited and possibility of girls becoming liberal in the future will be minimized. This is what freedom from domination is about and multiculturalism should support it. There are justifications other than liberal and republican perspectives. One important justification comes from the protagonists of postcolonialism. For instance, those worried about the plight of indigenous groups in contemporary society argue for indigenous sovereignty. They draw attention to the fact that it is important to understand indigenous claims against the history of the denial of rights of indigenous groups, eviction from their lands, and demolition of their cultural practices. Thus, the protagonists call for self-government for indigenous groups. It is pertinent to note that in multicultural societies, multiple religious and moral outlooks exist, and so liberal societies must accept the fact that liberalism is not free from culture bias and is one of the many approaches to view people and society. Bhikhu Parekh is of the view that liberalism can’t provide an independent institutional framework for governing the relations between different cultural groups. Alternatively, he suggests that a more open and flexible model of intercultural dialogue is more suitable as the starting point for cross-cultural dialogue involving different languages or territorially concentrated in one place or religiously unique. In practice, most of the groups have more than one attribute. As a policy multiculturalism has at least two characteristics: a) it tries to satisfy the needs of different cultural groups and b) it allows and sustains the existence of different groups so that individuals part of such groups can pursue their goals without compromising on their cultural identities. At the policy level, multiculturalists favour difference-sensitive policies and believe that these policies are not inherently unjust. These policies are meant to correct intergroup inequalities and disadvantages in the cultural milieu. The policies that defend special rights for groups suggest varieties of options. Levy’s Multiculturalism of Fear divides difference-sensitive policies into eight categories: exemptions, assistance, symbolic claims, recognition/ enforcement, special representation, self-government, external rules, and internal rules. Taylor, Kymlicka, and Shacher advocate multicultural citizenship. Their views have certain things in common. ‘Firstly, they all contend that the state has the duty to support laws which defend the basic legal, civil and political rights of its citizens. Secondly, they argue that the state should participate in the construction of societal cultural character, thus its laws and policies should aim to protect culture. Thirdly, these philosophers contend that the character of culture is normative. Consequently, and this is the fourth common feature, individuals’ interest in culture is sufficiently strong enough that it needs to be supported by the state. Fifth, they both defend difference-sensitive/multicultural citizenship policies for protecting culture’. The second wave of writings on multiculturalism includes the works of Philips, Reich, and Shacher. They talk about how internal minorities have received special attention, specially bisexuals, lesbians, gays, and women and children. Multiculturalism is subject to two major critiques. First, multiculturalism prefers to save the interests of certain groups over the common good resulting in making the common good insignificant and minority interest important. Second, multiculturalism diminishes equal individual rights and, thus, weakens the universal value of equal treatment. If the government promulgates the policy of multiculturalism then it has its own problems. This begs the question: which culture should be recognized as minority culture? Within a country, some culture may be in minority in some part and dominant elsewhere. Some observers are concerned that multicultural policy may lead to a battle between cultural groups for recognition as a minority culture and that may result in the assertion of the dominant culture. The cultural group identity may harm the spirit of coalition political movements that might develop in a plural society. Another concern expressed by Marxists and feminists is that this insistence on cultural group identity may weaken other important differences in society, for example, class or sex. Multiculturalism as a policy acknowledges the problems of minority groups and tries to sort them out either by fulfilling a demand for special protection under law or giving relaxation in general law or providing special privileges for specific groups. What is positive nevertheless about multiculturalism is that it is a suitable response to cultural pluralism and a policy of compensation for the past deeds of exclusion, discrimination, and oppression perpetrated by majority regimes. Multicultural policies influence various activities of the society, including education. In the USA, efforts were made to include the contribution of minority groups in education. ‘Curricula from the elementary to the university levels were revised and expanded to include the contributions of minority and neglected cultural groups. That revision was designed to correct what is perceived to be a falsely Eurocentric perspective that overemphasizes the contributions of white European colonial powers and underemphasizes the contributions made by indigenous people and people of colour. In addition to that correction, the contributions that cultural groups have made in a variety of fields have been added to curricula to give special recognition for contributions that were previously ignored. The establishment of African American History Month and National Hispanic Heritage Month in the United States is an example of the movement. Self Check Exercise-3 Q.1 Fill in the blanks: (i)    Parekh argues that a threat to cultural values be considered a threat to the __________. (ii)    The social conception of culture is used by ____________. (iii)    _________ is an exponent of semiotic culture. 2.    Name the different protagonists of Multiculturalism. 3.    As a policy, discuss the characteristics of multiculturalism. 14.6    Critique of Multiculturalism Multiculturalism has its share of criticisms. Sarah Song (2017) classifies the criticisms levelled against multiculturalism into six categories. First and the most important criticism of multiculturalism comes from cosmopolitanism, which believes that cultures are not unique and exclusively made of self-reliant wholes. Culture is flexible entity and have been affected by imperialism, migration, war, climate, and so on. Jeremy Waldron asserts, “We live in a world formed by technology and trade; by economic, religious, and political imperialism and their offspring; by mass migration and the dispersion of cultural influences. In this context, to immerse oneself in the traditional practices of, say, an aboriginal culture might be a fascinating anthropological experiment. But it involves an artificial dislocation from what actually is going on in the world.’ He also believed that although cultural belonging is necessary for the individual, they may not be satisfied by one culture and can pick and absorb traits from different cultures. Hence, the so-called specific culture is not a viable factor in political theory. The second criticism is levelled by hard-core liberals, who assert that in the classical theory of liberalism only individual rights are recognized and group rights are a part of liberal theory. By recognizing group rights, the liberal state is overstepping its role. Chandan Kukathas states, ‘States should not pursue cultural integration or cultural engineering but rather a politics of indifference toward minority groups.’ Third criticism is that while emphasizing ‘politics of recognition’ multiculturalism gives less importance to ‘politics of redistribution’. This adversely affects the efforts of the state to minimize economic inequality. Fourth, it is also argued out by some scholars, for example, Robert Putnam, that an increase in the social trust and solidarity corresponds to a decrease in racial and ethnic diversity. Multiculturalism is harmful to a feeling of nationality, which is essential for a welfare state. Another criticism relevant in this context is made by Brian Barry. Barry says that group-differentiated rights are detrimental to the welfare scheme of the state. He says that religious or cultural minorities should not get any special rights because in a reasonable egalitarian society based on the universal ideals of equality and freedom minority groups have equal access to positions and opportunities in all aspects of the society, including in economy, education, and governance or administrative machinery. Nevertheless, Barry makes an exception -he supports special treatment for the disabled. Fifth one comes from the postcolonialists; they do not favourably view multiculturalism’s policy of recognition of identity as they believe this policy will affirm, rather than challenge, the colonial rule and its legacy. They believe that aboriginal and suppressed communities be given support and opportunity for selfacclamation to reclaim their pride. Sixth, and a very important, criticism is from the feminists. They contend that multiculturalists are only concerned with inequality between the groups but ignore inequality within the group. In most minority groups, the most severe form of inequality is perpetrated through norms imposed in relation to sexuality and gender. Many feminists, including Susan Okin, Shacher, and Iris Young, have criticized multiculturalism on this ground. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Why Liberals and Feminists criticize Multiculturalism? 14.7    Summary Multiculturalism as a political theory peaked in importance during the last decade of the twentieth century. With the demise of Soviet Union, migration into Europe accelerated and the existence of large number of minorities along with the natives in different countries became a reality. Then arose a need for a rational immigration policy and a comprehensive domestic policy that can serve justly all ethnicities and different cultures. It was apparent that in general, immigrants wanted to retain their culture yet support a liberal state. Consequently, multiculturalism became the buzz word and emerged as a viable political theory that explains this fluid situation and help with solving problems arising out of it. Then happened 9/11, which changed the entire situation for immigrants, especially the Muslims who arrived recently. Vocal critics of multiculturalism, for example, Huntington and Fukuyama, called for a drastic relook and amendment in the multicultural policies of the State, they balanced Multiculturism for the softening of the state and believed it was one of the leading courses of increased terrorist activities. In the recent years, it seems that the influence of Multiculturism is fast eroding in Europe and Austraia, especially after 9/11. British Prime Minister David cameron accepts, ‘Under the doctrine of State Multiculturism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream’. 14.8    Glossary •    Multiculturalism : the state of a Society or the world in which there exists numerous distinct ethnic and cultural groups seen to be politically relevant. •    Cultural Mosaic : is the mix of ethnic groups, languages, and cultures that coexist within society. The idea of a cultural mosaic is intended to suggest a form of Multiculturalism, different from other systems such as the melting pot, which is often used to describe nations like the United State’s assimilation. •    LGBTQ : “Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer”. •    Affirmative Action : Affirmative action, also known as positive action or positive discrimination, involves sets of policies and practices within a government or orgernisation seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, creed or nationality in areas in which such groups are underrepresed-such as education and employment. •    Cosmopolitanism : the belief that all people are entitled to equal respect and consideration, no matter what their citizenship, status or other affiliations happen to be. 14.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Multiculturalism stands from ethnic or cultural pluralism in a society wherein different ethnic groups collaborate with each other without losing their identity.  It advocates equal respect for various cultures along  with maintaining cultural diversity. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    In the early 1980s, in the debates on liberal-communitarianism, communitarian argued that individuals are an integral part of community and the interest of community is not equal to the collective interest of its members. They favoured multiculturalism as a social policy appropriate for protecting communities against excessive assertion by individual autonomy. The minorities of ethnic cultural nature require more protection as their community life is more under threat. Eventually communitarianism gradually had converted into some form of multiculturalism. 2.    These are (a) National Minorities (b) Immigrant Groups (c) Isolationist Ethnoreligious groups (d) Metics and (e) African Americans. Self Check Exercise-3 1    (i) Individual (ii)    Will Kymlicka (iii)    Parekh 2.    Taylor, Kymlicka, Parekh, Dworkin, Rakowski, Phillop Petit, Quentin Skinner, Lovett, etc. 3.    As a policy, multiculturalism has at least two characteristics: (a) it tries to satisfy the needs of different cultural groups and (b) It allows and sustains the existence of different groups so that individual part of such groups can pursue their goals without compromising on their cultural identities. At the policy level, multiculturalists favour difference sensitive policies and believe that these policies are not inherently unjust. These policies are meant to correct intergroup inequalities and disadvantages in the cultural milieu. Multiculturalism as a policy acknowledges the problems of minority groups and tries to sort them out either by fulfilling a demand for special protection under law or giving relaxation in general law or providing special privileges for specific groups. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Hard core liberals criticize multiculturalism who assert that in the classical theory of liberalism only individual rights are recognized and group rights are a part of liberal theory. By recognizing group rights, the liberal state is overstepping its role. Chandan Kukathas says, ‘states should not pursue cultural integration or cultural engineering  but  rather a politics of indifferences toward minority groups.’ Feminist critics contend that multiculturists are only concerned with inequality between the groups but ignore inequality within the group. In most minority groups, the most server form of inequality is perpetrated through norms imposed in relation to sexuality and gender. Many feminists, including Susan Okin, Shacher, and Iris young, have criticized multiculturalism on this ground. 14.10    Suggested Readings/References : •    Gaus, Gerald F. and Kukathas (ed.), Handbook of Political Theory. London, New Delhi : Sage Publication. •    Auster, Lawrence, ‘The Forbidden Topic : The Link Between Multiculturism and Immigration’. National Review, 27 (April), 1992. •    Barry, Brian, Culture and Equality : An Egalitarian critique of Multiculturism. Oxford : Polity, 2001 •   Devaux, Monique, Cultural Pluralism and Dilemmas of Justice. New York : Cornell Univ. Press, 2000. •   Melger, Arther ; Weinberger, Jerry; and Zinman, M. Richard (eds), Multiculturism and American Democracy. Lawrence : University of Kansas Press, 1998. •    Dadhich, Naresh, Contemporary Political Theory. New Delhi, Jaipur : Rawat Publications, 2019 •    Parekh, B., Rethinking Multiculturism : Cultural Diversity and Political Theory, 2nd edn, 2005. 14.11    Terminal Questions 1.    What is Multiculturalism? Discuss the Various forms of Multiculturalism. 2.    Discuss Multiculturalism as a response to Nation building. 3.    Give arguments in favour and against of Multiculturalism. 4.    Explain the concept of Multiculturalism in contemporary western society. ***** Unit-15 ENVIRONMENTALISM Structure 15.1    Introduction 15.2    Learning Objectives 15.3    The Environment 15.31 Varieties of Environmentalists Self Check Exercise-1 15.4    Humanistic Environmentalism 15.4.1    Remoter Places 15.4.2    Future Generations 15.4.3    Environmental Concerns Self Check Exercise-2 15.5    Extended Humanism Self Check Exercise-3 15.6    Bio Centric Environmentalism Self Check Exercise-4 15.7    Summary 15.8    Glossary 15.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises 15.10    Suggested Readings/References 15.11    Terminal Questions 15.1    Introduction Ecology or Green Political Theory emerged in the 1970s and reached its peak in the late 1990s. After that period, gradually it was reduced to a programme of ‘save environment’, as many recommendations of this theory were incorporated into government policies. It all began with the awareness about our surrounding environment and the need to think and implement ways to prevent environmental decay. Thus, a theory named ‘environmentalism’ came into existence. It was a thin theory catering primarily to campaigns aimed at creating awareness in masses and elite alike. When some serious academicians and thinkers took up the cause of environment, a rigorous philosophical theory emerged, which, both in academe and politics, came to be known as green political theory or ecologism. To implement recommendations inbuilt in green political theory, green politics and mass movement named green movement cropped up in the world and especially in Europe. German Zoologist Ernest Haeckel coined the word ecology in 1866. He defined it as ‘the investigations of the total relations of the animal both to its organic and its inorganic environment’. Since the 1950s, it is used more and more in social and political terms aiming at growing awareness of importance of environment for human beings. In the 1970s, ‘save environment’ became an important political issue, and political parties were formed around it. German Greens were among the first to adopt it as their policy. As a political ideology, ecology emerged as a reaction against unbridled industrialism in the West. This reaction was the strongest in a country like Germany where rapid industrialization took place. A number of books appeared canvassing the damage done to environment by industrialization. One such popular book was The Silent Spring (1962) written by Rachael Carson. It consisted of a number of essays that detailed how pesticides like DDT, Aldrin, and others are negatively impacting environment and public health. Carson in his book drew attention to the fragility of ecological relationship and urged for assimilative relationship between humans and nature. He also questioned the notion of scientific progress based on the conquest of nature. New pressure groups of ‘save environment’ movement like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth emerged in the 1960s and highlighted the dangers of nuclear power, increasing pollution, and so on. 15.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the students will be able to : •    understand the concept of ‘environment’ and various forms of environment. •    have knowledge about the Humanistic Environmentalism and Biocentric Environmentalism •    know about various environmental concerns. Since the early 1970s, however, the ‘environmental’ or the ‘ecological’ movement has connoted a socio-political force rather than a specific scientific doctrine or field of study, a change particularly marked in such coinages as ‘ecopolitics’, ‘eco-left’, eco-feminism’. It has sometimes found expression in the formation of Green political parties, sometimes in pressure groups which seek to modify the programmes of already established parties or which, scorning political parties, confine themselves to direct action of a ‘grassroots’ kind. There are clear connections between the earlier and more recent interpretations. Sociological environmentalists highlighted that the natural world is not merely a passive backdrop but plays a significant role in shaping human behavior and social systems. Similarly, biological ecologists focused on the intricate relationships within ecosystems, as well as the interactions between organisms and their environments. While environmental advocates are sometimes critical of science and technology—often holding them responsible for ecological harm—they nonetheless rely heavily on scientific findings. Unlike many traditional political movements, environmentalists frequently reference scientific evidence, whether discussing food webs, climate change, or the depletion of the ozone layer. Nevertheless, they also, here like other political parties, make use of classical social and political concepts and urge the need for social and political changes, often of a quite radical kind. 15.3    The Environment What constitutes the environment? In its now relevant, biological sense it includes anything that affects the capacity of organisms to survive, to reproduce and to flourish. The environment of any particular organism, or species of organism, will include other organisms. The human being’s environment may include mosquitoes: human beings may be part of a mosquito’s environment. To the human being mosquitoes are a threat: to mosquitoes human beings are both a threat and a resource. Human beings exist within three broad types of environments. From birth, each person is part of one or more human communities, which are interconnected by shared social practices. These practices form an individual’s social environment, and as time goes on, people often absorb these practices so deeply that they shape much of their behavior. It has long been understood that the quality of these social practices can greatly influence a person’s ability to survive, thrive, and reproduce. What has become clearer only in recent times is that these practices don’t just impact individuals—they can also determine whether humanity as a whole can continue to exist, not to mention their impact on the survival of countless other species. The environmental movement has emerged from an awareness of the clear and harmful ways in which human social practices contribute to the destruction of the natural world. Second, every human being has at hand a variety of physical objects which other human beings have deliberately designed in order to satisfy human needs and desires. They constitute the built environment. This includes a great deal more than buildings in the normal sense; it includes, for example, machines, roads, manufactured chemical products. Many built objects were constructed as a response to environmental threats. Nevertheless, environmentalists point to the fact that even then they can themselves constitute an environmental threat, as in the case of insecticides. For some environmentalists almost every built object constitutes a threat: others will agitate for the preservation of certain kinds of built objects, as historically or artistically of peculiar interest. Finally, there is the natural environment, to which the word ‘environment’ is now most commonly taken to refer. Its distinction from the built environment is not absolute. Although there are still, in some parts of the world, genuine wildernesses containing nothing that has been placed there by human hands, in industrially advanced countries what counts as the natural environment will often have been deliberately modified, socialized. An inner-city dweller will no doubt encounter forms of insect and bird life-flies, cockroaches, starlings, pigeons- which, although they have changed their food habits as a result of contacts with human beings, have not been deliberately modified by them. But the flowers on the window-sill and the trees In a park have not only been deliberately placed where they now stand, but are usually varieties bred to meet the rigours of city life. The countryside is in a similar position, except that its trees may sometimes have been left standing, although normally now in a different plant and animal community. Its fields have been laid out, its plants and animals genetically transformed. Nevertheless, parks and countryside are normally thought of as forming part of the natural environment, with their preservation fought for as such, just because plants, animals and trees, if man-modified, are not man-made. Even when they have been severely polluted as a result of human intervention, rivers, the seas and the climate fall into this same category. What, in general terms, environmentalists want to do is to preserve remaining wilderness areas, to restore degenerated natural environments to something like their pristine condition, to prevent further degeneration. They all realize that in order to achieve these aims they will have to press for changes in social practices and in the built environment. But they differ notably in their motives, in respect to the degree of change with which they would be satisfied and in the means which they would be prepared to see employed in order to reach that point. Together they constitute a family of movements rather than a single movement, one of those families within which there is considerable internecine hostility. 15.3.1    Varieties of Environmentalists Opponents—such as industrialists, miners, or foresters—often categorize environmentalists into two distinct groups: "mainstream" and "hardline." The term "hardline" is typically used to describe individuals they view as uncompromising and unwilling to engage in negotiation. By making this distinction, they imply that these "hardline" environmentalists represent an extreme and minority faction, separate from the more moderate and negotiable "mainstream" group. But these appellations do not draw attention to what intellectually distinguishes the hard group, namely the fact that hard environmentalists are not only indifferent to economic growth (which is all their opponents have to offer) but are totally hostile to it. They entirely reject the concept of sustainable development, as supported in the United Nations report ‘Our Common Future’ (Brundtland. 1987), if this is taken to imply any measure at all of economic growth: as they see it, only by moving in the reverse direction can environmental degradation be prevented. Within the environmental movement, a distinction often arises—originally introduced by Arne Naess—between what is termed ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ environmentalism. These terms carry strong value judgments; few people would willingly associate themselves with something labeled ‘shallow,’ while the word ‘deep’ tends to have a compelling, positive connotation for many. To avoid this loaded language, it is more neutral and familiar to contrast ‘humanistic’ environmentalism with ‘biocentric’ environmentalism. Although terms like ‘anthropocentric’—and in eco-feminist writings, ‘androcentric’—are commonly used, they imply a philosophical stance suggesting that nature exists solely for human benefit. This interpretation does not align with the beliefs of thoughtful humanistic environmentalists. Humanistic environmentalism focuses on transforming social behaviors and systems that negatively impact the environment, primarily because such harm is believed to ultimately threaten human well-being. On the other hand, biocentric environmentalists prioritize the protection and continuation of the entire biosphere in all its diversity and intricacy. Even if they recognize the potential for humanity to bring about its own extinction, they may regard that possibility with acceptance, seeing it as part of the natural course of events. However, their concern lies in whether human self-destruction would also lead to widespread harm to the biosphere itself. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who coined the term ecology in 1866? 2.    In case of human beings, what are three main kinds of environment? 3.    Define ‘hard’ environmentalists. 15.4    Humanistic Environmentalism In its most limited sense, humanistic environmentalism focuses on the immediate, local impacts of pollution or environmental harm. This approach is often labeled as "not in my backyard" (NIMBY) environmentalism, though the term "local environmentalism" is perhaps a clearer description. People with this perspective oppose, for example, the contamination of a nearby river because it negatively affects local property prices or diminishes traditional community benefits. On the other hand, universal humanists extend their concerns much further. They advocate for the protection of the environment in areas where they do not reside and for times beyond their own lifespans. Additionally, they emphasize broader human concerns that go beyond property values and local conveniences. That said, universal environmentalists often engage in local environmental issues as well, since these matters typically offer easier access to information and simpler opportunities for mobilizing support. The widely recognized phrase, "think globally, act locally," reflects the broad appeal of this approach among environmental advocates. However, such collaborations are often short-lived, as communities may revert to their usual indifference unless the local issue can be framed in a way that connects it to distant places and future generations. 15.4.1    Remoter places Environmentalism initially took shape as a movement focused on local issues, albeit sometimes covering large regions. Early successes included clearing the deadly London fog and the return of fish to the Thames River. However, it quickly became clear that certain environmental challenges, such as pollution in rivers like the Rhine or seas like the Baltic, required cross-border cooperation. The realization that acid rain could harm countries distant from its source—like Norway suffering from pollution originating in England—highlighted the fact that environmental damage respects no national boundaries. If climate change and ozone depletion are indeed caused by industrial pollution rather than natural fluctuations, the global consequences of environmental harm originating in one area become undeniable. This reality brings both opportunities and challenges for humanistic environmentalists who embrace a universal perspective. On one hand, it supports the notion that, as John Donne once said, "no man is an island," but updated to mean "nowhere is an island." This can encourage local environmental advocates to broaden their scope. Campaigns aimed at stopping deforestation in the Amazon, for instance, can gain global backing by emphasizing their impact on the planet's atmosphere—an argument far more compelling than one based solely on local environmental and social concerns. However, the obstacles tend to be political. When pollution originates in one nation but causes harm in another, industries often pressure governments to disregard such external consequences. Furthermore, when international environmental groups criticize the destruction of rainforests in the Amazon, local business interests may accuse them of neo-colonialism, arguing that they are obstructing the country’s economic development. Similar claims can be made when environmentalists oppose the relocation of polluting factories to developing nations. In response to accusations of neo-colonialism, environmentalists often argue that the real neo-colonialists are the foreign companies exploiting developing countries for short-term profit while damaging their environments. Yet, while biocentric environmentalists may view all forms of development as inherently harmful, humanistic environmentalists cannot overlook the fact that, without economic progress, developing nations may face ongoing unemployment, low life expectancy, and political unrest. Unlike biocentric thinkers, humanistic environmentalists feel morally obligated to consider these social consequences. This is why industrialists, miners, and foresters often perceive them as more lenient, since they are usually unwilling to entirely dismiss the value of economic development. That said, humanistic environmentalists are unlikely to support harmful activities simply because they offer short-term economic benefits to developing nations. As environmentalists, they argue for more than just economic considerations. They highlight the long-term environmental damage, the irreversible losses to biodiversity, and the potential negative impacts on indigenous communities. After weighing these factors, they may well conclude that certain economic practices are ultimately unjustifiable. At the political level, they may then urge on their own governments the provision of economic and expert aid to developing countries to make possible alternative forms of employment, legislation against the import of rain forest timber and so on. Environmentalists and supporters of foreign aid may be sufficiently powerful to make such pressures on established parties not entirely nugatory. In the developing countries, however, environmentalism is unlikely to be powerful and the political situation may well be very difficult for outsiders to grasp. Environmentalists may find political parties who are prepared to support their environmentalist activities and may think of themselves as using these parties to advance their cause when in fact they are being used by such parties, which have as their real aim the assumption of political power. This, of course, is simply an example of the problems besetting all minority groups who need allies but then come to be identified with their allies. Anti-nuclear groups are another case in point. 15.4.2    Future Generations A concern for future generations is no novelty. It can take a variety of forms, as comes out in testamentary dispositions. These may include legacies to greatgrandchildren but also to organizations which the testator expects to carry on certain kinds of activity during future generations. Such concern is, of course, local, but the principles that underlie it can readily be generalized. In the first case, the testator is handing on resources which will, the testator thinks, help the legatees to live the kind of life the testator would like them to live. The resources will for the most part consist of man-made resources-property, money - rather than natural resources, but we can easily generalize this attitude into handing over natural resources to later generations. In the second case, the legacies may go in a more impersonal fashion to institutions, but again on the assumption that these institutions promote ways of life which the testator regards as being important. There can, of course, be deep differences of opinion about what these ways of life are. Biocentric environmentalists are sometimes primitivists, but humanistic environmentalists are generally interested in maintaining and developing some form of liberal democratic society in its rich diversity, nowhere more manifest than in some of its cities, as well as a similarly diverse biosphere. In consequence such environmentalists are particularly concerned about the conservation of natural resources. That was the theme of the Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al.) The report was attacked by economists and technologists on its first appearance as underestimating the capacity of technology, both as a means of discovering new mineral resources and of providing substitutes for the resources we at present employ. They were right in so far as the gloomier prognostications of the report have not yet eventuated. Nevertheless, resources are limited, by the nature of the case, and although increases in prices as they became scarcer might ensure that they would not entirely run out, high prices could have a considerable effect on future societies. The environmentalist would also point out that markets can be slow to react to scarcities, as has happened in relation to several species of fish. As for substitutes, these have often turned out to present unexpected problems (as in the disposal of nuclear wastes) or to be considerably more expensive than anticipated on like nuclear fusion or the production of long-life batteries, to present technological difficulties. It is also true, of course, that they use natural resources, although different ones. Environmentalists still have to face the general objection that we should concentrate our attention on here-and-now problems, leaving future generations to face their problems as we have had to face our problems. The pace of technological innovation may be invoked to argue that we cannot really tell what they will regard as problems or what tools they will have to deal with them. It is a firm economic principle that we ought to discount the future heavily and never more so than in rapidly changing societies. Replying to such views, universalistic humanists argue that the fact that human beings live in the future rather than now does not affect our obligations towards them, any more than the fact that they live in a different part of the globe: we are still obliged to take their interests into account. Admittedly, the degree of uncertainty which commonly attaches to the outcomes of our actions is in this case accentuated: we are very likely, trying to do the right thing, actually to do the wrong thing. The information we have at our disposal is more than ordinarily limited. We have, however, at least this much information: we know that the human beings who succeed us on the earth’s surface will need water, food, an atmosphere they can breathe, protection from heat and cold and space to live in. On any but the most localized moral view, the humanistic environmentalist argues, we should not put these perennial needs at risk by seriously modifying the constitution of the atmosphere, the temperature of the globe, the amount of land that is above sealevel, by cutting down forests, exhausting mineral deposits or allowing the top-soil to degenerate or rivers to be polluted. In many of these cases, of course, environmental reform offers advantages to the present inhabitants of the earth as well as to later generations; in other cases the time-scale involved is relatively short so that at the very least our own great-grandchildren, for whom we might quite naturally make testamentary provision, would be affected. So we are not passing beyond the normal bounds of natural affection. The political challenge, naturally, arises from the fact that ensuring future generations have the opportunity for a good life or to fulfill their needs often requires the current generation to make significant sacrifices. These sacrifices are frequently unevenly distributed, adding to the complexity. There is much discussion over what truly qualifies as a significant sacrifice. For example, people in North America could greatly lower their extremely high levels of energy consumption and still maintain relatively high consumption compared to global standards. However, many aspects of their lifestyles are deeply connected to this high energy use. As a result, they may perceive any reduction—such as choosing to walk or use public transportation instead of driving, or wearing warmer clothing indoors during winter to lower heating use—as considerable sacrifices. While many environmental advocates argue that reducing energy consumption could lead to healthier, more fulfilling lives, even these relatively minor adjustments are often seen as politically risky for leaders to enforce, especially when the motivation is to benefit future generations. Therefore, it may be necessary to emphasize the more immediate and local benefits of such changes in order to gain public support. At a more basic level, environmentalists sometimes encourage individuals to stop wasteful practices like discarding containers after a single use. They also call on manufacturers to design products that are recyclable and urge local governments to support recycling efforts, such as collecting used paper, particularly when recycling isn't economically profitable on its own. Let me know if you want to adjust the tone or add anything! This is partly to conserve natural resources, partly to reduce the size of rubbish heaps. At this level they have been relatively successful. Recycling makes people feel virtuous, in societies where saving is officially regarded as being a virtue; it is relatively painless and it does not involve any radical change in social and political attitudes. In short, it is environmentalism without tears. But it requires the use of industrial processes, takes energy, produces by-products and can help to sustain the illusion that resources are inexhaustible. In some other cases, the sacrifices called for are uncontroversially serious, as when reductions are urged in the logging of forests and the result is unemployment -not only for loggers but in nearby towns. The environmentalist may point out that in a society which breaks away from totalitarianism, many dedicated members of the secret police will similarly be thrown out of work, that this is indeed characteristic of a great many desirable social changes. But in these cases the compensating benefits for present, as well as future, generations are clear. If a similar point can be made about the logging of trees, the political problems can equally be eased: once again to find a way of appealing to local environmentalism increases the chances of securing environmental ends which are not purely localized. Similar problems arise if the environmentalist speaks in terms of human rights, rather than of interests or kinds of life and argues that these rights are possessed as much by members of future as by members of present generations. So far as the classical rights are concerned, such as the right to free speech, one can certainly argue in a quite general way that one ought not to act in such a manner as to increase the risk that future generations will be less likely, in consequence, to possess such rights. This is a line of reasoning which is particularly appealing to liberal democrats. Such an appeal to the classical rights, it should also be observed, does not he open to all environmentalists. Biocentric environmentalists such as Callicott, sometimes describe themselves as holists’ and regard with equanimity a society in individual rights are sacrificed to the good of the whole. Indeed, they may even urge that we should now become such a society. It is certainly very difficult to see how environmental degradation can be diminished without a considerable amount of regulation, which will often interfere with established property rights and with the non-classical ‘right to work’. But these can in principle be compensated for. In the eyes of a liberal democrat there can be no compensation for the loss of such rights as freedom of speech. Particular problems centre on control over population, in the interests of future generations. Environmentalists of every kind argue that the world either is, or will in the relatively near future become, over-populated. For humanists this means that as a result in part of environmental degradation human life will come to be, as in places it has already become, ‘nasty, brutish and short’ once the population goes beyond a not precisely specifiable level. As usual the facts are disputed: there are some who argue that, as a result of technical advances, the world (perhaps by colonizing nearby planets) could adequately support a much greater population than it now does. But, for all that we have recently made such vast gains in agricultural productivity, these claims are generally dismissed by environmentalists. The gains have always been accompanied, they point out, by serious losses in the form, for example, of fertilizer flow-offs into streams. Some of these objections relate to the fact that population control depends upon the use of contraceptives and abortion. Humanistic environmentalists may be disturbed by this fact, but are not necessarily so provided the use of such devices is voluntary. What is morally disturbing is that such voluntary reductions in family size are not, on a world-wide scale, likely to produce a sharp decline in population growth over any but a long period of time and yet there are good reasons for believing that excess population is a major cause of environmental degradation. This is far from being the only case in which the question, “How are we to get from here to there?”, is a very uncomfortable one for environmentalists. But the population question faces all environmentalists, not only those for whom there is some form of Utopia. So it is not altogether surprising that population control has come largely to be ignored in recent environmental discussions, vital though it would seem to be. 15.4.3    Environmental Concerns The third distinction between local and universalistic human-centered environmentalists lies in the broad scope of interests that universalists tend to exhibit regarding environmental concerns. Unlike traditional perspectives, they do not view the natural world solely as something to be feared or exploited. In particular, they move away from the narrow interpretation of "resource" as something that must be used purely to sustain or boost economic growth—whether through conventional activities like logging and mining or modern ones such as promoting tourism. Universalists, much like biocentric environmentalists, firmly reject the idea that humans are separate from nature; rather, they embrace the notion, common since Darwin’s time, that humanity is an integral part of the natural world. However, their environmental advocacy often focuses on the harm that environmental degradation causes to humans, whether the effects are immediate or indirect. One of their most compelling and politically influential arguments centers on the impact of environmental damage on public health. In such cases, universalistic humanists often align with local environmentalists who are directly affected by pollution, amplifying their collective political power. On the other side of the debate are typically those in areas where the pollution originates. Their opposition is often reinforced by economic or political ties to polluting industries. Key opponents usually include farmers whose use of pesticides and fertilizers contaminates water sources, and industrial leaders whose operations pollute the air and waterways. These groups are frequently supported by workers concerned about job security (even when they are not personally impacted by pollution), suppliers of polluting materials, and the scientists and engineers responsible for developing such technologies.They may win the support of governments, shareholders and others who fear the economic effects of prohibiting polluting practices, charging those who pollute or demanding costly changes to factories. This is especially so in a highly competitive world, where other countries may have no hesitation in accommodating the offending factory or permitting ecologically dangerous farming practices. The situation is even more difficult when, as often happens, the precise damage done by the pollutant is hard to establish and scientists differ about its importance. Pollution is no respecter of species. Indeed its effects on non-human species may be easier to detect than its effects on human beings. In some such circumstances, there may be clear economic costs, as to fishing industries. And in political debates the humanistic environmentalist may emphasize them. Equally, when the point at Issue is the disappearance of species, not only from a particular place but from the face of the earth, humanistic environmentalists will often emphasize the possible loss, with the species, of biological structures which might turn out to be useful as drugs or insecticides. At times, appealing to notions of beauty or the sublime can be politically impactful. This approach may even temporarily align with the interests of the tourism industry— though such a partnership often dissolves once the industry's development plans come to light. Nevertheless, human-centered environmentalists can find common ground with those who take a biocentric view, both seeking to protect species that aren't typically described as ‘beautiful’ or ‘sublime.’ They celebrate the vast diversity of life and find fulfillment in feeling connected to nature, not merely observing it. They value the complex interactions that sustain ecosystems. These responses are distinctly human—no other species shares them—and there is no contradiction with humanism in treating these feelings with importance. However, it is usually at this point that humanists risk being accused of excessive sentimentality, promoting middle-class ideals, or being unrealistic. Consequently, it makes sense that humanistic environmentalism, as a political movement, often emphasizes practical, utilitarian arguments or, alternatively, adopts a framework based on rights. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Explain Humanistic Environmentalism. 2.    What is Universalistic Environmentalism? 15.5    Extended Humanism Extended humanism falls between humanistic and biocentric environmentalism. It does not take the interests of human beings, however broadly regarded, to be central: on the other side, it does not take the interests of the ecosystem as a whole to be central. One might even refuse to call it ‘environmentalism’ on the ground that its interest is ordinarily confined to a concern for certain types of animal but it sometimes goes beyond that point, perhaps by recognizing that concern for animals carries with it a concern for their habitat, perhaps by trying to extend to all members of eco-systems concepts which have first been extended from human beings to other animals, whether these be interests, or equality, or rights, or liberation. Extended humanism commonly begins, as it did for Bentham and for Leopold from a belief that human beings have over time made moral advances. So human beings have abolished slavery, attacked sexism and racism and even, in relation to animals, set up Humane Societies and Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. But they are still ‘speciesist’, to use the term introduced by Richard Ryder, they still treat human beings as being superior to other species. In a way which condones treating animals in ways in which it would not be permissible to treat even a human being in the most hopelessly vegetative state. Extended humanism rejects such practices as morally impermissible. Bentham had said that the crucial question when we are considering how we should treat other species is whether they can suffer, and this is the principal theme in Singer’s Animal Liberation (1975), a work which has had considerable impact in the political sphere. If it leads him to speak in terms of the ‘equality’ of all animals, this, he thinks, is in respect to their capacity for suffering: that is the only sense in which, he indeed argues, we can plausibly think of human beings as being equal. One feature of his argument, which also runs through much extended humanism, is that he will not allow us to describe something as being a species characteristic unless it is characteristic of all members of the species. (He uses ‘species’ as if it simply meant ‘class’.) So we are not allowed to say that human are peculiarly rational and deserve preference as a species for this reason, seeing that there are decerebrate or vegetative human beings. They cannot, of course, have recourse to the classical rights, as formulated in declarations of the rights of man. For these all relate to the relationships of human beings with one another in a peculiarly human type of society; they are modes of protecting one human being against another. They arise within a judicial system: they generate claims within such systems. In the animal case, the situation is quite different. The rights are not claimed by one member of an animal species as against other members of that species, as they are in the human case. Looking at a country other than our own, we might protest against the way some members of that society are treated by other members of that society and we might appeal to rights on behalf of what we regard as the oppressed members of that society, even when they are not recognized (whether in theory or, as now more commonly happens, in practice) in that society. It would be quite ridiculous to demand such rights on behalf of worker-ants in an ant heap. Even such rights as the right to work have no application in this context. The ‘right to life’ as ordinarily employed in arguments against abortion and euthanasia also has no application here, in so far as ‘the sanctity of life’ is taken to mean the sanctity of human life. But if we take it, rather, as a general precept against arbitrary killing then it can be used not only in relation to animals but to plants. The disputes are then about what counts as ‘arbitrary’. In this case, of course, the tree, for example, cannot of itself claim the right not to be chopped down. But it is sometimes true even in human cases that someone has to speak on behalf of the person whose rights are, infringed. So such legal philosophers as Christopher Stone (1974) have sought to describe ways in which damages can be sought on behalf of the fish in a polluted river as distinct from economically affected fishermen, the damages in successful cases being awarded to some form of nature-protection organization. Political action in this sphere has generally taken the form of legislation to prohibit in particular circumstances the cutting down of trees or the pollution of rivers. So the plaintiff appeals to legislation which in fact takes away rights from human beings rather than granting them to non-human entities. Such legislation is often resisted in precisely these terms as an infringement, not an extension of rights, and it is often impossible for anybody but a government organization to act as a plaintiff, as it is commonly very reluctant to do. The existence of laws relating to, let us say the emission of gases into the atmosphere or of pollutants into rivers, to the degree that environmental law is now an established specialism, is an indication of how successful environmentalist political pressures have been. The common failure to prosecute and the minuscule fines set down indicate, however. that these successes are often more apparent than real, particularly under conditions of economic recession. Whatever form it takes, extended humanism is usually egalitarian, except in so far as its utilitarian version makes a distinction between the sentient and the non-sentient. Nevertheless, since the argument commonly begins by stressing continuities between human beings and other animals, it usually emphasizes what human beings think of as being “higher animals. So the fate of whales and dolphins is more likely to concern extended humanists than the fate of other sea-dwellers: experiments on chimpanzees, monkeys, cats, perhaps rats, than on fruit-flies. In Regan’s large-scale work entitled The Case for Animal Rights (1981), his case is in fact made out only for the rights of mammalian animals. Even those who argue that cells should be respected may still suggest that some animals have ‘richer experiences’ than others, as, for example, dolphins more than sharks; the death of individual members of these species arouses grief among their fellows, and so our concern for them should be greater. It is easier to win public sympathy for picturesque animals than for the drabber kind. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Describe Extended Humanism. 15.6    Biocentric Environmentalism As a biological perspective, biocentric environmentalism shifts focus away from individual animals, including humans, who may experience suffering due to societal actions such as pollution or scientific experimentation. Instead, the emphasis is placed on the well-being of the entire ecosystem, where individual suffering or death is viewed as relatively insignificant. Supporters of this view often justify practices like hunting, arguing that the priority should be maintaining the overall health and balance of the natural system. According to biocentric thinking, preserving the integrity of ecosystems is essential because they sustain all forms of life. This approach centers on the concept of the "web of life," a principle that has gained prominence among biologists who previously highlighted distinctions between species rather than their interconnectedness. The web of life differs from the older concept of the balance of nature, commonly invoked by earlier environmentalists, in so far as that was taken to be static, often providentially sustained. The web of life, in contrast, recognizes struggles and conflicts: it grants that species can be extinguished, even without human intervention. The most complex version of web of life theory is the Gaia hypothesis. As first presented by Lovelock (1979), this was widely interpreted as being a quasi-religious theory, as its name might suggest. But the later version (Lovelock, 1989) makes plain its character as an elaboration of Darwinism in which species are thought of as modifying the blosphere, through the familiar processes of mutation and natural selection, in a way that assists them to survive. The practical importance of web-of-life biologies is that they draw attention to the crucial importance for the maintenance of the biosphere of relatively remote, individually minuscule, quite unspectacular, biological processes. Biocentric environmentalism poses unique political challenges. Pollution often has immediate and visible consequences, noticeable even to those without scientific knowledge. Similarly, the impact of deforestation on landscapes is often apparent. Even when these effects occur in distant areas, scenes of environmental destruction—such as barren lands, landslides, and muddy rivers—can be broadcasted on television, providing strong support for environmental initiatives. In relatively simple cases, like the link between refrigerants, ozone layer depletion, and increased skin cancer risk, public fear can rally support, even from those who don't fully grasp the scientific details. However, when the environmental damage is more complex or its effects are distant and hypothetical, it becomes much harder to turn it into a political priority. Even straightforward issues, such as reducing pollution, often demand cooperation between nations. This complexity extends to the conservation of species that migrate or exist beyond the borders of a single country. Whales, fish, and migratory birds are prime examples. If just one nation refuses to sign, or fails to comply with, an international treaty, it can result in the extinction of species. Most of the ecological concerns at the heart of biocentric environmentalism cross national boundaries. Protecting these shared interests requires genuine commitment from countries to uphold international agreements. There is nothing lunatic about biocentric environmentalism as such. It rests on scientific discoveries, on a network of scientific theories which can only be substantiated or refuted by further investigation. It can be accepted, at this level, by humanists provided only that they abandon certain theses which have often been associated with humanism Human beings should not view themselves as existing outside the intricate web of life, exercising god-like control to manipulate, alter, or dominate it at will. Just as humans regard certain parts of their natural surroundings as resources, the same can be said for all other species. In this sense, the old notion of "the environment" as something separate or distinct dissolves—there are only specific environments or habitats within the larger biosphere. As a result, Cartesian dualism must be set aside, but this does not mean humanism has to be abandoned. Humanism can align well with the process-oriented philosophies embraced by many contemporary environmental thinkers. These philosophies often draw inspiration from Heraclitus, focusing on change, dynamic activity, interaction, and the idea that existence is maintained through continuous exchange, rather than through static substances that relate only externally to one another. If in spite of the fact that the conception of the web of life on which biocentrism depends has sound scientific foundations, biocentric environmentalism is so often dismissed as a ‘lunatic fringe’ doctrine, not only by anti-environmentalists but also by humanistic environmentalists, this is in so far as it has (especially in the United States) come to be associated with attitudes of mind which flourished in the 1960s but have taken new shape under the influence of environmentalism. That association can come about in a number of ways. The web of life is sometimes interpreted monistically, as if it were the name of an entity which could be thought of as having a specific good of its own. Then biocentrism is taken to bring with it the totalitarian conception of a system to the good of which individual rights and individual happiness ought to be sacrificed. In some eco-feminist versions, where Lovelock’s earlier statement of the Gaia hypothesis caught on, the web of life is identified with an Earth-Mother (as indeed the name ‘Gaia’ suggests) and such metaphors as ‘the rape of nature’ are called upon to support the view that environmental degradation is simply a particular manifestation of patriarchal oppression. A melange of ideas from India, China, Japan is appealed to as inculcating proper attitudes to the environment, in spite of the dismal environmental record of the countries where they flourish. Pantheism and pan-psychism are reinstated, along with such doctrines as that every segment of the web of life, including the material environment which living things inhabit, is of equal worth, a doctrine which carries egalitarianism to its most extreme point. None of these metaphysical ideas are fundamentally connected to the concept of the web of life. This becomes evident in a collection such as Green Politics in Australia, which features essays by various environmental activists. These individuals cannot simply be dismissed as "resource environmentalists." Many have actively campaigned to protect wilderness areas, and some played key roles in establishing the world’s first Green Party in Tasmania—an Australian state known for its vast wilderness but limited in other resources. Their political stance, however, is far removed from any form of totalitarianism. Instead, they link environmentalism with a deeply participatory form of democracy, including democratic practices within industries. Several of them have also been involved in efforts to defend urban spaces in Sydney from aggressive development. They would certainly reject any doctrine promoting equal value for all things, as they believed that Old Sydney held more significance than the developments proposed to replace it. This clearly shows that, although environmentalists frequently unite over specific causes—such as protecting wilderness areas or opposing uranium mining and exports—they do not form a unified political movement in the way that Marxists or Roman Catholics might.There is an enormous gap between Plato’s Republic and a fully participatory community, or between the Christianity, the Zen Buddhism, the Hinduism and the secularism which different environmentalists may display. In general terms, although with greatly varying emphases, they nevertheless share such objectives as the reduction of population growth, the minimizing of pollution, the economizing of resources, the protection of wild species and their habitats. Very many of them link historically with that variety of perfectibilism which sought salvation in small, self-sustaining communities, if now for ecological as well as personal salvation (Bookchin). They share the belief that fundamental changes are needed both in the built and the social environment and in the attitudes which have both engendered them and flown from them. But their differences are absolute when it comes to the means of bringing about these changes, about exactly what attitudes need to be engendered, exactly what changes must be made in the built and the social environment. The problem which particularly faces them is how our society could move from its present condition to the ideal ‘small is beautiful’ society they envisage without using agencies-violence, for example or authoritarian regulation to which they mostly object (Goodin). It is not surprising that they operate more effectively as pressure groups than as parties, where many of them feel contaminated by the political atmosphere and others find themselves on opposite sides on some of the issues which a parliament has to debate. Self Check Exercise-4 1. What is the main concern of Bio-Centric Environmentalism. 15.7    Summary Thus, environmentalism •   emphasizes preservation of ecosystem, health and well-being •   calls on men and women to assume obligations to nature •    advocates environmental stewardship •    proposes that any use of nature be done in a manner supportive of sustainable development •    claims that owning natural recourse does not imply complete discretion over use of those resources. •    rejects the belief that humans are the center of the Universe and masters of nature. •    Suggests that economic values is not the only value to consider when calculating the worth of natural resources. Environmentalism asserts that ecosystem integrity is a political issue. The destruction of natural resources threatens human communities no less than war, civil disorder, and other issues recognised as important by political ideologies. Humans should act as stewards of nature and expand the concept of political obligations to include obligations to preserve ecosystems. 15.8    Glossary •    Biocentric - Considering all forms of life as having intrinsic value. •    Anthropocentric - regarding humankind as the central or most important element of existence, especially as opposed to God or animals. •    Androcentric - is the practice, conscious or otherwise, of placing a masculine point of view of the Centre of one’s world view, culture, and history, thereby culturally marginalizing femininity. •    Prognostication - the action of prophesying future events. •    Euthanasia - the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. •    Gaia Hypothesis - also known as the Gaia theory, Gaia paradigm, or the Gaia principle, proposes that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. •    Heraclitus - was an ancient Greek pre-Socratic philosopher from the city of Ephesus. •    ‘Lunatic Fringe' - an extremist or eccentric minority within society or a group. •    Pan-psy-chism - In the philosophy of mind, pan-psychism is the view that the mind or mindlike aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. 15.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    German Zoologist Ernest Haeckel. 2.    In case of human beings, the three main kinds of environment are; (a)    Social environment (b)    Built environment and (c)    Natural Environment 3.    Hardline environmentalists are often viewed as an uncompromising group with whom meaningful negotiation is nearly impossible. Representing a passionate minority, they are not merely unconcerned about economic growth but are openly opposed to it. They reject not only conventional development models but also dismiss the idea of sustainable development, even as it is promoted in the United Nations’ report Our Common Future. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Humanistic environmentalism focuses on changing social behaviors that negatively impact the environment, based on the belief that such harm will eventually affect human well-being. In its most limited sense, this approach addresses only the immediate,  local consequences of pollution or environmental damage. This is often referred to as "not in my backyard" environmentalism, though the simpler term "local environmentalism" is commonly used. For instance, it may oppose the contamination of a nearby river because it reduces property values in the area or spoils cherished local features. On the other hand, universal humanists take a broader view. They advocate for environmental protection in areas where they do not personally reside, or for the benefit of future generations they will never meet. Additionally, they emphasize human concerns beyond just property worth or local conveniences, highlighting broader human interests. 2.    For answer see Sub-Section 15.4.2 and 15.4.3 Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Extended humanism falls between humanistic and bio-centric environmentalism. It does not take the interests of human beings to be central: on the other side, it does take the interests of the ecosystem as a whole to be central. One might even refuse to call it ‘environmentalism’ on the ground that its interest is ordinarily confined to a concern for certain types of animal but it sometimes goes beyond that point, perhaps by recognizing that concern for animals carries with it a concern for their habitat, perhaps by trying to extend to all members of eco-system concepts which have first been extended from human beings to other animals, whether these be interests, or equality, or rights, or liberation. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    As a biological perspective, this theory shifts focus away from individual animals, including humans, who may experience harm due to societal actions such as pollution or scientific experimentation. Instead, it emphasizes the importance of the entire ecosystem, within which the suffering or death of individual creatures holds less significance. The primary concern is maintaining the overall health and stability of the system that supports the ongoing existence of life. Bio-centric environmentalism argues that our attention should be directed toward preserving this system. Central to this view is the concept of the interconnected "web of life," an idea that modern biologists increasingly highlight, contrasting with earlier scientific approaches that concentrated more on distinctions between species rather than their interdependence. 15.10    Suggested Readings •    Bookchin. M., Remaking Society: Pathways to a Green Future. Boston: South End Press, 1990. •   Callicott, J. B., ‘Animal liberation’. Environmental Ethics, 2 (1980), 311-38. •   Goodin, R. E., Green Political Theory. Oxford: Polity Press, 1992. •    Hutton, D., Green Politics in Australia. North Ryde, Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1987. •    Lovelock. J. E., Gaia, A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979. •    Merchant. C, The Death of Natured. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980. •    Plumwood, V. ‘Ecofeminism: an overview and discussion of positions and arguments: critical review’. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, Supplement, 64 (1986), 120-38. •    Passmore, John, ‘Environmentalism’ in Robert G. Goodin and Philip Pettit (eds.) A companion to Contemporary Political Theory, 1993. 15.11    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the different forms of Environment. 2.    Write a detailed note on Humanistic Environmentalism focusing on ‘remote places’ and ‘future generations’. 3.    Describe in detail the main Environmental Concerns according to Universalistic humanistic environmentalists. 4.    What measures do you suggest to protect the natural environment? ***** Unit -16 ECOFEMINISM Structure 16.1    Introduction 16.2    Learning Objectives 16.3    Defining Ecofeminism 16.3.1    Gender, Environment and Patriarchy Self Check Exercise-1 16.4    Branches of Ecofeminism 16.4.1    Radical Ecofeminism 16.4.2    Cultural Ecofeminism 16.4.3    Materialist Ecofeminism 16.4.4    Spiritual Ecofeminism 16.4.5    Vegetarian Ecofeminism Self Check Exercise-2 16.5    Ecofeminism and the Contribution of Vandana Shiva 16.5.1    The Feminism and Masculine Principles 16.5.2    Gender and Environment 16.5.3    Maldevelopment 16.5.4    Nature as a source and devaluation of Women’s work Self Check Exercise-3 16.6    From Concept to Concrete/ Environmental Activism Self Check Exercise-4 16.7    Significance and Criticism of Ecofeminism 16.7.1    Significance 16.7.2    A Critique of Ecofeminism 16.8    Summary 16.9    Glossary 16.10    Answers to Self Check Exercises 16.11    Suggested Readings/References 16.12    Terminal Questions 16.1    Introduction Ecofeminism or ecological feminism is a branch of feminism that sees environmentalism, and the relationship between women and the earth, as foundational to its analysis and practice. Ecofeminist thinkers draw on the concept of gender to analyse the relationships between humans and the natural world. The term was coined by the French writer Francoise d’Eaubonne in her book Le Feminisme ou la Mort (1974). Ecofeminist theory asserts that a feminist perspective of ecology does not place women in the dominant position of power, but rather calls for an egalitarian, collaborative society in which there is no one dominant group. Today, there are several branches of ecofeminism with varying approaches and analyses, including liberal ecofeminism, spiritual cultural ecofeminism, and social socialist/ecofeminism (or materialist ecofeminism). Ecofeminist analysis explores the connections between women and nature in culture, religion. literature and iconography, and addresses the parallels between the oppression of nature and the oppression of women. These parallels include but are not limited to seeing women and nature as property, seeing men as the curators of culture and women as the curators of nature, and how men dominate women and humans dominate nature. Ecofeminism emphasizes that both women and nature must be respected. According to Françoise d’Eaubonne, ecofeminism relates the oppression and domination of all marginalized groups (women, people of color, children, the poor) to the oppression and domination of nature (animals, land, water, air, etc.). She argues that oppression, domination, exploitation, and colonization from the Western patriarchal society has directly caused irreversible environmental damage. Francoise d’Eaubonne was an activist and organizer, and her writing encouraged the eradication of all social injustice, not only the injustice against women and the environment. This tradition includes a number of influential texts including: Women and Nature (Susan Griffin 1978), The Death of Nature (Carolyn Merchant, 1980) and Gyn/Ecology (Mary Daly 1978). These texts helped to propel the association between domination by man on women and the domination of culture on nature. From these texts feminist activism of the 1980s linked ideas of ecology and the environment. Movements such as the National Toxics Campaign, Mothers of East Los Angeles (MELA) and Native Americans for a Clean Environment (NACE) were led by women devoted to issues of human health and environmental justice. Writing in this circle discussed ecofeminism drawing from Green Party politics, peace movements, and direct action movements. Modem ecofeminism, or feminist ecocriticism, eschews such essentialism and instead focuses more on intersectional questions, such as how the nature-culture split enables the oppression of female and nonhuman bodies. It is also an activist and academic movement that sees critical connections between the exploitation of nature and the domination over women both caused by men. 16.2    Learning Objectives : After completing this unit, the learners will be able to : •    have an understanding of the concept of Ecofeminism in different contexts. •    understand the close relationship between gender, development and environment •    know about different women’s movements to protect the environment; and •    narrate the work of Vandana Shiva 16.3    Defining Ecofeminism Before we begin to examine various aspects related to ecofeminism, let us first attempt to define it. It is important to understand that ecofeminism as a theory is a combination of ideas that support the fight for women’s empowerment and that of a viable, sustainable environment. Braidotti defines ecofeminism as ‘the feminist position most explicitly concerned with environmental degradation’. Thus in the most simple terms, ecofeminism comes to regard an association between women and nature as essential to the way both are treated. For both women and nature are mistreated and subjugated-and as Francoise d’Eaubonne, comes to note-this is because of the Male System. She suggests that the only way to save the environment is through the destruction of male power by women. Yet, ecofeminism is much more than a mere disapproval and destruction of the male power. It is very much embedded in the way women are closely associated with the environment in the multiple ways in which they are perceived. And within feminism too, there is no one way of looking at this relation, for as a theory ecofeminism is linked to diverse thoughts and practices. Its aim has been to address the ideas that: •    Women and nature are deeply entwined and connected in multiple ways. •    They are treated similarly and heirarchially by patriarchal structures and institutions across cultures and societies •    Women are embedded in nature and thus the exploitation of nature could be or should be seen as an exploitation of women as well •    Patriarchal forces dominate, exploit and violate women and the environment in the name of development 16.3.1    Gender, Environment and Patriarchy As said, Ecofeminism aims to look at how women and environment are related in multiple ways. It is important to remember that this relationship is not new because in almost all cultures, women and nature are recognized as having an intrinsic bond. This bond is found and is represented historically, culturally and mythologically. For instance, in India, women are represented often as “nature” or “Prakriti” in both imagination and practise. Ecofeminism becomes important as it adds another dimension to this relationship between women and nature, namely, that of hierarchy and domination. By creating this interconnection, Ecofeminism highlights the close connection between the domination of women by patriarchy and the exploitation of the environment by development. Thus, using a feminist lens, ecofeminism highlights: •    The many ways in which both nature and women are treated by a patriarchal society. •    How social norms exert unjust dominance over women and nature •    The role of development and destruction of nature and the patriarchal exploitation of women as parallel processes. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who coined the term Eco-feminism? 2.    Define Eco-feminism. 16.4    Branches of Ecofeminism: As ecofeminism continued to develop, it also branched out and by the late 1980s distinct schools of thought emerged: 16.4.1    Radical Ecofeminism: Radical ecofeminists argue that patriarchal society and ideologies of domination, equate nature and women so that both can be oppressed and exploited. This was done by describing both women and nature as ‘commodities’, thus enabling their exploitation and degradation. 16.4.2    Cultural Ecofeminism: Cultural ecofeminists, on the other hand, stressed the association between women and the environment as being based on an inherent bond of nurturance that women and nature share. This shared experience makes women more aware and alert to the destruction and degradation of the environment. 16.4.3    Materialistic Ecofeminism: Ecofeminism as materialist is another common dimension of ecofeminism. A materialist view connects some institutions such as labor, power, and property as the source of domination over women and nature. There are connections made between these subjects because of the values of production and reproduction. This dimension of ecofeminism may also be referred to as “social feminism,” “socialist ecofeminism,” or “Marxist ecofeminism.” According to Carolyn Merchant, “Social ecofeminism advocates the liberation of women through overturning economic and social hierarchies that turn all aspects of life into a market society that today even invades the womb” Ecofeminism in this sense seeks to eliminate social hierarchies which favor the production of commodities (dominated by men) over biological and social reproduction. 16.4.4    Spiritual Ecofeminism : Spiritual ecofeminism is another branch of ecofeminism, and it is popular among ecofeminist authors such as Starhawk, Riane Eisler, Carol J. Adams, and more. Starhawk calls this an earth-based spirituality, which recognizes that the Earth is alive, that we are interconnected as a community. Spiritual ecofeminism is not linked to one specific religion, but is centered around values of caring, compassion, and non-violence. Often, ecofeminists refer to more ancient traditions, such as the worship of Gaia, the Goddess of nature and spirituality (also known as Mother Earth). They demonstrate a deep respect for nature, a feminine outlook, and an aim to establish strong community values. In her book Radical Ecology, Carolyn Merchant refers to spiritual ecofeminism as “cultural ecofeminism.” 16.4.5    Vegetarian Ecofeminism: The application of ecofeminism to animal rights has established vegetarian ecofeminism. Many ecofeminists believe that meat-eating is a form of patriarchal domination.. that suggests a link between male violence and a meat-based diet. Carol J. Adams stated, “Manhood is constructed in our culture in part by access to meat-eating and control of other bodies, whether it’s women or animals.” According to Adams, “we cannot work for justice and challenge the oppression of nature without understanding that the most frequent way we interact with nature is by eating animals. Vegetarian ecofeminists combines sympathy with the analysis of culture and politics to refine a system of ethics and action. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Explain Radical Eco-feminism. 2.    What is Vegetarian Eco-feminism? 16.5    Ecofeminism and the Contribution of Vandana Shiva Ecofeminism and environmental understanding received a new lease with the work of Vandana Shiva who addressed the need to question and understand the link between environmental degradation and the oppression of women from a cultural perspective. Her main argument was for the need to have an awareness of the close bond between gender and the environment and the need to adopt an integrated and holistic view of humans and nature. In this section, we will look at this relationship between women and the environment as discussed by Shiva in her seminal work, Staying Alive, and her other writings on women and nature. 16.5.1    The Feminine and Masculine Principles Historically in most cultures women are seen embodiment of the feminine principle and a nurture of life. And yet almost always patriarchal ideology has rendered them invisible and marginalised. In the Indian context, to understand the position of women and their role as conservers of culture and nature, Shiva examines the relationship between the world of women, environment and the cosmological world. She argues that the connection between women and nature is an ideological one and deeply rooted in belief systems, ideas, values and their cultural representation. The scriptures and other cultural works recognise the interplay between the ideas of creation and destruction and dynamic energy or ‘Shakti’. The manifestation of this energy is called ‘Prakriti’, the feminine and creative principle of Purusha. Together, they create the world. This dialectical unity and harmony between the masculine and feminine principles are the basis of ecological thought and action in India. Thus we see how in Indian culture, the feminine principle is worshipped in many ways and forms, all of which highlight the close and dynamic connection between women and nature. Shiva defines nature as the “creative expression of the feminine principle”. This embodiment and manifestation of the feminine principle is characterized by (a)Creativity productivity (b) diversity in form and aspect (c) connectedness and inter-relationship of all beings, including man (d) continuity between the human and natural and (e)sanctity of life in nature. Shiva argues that nature has been treated as integral and inviolable and there is no dualism between man and nature for it is Prakriti that sustains life. 16.5.2    Gender and Environment: The eco-feminist approach establishes the fact that •    Women are embedded in nature •    The exploitation of nature could be seen as an exploitation of women •    Development and other patriarchal forces dominate and exploit women and nature Shiva says that cultures recognise that women and nature are powerful, they thus need to be controlled and oppressed. In doing so the patriarchal world underestimates that though they may be victims of patriarchy and exploitation, women can also be agent of change. Because of their close association with nature, women are the more affected by ecological disasters than men, and that is why we find they are everywhere on the forefront of protests against the destruction of nature. Shiva also makes a distinction between an Indian and Western understanding of the above. In simple words in the western understanding the relation between women and environment is viewed as primarily material; in the non-western countries, this relationship is considered as ideological and real and women and nature are seen to represent the feminine principle. 16.5.3    Maldevelopment As an ecofeminist, for Shiva the problems arises from the modern consumerist worldview best illustrated by the patriarchal -capitalist power structure that is central to development. She calls this the western model of “maldevelopment”. In this model, patriarchal ideology and understanding creates a hierarchal social order across cultures and societies. This inequality is strengthened by the role of capitalism, consumerism and technological development which is aimed solely at the creation and accumulation of wealth at the lowest possible cost and serves the purposes of the owner’s of the capitalist ventures. This associations between patriarchy and capitalism is also built on the hierarchal structure that promotes and justifies the superiority of the masculine and the oppression of the feminine and thus of nature. It is such an understanding of nature as a resource which also lies at the foundation of the paradigm of maldevelopment wherein the world of women, nature and the third world are all exploited by a dominating male colonising world. Shiva argues that maldevelopment represents how capitalism, patriarchy and exploitation are not only interrelated but also shape the living environments in many places of the world in problematic and devastating ways. 16.5.4    Nature as a Resource and the Devaluation of women՚s Work The western understanding of the relationship between man and nature as we have seen is built on a dualism that has conveniently allowed the subjugation of nature and the environment by patriarchy and development This has given rise to a new worldview in which nature is (a) inert and passive (b) uniform and mechanistic (e)separable and fragmented within itself (d) separate from man and inferior (e)to be dominated and exploited by man. But this is different from how nature was defined by Shiva. This dominant patriarchal perspective of development is rooted in the idea of capital accumulation and it renders both nature’s work and women’s work as invisible and insignificant. This leads to the devaluation and derecognition of nature as well as women which has led to the parallel exploitation of both. This attitude of blindness towards the work done and invisible wealth created by nature and women, by those who have power and dominate, threatens the survival of the species and the ecological balance so necessary for a suitable life. Shiva argues that this work and wealth in accordance with the feminine principle are significant because they are rooted in stability and sustainability. Sadly, this goes unrecognized and is destroyed and dispensed with through homogenisation and privatisation that reduces nature to raw materials and commodities and women to mere reproducers of life. It is important for us to understand that when we thus look at nature as a “resource “to be exploited, we are creating a relationship between development and environment which is built on the idea of a “mastering of Nature” by the patriarchal/masculine. Shiva says that this not only enables the exploitation of nature but also allows the “death of Prakriti” and the marginalisation, devaluation, displacement and dispensability of women. What Ecofeminism is essentially arguing is that when we destroy nature, we-destroy women, when we violate nature, we violate women. The role of women in creating and conversing life is lost in an ecologically alienated world which is blind to the role of women and their harmony with the ecosystems. We need to recognize that the partnership between women and nature, ensures sustainability and it is this ‘critical partnership’ that is destroyed when the project of development becomes a patriarchal project. Remember, maldevelopment is thus a paradigm that sees nature only as a resource and women only as reproducers of life and promotes a culture of destruction. As Shiva says, maldevelopment is not only exploitative but also ‘crippling’ to both women and nature and eventually makes the colonising male the agent and model of development. Women, the third world and nature become underdeveloped and change will only come when this is interrogated and an ecological way of understanding nature emerges. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    How Vandana Shiva defines the nature? 2.    How vandana Shiva explain the relationship between Women and Nature in Indian Context. 3.    What is Mal-development according to Vandana Shiva. 16.6    From Concept to Concrete Environmental Activism Women participated in the environmental movements, specifically preservation and conservation beginning in the late nineteenth century and continuing into the early twentieth century. In northern India in 1973, women took part in the Chipko movement to protect forests from deforestation. Non- violent protest tactics were used to occupy trees so that loggers could not cut them down. In Kenya in 1977, the Green Belt Movement was initiated by environmental and political activist Professor Wangari Maathai. It was a rural tree planting program led by women, which Maathai designed to help prevent desertification in the area. The program created a ‘green belt of at least 1,000 trees around villages, and gave participants the ability to take charge in their communities. In later years, the Green Belt Movement was an advocate for informing and empowering citizens through seminars for civic and environmental education as well as holding national leaders accountable for their actions and instilling agency in citizens. The work of the Greenbelt Movement continues today. In 1978 in New York, mother and environmentalist Lois Gibbs led her community in protest after discovering that their entire neighborhood, Love Canal, was built on top of a toxic dump site. The toxins in the ground were causing illness among children and reproductive issues among women, as well as birth defects in babies born to pregnant women exposed to the toxins. The Love Canal movement eventually led to the evacuation and relocation of nearly 800 families by the federal government. In 1980 and 1981, women organized a peaceful protest at the Pentagon. Women stood, hand in hand, demanding equal rights (including social, economic, and reproductive rights) as well as an end to militaristic actions taken by the government and exploitation of the community (people and the environment). This movement is known as the Women’s Pentagon Actions. The Greening of Harlem Coalition is another example of an ecofeminist movement. In 1989, Bernadene Cozart founded the coalition, which is responsible for many urban gardens around Harlem. Cozart’s goal was to turn vacant lots into community gardens. This is economically beneficial, and also provides a way for very urban communities to be in touch with nature and each other. The majority of people interested in this project (as noted in 1990) were women. Through these gardens, they were able to participate in and become leaders of their communities. Urban greening exists in other places as well. Beginning in 1994, a group of African-American women in Detroit have developed city gardens, and call themselves the Gardening Angels. Similar garden movements have been occurring globally. The development of vegetarian ecofeminism can be traced to the mid-80s and 90s, where it first appeared in writing. However, the roots of a vegetarian ecofeminist view can be traced back further by looking at sympathy for non-humans and counterculture movements of the 1960s and 1970s. At the culmination of the decade ecofeminism had spread to both coasts and articulated an intersectional analysis of women and the environment. Eventually, challenging ideas of environmental classism and racism, resisting toxic dumping and other threats to the impoverished. In the 1980s and 1990s some began to see the advancing theories in ecofeminism as essentialist. Through analysis done by post structural and third wave feminists it was argued that ecofeminism equated women with nature. This dichotomy is dangerous because it groups all women into one category and enforces the very societal norms that feminism is trying to break. Out of this critique rose the anti-essentialist argument. Ecofeminist and author Noel Sturgeon says in an interview that what anti-essentialists are critiquing is a strategy used to mobilize large and diverse groups of both theorists and activists. Coming out of the 90s, ecofeminism met a lot of criticism from anti-essentialist feminism, which heavily critiqued what they viewed as essentialism. The essentialist view saw ecofeminism as reinforcing and growing patriarchal dominance and norms. Feminist thought surrounding ecofeminism grew in some areas as it was criticized: vegetarian ecofeminism contributed intersectional analysis, and ecofeminisms that analyzed animal rights, labor rights and activisms as they could draw lines among oppressed groups. To some, the inclusion of non-human animals also became to be viewed as essentialist. According to ecofeminist and author Charlene Spretnak, modern ecofeminism is concerned about a variety of issues, including reproductive technology, equal pay and equal rights, toxic poisoning, third World development, and more. Beginning in the late 20th century, women worked in efforts to protect wildlife, food, air and water. These efforts depended largely on new developments in the environmental movement from influential writers, such as Henry David Thoreau, Aldo Leopold. John Muir, and Rachel Carson. Ecofeminism as it propelled into the 21st century became aware of the criticisms, and in response ecofeminists with a materialist lens began doing research and renaming the topic, i.e. queer ecologies, global feminist environmental justice, and gender and the environment. Ecofeminist author Karren Warren lists Aldo Leopold’s essay “Land Ethic” (1949) as a fundamental work to the ecofeminist conception, as Leopold was the first to pen an ethic for the land which understands all non-human parts of that community (animals, plants, land, air, water) as equal to and in a relationship with humans. This inclusive understanding of the environment launched the modern preservation movement and illustrated how issues can be viewed through a framework of caring. Susan A. Mann, an eco-femmist and professor of sociological and feminist theory, considers the roles women played in these activisms to be the starter for ecofeminism in later centuries. Mann associates the beginning of ecofeminism not with feminists but with women of different race and class backgrounds who made connections among gender, race, class and environmental issues. This ideal is upheld through the notion that in activist and theory circles marginalized groups must be included in the discussion. In early environmental and women’s movements, issues of varying races and classes were often separated. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    Describe any two women led Environmental Movements. 16.7 Significance and Criticism of Ecofeminism:16.7.1    Significance The ecofeminists argue that marginalised communities : women, third world, peasantry, tribals etc are all victims of maldevelopment. But at the same time we cannot deny that they are the repository agents of traditional knowledge. They cannot be reduced to mere victims of development by the male world. The marginalised communities are capable of action and questioning exploitation and can pose a challenge to the inequalities created by maldevelopment. What is needed for us is to change the way we think so that a new intellectual ecological paradigm arises. The significance of ecofeminism can be captured this way: Women have first hand knowledge of what it means to be victims of violence and exploitation and what motivates them is their direct engagement with the environment. They have traditional knowledge about nature, forests and ecosystems and are deeply rooted in environmental projection and preservation. As they are embedded in nature that they become forerunners in solving the problems related to nature. It is no wonder, that a perspective like Ecofeminism and Women’s ecological movements pose a challenge to the paradigms of patriarchy and maldevelopment. 16.7.2    A Critique of Ecofeminism. The major criticism of ecofeminism is that it is essentialist. The ascribed essentialism appears in two main areas: (a)    Ecofeminism demonstrates an adherence to the strict dichotomy, among others, between men and women. Some ecofeminist critiques note that the dichotomy between women and men and nature and culture creates a dualism that is too stringent and focused on the differences of women and men. In this sense, ecofeminism too strongly correlates the social status of women with the social status of nature, rather than the non-essentialist view that women along with nature both have masculine and feminine qualities, and that just like feminine qualities have often been seen as less worthy, nature is also seen as having lesser value than culture. (b)    A divergent view regarding participation in oppressive structures. As opposed to radical and liberation-based feminist movements, mainstream feminism which is most tightly bound with hegemonic social status strives to promote equality within the existing social and political structure, such as making it possible for women to occupy positions of power in business, industry and politics, using direct involvement as the main tactic for achieving pay equity and influence. In contrast, many ecofeminists oppose active engagement in these areas, as these are the very structures that the movement intends to dismantle. Social ecologist and feminist Janet Biehl has criticized ecofeminism for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature and not enough on the actual conditions of women. She has also stated that rather than being a forward-moving theory, ecofeminism is an anti-progressive movement for women. Rosemary Radford Ruether also critiques this focus on mysticism over work that focuses on helping women, but argues that spirituality and activism can be combined effectively in ecofeminism. A. E. Kings has criticized ecofeminism for limiting itself to focusing only on gender and the environment, and neglecting to take an intersectional approach. Kings says that ecofeminists claim to be intersectional, however have fallen short on their commitment until recently. Ecofeminist scholar often contend that the great plurality of beliefs within Ecofeminism is one of the movement’s greatest strengths. Although a significant theoretical development in the 1970s and 80s, many remained unsatisfied with what they felt were the limits of the Ecofeminist movement. Of particular concern was the failure of women in developed countries to acknowledge the ways in which their own lifestyles may be leading to degradation of the environment. An important critique and alternative perspective came in the form of the Feminist Environmentalism. Important here is the work of economist, Bina Agarwal who represents a critique and remodification of ecofeminism and of the development paradigm. For Agarwal the Ecofeminists arguments are problematic on the following grounds: •    Ecofeminists look at woman as a unitary category and fails to differentiate among women by class, race, ethnicity etc. Agarwal argues that the idea that there is a different kind of relationship between women and environment that must be viewed in terms of how the third world women are the victims of environmental degradation is ignored. •    Shiva’s examples on rural women are primarily drawn from north-west India but she generalise all third world women into one category. •    Ecofeminism largely talks about the domination of women in terms of gendered patriarchal ideologies and neglects otherwise material sources of domination which include the economic and political. •    Ecofeminists overemphasise the ideological aspects of domination of nature and women and ignores women’s material relationship with nature. If ecofeminists raises critical questions and provides us with a panoramic view that helps us understand the relation of gender, environment and development culturally, Feminist Environmentalism engages with differentiations across class, caste, ethnicity etc. to have a holistic understanding of the environmental problems and to create environmental consciousness and an ecological balance. Self Check Exercise-5 1.    Name some critics of Eco-feminism. 2.    Why Janet Biehl has criticized eco-feminism? 16.8    Summary Ecofeminism is a philosophy, an ethic and a movement born of the conjunction and union of feminist and ecological currents of thought. According to this movement, notably championed by Vandana Shiva, who founded a sanctuary of wild and agro-biodiversity in India, where women have an essential place, there are similarities and common causes of domination and women’s oppression and nonrespect of nature, which contribute to environmental destruction. The term “ecofeminism seems to have been published for the first time in 1974 by a French feminist, Françoise d’Eaubonne, in a book entitled “Feminism or death” but her principles have already been stated in 1962 by Rachel Carson, in her Silent Spring which, by its impact, contributed to the prohibition of DDT in the United States, and it is first and foremost in the English-speaking world that this concept has developed. Today, ecofeminism is more and more present in society. In Greta Thunberg’s various climate marches, many young girls have taken the initiative to put a feminist touch on their placard: like “My planet, my cat, save the wetlands”, this slogan evoking the buffers whose components pollute the planet as much as our body. When giving part of her Freedom to Care award, Greta Thunberg identifies the association as supporting “the women and girls in the global South face the effects of rising temperatures and climate change” 16.9    Glossary •     Iconography : The images and symbolic representations that are traditionally associated with a person or a subject. •     Patriarchal : denoting a system of society or government controlled by men •     Third Wave Feminists : The third wave of feminism was greatly focused on reproductive rights for women. •     Cosmological : The study of nature and origin and development of the Universe •     Essentialism : Essentialism is the view that objects have a set of attributes that are necessary to their identity •     Feminine : having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with women or girls •     Masculine : having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with men or boy. •     Greta Thunberg : is a Swedish environmental activist who is known for challenging world Leaders to take immediate action for climate change mitigation. 16.10    Answers to Self Check ExerciseSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    The term ‘Eco-feminism’ was coined by the French writer Francoise d’ Eaubonne in her book Le Feminisme ou la Mort (1974). 2.    Eco feminism as a theory is a combination of ideas that support the fight for women’s empowerment and that of a viable, sustainable environment. Braidotti defines eco-feminism as ‘the feminist position most explicitly concerned with environmental degradation.’ Thus in the most simple terms, eco-feminism comes to regard an association between women and nature as essential to the way both are treated. For both women and nature are mistreated and subjected and as Francoise d’ Eaubonne, comes to note-this is because of the Male System. She suggests that the only destruction of male power by women. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Radical eco-feminists argue that patriarchal society and ideologies of domination, equate nature and women so that both can be oppressed and exploited. This was done by describing both women and nature as ‘commodities’, thus enabling their exploitation and degradation. 2.    The application of eco feminism to animal rights has established vegetarian eco feminism. Many eco feminists believe that meat eating is a form of patriarchal domination …. That suggested a link between male violence and a meat based diet. According to Adams, “we cannot work for justice and challenge the oppression of nature without understanding that the most frequent way we interact with nature is by eating animals. Vegetarian eco feminists combines sympathy with the analysis of culture and politics to refine a system of ethics and action. Self Check Exercise-3 1.   Shiva defines nature as the “creative expression of the feminine principle.” 2.   In the Indian context, to understand the position of women and their role as conservers of culture and nature, Shiva examines the relationship between the world of women, environment and the cosmological world. She argues that the connection between women and nature is an ideological one and deeply rooted in belief systems, ideas, values and their cultural representation. The scriptures and other cultural works recognize the interplay between the ideas of creation and destruction and dynamic energy or ‘Shakti’. The manifestation of this energy is called ‘Prakriti’, the feminine and creative principle of Purusha. Together, they create the world. We see how in Indian culture, the feminine principle is worshipped in many ways and forms, all of which highlight the close and dynamic connection between women and nature. 3.    Shiva argues that mal development represents how capitalism, patriarchy and exploitation are not only interrelated but also shape the living environments in many places of the world in problematic and devastating ways. Mal development is a paradigm that sees nature only as a resource and women only as reproducers of life and promotes a culture of destruction. As Shiva says, mal development is not only exploitative but also ‘crippling’ to both women and nature and eventually makes the colonizing male the agent and model of development. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    (i) In northern India in 1973, women took part in the chipko movement to protect forests from deforestation. Non-violent protest tactics were used to occupy trees so that loggers could not cut them down. (ii ) In Kenya in 1977, the Green Belt Movement was initiated by environmental and political activist Professor Wangari Maathavi. It was a rural tree planting program led by women, which Maathavi designed to help prevent desertification in the area. The program created a ‘green belt of at least 1,000 trees around villages, and gave participants the ability to take charge in their communities. Self Check Exercise-5 1.  Some critics of Eco-feminism include Janet Biehl, Rosemary Radford Ruether, A.E. Kings, Bina Agarwal etc. 2.  Social ecologist and feminist Janet Biehl has criticized eco feminism for focusing too much on a mystical connection between women and nature and not enough on the actual conditions of women. She has also stated that rather than being a forward moving theory, eco feminism is an anti progressive movement for women. 16.11    Suggested Readings •    Shiva, Vandana, “women in Nature” in Staying Alive : Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books, 1988. •    Merchant, Carolyn, “Ecofeminism”, In Radical Ecology. Routledge, 2005. •    Spretnak. Charlene, “Ecofeminism: Our Roots and Flowering”, In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Feminism. Sierra : Club Books, 1990. •    Warren, Karen J, Ecofeminist Philosophy: A Western Perspective on What It Is and Why It Matters. Lanham, Maryland: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2000. •    Shiva, Vandana, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books, 1988. •    Shiva, Vandana, “Development as a New Project of Western Patriarchy”, In Reweaving the World: The Emergence of Feminism. Sierra : Club Books, 1990. •    Gaard, Greta and Gruen, Lori. “Ecofeminism : Toward Global Justice and Planetary Health”, Society and Nature, 2: 1-35, 1993. •    Mies, Maria,  Vandana,  Shiva, Ecofeminism. Halifax, N.S.: Fernwood Publications, 1993. •    Hawthorne, Susan, Wild Politics: Feminism, Globalisation, Bio/diversity. Melbourne: Spinifex Press, 2002. •    Michiels, Nete, “Social Movements And Feminism”. Women & Environments, International Magazine, no. 92/93: 15-17, 2013. •    Hooks, Bell, Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center. Cambridge: South End Press, 1984. •    Biehl, Janet, Rethinking eco-feminist politics. Boston: South End Press, 1991. 16.12    Terminal Questions 1.    Describe the various branches of Eco-feminism. 2.    How are women related to nature and men related to culture? Explain it is relation to ecofeminism. 3.    Discuss the various environmental movements spearheaded primarily by women for the protection of environment. 4.    Critically evaluate the theory of Ecofeminism. ***** Block-IV Unit-17 STRUCTURALISM Structure 17.1    Introduction 17.2    Learning Objectives 17.3    Structuralism 17.3.1    A Brief History and Characteristics Self Check Exercise-1 17.4    The Linguistic Basis of Structuralism 17.4.1    Synchronic Approach in linguistics 17.4.2    Langue, Parole and Language 17.4.3    Sign : Signifier/Signified 17.4.4    Language as a System of Differences Self Check Exercise-2 17.5    Structuralism from Linguistics to other cultural Artefacts 17.5.1    Social and cultural Phenomena as Signs 17.5.2    Meaning and Network of Relations 17.5.3    The task of the structuralists Self Check Exercise-3 17.6    High Structuralists 17.6.1    Levi Strass 17.6.2    Roland Barthes 17.6.3    Structuralism Now Self Check Exercise-4 17.7    Summary 17.8    Glossary 17.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises 17.10    Suggested Readings/References 17.11    Terminal Questions 17.1    Introduction Structuralism is the name given to a method of analysing social relations and cultural products, which came into existence in France in the 1950s. However, Its foundations had already been laid long ago in the work done in linguistics by Ferdinand de. Saussure (1857-1913), Prince Nicholas Troubetzkoy and Roman Jakobson (1896-1982). Although it had its origin in linguistics, particularly from the work of Ferdinand de Saussure, it acquired popularity in anthropology, from where it impacted the other disciplines in social sciences and humanities. It gives primacy to pattern over substance. The meaning of a particular phenomenon or system comes through knowing how things fit together, and not from understanding things in isolation. A characteristic that structuralism and structural-functional approach share in common is that both are concerned with relations between things. Despite some similarities, the two approaches differ in significant ways. The structural-functional perspective focuses on uncovering the order and stability present within social relationships. In contrast, structuralism seeks to identify the underlying structures that shape both human thought and societal organization. The structural-functional method typically relies on inductive reasoning, moving from specific observations toward broader generalizations. Structuralism, however, employs deductive reasoning, starting from established premises and logically exploring their implications. It often draws inspiration from principles found in geometry and algebra. Structuralists first explore all logical possibilities before examining how these ideas correspond to reality. For committed structuralists, reality itself is nothing more than the network of relationships between things. 17.2    Learning Objectives After studying this unit, the learners will be able to : •    get acquainted with the central theme and thinkers of a very influential intellectual movement of 20th Contrary i.e. Structuralism •    know about a brief history and characteristics of Structuralism •   see how the common roots of structuralism lie in Sausserian Linguistics •   see how cultural and Social Phenomenon can be understood as sign systems. 17.3    Structuralism Structuralism is an approach—both conceptual and methodological—used to describe and examine a wide range of subjects, including cultures, economies, languages, literature, myths, political systems, and societies. At the core of structuralist analysis is the belief that these areas can be understood by identifying the underlying frameworks that function as systems made up of interconnected elements. According to this perspective, the meaning or function of each element is determined, at least in part, by its relationships with other components within the system. The foundational ideas of structuralism, concerning both the existence of these deep structures and the methods appropriate for studying them, emerged within what is now commonly referred to as Continental philosophy. Much of this early development took place in French intellectual circles during the early twentieth century. However, structuralism's impact expanded significantly in the period following World War II, influencing both Continental and Anglo-American academic thought. From the late 1940s through the 1970s—though to a lesser extent in subsequent years—structuralist ideas had a marked and deliberate influence across various disciplines, such as anthropology, cognitive psychology, literary theory, mathematics, political science, and sociology. Looking back, it is also possible to identify structuralist assumptions embedded in the fields of educational research and curriculum studies during this era. Notably, two key curriculum works from the post-WWII period—Ralph Tyler’s Basic Principles of Curriculum and Instruction (1949) and Benjamin Bloom and colleagues’ Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (1956)— reflect structuralist thinking in their frameworks and analytical approaches. 17.3.1    A Brief History and Characteristics One of the foundational influences on the emergence of structuralism was Ferdinand de Saussure’s Course in General Linguistics. This influential text, compiled by his colleagues from students' lecture notes and published posthumously in 1916, captured a series of lectures he delivered at the University of Geneva between 1906 and 1911. Saussure’s structural analysis focused exclusively on language, yet many European philosophers and intellectuals extended his ideas into broader domains. Over time, his assumptions and methodologies were adapted and applied to other fields and to phenomena beyond linguistics. Structuralism gradually gained traction in areas such as anthropology, psychoanalysis, literary criticism, and architecture. By the 1960s and 1970s, it had become such a dominant intellectual movement that it largely overshadowed earlier schools of thought like phenomenology and existentialism. At its core, structuralism posits that all human cultural activities—ranging from fashion choices and literary works to social rituals—function as systems of signs that can be analyzed according to underlying structures or rules. For instance, psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan famously claimed that the unconscious is structured like a language, while Michel Foucault’s early work examined how knowledge is shaped by what can be expressed within specific discursive frameworks. To better understand the distinctive features and influences of structuralism, one can examine key aspects of Saussure’s theories and observe their presence in educational frameworks such as Ralph Tyler’s model for curriculum development and Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. According to Saussure, language exists as an organized system before it manifests in actual speech or writing. He described language as a network of signs, each consisting of two components: the signifier (a spoken sound or written symbol) and the signified (the concept or meaning it represents). While later theorists have expanded on this model—sometimes adding a third element to account for physical referents in the world—Saussure emphasized that signs are arbitrary. The link between a word and its meaning is maintained not by any inherent connection, but by social conventions within a linguistic community. Furthermore, signs derive their meanings through their differences from other signs in the system, leading to an emphasis on binary oppositions that often shape the structure’s content and norms. Saussure also distinguished between langue (the system of language as a whole) and parole (individual speech acts). His focus was on langue, analyzing language as an abstract system of signs rather than the specifics of individual utterances. Saussure’s method was synchronic—studying language as it exists at a particular moment—rather than diachronic, which would track historical changes over time. This synchronic approach, while foundational to semiology, has been criticized (especially by poststructuralists) for its ahistorical perspective, a critique that extends to other branches of structuralist thought. A key feature of structuralist analysis is its emphasis on relationships, categories, and classifications, presenting itself as an objective and ideologically neutral method. However, this claim to neutrality has drawn criticism, with some equating structuralism to positivism. Despite this, not every knowledge claim grounded in structuralist reasoning fits neatly within the positivist framework. When applied to society and social interactions, structuralism shifts focus away from the individual as the central agent. Instead, it seeks to explain human behavior and social relations as outcomes determined by overarching social structures. Claude Lévi-Strauss, for example, pioneered structural anthropology in the 1940s, aiming to uncover the fundamental structures that inform cultural practices and myths across different societies. His 1949 work, The Elementary Structures of Kinship, demonstrated how kinship systems that appeared distinct on the surface could be understood as variations of a few basic structural patterns. By the 1960s, structuralist concepts were widely employed by European intellectuals, even though some resisted the structuralist label and later became associated with poststructuralism. Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida, for example, initially applied structuralist techniques in literary analysis. Derrida, though later known for developing deconstruction—a response to movements including phenomenology, psychoanalysis, and structuralism—was initially influenced by structuralist methods. Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory also incorporated Saussure’s linguistic structures to reinterpret the unconscious mind. Although Jean Piaget’s developmental psychology is typically associated with constructivism, his methods were influenced by structural analysis. Michel Foucault, despite distancing himself from structuralism later in his career, explored the idea that epistemological structures—or epistemes—determine how knowledge is produced and understood, particularly in his 1966 book The Order of Things. Similarly, Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) investigated how paradigms within scientific communities constrain inquiry and maintain the status quo of "normal science." In Marxist theory, Louis Althusser applied structuralist ideas by arguing that individual actions and social interactions are predetermined by ideological state apparatuses, which serve to reproduce the conditions of capitalism in favor of ruling class interests. Althusser’s interpretation diminished the role of individual agency, highlighting how larger social structures shape and constrain human experience. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who is known as the founder of structuralism in linguistics? 2.    Who applied structuralist reasoning to his examination of kinship systems across cultures? 3.    Who applied Saussure’s staructuralism to psycho analysis? 4.    What do you mean by structuralism? 17.4    The Linguistic Basis of Structuralism The basic insights that underlie the emergence of the structuralist movement were first formulated in the field of linguistics, the science of the systematic study of languages. It was done by Saussure, a French speaking Swiss linguist All these insights were part of a new approach he evolved to study languages, and put forward in a course in general linguistics, which he gave in Geneva between 1901 and 1911 None of these theoretical materials was published during his life-time. However, after his death some of his students who had attended that course put together a book called Course in General Linguistics from their notes. It was from this book, which has by now become a classic in its field, that the wider world came to know of his potent ideas. His new approach not only brought about revolutionary changes in linguistics but also became, in the hands of structuralists like Levi-Strauss, Roland Barthes etc., the paradigm or model for studying other cultural products. Ferdinand de Saussure’s innovative approach to language, now referred to as "structural linguistics," introduced the idea of viewing language as a system of signs. He developed concepts and methods to identify the fundamental components of this system and the rules governing their arrangement. Saussure also recognized that language was just one example of a broader category of sign systems. He suggested that all cultural phenomena could be analyzed in a similar way, proposing the idea of a general science of signs, which he called "semiology." However, it was later thinkers who expanded on Saussure’s ideas and applied his methods beyond linguistics. For instance, Claude Lévi-Strauss utilized structural analysis in cultural anthropology, while Roland Barthes applied it to literature and other cultural expressions. Let us first examine some notions which Saussure had developed in linguistics and which have now become part of the common repertoire of all structuralists. 17.4.1    Synchronic Approach in Linguistics Up until 19 century, linguistics (or, philology, as the science of languages was then known) followed what is as “the diachronic approach” to the study of languages, But Saussure introduced “the synchronic approach.” The diachronic approach to language examines languages from both “comparative” and “historical” (or “evolutionary”) viewpoints. From the comparative angle, linguists focus on analyzing the similarities and differences among languages that belong to the same family. From the historical perspective, they explore how languages change and develop over extended periods. For example, by observing the resemblance between the forms of the verb “to be” in Sanskrit (asmi, asi, asti, smas, stha, santi) and in Latin (sum, es, est, sumus, estis, sunt), scholars concluded that both languages originated from a common ancestral language. This insight led to further investigation into how these languages evolved and diverged from their shared source over time. The synchronic approach considers a language in its own right as a contemporary entity, as if it were frozen at a given moment of time and laid out for systematic study. It does not inquire into its ancestral forms or its similarities with and differences from other languages. Saussure does not downplay the importance of the diachronic study; such a study is very useful. But it does not give us any understanding of the internal structure of language, which was what Saussure was interested in studying. Only the synchronic approach, he held, could give us an understanding into what kind of an entity (system) language is and how it functions. Synchronically studied language manifests itself as a system whose elements hang together. Various aspects and elements of the system can be identified and studied. In fact Saussure claims that language is reducible to five or six dualities or pairs of things such as signifier/signified, individual/mass, langue/parole, synchrony/diachrony and comparison/ exchange. The two dualities that have become most important for the structuralist movement are langue/parole and signifier/signified 17.4.2    Langue, parole and langage Language can be understood in two forms: spoken and written. Among these, spoken language is considered the fundamental or primary form. This is because humans naturally acquire the ability to speak before they learn to write. For this reason, Ferdinand de Saussure focused his study of language on speech. He identified two key components within spoken language, which he referred to by the French terms parole and langue. Parole translates to "spoken word" and refers to the actual use of language in individual speech acts. These instances of speech are unique, occurring in specific moments and performed by individuals within a linguistic community. However, speech is more than just these individual expressions. Underlying parole is a shared system of rules and conventions that speakers of a language follow, which Saussure called langue. This system makes communication possible by providing the structure that gives meaning to speech acts. Additionally, Saussure used the word langage to refer to the broader concept of language itself, without specifying its structure or function. For Saussure langue belongs to the collectivity of the speakers of a language, parole to the individual; parole gives langue its concrete embodiment: langue gives parole its significance. If it were not for langue, parole would be a series of meaningless noises; if it were not for parole, langue would be a series of mute abstractions. 17.4.3    Sign: Siginifier/Signified Language operates as a system made up of signs. But what exactly is a sign? According to Ferdinand de Saussure, a sign is a complex unit that consists of two interrelated components: the "signifier" and the "signified." The signifier refers to the sound pattern we hear or its written representation, while the signified is the concept or idea that the signifier brings to mind. Saussure likens these two aspects of the sign to the two sides of a single sheet of paper—different, yet inseparable. It may seem natural to equate the sign with a word, but Saussure clarifies that this isn't accurate. In everyday language, people often think of a sign as merely a spoken word or sound-image. However, the sound-image alone doesn't qualify as a sign. It only becomes a sign when it is connected to a particular concept. For example, the spoken word "tree" functions as a sign because it conjures the concept of a tree in the mind. The sensory aspect (the sound or written word) is thus inherently tied to its conceptual meaning. Importantly, Saussure emphasizes that the signified is not the physical object itself, but rather the idea or mental concept associated with the sign. In this way, a linguistic sign should be understood as a two-sided psychological phenomenon. The association between the signifier and the signified is arbitrary. That is, there is no necessity that the sound image “dog” be connected with the concept “dog”, and not with the concept “cat”. However, this does not mean that we can choose any sound image we like and associate it with any concept we like. As Saussure points out, the sign once established “always eludes the individual or social will.” 17.4.4    Language as a System of Differences Another important Saussurean discovery about language is that it is a system (structure), in fact a double system, of differences. It is his insistence, and that of the later structuralists on this aspect that earned the structuralist movement its name. Ferdinand de Saussure emphasizes that language operates as an interconnected system where "everything hangs together." This concept highlights the interdependence of linguistic elements. Based on this idea, the role of a linguist is to uncover and explain the structure of the language system and demonstrate how its parts function cohesively. The linguist's task involves identifying the core components of the system, as well as understanding the principles that govern its operation and evolution. As previously mentioned, language functions on two primary structural levels: phonology and morphology. Phonology deals with the basic speech sounds of a language, known as "phonemes." These phonemes represent the smallest units within the sound system of a language. A phoneme is described as the minimal distinctive sound unit because it cannot be broken down further and serves to differentiate meaning. For example, substituting one phoneme for another can change a word’s meaning entirely. If we replace the sound /p/ in the word "pit" with /b/, we get the word "bit," which has a different meaning. Therefore, /p/ and /b/ are considered distinct phonemes in English. In Standard English, there are approximately forty-four phonemes, while Hindi contains about forty-six. Morphology, on the other hand, examines "morphemes," which are the smallest units of meaning in language. A morpheme can consist of one or more phonemes and carries a consistent meaning whenever it appears in a language. Some morphemes can stand alone as complete words, such as "man" or "open." Others appear only as parts of words, like the prefix "dis-" in "disgrace" or the suffix "-ful" in "disgraceful." Morphology explores the ways in which phonemes are combined to create words and other meaningful units within a language. The most important observation that Saussure and subsequent structural linguists like Troubetzkoy make about these systems concerns their composition. The phonic and morphic systems are not the result of some pre-existing elements (phonemes and morphemes) entering into some kind of relation with one another. The elements of the systems do not have any positive substance or identity prior to and apart from the systems of which they are components. The identity of a phoneme, for example, is determined solely by the relations of differences it has with other phonemes of the system. In other words, the chief characteristic of a phoneme is simply that it is different from all other phonemes Saussure emphasizes that the meanings of words are also relational, or differential. No word, therefore, can be defined in isolation from other words. The definition of any given word depends upon its relation with other adjoining words. For example, the word ‘hut depends for its precise meaning on its position in what structural linguists call a “paradigmatic chain”, that is a chain of words related in function and meaning each of which could be substituted for any of the other in a given sentence. The paradigmatic chain in the case of the word “hut” might include words such as “hovel,” “shed,” “hut,” “house,” “mansion,” and “palace.” The meaning of any one of these words would change if any one of the others were removed from the chain. Thus “hut” and “shed’ are both small and basic structures, but they are not quite the same thing: one is primarily for shelter (a night-watchman’s hut, for instance), while the other is primarily for storage: without the other, each would have to encompass both these meanings, and hence would be a different word. Likewise, a mansion can be defined as a dwelling which is bigger and grander than a mere house, but not as big and grand as a palace. Thus we define ‘mansion’ by how its meaning relates to that of the two words on either side of it. This mutually defining characteristic of words becomes clearer if we take paired opposites as examples. Thus the terms ‘male’ and ‘female’ have meaning in relation to each other. Each designates the absence of the characteristics included in the other. Likewise, the meaning of “day” is defined by linking it with the concept “night. Saussure’s conclusion is that, “...in language there are only differences. Even more important: a difference generally implies positive terms between which the difference is set up, but in language there are only differences without positive terms. Whether we take the signified or the signifier, language has neither ideas nor sounds that existed before linguistic system, but only conceptual and phonic differences that have issued from the system.” Self Check Exercise-2 1.    What is ‘Semiology’? 2.    What is synchronic Approach in Linguistics? 3.    Clarify the meaning of the terms signifier/signified as used by Saussure. 17.5    Structuralism from Linguistics to other cultural Artefacts As has already been mentioned, the structuralist movement originates in France in the 1950’s. It is nothing but an extension or application of the methods of contemporary linguistics started by Saussure and developed further by Troubetzkoy and others to the study of all cultural and social phenomena. The foremost theoreticians and practitioners of structuralism are Claude Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes. Levi-Strauss applied it to study such phenomena as kinship relations in societies, mythologies etc. Roland Barthes applied it to literary texts and such cultural artifacts as fashion, advertisement, wresting etc. Both Barthes and Levi-Strauss have acknowledged that the basis of structuralism lies in contemporary linguistics. Thus, Barthes defines structuralism as a method for the study of cultural artifacts, which originates in the methods of contemporary linguistics. Levi-Strauss argues that by following the linguist’s example, the anthropologist might reproduce in his own discipline the “phonological revolution” effected in that discipline by Saussure and Troubetzkoy. Saussure himself had foreseen the possibility of such an extension of the methods of linguistics beyond that science to the study of all cultural phenomena. This is borne out by his discussion on the need for a science of semiology, or a general science of signs. Such a science would study all sign-systems. At this point one may ask, what is common between language and other cultural phenomena that Justifies the application of the methods of studying one to the study of the other? In other words: why should linguistics be relevant for the study of other cultural and social phenomenn? The extension of the methods of analyzing language to the analysis of other cultural phenomena is based on two insights: (a) that social and cultural phenomena are signs, and (b) that they do not have essences but are defined by a network of relations, both internal and external. 17.5.1    The Social and Cultural Phenomena as Signs To understand how language study methods can be applied to the analysis of cultural and social phenomena, it is necessary first to recognize these phenomena as systems of signs. Unlike language, which is clearly recognized as consisting of signs, cultural institutions are not always immediately viewed in this way. Take, for example, the institution of football. How can this be seen as a system of signs? Or kinship structures—how do they function as sign systems? Within societies where these practices exist, they are so deeply woven into daily life that people often fail to recognize them as human-made institutions. They appear as natural and given, much like objects in nature. However, they are not natural in the same sense. A natural object, such as a tree, can be described through its inherent and objective characteristics. Once these essential attributes are understood, the tree is fully known in the context of natural science. On the other hand, a football game cannot be fully understood through an objective account of the movements and actions occurring on the field. An outsider, unfamiliar with the culture where football is practiced, might be able to describe what is happening in purely physical terms. However, they would likely miss the significance these actions hold for someone within that cultural context. To members of the culture, football represents a system of meaning—it is a structure of signification.The external actions that take place on the field function as signifiers through which they relate to something that is signified, the meaning. The entire cultural domain of a society can be seen as consisting of human productions that have a certain meaning for the members of that culture, whether it be its mythologies, marriage rites, social mores, games, rituals, literary creations (like poetry, novel, etc.), advertisements and so on. 17.5.2    Meaning and Network of Relations The second insight that enables the application of methods of linguistics to all social and cultural phenomena is that the meanings they have for a cultural group is a function of the network of relations (or structure) into which they enter. In other words, if human actions or productions have a meaning there must be an underlying system of conventions which make this meaning possible. The various objectively describable actions on the football field during a game become or constitute themselves into the meaningful institution of football game because of the rules and conventions according to which they are organized. The actions are meaningful only with respect to some institutional conventions. Wherever there are two posts one can kick a ball between them, but one can score a goal only within the particular institutionalized framework called football. The action of kicking a ball between two posts assumes the meaning of “scoring a goal” only because this action has entered into a network of relations with other actions which are constituents of the football game and which are regulated or “arranged” (“structured”) according to certain conventions. Thus, “the cultural meaning of any particular act or object is determined by a whole system of constitutive rules- rules which do not so much regulate behaviour as create the possibility of particular forms of behaviour. The rules of English enable sequences of sound to have meaning, they make it possible to utter grammatical or ungrammatical sentences. And, analogously, various social rules make it possible to marry, to score a goal, to write a poem, to be impolite. It is in this sense a culture is composed of a set of symbolic systems.” 17.5.3    The Task of the Structuralist The task of the structuralists, whatever their field, is not a mere collection of data, he has also to examine the set of underlying relations through which things can function as signs. The goal is to make explicit the implicitly used knowledge by competent persons of a culture in the recognition and reading of signs. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    In which country, the structuralist movement originated? 2.    How the methods of analyzing language can extended to the analysis of other cultural phenomena? 17.6    High structuralists17.6.1    Levi-Strauss Both Barthes and Levi-Strauss came into contact with Saussurean linguistics partly by way of the legacy of Russian Formalism and the Prague School. Levi-Strauss’ The Elementary Structures of Kinship, first published in 1949, dealt with a typically ‘anthropological’ subject-marriage and descent-but in a typically semiological fashion, through the attempt to construct a grammar of kinship. The incest taboo, he would conclude, ‘is in origin neither purely cultural nor purely natural’. He believed it could be explained only in conjunction with kinship structures and, to this end, turned to an analogous symbolic system, ‘phonology’, as theorised by Jakobson. Both kinship and phonology are systematic, in both, individual terms or entities are determined by their difference from others in the system; both function as unconscious structures: both are governed by general laws. For Levi-Strauss, the principle of ‘reciprocity’, of gift and counter-gift based on the exchange of goods and women, provided the common element uniting all manifestations of kinship structure, and was thus also the source of the incest prohibition. In the four volumes of Mythologiques, published between 1964 and 1971, he sought to explain how the passage from nature to culture was symbolised in the indigenous cultures of North and South America. All the Indian peoples, he concluded, ‘seem to have conceived of their myths for one purpose only: to come to terms with history and, on the level of system, to re-establish a state of equilibrium capable of acting as a shock-absorber for the disturbances caused by real-life events’. Meaning did not inhere in the myths themselves; the myths were media or ‘grids’ through which to make sense of a world that can never be known in itself. The Osage Indians of North America, for instance, venerated the eagle, not for itself, but for the classificatory possibilities it provided: rather than an eagle in general, it is a bald eagle, a golden eagle or a spotted eagle, it is white, spotted or red, its young, adult or old. These differences then provide an analogous or parallel structure to that of Osage society. For Levi-Strauss, totenism was therefore a code whose primary function is to express social difference by analogy with the natural world: there is no mysterious identification between an individual or group and a totemic animal or plant; the latter is significant only because of its position in a series, its difference from others of the same or other species. In this view, Freud’s Oedipus complex is merely one culturally specific myth in a great chain of myths that deal with incest prohibition. In the second volume of Structural Anthropology, Levi-Strauss writes that ‘no civilization can define itself if it does not have at its disposal some other civilizations for comparison’. Here he identified three stages in the history of western humanism that allowed the West to acquire such a perspective on its own culture: Renaissance humanism, which looked back to antiquity to define itself in comparison with the past; ‘bourgeois’ humanism, when Europe became aware of the Orient and came to define itself as superior; and ‘democratic’ humanism, which subscribes to an ethic of tolerance and respect for different culture. His own work was intended as a contribution to this contemporary democratic trend. Hence his suspicion of categories such as ‘progress’, and the lack thereof, or the idea of some civilisations being ‘inside’ history, others ‘outside’ or closer to nature. Most societies, he claimed, have experienced progress and technological development. The difference is in the fact that western culture ‘has proved to be more cumulative than others’. The word ‘savage’ in the title of Levi-Strauss’s The Savage Mind is thus ironic. It was central to his argument, in fact, that supposedly ‘savage’ thought was not at all savage, in the sense of being either alien or primitive. Rather, he stressed that both totemic religion and primitive ‘science’ actually work perfectly well in their own systemic terms. This science of the concrete’, he wrote, provide an implicit theoretical legitimation for literary modernism, as no doubt they were intended to. 17.6.2    Roland Barthes Barthes was perhaps the single most important, representative figure of French high structuralism, an immensely prolific writer, literary critic, sociologist and semiologist, structuralist and, later, post-structuralist, whose bizarre death-he was run over by a laundry truck-was as untimely as it was improbable. His most famous work, Mythologies, was first published in 1957. Strongly influenced by Saussure, it sought to analyse semiologically a whole range of contemporary myths, from wrestling to advertising, from striptease to Romans in the cinema. Here Barthes aspired to ‘read’ washing powder advertisements, for example, as languages, that is, as signifying systems with their own distinctive grammars. The book included a long essay entitled ‘Myth Today’, which attempted to sketch out the theoretical corollaries of the often very entertaining, almost journalistic and invariably insightful, particular analyses that occupied the bulk of the text. In ‘Myth Today’, Barthes defined ‘myth’ as a second-order semiological system, in which the signs of language, that is, both signifiers and signifieds, function as the signifiers of myth, signifying other mythical signifieds. By ‘myth’, he meant something very close to a Weberian legitimation. In bourgeois society, he argued, myth is ‘depoliticized speech’, which ‘has the task of giving an historical intention a natural justification, and making contingency appear eternal’. By so naturalising the historically contingent, myth proves fundamentally supportive of the social status quo. Hence Barthes’ famous observation that: ‘Statistically, myth is on the right’. At this point in his intellectual career Barthes was still clearly on the left. Indeed, the essay provides an excellent example of the way structuralism as demystification can be linked to an adversarial intellectual stance. In Mythologies, as in the later Elements of Semiology and The Fashion System, first published in 1964 and 1967 respectively, Barthes’ semiology strayed furthest from the realm of the literary, and into fashion, food, furniture and cars. His central theoretical preoccupation, however, remained writing. At his most structuralist, and at his most influential, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, Barthes was concerned to develop a set of highly formal analyses of the structures of narrative; to develop and redefine the Formalist conception of literariness, and to describe and celebrate ‘the death of the author’. 17.6.3    Structuralism Now Many modern scholars have moved away from rigidly deterministic views of underlying structures, instead emphasizing a more dynamic, reciprocal relationship between agency and structure. One prominent example is Anthony Giddens, who introduced structuration theory as a way to balance the roles of both agency and structure in sociological analysis. According to Giddens, individual actions are shaped by social interactions and an understanding of broader structural contexts. In this view, the interplay between personal agency and social structures influences both processes and outcomes. Similarly, Michel Foucault reexamined the connection between structure and agency by exploring questions such as why structures seem to determine certain possibilities while excluding others, how some individuals gain agency while others are denied it, and how these dynamics are constructed through discourse. Foucault’s focus on the historically specific relationships between language, knowledge, power, and institutional practices sets his work apart from earlier structuralist approaches, which often lacked historical context. Many critics of structuralism now identify themselves as poststructuralists. The terms structuralism and post-structuralism are not binary opposites and indeed they have a number of continuities. Structuralists and poststructuralists share the view that the objects, elements and meanings that constitute our existential reality’ are social constructions-they cannot be presumed to exist independently of human perception and activity. For example, a strictly structuralist orientation in semiotics would seek to identify and describe the codes and systems of signification with which we articulate experience and produce meaning. A poststructuralist orientation in semiotics would be more concerned with refining and critically analyzing the stories that structuralist semioticians construct-stories that purport to describe and explain the structures of other stories. Poststructuralist criticism is concerned with the extent to which analyses of narrative constructions are caught up in the processes and mechanisms they are analyzing. Poststructuralists are thus suspicious of the view that anyone can get ‘outside’ a cultural discourse or practice to describe its underlying rules and norms. For example, an analysis of political structures in a society cannot situate itself outside of these same political structures because it will necessarily be caught up in the processes and forces it attempts to describe, and will itself involve a political move or stance. Therefore, one way to investigate political structures and forces is to analyze the analyst’s own stance and seek to determine how her or his analytical discourse is worked by the structures and forces it is analyzing. Self Check Exercise-4 1.    ‘Myth Today’ is an essay written by whom? 2.    Who sought to analyse semiologically the wrestling and advertisement? 3.    What is totenism according to Levi-strauss? 4.    What are the three stages identified by Levi-Strauss in the history of Western humanism that allowed the west to acquire a perspective on its own culture? 17.7    Summary Thus, structuralism is a novel approach to the study of all cultural products such as language mythologies, literature, kinship relatives, rituals fashion etc. The structuralists subjected these and similar social phenomena to a type of analysis that they called “structural analysis” It is nothing but an extension or application of the methods of contemporary linguistics started by Saussure and developed further by Treubetkoy. Levi-Strauss applied it to the study of such phenomena as kinship relations in societies, mythologies etc. Roland Barthes applied it to literary texts and such cultural artifacts as fashion, advertisement, wresting etc. In the 1970s, by radicalizing and challenging certain philosophical positions of structuralism, poststructuralism was born in France. We will learn about the Post structuralism in the next lesson. 17.8    Glossary •    Linguistics : the scientific study of languages and its structure, including the study of grammar, syntax, and phonetics. •    Non-Anglophone European : A country where English is not spoken as official or second language. •    Cognitive : the process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses. •    Existentialism : a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of will. •    Diachronic : concerned with the way in which something, especially language, has developed and evolved through time. •    Synchronic : a language, as it exists at one point in time. •    Permutations : the number of ways things can be ordered or arranged. •    Semiotics : The study of signs and symbols and their use or interpretation. •    Phenomenon : Any observable occurrence. •    Deconstruction : It generally attempts to demonstrate that any text is not a discrete whole but contains several irreconcilable and contradictory meanings with multiple interpretive possibilities. 17.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Ferdinand de Saussure 2.    Claude Levi-Strauss 3.    Jacques Lacan 4.    Structuralism is a conceptual and methodological approach to describing and analyzing a variety of objects of inquiry including, for example, cultures, economics, language, literature, mythologies, politics and societies. A structuralist analysis assumes that these objects of inquiry can be characterized by underlying structures conceived as systems of interrelated parts and that they can be defined (at least in part) by relationships among these constitutive elements. Structuralism gives primacy to pattern over substance. The meaning of a particular phenomenon or system comes through knowing how things fit together, and not from understanding things in isolation. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    ‘Semiology’ is a general science of signs. 2.    The synchronic approach considers a language in its own right as contemporary entity, as if it were frozen at a given moment of time and laid out for systematic study. It does not inquire into its ancestral forms or its similarities with and differences from other language. Saussure held that only the synchronic approach could give us an understanding into what kind of an entity (System) language is and how it functions. Synchronically studied language manifests itself as a system whose elements hang together. Various aspects and elements of the system can be identified and studies. 3.    For answer, see Section 17.4.3. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    In France in the 1950’s. 2.    The extension of the methods of analyzing language to the analysis of other cultural phenomena is based on two insights: (a) That social and cultural phenomena are signs, and (b) that they do not have essences but are defined by a network of relations, both internal and external. Self Check Exercise-4 1.   Ronald Barthes. 2.   Ronald Barthes. 3.    For Levi-Strauss, ‘totenism’ is a code whose primary function is to express social difference by analogy with the natural world. 4.    The three stages identified by Levi-Strauss in the history of western humanism that that allowed the west to acquire a perspective on its own culture are:- (i)    Renaissance Humanism (ii)    Bourgeois Humanism and (iii)    Democratic Humanism 17.10    Suggested Readings •    Giddens, Anthony, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1984. •    Kuhn, Thomas S., The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. •    Levi-Strauss, Claude, The Elementary Structures of Kinship. (J. Bell, J. von Sturmer & R. Needham, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press, 1969. •    Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. London: Fontana, 1974. •    Jenkins, Alan, The Social Theory of Claude Levi Strauss. London : The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1979. •    Robeg,  David  (ad.) Structuralism : An Introduction. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1973. •    Gutting, Gary, French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press, 2001. •    Caws, Pater, Structuralism : The Art of the Intelligible. New York : Humanities Press International, 1988. 17.11    Terminal Questions 1.    Define Structuralism. What are its main characteristics? How does it differ from structural-Functional approach? 2.    Examine the Structuralist movement as expounded and practiced by Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes. 3.    Discuss the contribution of Claude Levi-Strauss in the development of structuralism. 4.    Discuss how the common roots of structuralism lie in Sausserean linguistics. ***** Unit-18 POST STRUCTURALISM Structure 18.1    Introduction 18.2    Learning Objectives 18.3    Post Structuralism 18.3.1    The Decentering of the Subject 18.3.2    ‘Reading Reads Texts’ 18.3.3    Criticism of Meta Physics of Presence 18.3.4    Critique of Origins Self Check Exercise-1 18.4    Post Structuralist Philosophers 18.4.1    Derrida and Deconstruction 18.4.2    Foucault’s Archaeology 18.4.2.1    Foucault on Knowledge and Power Self Check Exercise-2 18.5    Summary 18.6    Glossary 18.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises 18.8    Suggested Readings/References 18.9    Terminal Questions 18.1    Introduction Poststructuralism represents a wide variety of philosophical perspectives and critical procedures that came to prominence in the 1970s, challenging some positions and radicalizing others of structuralism regarding language and other signifying systems. Roland Barthes (in his later phase of thought), Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva are the prominent poststructuralist thinkers. There are also a number of intellectuals in whom poststructuralist tendencies and themes are identifiable such as Lyotard, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Guattari. 18.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the students will be able to : •    Understand the basic tenants of Post Structuralism •    Know how Post structuralists radicalize the main insights of structuralists to de-stabilize the project of western philosophy. •    get acquainted with the ideas of two main poststructuralists i.e. Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. 18.3    Post Structuralism Though the terms “postmodern” and “poststructural” are sometimes used interchangeably as synonyms, it is useful to follow these scholars who propose that ‘postmodern’ refer to recent developments in literature and other arts, and reserve “poststructural” to recent theories of criticism and of intellectual inquiries in general. The poststructuralist philosophers come from diverse backgrounds and are occupied with apparently unconnected intellectual domains: for instance, Derrida was groomed in the phenomenological tradition of Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger; Jacques Lacan was a psychoanalyst in the Freudian tradition; and Michel Foucault was a historian of social institutions and constructions. In spite of their different interests and preoccupations their thought shares certain common concerns which are typically poststructuralist. 18.3.1    The Decentering of the Subject Structuralism had already implicitly shifted focus from the self or the subject. Marxism, existentialism, phenomenology and psychoanalysis were characterized by investiture of a central place to the human self. For these movements the human subject was a free and purposive agent who was the centre of operative initiative and control. Structuralisms instead focused in the supra-individual structures of language, ritual, and kinship which make the individual what he or she is. For the structuralists it is not the self that creates culture but culture that creates the self. The study of abstract relations within systems or “codes” of cultural signs is the key to the understanding of the human existence. In this sense, it dislodged the subject from the centre and divested it of all operative initiative and originary nature. Poststructuralism radicalized this theme. They directed this theme against the scientific pretensions of structuralism itself. In the absence of any “centre” language has become for them an unregulatable play of purely relational elements. The subject, author or narrater of a text becomes itself a purely linguistic product. In the words of Paul de Man, we reduce the subject to the status of “a mere grammatical pronoun.” Thus Barthes proclaimed the “death of the author” in an article he published in 1968, with the same title. And Michel Foucault in a 1969 article “What is an Author,” announced the “disappearance of the author.” By such pronouncements they did not mean to deny that a human individual is a necessary link in the chain of events that results in a parole or text. What they denied was the validity of the “function,” or “role” hitherto assigned in Western thought to a uniquely individual and purposive author, who is conceived as the originator, purposive planner (by his or her intentions) the determiner of the form and meaning of a text. Author is in a sense the construct of the culture. He is a “site” traversed by the “cultural constructs” and the “discursive formations” engendered by the conceptual and power configurations in a given era. 18.3.2    “Reading Reads Texts” With the author dead, the reader or interpreter becomes a focal figure in poststructuralist treatments of signifying systems. The reader, however, is stripped of the traditional attributes of purposiveness and initiative and is converted into an impersonal process of reading. What does this reading read? It is no longer a literary “work”: this term implies a purposive human maker of the product. It is, instead, the “text”, which is nothing but a structure of signifiers regarded merely as a given for the reading process. A characteristic poststructuralist view about the text is that it does not have a fixed meaning. The death of the author frees the reader to enter the literary text in whatever way he or she chooses. The intensity of pleasure yielded by the text becomes proportionate to the reader’s abandonment of limits on its signifying possibilities. 18.3.3    Critique of Metaphysics of Presence Poststructuralism raises a rebellion against what it considers to be the prejudices of Western thinking. One such prejudice is the preference for presence over absence. In fact the Western thinking is so much pervaded by this prejudice that Derrida calls it simply the metaphysics of presence. Thus we see Plato investing all being (ousia) in ideas on the ground that they are immediately present to the mind, he also prefers speech over writing on the ground that in speech the meaning is immediately present to the speaker and that the auditor has the possibility of making it present. Again Edmund Hussserl, the father of phenomenological movement distinguishes linguistic signs from indicative signs on the basis of the claim that in linguistic signs their meanings are immediately present to us, while in the case of indicative signs like smoke indicating fire, there is a “distance” between the signifier and the signified. Poststructuralism trains its guns against such claims of immediate presence. According to them no meaning or concept can be immediately present to the thinker. It is always mediated through a sign, a signifier. In other words, meanings are never “presentified” (made present) but always re-presented. Every attempt to make it completely present is a “deferring” or a postponement, since new signifiers keep coming into play every time we do it. 18.3.4    Critique of Origins Inquiry into origins is an attempt to see behind or beyond phenomena to their ultimate foundation. For modern philosophers of the self (eg existentialists, psychoanalysits and phenomenologists) the attempt to discover the origin of the self is the road to authenticity. Poststructuralism denies the possibility of recapturing the origins of phenomena. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Name some prominent Post-Structuralist Thinkers. 2.    How ‘Postmodern’ is different from ‘Post-Structural’? 3.    Discuss the main tenants of Post-Structuralism. 18.4    Post Structuralist Philosophers18.4.1    Jacques Derrida and deconstruction Jacques Derrida is perhaps the post-structuralist thinker par excellence, a more profound thinker than Barthes with no properly structuralist past, a philosopher rather than a critic, to use a distinction of which neither approved. Insofar as the developing discourse of post-structuralism was concerned, the key theoretical option during the late 1970s and 1980s was that between Derrida and Foucault. Derrida’s three major works, Writing and Difference, Speech and Phenomena and Of Grammatology, all first published in 1967, thus marked the founding moment of French post-structuralism. His much-quoted essay, ‘Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences’ (Derrida, 1970), had been written for an international symposium that was planned to introduce French structuralism into American intellectual life, held at Johns Hopkins University in 1966. Ironically, it would achieve quite the opposite: a radical calling into question of all that structuralism had argued. Subsequently included in Writing and Difference, this essay clearly anticipated many of the characteristic themes and preoccupations of what would later become post-structuralism. It turned the logic of structuralism against itself, insisting that the ‘structurality of structure’ had been repressed in structuralism, in ways that limit precisely ‘the play of the structure’ itself. Taking as his text Saussure’s distinction between signifier and signified and Levi- Strauss’ between nature and culture, Derrida showed how both undermine their own presuppositions, so that ‘what appears most fascinating.. is the stated abandonment of all reference to a center, to a subject, to a privileged reference, to an origin’. The alternative to structuralism is thus not a return to humanism, but an affirmation of play itself and so a new interpretation of interpretation: ‘the affirmation of a world of signs without fault, without truth, and without origin’. This is what Derrida would come to designate as ‘deconstruction’. Derrida rejected what he termed the ‘logocentric’ notion of language as ‘voice, that is, as the expression of intentional human meaning, and of writing as technology and technique. The system of writing..... is not exterior to the system of language, he argued. Quite the contrary, the system of language associated with western phonetic-alphabetic writing is precisely what has made possible the production of ‘logocentric metaphysics’ (Derrida, 1976). Just as for Saussure langue was more permanent and durable than parole, so for Derrida writing outlives and outlasts its supposed authors. But Derrida takes the argument a stage further: where Saussure had privileged sign over referent, Derrida privileges signifier over signified, so much so, in fact, that writing consists, he says, not of signs, but of signifiers alone. Thus for Derrida, the ‘meaning of meaning’ is an indefinite referral of signifier to signifier ‘which gives signified meaning no respite... so that it always signifies again’ (Derrida, 1978). Linguistic meaning thereby entails an ‘infinite equivocality’. Though subject to later psychoanalytic reformulation as phallogocentrism’, the critique of logocentrism has remained fundamental to Derrida’s thought. The entire western philosophical tradition, from Plato on, is judged metaphysical insofar as it imagines “presence” prior to discourse. If ‘metaphysics’ is the problem, then ‘difference’ is the solution. Derrida takes from Saussure the notion that language is founded on difference, but coined the neologism, difference, to stress the double meaning of the French verb, differer-to differ and to defer or delay (Derrida, 1982). Thus difference is also the deferral, for the moment at least, of other, alternative meanings. ‘What is written as difference’, he explained, ‘will be the playing movement that “produces”.... these differences, these effects of difference’ in language. Difference is thus neither a word nor a concept, but rather a device by which to think strategically “what is most irreducible about our “era”. Deconstruction itself is best understood as pushing textual meaning to its limits, in order to discover the differences within a text, the ways it fails to say what it means to say. A distant but by no means entirely hostile observer has ideology, according to Althusser, alluded to ideology, it became possible to read culture ‘ideologically’. 18.4.2    Foucault՚s archaeology Where Barthes and Eco had happily declared themselves as structuralists, Foucault repeatedly denied any such theoretical affinities and predilections. In the most specifically Saussurean of senses, we might very well endorse such protestations. But in a more general sense, Foucault’s earlier work was indeed structuralist. His first truly influential books, Madness and Civilisation and The Birth of the Clinic, were published in French in 1961 and 1963. In both, Foucault was concerned to establish the systematic, and in its own terms perfectly valid, nature of the dominant understandings of madness and illness in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, and to contrast these with the new, equally systematic, and equally internally valid, conceptions that emerged, very rapidly, in the late eighteenth century. For Foucault, the later conceptions were merely different, not better. What matters is not the epistemological problem of truth, but rather the sociological problem of the fit between new ways of knowing and new institutional practices. This earlier institutional emphasis was temporarily superseded by a more deliberate focus on discourse as such, both in The Order of Things, first published in 1966 as Les Mots et les Choses, and in The Archaeology of Knowledge, first published in 1969. Here Foucault defined the objects of his inquiry as ‘discursive formations’ or epistemes- in short, ways of knowing: systematic conceptual frameworks that define their own truth criteria, according to which particular knowledge problems are to be resolved, and that are embedded in and imply particular institutional arrangements. The central focus fell, unsurprisingly, on a contrast between the classical episteme, which governed knowledge in the seventeenth and in the early eighteenth century, and the modern episteme, which developed from the late eighteenth century and was only now coming to be challenged by a putatively postmodern, in fact structuralist, episteme. The structuralism of this entire project should be readily apparent. Despite Foucault’s profession as historian, his work remained radically anti-historicist, unable either to judge between epistemes or to explain the shift from one to another (hence the characteristically structuralist sense of change as discontinuity). Moreover, Foucault pursued a typically structuralist strategy of demystification towards, for example, modern medicine and modern psychiatry. And his approach was clearly theoretically anti-humanist. Thus the strength of the new sciences of psychoanalysis and structural anthropology consisted in their ability to do without the concept of man... they dissolve man’. One very interesting essay of Foucault’s quite specifically took up Barthes’ theme of the death of the author and sought to explain authorship by its various institutional uses. Finally, we should add that Foucault’s earlier writings were also deeply positivist in inspiration. Given his obvious animus towards modern science, his persistent attempt to demystify and relativise ‘scientific knowledge’, this might well appear the strangest of observations. And yet this vast archaeology- a history of previous epistemes, no less-was unthinkable except as knowledge of an object produced by a subject external to it, which was precisely the positivist, and structuralist, position. 18.4.2.1    Foucault on knowledge and power In Foucault’s writings from the mid-1970s, we find a similar repudiation of the older structuralist aspirations to scientificity. Here, however, post-structuralism had moved in a very different, even opposed, directions : certainly, Foucault himself remained dismissive of Derrida’s ‘little pedagogy’. Foucault relativised discourse not by any radical reconstruction of the notion of signification itself, but by the attempt to substitute relations of power for relations of meaning. ‘I believe one’s point of reference should not be to the great model of language... and signs’, argued Foucault, but to that of war and battle. The history that bears and determines us has the form of a war rather than that of a language’. The term coined to describe this later approach was ‘geneaology’, as distinct from ‘archaeology’. The text that announced the shift was Discipline and Punish, a study of the birth of the modern prison. For Foucault himself, there was little novelty in a focus on the interconnectedness of discursive and institutional practices as such. The real theoretical innovation here consisted, first, in a new sense of this connectedness as necessarily internal to discourse; and, second, in a growing awareness of the human body itself as the central object of control in such institutions as the prison, but also as the source of possible resistance to that control. For Foucault, power in modern society had become essentially ubiquitous. Thus he spoke of its ‘capillary form of existence  the point where power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches their bodies and inserts itself into their actions and attitudes, their discourses, learning processes and everyday lives’. Famously, Foucault takes Bentham’s plan for a ‘Panopticon’—a central tower from which a supervisor would be able to monitor simultaneously the behaviour of a large number of supervised prisoners, patients, madmen, workers or whatever— as ‘the architectural figure’ of this radical extension of the mechanisms of control, regulation and self-control in modern societies. The argument has been misrepresented as itself Benthamite and Foucault as himself some kind of latter-day utilitarian. But the almost archetypically anarchist quality of Foucault’s practical politics is evident, for example, in his prison reform agitation. Moreover, the implicit hostility to Enlightenment rationality of the earlier archaeological writings becomes increasingly explicit and at times reminiscent of Adorno and Horkheimer in the later genealogy. It is true that, for Foucault, the ubiquity of power renders it open and indeterminate: ‘it induces pleasure, forms knowledge, produces discourse. It needs to be considered as a productive network which runs through the whole social body’. There is, then, no single structure of power, but rather a play of powers. This provided a rationale for anarchism rather than for what Bennett means by ‘reform’. It aimed so much at an ‘objective’ account of discourse as at a strategic, or tactical, but nonetheless militant, intervention into that play. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    What is Deconstruction according to Jacques Derrida? 18.5    Summary Thus, by radicalizing and challenging certain philosophical positions of structuralism, post-structuralism was born in France in 1970s. In this lesson, we examined poststructuralism as a radicalization of certain motifs of structuralism. After looking at some common themes of the movement we examined the central concepts of two prominent poststructuralists: Derrida and Foucault. 18.6    Glossary •     Logocentrism : is a term coined by the German philosopher Ludwing Klages in the early 1900s. It refers to the tradition of Western Science and Philosophy that regards words and language as a fundamental expression of an external reality. •     Neologism : a newly coined word or expression •     Binary Oppositions : is a pair of related terms or concepts that are opposite in meaning •     Genealogy : the study and tracing of lines of descent. 18.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Roland Barthes (in his later phase of thought), Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Jacques Lacan and Julia Kristeva are the prominent poststructuralist thinkers. 2.    ‘Post-Modern’ refers to recent developments in literature and other arts where as ‘post-Structural’ refers to recent theories of criticism and of intellectual inquiries in general. The post-structuralism philosophers come from diverse backgrounds and are occupied with apparently unconnected intellectual domains. In spite of their different interests and pre-occupations their thought shares certain common concerns which are typically poststructuralist. 3.    The main tenants of Post-Structuralism are as under:- (i)    Author is the construct of the culture. (ii)    The reader or interpreter becomes a focal figure in Post-Structuralist treatment of signifying systems. (iii)    According to Post-Structuralists, no mening or concept can be immediately present to the thinker. It is always mediated through a sign, a signifier. In other words, meanings are never “presentified (made present) but always represented.” Self Check Exercise-2 1.    The alternative to structuralism is not a return to humanism, but an affirmation of play itself and so a new interpretations of interpretation: ‘the affirmation of a world of signs without fault, without truth, and without origin.’ This is what Derrida would come to designate as ‘deconstruction’. Come to designate as ‘deconstruction.’ 2.    For details see Sub-Section 18.4.1 18.8    Suggested Readings/References •    Harland Richard, Superstructuralism : The Philosophy of Structuralism and Poststructuralism. London : Methun and Co., 1987 •    Foucalt Michel, The Order of Things : An Archeology of the Human Sciences (Alan Sheridan-Smith, Trans.) London : Tavistock Publications, 1966/1970. •    Dadhich, Naresh, Contemporary Political Theory. New Delhi, Jaipur : Rawat Publications, 2019. 18.9    Terminal Questions 1.    Write a detailed note on Post or New Structuralism. 2.    Describe the theory of Knowledge and Arcealogy as propounded by Micheal Foucault. 3.    Discuss the contribution of Derrida in the development of Post structuralism. Unit-19 ORIENTALISM Structure 19.1    Introduction 19.2    Learning Objectives 19.3    What is Orientalism 19.3.1    The Functioning of Orientalism 19.3.2    Abstract knowledge and Realistic Comprehension Self Check Exercise-1 19.4    Edward Said’s Orientalism 19.4.1    Said’s Methodology 19.4.2    Said’s Audiences 19.4.3    Said’s Palestinian Background Self Check Exercise-2 19.5    Critique of Orientalism 19.5.1    Said’s Afterword to Orientalism Self Check Exercise-3 19.6    Summary 19.7    Glossary 19.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises 19.9    Suggest Readings/References 19.10    Terminal Questions 19.1    Introduction Orientalism has been credited with opening out the field of Postcolonial Studies / Colonial Discourse Analysis because of its persistent linking together of the colonial experience with the Empire, and of politics with culture. It has served as an agency to the formerly marginalised peoples and has allowed the Empire to write back. Edward Saids ‘Orientalism’ was published in 1978. In the book Said effectively redefined the term ‘orientalism’ to mean a constellation of false assumptions underlying western attitude towards the middle east. The book exposes the European Universalism that takes for granted white supremacy and authority. This work offered a critique of oriental studies or what is also, known as the construction of knowledge of the Orient by the West. Said’s book generated a lot of hostility among scholars of the Orient who accused Said of crossing the line between arts and politics. But many who found its iconoclastic violation of boundaries and conventions in unsettling received ideas of Orient and Occident liberating and enabling greeted it with immense enthusiasm. Said focuses his attention on the interplay between the ‘occident’ and the ‘orient’. The ‘Occident’ is his term for the west (England, France and USA) and orient is his term for the romantic misunderstood Middle East and Far East. 19.2    Learning Objectives After reading this unit, the students will be able to : •    Understand the concept of orientalism as propounded by Edward Said •    examine how Orientalism works as a discursive field of study •    trace Said’s line of arguments, his methodology, his audience and his Palestinian background. •    make a critical appraisal of Orientalism 19.3    What is “Orientalism”? Orientalism is the study of the Orient by the Occidents. These two terms “Orient” and “Occident” are of Latin origin. Occident comes from the Latin “Occidents” which means the West and Orient comes from the latin “Oriens” which means the East. So, one who studies the Orient is an Orientalist. The very term “the Orient” holds different meanings for different people. As Said points out, Americans associate it with the Far East mainly Japan and China, while for Western Europeans and for the British and the French, it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and oldest colonies. Said puts forward several definitions of “Orientalism” in the introduction of ‘Orientalism’. Some of these are widely quoted and influential. •    “A way of coming to terms with the Orient that is based on the Orient’s special place in European Western experience” •    “a style of thought based upon an ontological and epistemological distinction made between the Orient and (most of the time) “the Occident” •    “A Western style for dominating, restructuring and having authority over the Orient” •    “A distribution of geopolitical awareness into aesthetic, scholarly, economic, sociological, historical and philological texts” In the 19th century oriental studies was an area of academic study. Said asserts that West had to create, invent East in order for this study to take place. He further asserts that the West has created a dichotomy between the reality of the East and the romantic notion of the Orient. The Middle East and Asia are looked with prejudice and racism. They are projected as backward, static and unaware of their culture and history. To fill the void, the West created a culture, a history and a promising future for them. On this framework rests not only the study of the Orient but also the political imperialism of Europe in the East. To Said “Orientalism” is more an indicator of the power the West holds over the Orient than about the Orient itself. By taking control of the scholarship, the West also took political and economic control. 19.3.1    The Functioning of Orientalism To understand how a wide array of disciplines, interests, practices, and influential groups operate collectively within the framework of Orientalism—without any formal or written agreement—it’s helpful to draw on the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, particularly his concept of cultural hegemony, as Edward Said does. Gramsci makes a distinction between civil society and political society. In his analysis, civil society consists of organizations people join voluntarily, such as schools, families, and unions. Within these structures, influence is exerted not through force, but through consent and the acceptance of ideas, institutions, and interpersonal connections. Culture functions within this civil society, and when one culture asserts leadership or dominance over another through this consensual process, Gramsci terms it ‘hegemony’. Said applies this Gramscian notion of cultural hegemony to explain how Orientalism took shape and has been sustained within the broader historical and socio-political dominance of the industrial West. He highlights a key idea underpinning European culture: the construction of a European identity that sees itself as inherently superior to non-European peoples and cultures. This self-perception leads to the creation of the ‘Other’—a counterpart that Europe can define itself against, establishing a clear divide between “us” and “them.” However, this binary relationship is not fixed; Orientalism’s durability and influence stem from what Said describes as a strategy of “flexible positional superiority.” This approach allows for various forms of interaction and relationships between the West and the Orient, yet the outcome consistently reaffirms the West’s dominance. Said identifies historical factors that made this ongoing assertion of superiority possible, particularly Europe’s rise to unprecedented power from the late Renaissance onward. The economic and political circumstances of both Europe and the Orient enabled Europeans to be physically present in, and to produce knowledge about, the Orient with minimal opposition. This situation gave Europeans the authority to represent and define the Orient on their own terms. One of Orientalism’s most powerful tools is its ability to draw together a wide range of occupations, disciplines, and institutions in its formation as a field of knowledge. Said notes how Orientalism includes figures such as scientists, scholars, missionaries, traders, and soldiers—individuals engaged in intellectual, religious, commercial, and military pursuits. Although these roles are often seen as separate and unrelated, within Orientalism they function in concert toward a shared objective. It is a striking realization that traders and missionaries were frequently followed by soldiers during colonization—as was the case with the East India Company—or that religious and commercial ventures were often protected and advanced by military force. The unifying aim behind these varied activities was the systematic orientalising of non-European societies. Said also examines how the development of modern disciplines such as anthropology, sociology, linguistics, racial theory, and history contributed to constructing the Orient in ways that justified and supported colonial rule. Postcolonial scholars have since explored how these academic fields, while often seen as objective or apolitical, actually played a role in legitimizing colonization. Importantly, all of these bodies of knowledge emerged from what Gramsci refers to as civil society, and their existence demonstrates the West’s hegemonic influence over the Orient from the late eighteenth century onwards. Said’s analysis focuses on this sphere of influence within civil society rather than the direct control exerted by state institutions like the army, police, or central bureaucracies, which belong to political society and enforce domination through coercion. 19.3.2    Abstract Knowledge and Realistic Comprehension There are certain limitations in Edward Said’s theoretical framework when it comes to understanding divisions in the modern world. His extensive analysis in Orientalism successfully draws from a wide range of socio-political institutions because he shows little regard for the protective boundaries these fields often establish within academic discourse and research. For Said, the line separating objective scholarship from politically influenced knowledge is exceedingly fragile. He emphasizes this point in order to define Orientalism as an intersection between politics and culture—or more specifically, between imperialism and culture. In his view, culture traditionally belonged to the domain of pure, academic inquiry, while politics was confined to matters of power and governance. These two spheres were seldom considered interconnected, a notion Said works diligently to challenge. It is impossible for a European or even an American who is studying the Orient to be aware of the fact that he/she belongs to a power that has vested interests in the Orient, and that however subconsciously, this will be the first reaction to the Orient. Thus, the individual response will be secondary. If this argument is, extended to the study of Orientalism itself, it would as Said says include the entire field of study, imagination and scholarly institutions as being governed by political imperialism to such an extent that it is impossible to bracket it off. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who is the author of the book ‘Orientalism’? 2.    What is ‘Orientalism’? 3.    Who has given the concept of cultural hegemony? 4.    What is ‘hegemony’? 19.4    Edward Said՚s Orientalism19.4.1    Said՚s Methodology For any structure of knowledge or system of discourse to be credible, it must first clarify the tools and methods it uses to collect, shape, and share that knowledge. Edward Said, up until this point, has demonstrated how he has assembled his research. He now shifts focus to his methodology—that is, the process by which he organizes his findings into a unified theoretical framework. Said narrows his analysis by defining clear temporal and geographical boundaries. Specifically, he concentrates on the interactions between Britain, France, and the United States with the Arab world and Islam. His central concern is the intellectual dominance the West claims over the Orient. Since the question of authority is fundamental to any portrayal of the Orient, it forms a key part of his method. Much of Said’s analysis of Orientalism revolves around exposing both the historical and personal dimensions of its authority. He insists that authority itself must be critically examined. As he argues, there is nothing inherently natural or mysterious about it. Authority is deliberately constructed, made comprehensible, and then propagated. Additionally, authority carries social weight: those who hold power often establish the standards for taste and values in broader society. In this way, dominant powers shape ideology so completely that their viewpoints are frequently mistaken for objective truth. Therefore, it becomes crucial to study how authority is established and how it operates. Said introduces two primary methodological concepts for examining this authority: strategic location and strategic formation. Strategic location refers to how an author positions themselves within their text in relation to the Oriental subject matter. Any writer addressing the Orient must identify their own standpoint in order to represent it or speak on its behalf. This position is conveyed through narrative voice, structure, imagery, themes, and recurring motifs—all of which are purposefully selected from numerous possible alternatives. In addition, each text situates itself within a larger network of works—what Said calls strategic formation. This means that the text aligns with other writings, specific audiences, and certain interpretations of the Orient. Over time, these groupings or formations are reinforced by academic institutions and cultural discourses, gaining increasing authority and influence. These formations can be studied by analyzing how different works interact with one another, how they address their audiences, and how they depict particular elements of the Orient. Examples of such groupings include philological research, travel literature, and Orientalist fiction or fantasies. 19.4.2    Said՚s Audiences Said's "Orientalism" addresses multiple audiences, each with its own unique perspective and need for the book. The first group is the literary community, including scholars of literature and criticism. This study is relevant to them because it highlights the complex relationships between society, history, and textuality, revealing how culture and politics intersect. It also raises important questions about politics, ideology, and the power structures that shape them. The second audience is contemporary students of the Orient, ranging from academic scholars to policy makers. Said’s work offers them a critique of their own assumptions and presents a deeper understanding of their historical and intellectual roots. Third, the general reader who is curious about how the West has historically perceived and interacted with the "Other" is a key audience. Said’s book sheds light on Western culture’s role in shaping global politics and its influence on the world. Finally, Said directs his work to the Third World reader, urging them to recognize the impact and strength of Western cultural discourse in shaping global relations and their own cultural identity. In "Orientalism," Said takes care to specify which audiences he is addressing and how his work might be of value to them. By critically examining the texts and authors that have defined Orientalism, he intends not just to add another voice to the ongoing discourse but to challenge and destabilize the accepted narratives of Orientalism. As a Professor of Literature and Criticism, he guides readers on how to engage with his work in a way that questions the established viewpoints, rather than reinforcing them. Additionally, it is important to consider how Said's own sociopolitical and historical background, as well as his personal intellectual experiences, influence his perception and interpretation of Orientalism. His own life and experiences are inseparable from his critical stance, and these factors inevitably shape how he approaches the subject. 19.4.3    Said՚s Palestinian Background He acknowledges that he has a personal investment in this study that arises from his awareness of being an “Oriental” as he grew up in Palestine and Egypt, both British colonies. The domination of the culture of the Orientals by the West has been a powerful factor in their lives. Said gestures towards his Western education in the British colonies as well as in the United States to point to his persistent awareness of being an Oriental, but he only parenthetically locates the construction of this discourse of Orientalism as one that is enabled by this Western education, and more particularly through his own specialisation as a literary critic. His many invocations to literary critics such as Foucault, Gramsci, Raymond Williams which attest to his awareness of literary theory and his immense knowledge of the High Canon of European literature have given him the tools with which to interrogate the cultural hegemony of the West in orientalising the Orient. The immediate experience that have in part given rise to the writing of this book come from the fact that he is an Arab Palestinian living in America, a life which is particularly disheartening: “The web of racism, cultural stereotypes, political imperialism, dehumanizing ideology holding in the Arab or the Muslim is very strong indeed, and it is this web which every Palestinian has come to feel as his uniquely punishing destiny.” Critics have noted that Edward Said is no ordinary Arab Palestinian. Instead, he is a distinguished academician and thinker. His relevance is also unmistakeable, it is worth remembering that the hate crimes which appeared in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in the United States of America immediately targeted all people who looked oriental. Let us now get back to our discussion and attempt a critique of Orientalism in the next section. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Who were said’s Audiences? 19.5    Critique of Orientalism This highly notable and influential work of Edward Said immediately stimulated and continues to generate response from several quarters and varying degree of hostility. To historians he is unhistorical, to social scientists he conflates theories; to scholars he is unscholarly, to literary theorists he is unreflective and indiscriminate, to Foucaultians he misuses Foucault, to professional Marxists he is anti-revolutionary, to professional conservatives he is a terrorist. But none can lay claim to an authority so absolute as to undermine the work. The fact, that the text addresses the reader not from an abstract theoretical position, but from the continuing reality of an “Orientalised experience’, explains its resilience against the persistent critical attacks it has received. Said’s contention that the West had dominated the East more than 200 years was unsupportable because until late 17th century the Ottoman Empire had posed a serious threat to Europe. Further Said claimed that the British Empire extended from Egypt to India in 1880s, when in fact the Ottoman and Persian empires intervened. Even at the height of European imperialism, the European power was not absolute in the East. In fact, it heavily depended on local collaborators. The areas of Middle East on which Said concentrated including Palestine and Egypt are poor examples of his theory as they came under European control only for a relatively short period in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Said gave much less attention to more apt examples including British Raj in India and Russian dominions in Asia, because Said was more interested in making political issue of Middle East. Said failed to acknowledge Orientals like Sir William Jones who were more concerned with establishing kinship between the East and the West. Said also made no attempt to categorise writers on the basis of their information and attitude towards the Orient. Critics have said that Said is re-enforcing the strength and authority of the discourse of Orientalism by reifying the binary of the Occident and the Orient. He is treating the West as a unitary, homogenised space that functions as one cohesive body. Germany, Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and the United States of America all act of one will. This homogenisation is not only spatial, it is also temporal, going all the way back to Aeschylus and extending to the present. By representing only the apparatus of the all-powerful West and ignoring the resistance to this discourse of authority by the Orient, he is actually perpetuating this practice. He is depriving the Orient of all agencies representing it as completely submissive and passive. Finally, by making no attempt to study the ways in which this discourse was received by either the West or the Orient the study of Orientalism is deeply flawed. It’s important to note that Orientalism was written in the late 1970s. While many of its central arguments, such as the inherent connection between culture and politics, are now widely recognized and used as fundamental tools in analyzing both literary and non-literary works, the book faced significant criticism from scholars and experts in Oriental studies when it was first released due to its revolutionary nature. Nevertheless, Orientalism remains a key starting point in understanding the process of decolonization. 19.5.1    Said՚s Afterword to Orientalism those things”. make it plagiarism free ChatGPT said: In the Afterword to Orientalism (1995), Edward Said seeks to address misinterpretations and "willful misunderstandings" of his original work, while also revisiting the arguments presented in Orientalism and reflecting on the intellectual trajectory that followed its publication. The first section of the Afterword primarily focuses on these misreadings, particularly those driven by political motives, but the more relevant portion for our study lies in the second section. Here, Said discusses the political developments that have taken place globally and examines the scholarship and criticism that emerged in response to these shifts. This part is crucial for understanding the field of postcolonial studies and the process of decolonising thought. Said identifies a significant divide in public consciousness between traditional Western hegemonic perspectives and newer ideas emerging from subaltern and marginalized communities. These communities, including the formerly colonized, enslaved, and oppressed, are no longer voiceless or ignored, except by “senior European and American males.” He notes the transformative shift in the consciousness of women, minorities, and marginalized groups around the world, emphasizing that this movement has become so influential that it has begun to shape mainstream thinking globally. Said also briefly touches upon the relationship between postcolonialism and postmodernism, highlighting their distinct differences. While postcolonialism is driven by urgent historical and political imperatives, postmodernism is more detached and theoretical. Despite some overlap, the two approaches yield different outcomes. In reviewing the substantial body of postcolonial work produced since the early 1980s, Said observes that while these works often emphasize local, regional, and contingent factors, they are united by a shared focus on universal concerns— particularly emancipation, revisionist perspectives on history and culture, and the frequent use of recurring theoretical models and frameworks. A common thread throughout this work is its critique of Eurocentrism and patriarchy. Said singles out India’s Subaltern Studies as one of the most significant contributions in this field. This groundbreaking scholarship, led by Ranajit Guha, sought to radically transform historiography by challenging the dominance of the nationalist elite in the writing of Indian history and aiming to restore the voices of the urban poor and rural masses. An important development in postcolonial studies, according to Said, is the reexamination of "canonical cultural works" to uncover the assumptions underlying them and to move beyond the master-slave binary that had long constrained analysis. Orientalism, for instance, was based on a reevaluation of what had long been considered an unbridgeable gap between the East and the West. Said's primary contribution was to challenge the idea that difference necessarily implies hostility, or that there exists a fixed, adversarial opposition between the two that would define knowledge itself. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Why said’s Orientalism is criticized? 2.    What is the subject matter of Said’s Afterword to Orientalism.’? 19.6    Summary In his analysis of Orientalism, Said employs Foucault’s concept of discourse to demonstrate that European culture did not merely control the Orient, but actively constructed it through various means—political, sociological, military, ideological, scientific, and imaginative. Orientalism, as a systematic discipline, illustrates how the West created and defined the Orient, which allowed Europe to enhance its own strength and identity by contrasting itself with the Orient, effectively forming a surrogate and even subterranean self. Rather than delving into what is hidden within the Oriental texts themselves, Said focuses on their external dimensions, employing the methodological tools of "strategic location" and "strategic formation." Although Said’s approach has its criticisms, he remains a pioneering figure in the field, credited with opening up Postcolonial Studies. 19.7    Glossary •    Discourse: To seriously speak or write on a topic, to speak or write about a subject in a formal context and at length. •    Genealogy: Study of the history of families, and the line of descent from their ancestors. •    Homogenise: To make homogenous; of same kind, having the same kind of constituent elements. •    Hegemony: Leadership or dominance, especially by one state or social group over others. •    Iconoclastic : Challenging or overturning traditional beliefs, customs, and values •    Conflates : Combine two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one. 19.8    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Edward Said. 2.    Orientalism is the study of the orient by the Occidents. There two terms ‘Orient’ and ‘Occident’ are of Latin Origin. Occident comes from the Latin ‘Occidents’ which means the west and Orient comes from the Latin ‘Orients’ which means the East. So one who studies the orient is an Orientalist. The very term ‘the Orient’ holds different meanings for different people. As said points out, Americans associate it will the Far East mainly Japan and China, While for Western Europeans and for the British and the French, it is also the place of Europe’s greatest and oldest colonies. 3.    For details see Section 19.3. 4.    Culture operates within civil society and the cultural leadership that emerges through the process of some cultures dominating over others is what Gramsci calls ‘hegemony’. Said points to the Gramscian notion of the cultural hegemony of the industrial West to show how orientalism is produced and maintained in a historical, socio-political context. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    For answer see Sub-Section 19.4.2. Self Check Exercise-3 1.    For answer see Section 19.5. 2.    For answer see Sub-Section 19.5.1. 19.9    Suggested Readings/References • Said, Edward, Orientalism. 19.10    Terminal Questions 1.    What do you understand by the concept of Orientalism? How Orientalism works as a discursive field of study? 2.    Make a critical appraisal of Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism. ***** Unit-20 EXISTENTIALISM Structure 20.1    Introduction 20.2    Learning Objectives 20.3    Existentialism : Meaning, Nature and Essential Implications 20.3.1    Existentialism in Politics : A Philosophy of Freedom, Choice and Commitment Self Check Exercise-1 20.4    Genesis and Growth of Existentialism : 20.4.1    Emphasis on a ‘New Philosophy of Life’ in Denmark and Germany 20.4.2    Emphasis on the Philosophy of Humanism in France 20.4.3    Jean-Paul Sartre : Integration of Existentialism and Marxism Self Check Exercise-2 20.5    Critical Evaluation Self Check Exercise-3 20.6    Summary 20.7    Glossary 20.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises 20.9    Suggested Readings/References 20.10    Terminal Questions 20.1    Introduction Existentialism got developed mainly in the first half of 20th century in continental Europe. Although it is primarily a philosophical movement, we can find its ‘roots’ and ‘branches’ (basis and influence) in various fields, such as art, literature, religion, culture, etc. The traditional philosophy did not bother about the problem of concrete existence, like death, love, despair, body, finitude, anxiety, hope, etc. As humans were caught up in the trap of their naked and concrete existence, they could not get away to an ideal and abstract realm. In such a situation, existentialism made its appearance not as a stroke of chance but of necessity. The luxury of philosophizing was not limited to the few arm-chair philosophers; existentialism brought philosophy to the appeal of the ordinary humans. 20.2    Learning Objectives After going through this unit, the learners will be able to : •     Understand the meaning, nature and essential implications of Existentialism •     delineate Existentialism in Politics as a Philosophy of freedom, Choice and Commitment. •     know about the genesis and growth of Existentialism as ‘a new philosophy of life’ in Denmark and Germany and as a philosophy of Humanism’ in France •     know how Sartre reconcile the Principles of Existentialism with the premises of Marxism. •    make a critical evaluation of Existentialism 20.3    Existentialism: Meaning, Nature and Essential Implications Though a ‘philosophy’ having its source of inspiration in different schools and thereby making its meaning rather confusing, existentialism, according the version of its ‘Father’ (Soren Kierkgaad), finds its original and fundamental meaning in the rejection of all purely abstract thinking. Claiming themselves as the advocates of a purely logical or scientific philosophy, all existentialists reject the force of abstract rationalism and insist that philosophy should be connected with individual’s own life and experience, with the historical situation in which he finds himself. Strictly speaking, it should be a philosophy capable of being lived. It is the personal that is real. Reason may help, it cannot dictate. As such, philosophy “should start from one’s own experience, one’s own inner knowledge, which should be qualified, enlarged and, in this way, enriched.” A better way to understand the meaning of existentialism is suggested by bringing about a line of distinction between ‘essence’ and ‘existence’. While the former is said to refer to the true nature of things that may be considered in an abstract way, the latter is concerned with the actual behaviour or experience of man, that is, a concrete phenomenon. Thus, while essentialism is concerned with ‘the humanness of man, the horseness of horse’, existentialism is ‘not the humanity of man, but this man John, whom I know, or this particular horse which I possess and love’. The existentialists contend that idealism is concerned with ideas and concepts or with a man of abstract nature and thus it becomes a ‘philosophy of essence’. Opposed to this, existentialism, as Sartre asserts, is contained in the maxim: ‘existence precedes essence’. The purpose of the existentialists is, therefore, to start with existence and experience it so that the real things are adhered to and that may be verified by the actual experiences of man. In other words, existentialism is a violent reaction against the Age of Reason-an age in which eminent thinkers like Rousseau prided themselves upon being reasonable and rational and thus resuscitated the maxim that ‘man is a rational creature’. This well- known Aristotelian dictum found its best manifestation in the affirmation of Hegel that ‘what is real is rational and vice versa’. It was in the ‘age of reason’ that the leading lights studied reason not only as man’s highest faculty that could act as a solvent of all human problems and, what is more, ultimately provide him with a complete and all-embracing knowledge by virtue of being positive and entirely flawless and thus the highest product of creation. So deep became the emphasis of the idealist thinkers on this particular element of human personality (reason) that it looked like an absolute phenomenon-an ultimate part of reality, underived and not determined by anything else with inherent powers knowing no finitude. The philosophy of existentialism thus arose against this tendency of rational absolutism. Its leading advocates started with this assumption that “man is not purely a rational creature.” Experience shows that “reason is part of human nature, that it is influenced by human nature, that its powers are limited, and that reason, therefore, cannot and must not be considered as absolute. It is this violent, unreasonable, fundamentally irrational claim of reason which, in turn, produces the violent and now purely irrational reaction of Existentialism.” It follows that existentialism stands on the foundation of personal experience. Obviously, it rejects the thesis of determinism that is connected with the relationship of cause and effect. The essential sanction is persona! experience and not an innate belief in anything of a supernatural, absolute or transcendental nature. Not an objective but a subjective way is required to understand the weight and role of feelings and sentiments whereby we may understand and describe the actual behaviour of man. It may, however, be added by way of an explanation that the advocates of existentialism do not militate against the faculty of reason in the same way the thinkers of the Age of Reason did while revolting against the premises of theology. The philosophers of the Age of Reason sought to eliminate all theological presuppositions whatsoever and, therefore, to them, external, practical and scientific thinking seemed to be the best way to use ‘reason’ at whose altar even God could be sacrificed. Contradistinguished from them, the existentialists took to the course of either totally rejecting the role of reason in man’s life or making it subservient to the weight of personal experience. Despite the fact that while some existentialists have gone to the extent of laying down that reason should be dropped completely if we really seek to understand and experience the sphere of values, morality and religion, a balanced version of their approach may, however, be epitomised in the phrase: ‘reason must not dominate but serve’. Differently stated, existentialism is a stern reaction against classical philosophy that attempts to rationalise and to think ‘Being’. Though a philosophy of Being in its own way, it should be described as ‘a philosophy of attestation and acceptance and a refusal of the attempt to rationalise and to think Being. According to it, Being can be understood not by the actual faculty of man, it can be experienced in a personal venture to which philosophy is the cal’l. Emphasis on ‘subjectivity’ and ‘primacy of the individual’ constitutes the essential feature of existentialism. The exponents of this philosophy react against the tendency of actualising the ideal or idealising the actual as it occurs in the systems of Plato, Rousseau and Hegel in which each individual is given an appointed place and he enjoys expansion and self-transcendence by means of active participation in a world of absolute good. A peculiar form of reconciliation between the ideal and the actual is sought to be established. To the existentialists the two-ideal and actual-should be kept apart as their separation is the ‘foundation of all foundations’ and to abolish it in a total reconciliation is to undermine personal existence itself. As such, the peculiarity of the philosophy of existentialism is that it deals with the separation of man from himself and from the world, which raises the question of philosophy, not by attempting to establish some universal form of justification which will enable man to readjust himself but by permanently enlarging and lining the separation itself as primordial and constitutive for personal existence. In fine, existentialism affirms the primacy, or priority, of existence. It may, however, be asked: In relation to what is this primacy or priority affirmed? The answer is: in relation to existence. An existentialist is not interested in essences, possibilities, and abstract concepts; he is at the farthest pole from the mentality of a mathematician, or a man of logic or metaphysics; his sole concern is directed towards that ‘which exists, or rather towards the existence of that which exists.’ Existence is not an attribute, but the reality of all attributes. According to Sartre, existentialism stands for the ‘primacy of existence over consciousness’ as the object of its fundamental affirmation. In one of his writings Action he puts : “Man first is-only afterwards he is this or that. Man must create for himself his own essence.” Or even more clearly: “Man is not, but what he makes of himself.” 20.3.1    Existentialism in Politics: A Philosophy of Freedom, Choice and Commitment The ‘trend’, ‘tendency’, ‘idea’ or ‘attitude’ of existentialism pertains to the realm of philosophy. However, what brings it into the realm of political philosophy is its stark emphasis on, what is termed, ‘choice of freedom’ or ‘freedom of choice’. Man is man only when he has ‘freedom’ and a free life is one in which he may choose actions-actions that may give substance to freedom and even enrich it. The existentialists contend that if we merely act as we like, we may succumb to unnoticed compulsions from within or without and thus bury our freedom again. Freedom may perhaps be best defined as acting “entirely by our own free will, but if we are not to be enslaved again, we must also be willing to act in accordance with our true nature, so that it can find its full expression; otherwise, we shall find that we are forced into actions which violate that nature.” It is choice, then, that becomes the door to ‘authentic selfhood’ and that, at its deepest level, culminates in ‘commitment’. It enables man to choose his life-path rather than that of another, or go for one set of values over others. A ‘responsible’ individual is one who is unsentimentally choosing whatever obligations or consequences follow from his decision. As Soren Kierkgaard in his work ‘Either Or’ says that the choice itself “is decisive for the content of the personality, through the choice the personality immerses itself in the thing chosen.” Or, as Sartre puts it in his writing ‘Existentialism is a Humanism’: “We want freedom for freedom’s sake and in every particular circumstance. And in wanting freedom we discover that it depends entirely on the freedom of others, and that the freedom of others depends on ours. Of course, freedom as the definition of man does not depend on others, but as soon as there is involvement, I am obliged to want others to have freedom at the same time that I want my own freedom. I can take freedom as my goal if only I take that of others as a goal as well. Consequently, when in all honesty, I have recognised that man is a being in whom existence precedes essence, that is he is a free being who, in various circumstances, can want only his freedom, I have at the same time recognised that I can want only the freedom of others.” Two special points may be noted here. First, the existentialists do not talk of a limitless, absolute freedom touching the verge of ‘license’ but of something limited by external conditions, more by the essence of human existence. The concept of freedom must not be allowed to degenerate into that of arbitrariness, rather it should be made consonant with the whole sphere of morality, responsibility and fundamental values of social system. Second, the idea of freedom should be studied in positive and not in negative terms. That is, choice should be exercised by man in a way that enriches his freedom and not lessens it. In other words, choice should be ‘right’, not ‘wrong’, inasmuch as while a ‘right choice’ makes man free, a ‘wrong choice’ causes his enslavement. Thus, the existentialists contend that we must choose the right kind of freedom and action. The concept of freedom is inextricably linked with man’s commitment-man’s action in the context of his social relationships. As Sartre says: “The individual cannot be human by himself. Self-being is only real in communication with other selfbeing.” Marcel who has, in fact, criticised Sartre’s view as ‘negative’, points towards community in his own primary notions of love, fidelity and participation which assume the actuality of genuine rapport between the individual and others. It is this stark emphasis of the existentialists on ‘choice’ and ‘freedom’ that takes this doctrine to the world of extreme, even anarchic, individualism. The ‘primacy of the individual’ is the fundamental touchstone. Not an abstract but a concrete man is the real object. As Unamuno in his work The Tragic Sense of Life affirms: “The man of flesh and bone; the man who is born, suffers and dies...” As such, a proper political order is one in which man does not suffer from his ‘depersonalisation’ or from the pattern of an ‘inauthentic life’. The ‘crowd is untruth’ as says Kierkgaard, while man, in the words of ancient Greek philosopher Protagoras, is ‘the measure of all things’. The key factor is the possibility of ‘free choice’ that involves the element of ‘subjectivity’. The individual is free and he is condemned to be free according to the dictates of the ‘truth of subjectivity’. It is due to this that the leading existentialists have gone to the extent of subscribing to different ‘ideologies’ while sticking to their emphasis on the ‘freedom’ of the individual. For instance, Martin Heidegger embraced Nazism, Karl Jaspers adhered to liberalism and, the most curious of all, Sartre sought to reconcile Marxism with existentialism. And it is because of this that different exponents of this philosophy have differently looked at the political values and thereby lauded or denounced different patterns of social and political order in their own ways. Self Check Exercise-1 1.    Who is known as the father of Existentialism? 2.    Discuss the meaning of Existentialism. 3.    What brings Existentialism into the realm of political philosophy? 20.4    Genesis and Growth of Existentialism20.4.1    Emphasis on a ‘New Philosophy of Life՚ in Denmark and Germany Modern existentialism, also called ‘contemporary irrationalism’ by its critics, is said to have come into being in the later half of the nineteenth century when the so-called ‘philosophy of life’ as represented by Nietzsche, Dilthey and Simmel in Germany and Henry Bergson in France emerged on the scene. The basic idea of this ‘philosophy of life’ signified that the concept of matter should be replaced by the concept of life inasmuch as rational knowledge operating with petrified abstract concepts and capable of dealing only with rigid bodies could never comprehend the changing, flowing, actual, individual thing what they called ‘life’. The irrationalist thinkers suggested that reason killed life, dissected it, arrested its constant movement and, for his reason, in order to know life, or rather to ‘grasp it, there must be intuition-direct experience of life which would fundamentally differ from reason. In their interpretation of the social processes, the ‘irrationalists believed that they were guided not by the development of objective material factors that man could know and ultimately come to control, but by mysterious instincts, the lust for power, the mystical life urge, in short, by the unknowable irrational forces.” The horrors and disasters of the first World War had an impact of their own in transforming the trend of ‘bourgeois liberalism’. The illusion’ that social progress would spread rationally and harmoniously in the course of history was superseded by a sense of the meaninglessness of social existence, the futility of the historical process and a feeling of profound impotence. As a result, the movement of existentialism gathered momentum at the hands of its exponents like Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers in Germany and Gabriel Marcel, Albert Camus and Jean-Paul Sartre in France, while O.Y. Gasset of Spain and Nikolai Berdyaev of Russia may also be described as the leading existentialists of the day. It may be pointed out that the existentialist understanding of existence springs from three main sources. In the first place. we may refer to the ‘religious philosopher of the nineteenth century’ Soren Kierkgaard of Denmark who proposed that the actual concept of ‘existentia’ and the idea of the ‘existing thinker’ who must consider reality subjectively- as reflected through his individual existence or his emotional life. He affirmed that a subjective thinker “is substantially interested in his thought : it exists in him.’ In his work evocatively captioned as ‘Either Or’ he challenged the Hegelian notion of meditation. In his another work, The Sickness Unto Death he diagnosed the more typical but no less agonising forms of despair which are experienced by those who live in accordance with the ethical but which the ethical can neither cope with nor cure. What, however, made Kierkgaard the acknowledged father of modern existentialism’ is his stark emphasis on man. In his The Sickness Unto Death he asserted: “Man is spirit. But what is spirit? Spirit is the self. The self is a relation which relates itself to its own self....”. He did not spare even the values of the prevailing bourgeois society that had undermined the worth and dignity of man. The unique and the unexpected thread in the writings of this Danish philosopher should, however, be traced not in his defence of the orthodox Christian faith as in his consistent attack on all abstract and metaphysical philosophy that had its culmination in the works of Hegel. It is this fact that assigns to him the credit of being the ‘Father of Modern Existentialism’. Though inspired by the ideas of Pascal, he claimed “to have found a full explanation of everything, of the universe and man, by his reasoning. He insisted that philosophy should not be abstract, but based on personal experience, on the historical situation in which man finds himself, so that he could become the basis, not of speculation but of each man’s life. The only evidence to be accepted was that which both could be and had been tested by experience.” Another source of inspiration should be discovered in the teachings of a German philosopher Edmund Husserl who suggested the technique of singling out the a priori structure of consciousness, that is, a certain ontological basis of human existence. He tried to discover the structure of cognition in the course of a phenomenological investigation concerning only the phenomenon of ‘pure consciousness’. With this end in view, he performed an ‘operation’ (known as ‘reduction’ or ‘putting in parenthesis’) that consisted in abstracting ourselves from the existence of the external world, from the content of the natural and social sciences, from immediate mental reactions-emotions, aesthetic and moral feelings, etc. That which remains as ‘pure consciousness’, which characteristically is directed at a certain object (‘intentionality’) and has ‘matter’ and ‘form’ and also elements of ‘meaning in general’ and ‘objective meaning. It is this a priori structure of consciousness that determines the structure of all knowledge. It was this technique of ‘phenomenological description of consciousness, that was taken over by the existentialists to describe the structure not just of the cognitive consciousness but of the active, suffering, feeling consciousness of ‘existence’, that is to say, of existence which does not simply know the world but colours it with all the shades of its emotional state. The result is that whereas in classical metaphysical philosophy the world is such as represented by the cognition, in existentialism it is such as the people experience it. Moreover, it is not ‘life’ as such that matters, it is the individual life. As such, existentialism is concerned with two main themes-the inner significance of the individual in contrast to ‘others’, and the uniqueness of the individuals in opposition to the ‘average’ representative of the human race. It is in the light of these problems that existentialism tries to descredit scientific knowledge on the one hand and argues the case for irrationalism on the other. This is mainly apparent in the key concept of existentialism-’existence’, human existence, which is ‘unique being’. An elaborate manifestation of this tendency should be found in the works of leading twentieth century existentialists like Karl Jaspers, Martin Heidegger, Gabriel Marcel, Albert Camus and Sartre. Though several features of distinction may be earmarked to show divergence of standpoints in their thought, one thing is certain that all militate against the philosophy of idealism. Existentialism asserts that even the subject itself cannot be known by means of rational recognition. The leading figures of existentialism cited above may be grouped into the prominent categories of German and French existentialists. While Karl Jaspers and Martin Heidegger belong to the former category, Marcel, Camus and Sartre belong to the latter. First, we refer to the ideas of the two German existentialists- Jaspers and Heidegger-of whom the former is said to be most faithful to Kierkgaard. Though professionally trained in medicine and clinical psychiatry rather than in philosophy and theology, he is regarded as ‘the one primarily responsible for consolidating existentialism as a leading force in the twentieth century thought’. Curiously, his vast experience with psychiatrist patients inspired him to write General Psychopathology wherein he expressed his profound awareness of the difficulties to be met within any scientific attempt to do justice to the complexity and richness of the individual human being. More important is, however, his ‘Psychology of World Views’ that sought to rediscover both Kierkgaard and Nietzsche and ‘illumine every corner of the human soul’. His best work is ‘Reason and Existence’ in which he reiterated that such an illumination of the individual must involve a freely communicative thought inevitably time-bound relating of one’s self to others in ‘loving struggle’, since “every advance of the individual comes only if other advances too, and every destruction of the other is my own... to be self and to be true are nothing else than to be in communication unconditionally.” A distinctive contribution of Jaspers is said to lie in his classification of life into real (‘authentic’) and unreal (‘inauthentic’) forms- an idea that was elaborated by Heidegger. Jaspers suggested that the ‘real depths’ of existence were revealed to us only in special conditions or ‘frontier situations’ that include death, suffering, terror, struggle, guilt, religious ecstasy, mental health, etc. This idea was borrowed by Heidegger who said that ‘this man’ being something indefinite and at the same time everything, although not the sum- total, ‘lays down what the mode of everyday existence (Dasein) shall be.’ The tragedy, however, lies in the fact that this man’ leads a life of inauthenticity’. 20.4.2    Emphasis on the Philosophy of Humanism in France The trend of existentialism has its strong advocates in France where Marcel, Camus and Sartre may be mentioned as, the leading lights of the present age. Gabriel Marcel in his ‘Being and Having’ touches several important problems that have their integral connection with existence. In this direction, we may specially refer to his distinction between ‘problems’ and ‘mystery’ that shows his existensialist approach. It shows that Marcel, like Kierkgaard, is a religious existentialist and, as such, his statement culminates in the curious defence of the supernatural force what he terms Metaphysical Atlantis. The threads of existentialism are well manifest in the novels of Camus. His peculiar contribution is the doctrine of the absurd. According to him, life is a dull, monotonous and meaningless affair. It is all absurd and there are three ways of dealing with it-suicide, hope, or living with it. The best course, according to him, is to live with it and to encounter it. However, the central figure of French existentialism who has given the movement both its definitive expression and its name is Sartre. He has defined the term “Existentialism’ as a doctrine which makes human life possible and, in addition, declares that “every truth and every action implies a human setting and a human subjectivity.” The keynote of Sartre’s existentialism is contained in his famous aphorism that ‘existence precedes essence’. With a view to explain the meaning of this maxim, Sartre says that it, in the first and foremost place, implies that “man exists, turns up, appears on the scene, and only afterwards, defines himself.” In other words, man is nothing but what he makes of himself. Thus, the first principle of existentialism or the first move of an exponent of this philosophy “is to make everyman aware of what he is and to make the full responsibility of his existence rest on him”. Then, subjectivity is the main theme of this tendency. It means, on the one hand, that an individual chooses and makes himself and, on the other, it is impossible for man to transcend his inner self. Man always chooses between good and bad and he invariably goes for the former, and nothing can be good for him as well as for all men without being good for all. The doctrine of existentialism thus comes to stay on the foundation of man’s free choice, the absence of which puts him in a state of anguish. What goes together with anguish in Sartre’s existentialism is forlornness that takes him very close to atheists like Heidegger and Dostoievsky and thus pushes him poles apart from the ‘Christian Existentialism of Kirkgaard and Jaspers. The doctrine of forlornness implies that man chooses his own being. As such there is no place for determinism whether idealistic or materialistic. Man thinks and for this reason he exists. It is by virtue of this capacity that there is no reality except action. Sartre, on this basis, comes to lay down his doctrine of despair. Despair follows in the absence of man’s freedom to do as per his choice. Man wants free and complete involvement in social life so that he may realise himself in realising a type of mankind, an involvement always comprehensible in any age whatsoever and by any person whosoever and the relativeness of the cultural ensemble which may result from such a choice. Sartre’s stress on the element of forlornness implying his total rejection of any supernatural or divine power and his stern emphasis on man’s action and his free and total involvement in the social process reveals his unmistakable faith in ‘humanism’. Thus, existentialism, according to this leading French thinker, is nothing else than an attempt to draw all the consequences of a coherent atheistic position, a philosophical attempt saving man from plunging into the ocean of despair, a doctrine either believing in the non-existence of a divine force of making Him a ‘non-issue” and, as such, a theory of action by all means standing for the worth and dignity of man. 20.4.3    Jean-Paul Sartre : Integration of Existentialism and Marxism Sartre, according to Gill and Sherman, is ‘the personification of existentialism’. What, however, makes him a very important, rather controversial figure in the realm of contemporary political philosophy is his curious attempt to reconcile the principles of existentialism with the premises of Marxism. The motivating reason behind it should be traced in his disillusionment with the Soviet-type Marxism that witnessed its horrible mainfestation in 1956 (when Russian troops suppressed the Hungarian freedom movement) as a result of which he severed his connection with the French Communist Party and then sought to remove the dichotomy between the Marxist doctrine that ‘man is made by his environment’ and his existentialist faith that ‘man makes himself’. The result is that Sartre supports both Marxism and existentialism and seeks to reconcile the two, rather contradictory, ‘ideologies’ in his own way by revising them in the light of new experiments that informs a commentator to designate him as ‘perhaps the most curious socialist who ever lived’. While existentialism emphasises the individual and his free choice and Marxism stresses the unified group and determining forces, a pertinent question arises as to how the two can be reconciled without sacrificing one at the altar of another. The astonishing feature of Sartre’s political philosophy should be traced in his confident affirmation that although existentialism is a ‘parasitic system’, it has the task of curing lethargy of contemporary Marxism.” This distinctive contribution of the eminent French existentialist is contained in his famous tract ‘Marxism and Existentialism’ of 1957 in which Sartre has dwelt on the following arguments: 1.    Sartre begins with his own definition of the term ‘philosophy’. To him, it is, first of all, a particular way in which the rising class becomes conscious of itself notwithstanding that this consciousness is clear or confused, direct or indirect. Philosophy is like a mirror that must be presented as the ‘totalisation of contemporary knowledge’. The business of the philosopher is to effect the unification of everything that is known, following certain guiding schemata which express the attitudes and techniques of the rising class regarding its own period and world. 2.    Sartre unreservedly supports the materialism of Marx by holding that the mode of production of the material world generally dominates the development of social, political and intellectual life. He places his main reliance on the affirmation of Marx that in the social production of their existence, men enter into relations which are determined, necessary, independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a given stage of development of their material productive forces. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the real foundation upon which a legal and political superstructure arises and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond. He, however, moves farther than Marx in adding that in the present phase of our history, productive forces have entered into conflict with relations of production. Creative work is alienated; man does not recognise himself in his own product, and his exhausting labour appears to him as a hostile force. Since alienation comes about as a result of this conflict, it is an historical reality and completely irreducible to an idea. If men are to free themselves from it, and if their work is to become the pure objectification of themselves, it is not enough that ‘consciousness thinks itself’, there must be material work and revolutionary praxis. 3.    Marxist orientation in the work of Sartre can be vividly seen in his attack on the ideas of the acknowledged Father of Existentialism (Kierkgaard) coupled with his frank appreciation of the main pursuit of the ‘Father of Scientific Socialism’ (Marx). According to him, the former committed the mistake of treating existence as the ‘work of inner life-resistances overcome and perpetually reborn, efforts perpetually renewed, despairs surmounted, provisional failures and precarious victories-something directly opposed to intellectual knowing. Opposed to this is the Marxian contention. When Marx said that “just as we do not judge an individual by his own idea of himself, so we cannot judge a period of revolutionary upheaval by its own selfconsciousness,” he was indicating the priority of action (work and social praxis) over knowledge as well as their heterogeneity. According to Sartre, Marx is right in asserting that human life “is irreducible to knowing, that it must be lived and produced; but he is not going to confuse it with the empty subjectivity of a puritanical and mystified petite bourgeoisie. Marx makes of it the immediate theme of the philosophical totalisation, and it is the concrete man whom he puts at the centre of his research, that man who is defined simultaneously by his needs, by the material conditions of his existence, and by the nature of his work-that is, by his struggle against things and against men.” 4.    What takes Sartre very close to the world of Marxism is his quest for situating man in his class and in the conflicts which oppose him to other classes, starting with the mode and the relations of production. However, he integrates the basic Marxian contention with his existential philosophy by adding that the new situation can be approached only in terms of existence or its comprehension. In this way, Sartre goes to the extent of designating existentialism as an ‘ideology’ and sounds a note of caution that Marxism “will degenerate into a non-human anthropology, if it does not reintegrate man into itself as its foundation.” 5.    However, the real purpose of Sartre is not merely to integrate the ‘first principle’ of existentialism with the fundamental tenets of Marxism, or to develop one more type of existentialism at the margin of Marxism but to revise Marxism in way it reaches very close to the world of humanism. A real union of existentialism and Marxism, according to him, is possible only in the revision of both. If the expulsion of man or his historical exclusion from the Marxist knowledge resulted in the renascence of existentialist thought outside of the historical totalisation of knowledge, it is also needed that the contradictions of a capitalist, even socialist, society (as now obtaining in the Soviet Union or any other Communist country) should be understood or comprehended in terms of human existence. Thus, Sartre appears both like a critic of the present socialist systems and an advocate of a new order in which human freedom and human social relations go together. The pangs of ‘alienation’ should be avoided whether they exist in a bourgeois or in a socialist society established at the debris of the ‘discredited’ system after the successful results of a revolution. What is really needed is to rediscover man in the social world and which will follow him in his praxis. Sartre confidently affirms that the existing man cannot be assimilated by a system of ideas. Marxism is neither dead nor outdated, it is still very young, almost in its infancy. It is the philosophy of our time. Our thoughts can be formed only upon this ‘humus’; they must be contained within the framework which it furnishes for them, or be lost in the void or retrogress. At the same time, Marxism, in order to make it updated, should be integrated with existentialism that addresses itself to experience with a view to discover the concrete man. A synthesis of the two can be conceived only within a moving, dialectical totalisation which is nothing else but history or-from the strictly cultural point of view- ‘philosophy-becoming-the-world’. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    When modern existentialism came into being? 2.    Who were prominent leading figures of existentialism in Germany and France? 3.    Who are known as religious existentialists? 4.    Describe Sartre’s views about existentialism. 5.    Who has reconciled the principles of existentialism with the premises of Marxism? 20.5    Critical Evaluation The political philosophy of existentialism with its stern emphasis on the freedom of the individual as its first and foremost hallmark may be criticised on these grounds: 1.    It is a peculiar admixture of different and divergent trends, tendencies and ideas. The fact of perplexing diversity can be traced in the appreciation of different, even contradictory, ideologics ranging from liberalism to those of Nazism and Communism and also from the pole of staunch theism to that of rank atheism. As such, existentialism can hardly be treated as a particular brand of philosophy, much less political philosophy, notwithstanding the fact that the aim of human inquiry, according to its leading exponents, is not to enter into philosophical discourses but to understand the ‘concrete man in the specific conditions and circumstances in which he happens to find himself. For this reason, a critic has termed it a ‘salvationist’ philosophy, a combination of the romanticism, ritualism, skepticism, pragmatism, and even something of the utopianism of the past hundred years’. The problem, of course, is peculiarly difficult, because no one knows what our Existentialist is.” 2.    It may also be added that existentialism is a philosophy of despair, frustration and tragedy. A critic is struck with the horrifying impression that though avowedly concerned with immediate realities of human existence, it should have such an abstract and highly forbidding label. The result is that in the last resort, existentialism “is neither a system, nor a school, nor a creed. There is no particular set of tenets to be propounded or endorsed and in spite of the prominence of the individuals like Sartre, no single thinker functions as its canonical spokesman in the way, for example, Aquinas, Kant and Hegel do for their adherents.” 3.    Existentialism is not a complete philosophy in spite of the fact that its advocates stage a serious revolt against ideal- ism which they term as ‘a one-sided philosophly’ for placing main reliance on the element of reason as sole reality. One may say that existentialism suffers from the same weakness no matter its exponents sacrifice the role of reason at the altar of experience. As reason is not the sole determinant of human behaviour, so is the case with the element of experience. As a matter of fact, both reason and experience have their part in the manifestation of human behaviour. The existentialists are, therefore, accused of often going too far in their ‘exclusive emphasis on existence’. In order to achieve true understanding, obviously we need both-essence and existence. “We shall not understand man without understanding this humanity; but neither shall we understand humanity without paying attention to single man and to our own inner experience.” 4.    A critical examination of existentialism by the Marxists shows their treatment of this ‘irrationalist’ philosophy as another vain effort of the bourgeois intellectuals to find a ‘third way’ beyond materialism and bankrupt idealism, an effort to remain in the metaphysical world of ideas and individuals in order to escape having to accept historical socialism as it exists in concrete reality in the Soviet Union. A leading Marxist Professor of Hungary (Lukacs) thus ridicules existentialism in the name of its ‘abstract humanism’ and accuses its advocate of not seeing that the problems they have uncovered are rooted in real social relationships, and the path to their solution is the path of transforming the objective relations between people. The ‘pessimism of this philosophy is further borne out by the fact that its basic categories-death and fear, guilt and anxiety, distress and loneliness, anguish and suffering- are treated as universal attributes of human existence. These categories “are tinged with reflections of the  real contradictions of capitalism. But existentialisms’ confession of impotence in any attempt to change the world inevitably repels people who hope either to ‘perfect’ the world within its existing framework or to destroy the old world of oppression and build up a new one,” 5.    If so, how can one take Sartre as a real Marxist and, at the same time, a real existentialist. Certainly a student of contemporary political philosophy is at a loss to determine the real position of this eminent French existentialist. One may say that Sartre’s conception of ‘freedom’ “turns out in the long run to be a meaningless abstraction.” His philosophy is loaded with the chorus of atheism that reduces itself into the form of pessimism and it appears that having lost his faith in God, he finds it impossible to acquire any other ideal. Sartre, therefore, cannot be a Marxist because Marx, like Hegel, “missed the permanent meaning of man’s separation from himself and from the world and Marxist theory deprives man of his real being.” Self Check Exercise-3 1.    Why Existentialism is criticized? Give any two points. 20.6    Summary Thus, existentialism hich mainly developed in the first half of the 20th Century in continental Europe is neither an ideology, nor even a thought if the terms are understood in their traditional senses; at the most it is a revolt, or a series of revolts, against the supposed attempts of classical metaphysics to reduce human reality to abstract propositional terms and to embrace the individual in an absolute universal system. As such, it encompasses a variety of philosophical ventures sharing the same starting point yet in the end often at odds with one another. One may, however, carefully add that the position of the existentialists is acceptable only if they are right in asserting that the human condition is fundamentally the same for all individuals. As this is not so, it may finally be commented that “the insights of the existentialists are nothing more than a set of prejudices reflecting their own temperamental bias or the social conditions of our time.” 20.7    Glossary •     Resuscitated : revive from unconsciousness are apparent death. •     Inextricably : in a way that is impossible to disentangle or separate. •     Atheistic : disbelieving or lacking belief in the existence of God. •     Petite Bourgeoisie : the lower middle class. •     Pragmatic : dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. 20.8    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1 1.    Soren Kierkgaad. 2.    For answer see Section 20.3. 3.    Existentialism’s stark emphasis on ‘choice of freedom’ or ‘freedom of choice’ brings existentialism into the realm of political philosophy. Self Check Exercise-2 1.    Modern existentialism, also called ‘contemporary irrationalism’ by its critics, is said to have come into being in the later half of the 19th century when the so-called ‘philosophy of life’ as represented by Nietzsche, Dilthey and Simmel in Germany and Henry Bergson in France emerged on the scene. 2.    Martin Heidegger and karl jaspers in Germany and Gabriel Marcel, Albert Cammus and Jean-Paul Sartre in France were the leading figures of Existentialism. 3.   Marcel and Kierkgaard. 4.   For answer see Sub-Section 20.4.2 5.   Jean-Paul Sartre. Self Check Exercise-3 1.  (i) It is a peculiar admixture of different and divergent trends, tendencies and ideas. (ii)    it is considered a philosophy of despair, frustration and tragedy. 20.9    Suggested Readings/Reference •    Roubiczek, Paul, Existentialism For and Against. London : Cambridge Univ. Press, 1964 •    Blackham, H.J., Six Existentialist Thinkers. London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961. •    Solomon, Robert C., From Rationalism to Existentialism : Century Background. New York : Harper & Row, 1972 •    Sartre, Jean-Paul, “Marxism and Existentialism” in Gould and Thursby (eds.) •    Olson, Robert, G., An Introduction to Existentialism. New York : Dover Pub., 1962. •    Johari, J.C., Contemporary Political Theory. New Delhi : Sterling Pvt. Ltd. 1979. 20.10    Terminal Questions 1.    Discuss the meaning, nature and main implications of Existentialism. 2.    Critically evaluate the concept of Existentialism. 3.    Discuss the development of Existentialism as a concept. 4.    Discuss the contribution of Jean-Paul Sartre in the development of Existentialism. ***** 263