AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF PEASANT MOVEMENT AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

Transcription

1 CHAPTER- I AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF PEASANT MOVEMENT AS A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

2 Conceptually, radical peasant movements are collective actions by group(s) of individuals, which try to bring about radical social changes in many aspects of society through conflict and opposition, rebellion and revolt, based on ideology and have their own mobilisation process, leadership and strategy. However, revolutionary potential of the peasantry has been undermined by some social scientists, even as few Marxists did. Theoretically, peasant movements fall in the domain of social movements, with the ideology of class conflict as their basis. However, social movements are distinguished from other related phenomena on the basis of following characteristics: 1) Ideology or normative aspect, 2) Means employed and collective mobilization, 3) Organisational aspect,i.e.leadership, strategy, etc.,and 4) Change -orientation. The first three aspects are crucial for said categorization. Sociologists of social movement agree on two basic features-collective mobilization, and orientation to change. But, differences persist of other aspects, such as ideology, organisational tenets, etc. However, peasant movements are social movements insofar as they call for reform or seek change in the relationship pattern between the peasant (who subsists on agricultural operation through labour) and the landlords or governments(who are owners) in both social and political terms. The peasant movements are goaloriented, have ideology, have their own mobilization mechanism and communication pattern, leadership and strategy. Karl Marx considered both European [Marx, 1971 :229-31] and Indian peasantry [Marx, New York Daily Tribune, 25 June 1853] to be passive and apathetic to 9

3 injustice, and quiescent to oppression and exploitation. Marx asserted that the peasantry were devoid of revolutionary power and dubbed them as 'sack of potatoes' [Marx,1971:231]. But Mao [1954:21], Lenin[1970:502] and Fanon[197 4:47] placed the peasants at the centre of the revolution, and accorded them the revolutionary status. lrfan Habib [1963:333-38] argued that the history of Indian jacqueries proved Marx's contemptuous characterisation of the Indian peasant as historically false. Barrington Moore Jr.[1967] argues that Indian peasantry lack revolutionary potential due to their division along caste and communal lines, rural power alignment and class alliances. Moore's thesis has been challenged by number of authors- K. Gough [1974], D. N. Dhanagare [1983], R. Guha [1983], A.R.Desai [1979] and others. These authors assert that the Indian rural society was rocked by peasant protests and revolts not only during colonial rule, but even an independent India is witnessing peasant rebellions and revolts. Some Marxist authors have discussed the 'revolutionary potential of indian peasantry'. Eric Wolf [1971] Hamza Alavi [1965 and 1973] have asserted the revolutionary potential of 'middle peasantry'. Whereas, Pouchepadass [1980] has identified 'dominant peasantry' as the progenitor of peasant movement in India. These two contending theoretical positions will be discussed in detail later. However, it is important to note here that these authors have analysed the class character of Indian peasantry in its historical setting together with its ideology, goals, strategy and contradiction within it. This will enrich our analytical tool to understand social formation of agrarian Bihar and emergence of senas (private armies). Further, there is interesting debate among Marxist scholars on the different forms of Mode of Production and its impact on the agrarian social formation. Some 10

4 authors have analysed even the disintegration of Feudal Mode of Production and emergence of Capitalist Mode of Production, and its impact on contemporary agrarian social formation. But none of them have applied this theoretical perspective to analyse senas. However, this perspective will be applied, in the ensuing chapters, in new context to understand the sena phenomenon. However, the focus of this paper will be centred around sociological dimensions of social movements, because the two contending theoretical schools- the Marxist and the Functionalists; have generated divergent concepts, tools and methods to understand peasant movements. But very briefly we will touch upon the other two dimensions, namely the Historical study and the Psychological study of social movements. The historical study of social movements focuses upon the sequential presentation of dates, events, etc. of the movements. structural and organisational dimensions, together with cause and effect are being ignored by and large. However, the historical study is an important aid to the study of sociological dimension of the social movement. The psychological study throws light upon the psycho-analytical factors and personality types as causes of the social movements. According to this perspective, an individual joins social movement due to frustration, repression and failure to achieve desired goals. However, study of this kind ignores not only impulses to change, but the sociological dimensions as well, e.g. social mobilization and social bases. Further,individual(s) may be pathological, but not the group(s). Therefore, methodologically it is wrong to "apply categories of this kind to social entities like groups and movements as if they were individuals"[heberle,r., 1951:109]. However, treatise of social movements is enriched by two discordant theoretical perspectives-- Functionalist and Marxist. These two contending streams of thought 11

5 provide diametrically opposite view points on the question of 'social change'and 'consensus value'. According to the Functionalist School, change is a deviation from dominant pattern. The more deviation from consensus value, the more possibility of social change. But equilibrium is achieved through built-in mechanism within the system, which revblves around - "socialization" and "mechanism of social controi"[parsons,t., 1951 : ]. Although, Functionalists believe that changes in the social system may give rise to social movement. But the movement continues only till consensus is reached, albeit at a higher level, which Parsons terms as 're-equilibrium process' [see, Parsons,T., 1951 : ]. Fuctionalists do not accept the view that system contains inherent contradiction which can be removed through revolution or structural transformation. For Funcionalists, change is directly proportional to internalisation of standard value patterns. Therefore, Functionalist School lays great emphasis on change within the system, and completely ignores the possibility of change of the system, as viewed by the Marxists. On the other hand, for Marxists changes occur due to contradiction in the economic base of the system, i.e. between forces of production and relations of production. Different classes have divergent interests and values within the social system, which lead to the development of antagonistic class relationships.this can be resolved through structural change. This change will take place when working class (proletariat) will be transformed from class-in-itself to class-for-itself. This theoretical perspective is directly opposite to the Functionalist position. Although, conflict school accepts the 'conflict' element in the social system. For example, Dahrendorf says that conflict is ubiquitous, because constraint is ubiquitous[dahrendorf,r., 1969: 167]., Even Coser supports this viewpoint. But even conflict school does not probe deeper into the "basic causes" of change and socirl movements. As for Marxists the principal reason for the rise of social 12

6 movements is located in the contradiction of the economic infrastructure of the social system. Furthermore, due to its over emphasis on 'equilibrium', Functionalists do not view social change as progress through various historical phases. Whereas, Marxists argue that society develops through resolving contradictions in different historical epoch. Therefore, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" [ Marx and Engels, Trans. by Moore, S., 1885 : 40]. For Marx,"revolution is the driving force of history"[marx and Engels, 1964:50]. According to Karl Marx, the asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production are epoch making progress in the economic development of society [Marx 1977 : 21]. The Marxists regard each form of historical development to be in fluid movement and so they take into consideration its transient nature. In short, we can say that the Marxist perspective provide greater penetrating tools and indepth analytical power to understand peasant movements in general and radical agrarian movements in particular, and subsequent rise of senas. Because the Marxist framework not only locates basic causes of the radical agrarian movements, but also analyses the movement in its historical setting._ With the help of dialectical concept one can indicate the direction of the movement. This perspective also provides analytical tools to understand organisational mechanism of the movement. Further, vital linkage of ideology with class interests takes us closer to analyse the aim, nature, consequences and limitations of the radical agrarian movement and its bearing on senas. We will have an occasion later in this chapter to discuss the above theoretical framework in detail. I have taken here the help of the basic concepts of the Structural Marxists- Aithusser, Poulantzas and Gramsci- to analyse the rise and growth of the Maoist movement in central Bihar and its impact on the Sena phenomenon. The central 13

7 theme of this research paper starts with the hypothesis that landed gentry 1 of rural Bihar organised Senas to maintain their hegemonic position, which was threatened by the revolutionary upsurge in the countryside. According to Gramsci, "a crisis of authority is precisely the crisis of hegemony... "[Gramsci, A., 1971 : 210]. The author goes on to argue that, "when hegemonic position of the ruling class is threatened, it organises and re-organises to defeat the threat..." [Ibid. : ]. However, Marxist school maintains that social movement starts due to conflicting class interest in society, which in turn lead to contradiction in the infrastructure. Contradiction in the mode of production is the principal contradiction. But, the principal contradiction alone is not sufficient to induce a 'revolutionary upsurge'. To do so, the principal contradiction must act in conjunction with the dominant contradictions in the superstructure at that time [Aithusser, L., 1971 : ]. Thus, Althusser does not link the superstructure to infrastructure in simple manner, which is a marked departure from the theoretical position of the Vulgar Marxists [for detail see, Ibid. : 101-7]. According to the author, elements of superstructure have relative autonomy with their specific effectivity [Ibid. : 116]. Althusser's theoretical position brings us closer not only to understand the Sena phenomenon in central Bihar, where caste and class are inter-linked and mobilization of Senas has a distinct caste-class nexus, but also the structural limitations of the Maoist movement in the region being exposed. Poulantzas" theoretical concepts is that the ruling class is not homogeneous and has competing interests, helps us to analyse as to why most of the Senas of the landed gentry are mobilised, primarily, on the caste line. The author goes on to argue that "state is relatively autonomous" [Poulantzas, N., 1972 : 279]. This helps us to understand the limitations of Senas of the landed gentry, and nature of the state. Further, Poulantzas' theoretical position highlights contradiction between shortterm and long-term economic interests and objective manipulation by various classes and the state. This is an added theoretical tool to understand the 1. Although, originally this term came from French Jacquerie in , but here the term is used for those who own large land holding and belong to dominant caste(s) of the area. 14

8 movement and rise of Senas. detail, later in this chapter The above key concepts will be discussed in As stated earlier, peasant movement is a distinct category of social movements. Therefore, discussion of conceptual issues of social movements is important for deeper understanding of the peasant movements. Social Movements: Conceptual Dimensions Conventionally, the study of social movements has been the domain of history and political science. Till 1930 the sociological frame of movements has been ignored by and large [Davis, J., 1930]. It is this field which attracted sociologists and influenced this existing stock of knowledge. The famous French Revolution and its aftermath, have inspired social and political philosophers from Comte, Durkheim, Weber to Marx, from Von Stein, Sombart to Michels and Mosca. According to Nisbet, all the great sociologists of 19th century were influenced by the impact of French Revolution upon European society [Nisbet, R., 1966:32]. But not much attention was paid to the meaning of the ideas of the people who made up the movement, nor to the social structure of these groups, nor to the other problems of sociological relevance [Heberle, R., 1951 :12]. Hence, sociological perspective of the movements were absent by and large. Sociologists being late entrants to this field were bound to be influenced by the existing stock of knowledge and style of intellectual craftanship. Whereas historical studies enrich the understanding of the present, and political studies of the movements have helped us to study socio-economic structure, social processes and their inter-relationships [Shah, G., 1990:9]. However, most of the great philosophers and sociologists from Marx, Weber to Durkheim and Tocqueville of 19th century paid due attention to explain modern European social structures and processes of change [Skocpol, T., ( ed. ), 1984:2]. Social movements logically belong 15

9 to the province of 'social change' 2. According to M.S.A.Rao,"social movements logically belong to the area of processes having connections with structure and change" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:1X]. According to Gusfield, "social movement is a collective actions to bring about change" [Gusfield, J. R., 1970:1]. Earlier sociologists, in the absence of appropriate sociological techniques and relevant frameworks, viewed social movements as sporadic and transient in nature. So they did not make any serious intellectual endeavour. Later they vanished from the scene without leaving any great mark on 'the historical course of social change' [Wilson, J., 1973:5]. The post-second World War era shattered many myths and raised many significant questions. The threat of the Nazism and Facism, the glorious triumph of Bolshevik Revolution brought the study of social movements to the level of more scientific sociological analysis. Later sociologists realise that social movements provide a persistent and effective impetus for social change through out history. which has enough sociological frame of reference to be studied more scientifically,. According to Wilson, "acting as a catalyst of political revolution, social movements have wrought momentous changes all over the world"' [Wilson, J., 1973 : 5]. Today study of social movements has distinct sociological flavour, precisely because of its different theoretical frame of interpretation and explanation, objective and subject matter. 1. Conceptual Issues Before full length sociological analysis, it is important to deal with the 'conceptual problems in the study of social movements' which are as follows : 2. This view is supported by Paul Wilkinson, Turner and Killian as well. According to Wilkinson, "the study of social movements is essentially a study of social change" [Wilkinson, P., 1971 : 29]. Killian says, "social movements is one of the most important ways through which social change is manifested" (Quoted in Anthony Oberschall, 1973:15] 16

10 i) Definition and typology, ii) Differences from other related phenomena, such as trend, public opinion, voluntary association, mobs, riots, political parties, etc., and iii) Organisation and leadership, internal-dynamics, routinization, and social consequences. Following discussion will revolve around the above aspects Definition social movements have. been defined in various ways following one or the other criteria. According to M.S.A.Rao, "social movement is an organised attempt on the part of a section of society to bring about either partial or total change in society through collective mobilization based on ideology'' [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:2]. Paul Wilkinson has put it more succinctly, "social movement is a deliberate, collective endeavour to promote change, having atleast a minimal degree of organisation and founded upon the normative commitment and active participation of followers or members" [Wilkinson, P., 1971 : 104]. In this definition the problem is with 'minimum degree of organisation'. It is difficult to say, precisely, what this 'minimum degree' is. Bruce Cameron put it more comprehensively, "a social movement occurs when a fairly large number of people band together in order to alter or supplant some portion of the existing culture or social order'' [Cameron, B., 1966 : 7]. Difficulty here is with the term 'large number' to which no maximum or minimum limit is specified. Four aspects of social movements have been generally stressed : i) Ideology or normative aspect which binds its members together [Heberle, R., 1951 : 13]. 17

11 ii) iii) iv) Collective mobilization and means employed. Organisational structure, i.e. recruitment, commitment and leadership, and Orientation to change, i.e. movement as an instrument of social change. The first three aspects distinguish social movements from other related phenomena. Heberle emphasises on the integrative aspect of the ideological structure of the. movement, which he defines as the 'constitutive values' [Heberle, R., 1968: 13]. According to Heberle, "it is the conscious volition of individuals acting collectively that brings about the embodiment of ideologies in social movements' [Heberle, R., 1951:27]. Stressing on the same aspect Gusfield says, "social movements are socially shared activities and belief directed towards the demand for change in some aspect of the social order'' [Gusfield, J.R., 1970:2]. On the other hand, Paul Wilson focuses upon the second aspect, i.e. means employed as an instrument of change. He says,"social movement as a conscious collective, organised attempt to bring about or resists large-scale change in the social order by non-institutionalised means" [Wilson, J., 1973:8]. However, definition of social movement based on either institutionalised or non-institutionalised means is misleading. Gerlach and Hine stress on the organisational character and recruitment aspects of the movement [Gerlach and Hine, 1970: xiv]. Wendell King, Herbert Blumer, Turner and Killian, etc., lay emphasis on the fourth aspect. According to Wendell King, social movement can be defined as "a group venturing beyond a local community, or a single event and involving a systematic effort to insurgent changes"[king, W., 1956:27]. Blumer defines social movements as "collective enterprises to establish a new order of life" [Blumer, H., 1951:1 ]. Turner and Killian say, "social movement is a collectivity which acts with some 18

12 continuity, to promote or resist a change in the society or group of which it is a party" [Turner and Killian, 1957: 308]. However, there is considerable agreement among sociologists of social movements on two basic features- collective mobilization and changeorientation; but they differ on other aspects, such as ideology, organisation and nature of consequences; while defining social movement. 1.2 Distinctions Movement and Trends As stated earlier, three characteristics of social movement- namely,ideology, means employed, and organisational structure; distinguish it from other related phenomena. Wilson visualises social movement as "a conscious, collective, organised attempt to bring about or resist large-scale change in the social order by non-institutionalised means" [Wilson,J., 1973:8]. It is in this sense, according to Wilson, social movement is different from other reflacted phenomena. Gusfield says, while social movements possess both 'structure' and 'sentiment', trends do not have these characteristics [ Gusfield, J. R., 1970:8]. According to Heberle, group identity, feeling of solidarity and group consciousness among members of social movement, set apart the social movements from unconscious trends and tendencies [Heberle, R., 1968:8-9]. Where as movements are integrated through its 'constitutive values' [lbid.:13], trends are un-coordinated actions of many individuals [Ibid.: ]. Robert Park, P. Selznick, Le Bon, Gabriel Tarde, Burke and L.. Broom bracketed social movements and other forms of collective behaviour, such as crowds, riots, mobs, etc., in one category. According to them, "collective behaviour is the study of relatively unstructured social situations 19

13 and their products such as crowds, riots, rumours, public opinion, fads and social movements" [quoted in Oberschall, A., 1973: 15]. But, Michelet, Rude, John Wilson, and Niel Smelser criticised the characterisation of all collectivities as irrational behaviour and clubbed them together. Following are some of the important differences between social movements and other forms of collective behaviour, such as crowd ( we may also include other related phenomena}: i) Social movement has group identity, where as crowd does not possess this feature. ii) iii) iv) Crowd is not organised and does not have structure, whereas social movements are organised collectivities [Wilson, J., 1973 : 8]. Crowd exists relatively for a short period of time and are acephalous kind. Social movement unlike crowd behaviour rejects certain established beliefs and practices and brings about change in the existing authority and belief [Gusfield, J.R., 1970 : 6], and v) Social movements are conscious, previsioned attempts to bring about change [Wilson, J., 1973 : 11 ]. Thus, the distinctive features of a social movement are ideology, organisation, leadership, social conflict, control and change, which are absent in other forms of collective behaviour Movement and Political Party According to Wilson, where as social movements operate through noninstitutionalised means, Political Parties function through institutionalised means [Wilson, J., 1973: 9-1 0]. M.S.A. Rao says, "When a movement with a 20

14 THESIS P8863 Ra TH6164 defined ideology becomes a well established Political Party, it ceases to be a movement" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978: 3]. But situation becomes complicated when he says that due to internal dynamics party may lead to splinter movements [lbid.:3]. Gusfield believes that movements may be organised, "yet many movements are not organisations" [Gusfield, J.R., 1970:6]. The author goes on to say that, certain degree of organisation is necessary for movements. The scenario becomes puzzling. According to Heberle, "apparently no clear- cut distinction between a movement and a party can be made by this method of searching for a single distinguishing trait'' [Heberle, R., 1968: 1 0]. Thus, the situation is complicated and puzzling. However, for analytical purpose a movement can be distinguished as a 'process', and a political party as a 'structure' [Wilson, J., 1973: 57-58]. Whereas movement is a process directed towards change in organisation or structure, political party is a structure to achieve monopoly of coercive power and control over governance and administration.the above distinction is for conceptual clarity, empirically both are two faces of the same coin. 1.3 Typification of Social Movements Social movements have been classified by using one or another criterianamely, locus, objectives or the quality of change, scale and spatial spread, dominant issues of interests, ideology, participants, etc. M.S.A. Rao finds ideology and nature of consequences as critical criteria in defining nature and scope of movement. He says, "while locus provides the substantive aspect, the criteria of ideology and consequences provide the analytical foci of a movement" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:3]. Chalmers Johnson classifies movements as: i) Jacquerie, ii) Millinearism Rebellion, iii) Anarchist Rebellion, iv) Militarised Mass Insurrection, v) Communist Revolution, and vi) Coup d'etat \\1 \)It..\~ II ''1 ~, ;-: N ~tj <6 21 \'lb 771-6Jbl;' r _,... ~..,, -. l,.

15 [Johnson, C., 1964: 28]. Turner and Killian proposed three types of movements in their text book Collective behaviour [1957: ]: i) Value-oriented,, ii) Power-oriented, and iii) Participation-oriented - this further sub-divided into three types: i) Passive Reform Movements, ii) Personal Status Movements, and iii) Limited Personal Movements. [Wilson, J., 1973 : 23]: Wilson added four more typology i) Transformative, ii) Reformative, iii) Redemptive, and iv) Alternative. Gusfield typologies movements as: i) Protest, ii) Withdrawal, and iii) Revolution [Gusfield, J.R., 1970: 85]. Taking 'scope' as variable, Smelser classifies two types: i) Value-oriented, ii) Norm-oriented. T.K. Oommen's classification of social movements is based on locality, language, issues, social categories and sects [see, Oommen, T.K., 1977: 14-37]. However, all the above typologies do not explain the 'dynamics' of the movements which undergo change in the course of time. Hence, the literature of social movements are full of typologies. These range from purely descriptive, such as reactionary, utopian, escapist, to those which have been deduced from a body of theory. However, there is no single criterion for the classification of social movements and typologies are not mutually exclusive. M.S.A. Rao goes one step ahead when he says that any classification of movement is bound to remain inadequate, because movement acquires new features in the course of its development and so any classification can only be a relative to a particular phase in its development [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:3]. Hence, while dealing with this aspect of social movements we should be conscious about the complexities of the situation and the limitations of typologies. 22

16 1.4 Collective Mobilization, Organisation and Leadership We have stated earlier that minimum level of organisation is essential for any social movement. According to M.S.A. Rao, "Social movements tend to develop a loose federal structure with central and regional associations being held together by relationships of local autonomy and external links based on common interests" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:9]. Gerlach and Hine also highlight the organisational structure of social movement. He says, " a social movement is usually a polycephalous organisation composed of units recticulated by various personal, structural and ideological ties" [Gerlach and Hine, 1970: xvii]. A similar view is expressed by John Wilson when he says, " because. of its longer time span, social movements are much more likely to evolve a normative structure [Wilson, J., 1973:7]. According to Ghanshyam Shah, "a social movement must evince a minimal degree of organisation, though this may range from a loose, informal or partial level of organisation to the highly institutionalised and bureaucratised movement and the corporate group" [Shah,G., 1990: 17]. But the controversy arises on the questions, whether social movement begins with an organistion or it develops in the course of the movement. If social movement starts with an organistional structure, then protests and agitations may be excluded from the domain of movement because they may not have an organisation to begin with [see, Shah, G., 1990:19]. The problem with above definitions is that they have 'heuristic value'. However, the essentiality of an organisation is highlighted not only by sociologists but its necessity is also being felt by the protagonists of the movement themselves. 3 Further, collective mobilization, which is a crucial 3. See, V.I. Lenin, "One Step Forward Two Steps Back", in selected works, Vol. I, 1970, pp Also Karl Marx and F. Engels, "Address of the Central Communist League", in Selected Works, Vol.1, 1969, pp

17 part of a movement, is connected with ideology, leadership and organisation. Process of collective mobilization is stratified and based on division of labour. While the talented and more skilled members formulate the ideology and spread the message, those who are comparatively less skilled are recruited as volunteers. Leadership, in the process of collective mobilization, exploits caste, kin, traditional institutional framework, and linguistic ties for the recruitment purpose. Popular idioms and symbols are also used together with creating new units of organisation [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:8-9]. According to Wilson, organisations are important because they perform the vital function of Adaptation, Integration, and Goal Attainment. 'Adaptation' performs the function of recruitment and commitment among its members. This process is "generated by an act or an experience which seperates a convert in some significant way from the established order, identifies him with a new set of values and commits him to change patterns of behaviour'' [Gerlach and Hine, 1970:xvii]. 'Integration' among rank-and-file is an important aspect for the sustenance of any movement. Organisation performs this function through number of social processes, such as "an administrative machinery in which jobs are coordinated, mailing lists through which communications pass, and arrangements of rewards and punishments by means of which discipline is administered" [Wilson, J., 1973: 266].. These functions may also be performed 'latently' by rituals, mass meetings, propagandas, magazines,etc. [Ibid.]. 'Goal attainment' through collective action is the raison d' etre of social movements [Ibid.: 194]. However, the way goods and services are mobilised for the attainment of goals is an important aspect of social movement and leadership. 24

18 Traditionally, there an~ movements: two approaches to study the leadership in social i) Functional role analysis, and ii) On the basis of legitimacy. On the basis of latter criterion Max Weber classified three types of leadership: i) Charismatic, ii) Traditional, and iii) Legal rational [Weber, M., 1964:328]. Following Dawson and Gettys, Blumer distinguishes four types of leaders depending upon various stages of movement - i) Agitators, ii) Prophet, iii) Statesman, and iv) Administrator [quoted in Wilson, J., 1973:195]. In subsequent study of social movements Heberle finds two kind of leadership: i) Charismatic, and ii) Institutional [Heberle,R., 1951 :287]. According to Wilson, goal attainment is connected with the process of establishment of pattern of and support for leadership, institutionalisation of decision-making structure and conflict resolving mechanisms, and allocation of responsibilities, and demarcation of area of operation [Wilson, J., 1973: 194]. When the organisation of a movement gets formalised and rigid, and it accumulates property, there is a possibility of schism to develop and splits to occur. Three types of rifts might develop in the course of a movement - i) personal rivalries, ii) divergent ideological differences, and iii) complementary ideological differences, which generally lead to splinter movements [Rao, M.S.A., 1978: 9-1 0]. Furthermore, social movement is prone to routinization. For example, a protest movement starts with a radical ideology and rejects existing institutions, but later develops its own institutionalised arrangements to enforce a code of conduct [Ibid.: 10]. 25

19 1.5 Social Consequences Nature of social changes brought about by social movements is Sine qua non for any meaningful understanding of social movements. According to P.N. Mukherji, the relationship between social movement and social change (or resistance to change) is incontrovertible.the author has propounded the following four premises to support his above view [see, Mukherji, P.N., 1977: 38]: i) Social movements lead to social change (can be both changed-promoting or change-resisting) and related to social structure. ii) iii) iv) Social movements emerge out of structural conditions and are product of social structure. Social movements have their own structure and function related to their goals, and Social movements influence social structure. In order to understand social movement, it is important to understand the conceptual problem related to social change. However, nature of changes brought about by a social movement is a crucial factor for the classification of movements.social changes can be classified, broadly, into two categories: i) Changes in the position of the concerned section of a movement, and ii) Their impact on the wider society, this further can be sub-divided into two groupsa) Partial or total changes in the structure, and b) Marginal changes to maintain the Status quo. This distinction is similar to Smelser's distinction between 'Value' and 'Norm'oriented movements"[see, Smelser, N.J.,1962: 10-13]. 26

20 Generally, marginal changes type of movements are launched by the establishment in reaction to change-oriented movements, in order to maintain their position. In contrast, structural change movements originate among the deprived sections of society and directed towards change in values, norms and structure of positional arrangements. M.S.A. Rao visualises three levels of structural changei) Reform, ii) Transformative, and iii) Revolution [Rao, M.S.A., 1978: 12]. Reform movements bring about partial changes in the social system. In contrast, the revolutionary movements are directed towards radical changes in the totality of social and cultural systems. These changes are sudden and guided by ideology, class conflict and political party. In between these two streams fall transformative movements. It brings about middle level structural changes. The element of class conflict is sharper here than in reform movement, but is different from nature of class conflict in revolutionary movement. While class conflict in revolutionary movement is based on Marxist ideology and class struggle, conflict in transformative movement is between ethnic groups, although based on class struggle and their own variety of ideology. P.N. Mukherji proposed three types of social; changes related to social systems : i) Accumulative, ii) Alternative, and iii) Transformative [Mukherji, P.N., 1977:43]. Change that takes place within the given structure(s) are accumulative. Changes that occur due to elimination of or emergence of additional structure(s) are alternative in nature. Finally, changes occuring due to replacement of existing structure(s) by alternative structure(s) are transformative [emphasis mine]. Ghanshyam Shah classifies movements as- i) Revolt, ii) Rebellion, iii) Reform, and iv) Revolution, to bring about changes in the political system [Shah, G., 1977: 63-64]. Reform movements do not challenge the political system per se but attempt to bring about changes in the relations between parts of the 27

21 system. A revolt challenges the political authority, aimed at overthrowing the government. Rebellion is an attack on existing authority without any intention of seizing state power. In revolution, an organised struggle is launched by a section of society in order to overthrow not only the establised system, but also to replace it by an alternative social order. T.K. Oommen typologies movements intoi) Charismatic, ii) Ideological, and iii) Organisational. His typology is related to the process of movement crystallization, the life style and the phases of social movements. He argues, "social movements provide the stage for confluence between the old and new values and, structures" [Oommen, T.K., 1977:16]. However, structural change movements can be classified into two broader categories -- movements aimed at i) Change within the social system, and ii) Change of the social system [emphasis added]. Now, let us dwell upon the dominant theoretical frameworks for the study of social movements. 2. The Dimensions For The Study Of Social Movements Broadly speaking, there are three dimensions in the study of social movements: i) The sequential study, also termed as historical study,. ii) The Psychological study, and iii) The Sociological study. However, there is no water-tight compartmentalisation, neither the above categories are mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. There is a considerable degree of overlapping because modern social scientific approach is largely 28

22 inter-disciplinary. For example, even in sociological study of social movement, considerable attention is paid in sequential growth of the movement, and the motivational and psychological orientation of activists and leaders. But, the purpose of the above categorisation is to highlight the Sociological matrices of social movements. However, the prime concern of this paper is to study the sociological dimensions of social movements, because: 1) Sociologists of social movements have generally focused upon either the Functionalist or the Marxist framework, and 2) Debate between the Functionalist and the Marxist perspective have produced very interesting alternatives in the sociological study of social movements. But very briefly, we will discuss the other two dimensions as well. 2.1 The Historical Study Of Social Movements Treatise of social movements are full of sequential studies. Intact, majority of the study of social movements are of this nature. Focus of these studies are on the sequential presentation of dates, events and details of the movements. Much attention is not paid to the cause and effect, structure and organisation of social movements. In short, interpretative aspects of the movements are ignored,by and large. However, historical study of social movement is an important aid in the study of the sociological perspective. Sequential studies take into account the genesis, conducive situation, ideology and opposition and alliance of the movement [for detail see, Pridham, G., 1973, also Shirer, W., 1960]. These studies focus more either on political history or individual history of the movement [Kirkpatrick, 1., 1964]. Historical and sociological i: study of social movements differ in terms of emphasis. Whereas sequential study's emphasis is on structural conditions leading to a movement. Sociologists stress more on short-term historical changes 29

23 in the socio-economic structures that lead to social movement. Secondly, they also lay stress on organisational structure, leadership, ideology and motivational factors which lead to social movement. However, there is nothing inherently sociological or historical in the study of social movement. The study of movement takes into account both historical and sociological perspectives [Mukherjee, R., in Sharma H.P. and Gough, K., 1973: ] The Psychological Study Of Social Movements Studies of this sort focus upon the motivational factors and personality make up of the partisans of a social movement. The purpose is to show that certain people, due to their personality type or because of other psycho-analytical reasons (repression and failure) start and join social movements. The sociological perspectives, such as social mobilization and social bases of the movement, are not adequately emphasised. According to Edward Spranger, there are political, social, economic, aesthetic and religious personality types. The political personality type is more attracted towards power and are the arch inspirator of social movements [Heberle, R., 1968: 102"3]. H. Lasswell relates motivational factors for political activism to childhood repression and adolescent paranoia [Lasswell, H., 1960]. According to W. Allport and H.T. Moore, atypical opinions are actuated by partially repressed emotional desires [McCormack, T., in Mclaughlin, B., (ed.), 1969: 77). In the study of McCarthy movement, R. Hofstadter says, "the exponents of this movement have little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism... Their political reactions express rather a profound if largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways" [Hofstadter, R., in Bell, D., (ed.), 1964:76]. 30

24 According to Elmer Davis, "those who attracted to McCarthyism were inspired by a widespread feeling of fear and frustration in the face of the growing power of international Communism" [Davis, E., 1954: 35-36]. Hence, the psychological study of social movement throws light more on frustration and repression born out of failure to achieve desired goals which lead to aggression. When this aggressiveness is not released, it motivates to participate in social movements. However, studies of this kind ignore impulses to change. According to Wilson, psycho-analytical study of social movement "obscures, and on occasion totally conceals impulses to change which emanate from within society itself. [Wilson, J., 1973: 54]. But study of this kind has its own merits. According to Heberle, "it may be interesting to enquire to what extent are neurotic and psychopathic individuals more frequently found in social movements than among the non-participating population" [Heberle, R., 1951: 103]. But, psychopathological individuals are minority in social movements, even in the Nazi movement [Ibid.: 109]. Furthermore, individuals can be but groups may not be pathological and hence methodologically it is incorrect to "apply categories of this kind to social entities like groups and movements as if they were individuals" [Ibid.: 109]. According to Mclaughlin, psychological study of social movements fails to provide the total explanation of the origin of such movements [l\t1claughlin,b., (ed.},1969: 109]. Johnson argues, "what ever the psychological roots of their mobilization (family, society or born)... whether or not pressures (dysfunction) appear in society, economic depression, national humiliation... blocked channels of social mobility - all these have conditioned... revolutions" [Johnson, C., 1964: 26]. 31

25 all these have conditioned... revolutions" [Johnson, C., 1964: 26].. Hence, psychological study emphasises on "who are the Revolutionaries?",rather than "what causes revolutions in a social system"? [Ibid.: 23]. To this end, we may say that study of this type ignores the social bases of the social movement. 2.3 Sociological Studies Of Social Movement Sociological treatise of social movements is enriched by two discordant theoretical perspectives - Functionalist and Marxian. These two contending theoretical frameworks advance divergent tools, concepts, hypotheses, methods, arguments and presentations for the study of social movements. Above perspectives will be discussed one by one The Functionalist Framework Functionalism is not a single stream of thought. It represents a variety of approaches and philosophical orientations, such as organic and mechanical functionalism, structural functionalists and conflict theorists. But above streams of thought share common concern and perspective. This phenomenon distinguishes functionalism from Marxian framework. One of the most important theoretical concern of this school is to maintain order and function of the social system. Marxists and Functionalists differ radically on the question of 'social change'. According to K. Davis [1970] survival of any human society depends upon conformity to its normative order.the author says,"the normative order makes the factual order of human society possible" [Davis, K., 32

26 1970: 53]. The master of structural- functional school, Talcott Parsons views social system as a mode of organisation of action. This action is based on individuals patterned interactive relationship which is governed by common standard norms. Parsons terms it as "standard of value orientation" [Parsons, T., 1951: 13] : Cognative, Appreciative and Moral standards. General consensus prevails among functionalists on the question of 'social equilibrium'.. 4 Talcott Parsons argues that social system does undergo an ordertys process of developmental change [Parsons, T., op. cit.: 27].The author goes on to argue that social equilibrium is achieved through institutionalisation process. This process is mediated through cultural patterns which produce patterns of value - orientation [Ibid.: 491 ]. For Alvin W. Gouldner, Parsons' main concern is to show the way in which the social system preserves itself. Gouldner argues that Parsons is concerned with, "the way social systems are endowed with self- maintaining elements, with stablising characteristics internal to the system". 6 [Gouldner, A.W., 1971: 231]. Further, motivational ' process within the system is built to maintain equilibrium [emphasis mine]. This process revolves around- "socialisation" and "mechanisms of social control" 7 [Parsons, T., op. cit.: ]. 4. See, I.L. Harowitz, "Consensus, Conflict and Cooperation", in N.J. Demeraeh Ill and A.A. Peterson, ed., 1967 System Change and Conflict, Free Press, New York, p. 267, also Talcott Parsons, 1951, op. cit., p Here an 'orderly process' is contrasted with the disintegration of a system 6. See also, Talcott Parsons, 1975, Essays in Sociological Thought, Light and Life Publication, New Delhi, p See also, Talcott Parsons and E. Shils, ed., 1962, Towards a General Theory of Action, Harper and Row, New York, p

27 Marxian theory offers a radical alternative to functionalists view on 'social change'. Functionalists are being criticised because of their overemphasis on social order. According to Gouldner, "the deepest expression of functionalist's conservatism is in its facination with the problem of social order" [Gouldner, A.W., 1971: 251]. For Talcott Parsons, "a general theory of the process of change of social systems is not possible in the present state of knowledge" [Parsons, T., 1951: 486].The author professes that to acquire such a theory will require a millennium for social science. This will not come in our times and most probably never [Ibid.: 534]. Although, he admits that society is dynamic and does talk about 'moving equilibrium' [Ibid.: 503-5]. Functionalists view change as a deviation from the established pattern due to dysfunctions, tensions, and deviance 8. These variations either 'resolve themselves' [Ibid.], or the chronic states of tensions come to be 'institutionalised and more or less stablised' through built-in mechanisms of adjustment and control [Parsons, T., 1951 :496]. As stated earlier, functionalists view change as a deviation from dominant pattern. For them, change is directly proportional to the internalisation of standard value patterns [emphasis mine]. The more the deviation from consensus value patterns, the higher the probability of change in the social system. Further, these fissiparous tendencies of changes are being institutionalised through cultural patterns which produce patterns of value-orientation [Ibid.: , also Berghe, 1967: 295]. in the social system may lead to social movement. Changes But movement continues till consensus is reached, of course, at a higher level, which Parsons terms as 're-equilibrium processes' [Parsons, T., op.,cit.: ]. 8. For details see, Pierre L. Van den Berg he, "Dialectics and Functionalism", in Demerath and Peterson, ed., 1967 op. cit., p

28 Static functionalist model of Parsons et. a/. is criticised by conflict theorists and dynamic functionalists [Dahrendorf, R., 1969, also Coser, L.A., 1956], apart from Marxian school. Static functionalist model is criticised on two points - "change' and 'conflict'. According to Obserchall, protagonists of static model have not realised that, "the truly dynamic elements of conflict and collective behaviour occur due to the interaction between mobilisation and control process" [Obserchaii,A., 1973: 23].The author goes on to argue that Parsons does not comprehend mobilisation and control as the two faces of the same coin [Ibid.: 21]. Dahrendorf and Coser are critical on the notion of stable social equilibrium. Dahrendorf agrues that as conflict generates change, so constraint generates conflict. He assumes that conflict is ubiquitous, since constraint is ubiquitous whenever human beings set up social organisations which are 'imperatively coordinated associations' rather than social systems [Dahrendorf, R., 1969: 167, ]. Coser also -- put forward a number of propositions concerning the intensity and irrip~ct of conflict [Coser, L. A., 1956: ]. But, the essential similarity between Parsonian et. a/. functionalism and conflict school is on the question of 'basic causes' of conflict. Obserchall observes that none of these functionalists try to find out the basic causes of conflict, but see "how the initial causes of strains are mediated and filtered through intervening social structures" [Obserchall, A., 1973: 23]. Dahrendorf and Coser view conflict as a healthy and beneficial sign for social system in certain cases. Furthermore, even conflict school argues that conflict, revolution, or movement can not change the social system. [see, Gusfield, J.R.,1970: 8, and Heberle, R.,1968: 458]. On this count functionalists and Marxian theorists have maintained diametrically opposite positions. 35

29 2.3.2 Structural Strain Theory According to Functionalists following are five causes of social strain which may lead to social movements [Gupta, D., 1982: 17]: i) Structural Weaknesses - eco-political in nature. ii) Rise of new power group. iii) lncompatability of the existing system with new emerging ideas. iv) Maladjustments and disintegration; and v) Relative deprivation. Theory of relative deprivation developed by American scholar T.R. Gurr [1970] is an important landmark in the study of agitations and mass movements Relative Deprivation The term was coined by Stouffer et. a/. [1949: 125] and elaborated valuably fir~t by R.K. Merton, 9 and then by W.G. Runciman, 10 to denote feelings of deprivation relative to others and not conditions of deprivation relative to others [emphasis mine]. There is consensus among sociologists that deprivation is a relative concept. According to Merton, sociologists lay more stress on the term "relative" than on "deprivation" [Merton, R.K., 1972: ]. Further, existential conditions in themselves are not sufficient to produce the sense of deprivation 9. R.K. Merton has used the concept of relative deprivation with the theory of reference group behaviour in the study of 'The american Soldier' as one of the significant conceptual and interpreative tool. See R.K. Merton 1972, Social Theory and Social Structure, Amerind Publications, New Delhi, pp Runciman's work is relevant in this context. His work not only show the practical relevance of the concept to contemporary problems, but also it is significant to the analysis of political behaviour. See W.G. Runciman, 1966, Relative Deprivation and Social Justice : A Study of 36