Post Graduate Course

PAPER 201 : COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS

CONTENTS

1. Significance of Comparative Political Analysis

I

2. Power in Society : Caste 'and Class

3. Theories of Citizenship

4. Civil Society and the State

5. Nationalism, Ethnic Identity

and Cultural Pluralism

6. Revqlution and Social Movements : Women

Editor:
Dr. Parmanand

SCHOOL OF OPEN LEARNING

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI
5, Cavalry Lane, Delhi - 110007
 © School of Open Learning

Published By : Executive Director, School of Open Learning, 5 Cavelry Lane, Delhi-110007

Printed at : AMETYOFFSET PRINTERS,12/38, Site IV Sahibabad lndustrli Area,Ghaziabad (U.P.)
 LESSON I '
SIGNIFICANCE OF COMPARATIVE POLITICAL ANALYSIS
Nawal Kislwre
Research Scholar,
Department of Political Science,
University of Delhi

Politics has to be studied comparatively because there is no other way to obtain raw data based on
which one could arrive at informed judgements. (A Lijphart, 1971, 'ComparativePolitics and Comparative
Method ', America11 Politiclll Science Review (65) (682-693). It is , in fact , the way to explore the full
· range of possibilities implicit in any given situation to think about an abstract problem. In one sense , then
there is no study of politics that is not comparative. (M Dogan, and G Pelassy, 1990, How to Compt1re
Nations, Chatham, NJ. : Chatham House.) Political science, as all other sciences, involves learning by
measuring and examining events which are comparable, so that first impressions of how the results might
vary from one case to another (hypotheses) may be tested , and, if suppo rted, gain accepted as regular
statements offuture probability (theories). Comparison is done between two or more objects or phenomena.
Comparative politics put the emphasis on comparison itse lf, and on how and why political phenomena
might be compared. This marks it out as a special area within political science. Comparative politics is
concerned with behav io ur, institutions, processes, ideas and values present in more than one country. It
searches for those political regularities and patterns, those political similarities and dissimilarities between
nation -states that help clarify the basic nature, working and beliefs of the regimes. It attempts to finds either
the common or the distinctive eleme11t in the political phenomenon compared and stud ie d. Comparison helps
to understand political events or behaviour at local, national or international levels. It not only explains the
event but its history and future. It also searches for basic factor or factors responsible for repetition of any
eve nt. Quant itative and qualitative studies of the factors are often made for its deeper understanding.
Comparative politics is also necessarily concerned with the norms, basic beliefs and values underlying
poli ti cal ac tivity. Some political theor is ts, s uch as Plato, believe the two are connected because the analysis
of political patterns is valuable in the sear ch for the good life and good society. Others would explain the
connection by saying that one ca11not understand the operation of the system and political behavior without
the lrnowledge of peo ple ' s beliefs and values . The task of comparative politics is to provide understanding
of cons tants, variations and trends in national government and pot'itics .
It ranges over both time and space. Since comparison rests on data, the study of comparative politics
is empirical: it searches for and accumul ates exact infonnatio n through observation , experiments when possible
and uses a variety of research techniques. It is also theoretical: it formulates propositions and explanatory
hypothesis to categorize , or classify or find patterns that can order the data collected . Explanations in poli tics,
ho wever , do not spring automatically from observation of data; as in physics , they result from " ingenu it y,
te nacity, imagination and conceptual bold ne ss " . (N.R. Hansen, 1965, Pattems of Discovery, New York:
'a111bridge University Press, p. 65). In oth e r words, all explanatory research is by nature comparative.
Much of the great tradition of political theory is essentially compa rat ive, classificatory and analytical.
The contemporary politics is a movement rather than a sub-field or su discipline. Comparative politics
in recent years has been greatly influenced by behavioural ism. The motives behind the modern search for
conceptual frameworks, the more rigorous approach to the search data , the emphasis on careful precision
and statistical accurac y are beneficial. The behavioural approach " is an attempt to improve our understanding
of polities and criteria of proof that are acceptable according to the canons, conventions and assumptions
of modern empirical scie nce ." {R.A. Dahl, 1961, " The Behavioural Approach in Political Science: Epitaph
for a Monument to a Successful Protest ," Americt111 Political Science Review, December 1961, p. 747.)

1
Why Comparison
Narrow view: it aids understanding of a political system or activity. It is necessary to have comparative und e
rstand i ng of other s' system in order to know one's own system. Broad View: Comparison allows systematic
empirical testing of generalizations to order the diverse data. By comparison , one can see the patterns of activity
adopted by different regimes, analyse different ideologies and process of decision making and examine
propositions about both the importance of certain characteristics under study ahd the relationship between classes
of data. Comparative politics is scientific in method, but that doesn ' t mean its theories are certa in, final and
unchangeable. For one thing, fonnulating hypotheses requires a selection from among data. The art of theor izing ,
as Michael Balfour (1953) has said, largely consist of knowing what to omit. (State and Mind London: Cresset
Press). The systems, classifications and categories of comparative politics are always tentative, not final.
The essence of comparative government as a study is to compare the ways in which different societies cope
with various problems , the role of political structures involved being of particular interest. The aim is to develop
an understanding of how different institutional mechanisms work with their content, and more ambitiously to
develop general hypothesis concerning a government. Bodin argued for comparative political analysis in the hope
that it would reveal universally valid rules and values .
Major Characteristic features of comparative politics are :
I. Analytical and empirical investigation.
2. Study of infrastructure. Input-output process. Decision making process.
3. Emphasis on the study of developing socie ties .
4. Focus on inter-disciplinary approach.
It is borrowed from the discipline of sociology, psycholo gy, economics, anthropology and even from the natur
al sciences like biology. For instance, system analysis with its two deviations in the form of structural- functional
ancl input-output approaches owes its origin to the discipline of the biology that has been borrowed by the leading
American political scientists like David Easton, and from sociologists like Robert Merton and Talc ott Parsons.
Value-free polit ic al theory gave up its normative aspect and empirical dimensions in the sphere of
comparative poli tics . Value-free political theory is replaced by value-led. Leo Strauss, in the field of comparative poli
tics, while sticking to the traditions of Plato and Aristotle , contends that political theory cannot eschew ' valu e'
and thus a value free political science is impossible.
Compa rative politics has undergone significant theoretical and paradigmatic changes in recent decades.
Particularly since the 19 80s, a new generation of scholars have revamped and rejuvenated the study of subject. In
its theoretic al odyssey from the beginning to the present, comparative politics has been marked by sh iftin g
emphasis on eithe r one of these two domains (state and society) of analysis . Politics is made up of comp le x web
of poli tic al as well as social forces and events. Put differently, politics takes place with in th e state, and within
socie ty, and also between state and society. Only the so-called system approach, has sought to exam ine the ent ire
syste mic context with which states and societies operate. Politics is the actual
:,rocess and the context within which state-society interactions are formulated and take place. The concept of
"state" has always has been pivotal to the general study of political science and that of comparative pol it ics
i n particular. U11til the "Behavioural revolution" of the late 1950s and 1960s, the study of the state virtually
dominated the field of comparative politics . The emphasis on the state was somewhat over-shadowed i n the 1960s
and the early 1970s and instead such concepts and approaches as the " politic al s ystem" and "system analysis"
gained increasing currency. (Mehran Kamrava, 1996, Understanding Comparative Politics: A Framework for
Analysis. London: Roulledge.)
Historical Overview of Comparative Politics:
The Classical Way : Aris tot le , father of comparative politics , perhaps made a fundamental assertion about
poli tical scienc e as master science simply because every action and interaction in society is mediated by politics.
(Aristotl e, Ethics, 1,1, 109a, in 1968, p. 354). Aristotle set out to examine differences in the structures of states and
constitutions and so. ught to develop a classification of regime types, the notion of

2
comparing the political systems has been at the heart of political sc ie nce . His classification was based on two
things: Firstly, the number of people who participated in governing, on the ethical quality of their socio-
economic status. Those regimes that served the interests of the ruling group only were perversions of the
true constitutional fonns. Aristotle clearly preferred the aristocratic form because it was mean philosophically
and otherwise desirable. Cicero and Polybius thought that simple forms of government would degenerate so
that monarchy would become tyranny and aristocracy becomes oligarchy. Stability depended on the existence
of a ''mixed state" made up of all the social classes pa11icipating or being represented to some degree.

No. of people Rule: general interest Rule: Self-interest Social Group

One Monarchy Tyranny King
Few Ari_s tocracy Oligarchy The Wealthy
Many Poli t)\_Or democracy Ochlocracy The Poor

The Anglo-American theorists, and the continental European and Enlightenment political theorists both reject
the Aristotelian relativistic typology and cyclical theory of political change to a unilinear approach to political
theory and political development. l11is is particularly marked in British, French and American political theory,
where at first democracy was justified as best form of government on the basis of natural law and social
contract and then as the democratic revolution spread, as the inevitable direction of human history. Loc:ke and
Rousseau are the typical example of the first approach to democrati-zation, while Tocqueville is among the
first to view it as the historically inevitable. These were the political scientists in contemporary era who used
comparative method to understand different political phenom_e na and concepts.
Tile libeml Way
Machiavelli divided regimes into republics and monarchies , pa11ly to distinguish free from unfree regimes.
But this distinction is almost as unimportant as that of the Greeks who divided peoples into two categories
"Illy: Greeks and Barba1' ians. Machiavelli and Montesquieu, Hobbes and Adam Smith are the progen itors -
who lived during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The analysis of Charles de Montesquieu ( 1689-1755)
is more appropriate for the I 8t11 century, when city-state was overtaken by nation-states than for contemporary
conditions. In his celebrated book The Spirit of Laws (1748), he argued in favour of Separ tion of powers
making it essential for guarantee of civil liberty. Power must check power became the basis of limited
government. Constitution was the most important contribution of Montesquieu. He professed English system
as ideal system. His classification was based on two things : the nature of government-sovereignty in whose
hand individual or group and the Principle of government-with what ethics they ruled. Montesquieu
distinguished regimes as despotism, monarchies and republics. Despotism-those in which the sovereign
was unrestrained. Monarchy-in which the ruler was subject to restraints of custom, local privileges or his
own law. Republics-which could be either democratic or aristocratic and which were more likely to be
endowed with charity and patriotism than were monarchies.

Government system Sovereign Ethic

Republic: democracies\aristocracy People\aristocrats Virtue\moderation
Monarchy King Moderation
Despotism Individual-dictator Fear

The following works contributed to the development of comparative method in politics very significantly.
Tocqueville (1853) in Democracy in America reflects a growing conviction that democratic politics is the
political form of the future. America is the laboratory from which he seeks to drive a sense of political,
social, moral and cultural consequences of this inevitable democratization.
The book of Woodrow Wilson (1889) The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics, Heath,
1918, is an interesting and syncretic product. On the one hand, it shows the great influence of the nineteenth
century German political theory, with its massive ethnographic and historical leaning, and the persistence of
Aristotelian categories. But at the same _time, the work is suffused with an evolutionary and d mocratic
faith.
3
 Ostrogorski (1902) focussed on the development of democracy in Britain and the United States, convinced
that this was to be the trend of the future but deeply troubled by the growing elitism and bureaucraficism
of the mass political party in Britain and America.
J. Bryce (1921) in his book, Modern Democracies. (New York, Macmillan) turns his faith in democracy
into conviction. He speaks in introduction itself of" ..the universal acceptance of democracy as the normal
and natural form of government."
V. Pareto (1916) in The Mind and Society: A Treatise on General Theory of Sociology, 4 volumes,
Dover 1963, R. Michels (1911) in Political Parties : A Sociological study of Oligarchical Tendencies of
Modern Democracy. Reprint Dover , 1959 and G. Mosca (1896) in The Ruling Class: (reprint Dover 1959)
all used comparative method in politics. Pareto, Mosca and Michels argue that all political rules are oligarchic
or eli tis t, regardless of its fomial legal or ideological characteristics. The British and American political theorists
see a sweeping historical movement in the direction of constitutional and democratic forms.
Great figures like Aristotle, Machiavelli, de Tocquevelli, Bryce, Ortogorski and Weber belong to first
phase, who simply utilized the comparative method for the primary purpose of better understanding about
the working of the political organizations. The comparative method that "aimed through the study of existing
policies or those which had existed in the past to assemble a definite body material from which the investigator
by selection, comparison and elimination may discover the ideal type and progressive forces of political
h is tory. Recent writers Samuel H. Beer, M. Hass, Bernard Ulam, and Roy C. Macridis may be included in
second phase who made use of comparative method with a good amount of self consciousness ·and also
with a deliberate mood to present a more useful study of different political institutions. This phase is called
sophisticated phase.
A Marxist Way
The determining characteristic of regimes for a Marxist is the nature of the economic system. Social
relationships arise from the process of production, and the existence of classes is bound up with particular
historical phases in the development of production . The Marxist philosophy differentiates history in five
broad successive types of social relationship: Primitive Communism with its general equality; Slavery with
its slave-owning and slave classes; Feudalism with its lords of the manor and serfs; Capitalism with its capitalist
and proletariat classes and Communism with its abolition of economic classes. Because Marx was largely
uninterested in the first three stages and because he regarded it as utopian to speculate in detail on the nature
of the _future communist society, he was essentially concerned with analysis of capitalism and the capitalist
state in which all organs of power are organs of bourgeois dictatorship.

Stage Mode of production Class structure

Prim itive communism Hunting, fishing, food gathering etc. Classes had not yet emerged
Slave system Animal husb and ry, domestic agriculture Master and slave
and small industry
Feudal system Large agriculture Landlords and serfs
Capitalist system Large industry Capitalists and workers
· Socialist system . Large industry All citizens become equal
I

In the classical survey of field's intellectual origins, Harry Eckstein ( I 963) highlights theorizing about,
politics from the founder of social theory itself. Comparative politics has a particular right to claim Aristotle
as an ancestor because of the primacy that he assigned to the politics among the sciences and because the
problems he raised and the method he used are similar to those still currents in political studies. (HE 1963,
'"A perspective on comparative politics, past and present, " In Harry Eckstein and David Apter, eds.
Comparative Politics: A Reader. New York: The Free Press ofG/enecoe.) Comparative political scientists
want to understand the critical events of the day, a position that ensures that dreams of theorists address
the political world as it exists, not formal abstractions or utopias. The classical theory of social science-

4
· Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Vilfredo Paret ae.tano Mosca, Roberts Michels established the field
research agenda mode of analysis and contrasting theoretical visions.
Elaborating further, it is worth noting that Marx and Weber responded to the fundamental transformations
associated with the rise of capitalism. Whereas Marx developed a general strategy for socialist revo l ution ,
Weber grappled with the theoretical and normative demands of the bureaucratic state. However Mosca,
Pareto and Michels strove to understand the possibilities and limits of democratic ru le . These students of
comparative politics examined pressing questions in t,he contexts of their immediate political agenda. The
contemporary study of comparative politics therefore blossomed in response to the political problems that
followed WWII and new forms of conflicts emerged.
Contributors like David Easton, Gabriel A. Almon d, James C. Colem an, Karl Deutsch, G.B. Powell,
Harold Lasswe ll, Robert A. Dahl, Edward Shils, Harry Eckstein, Seymour Lipset, David Apter , Lucian W.
Pye, Sidney Verba , Myron Weiner and a host of others may be included in the final phase. It may rightly
be described as the model of an increasing sophisticated phase in the growth of comparative poli tics . These
writers used interdisciplinary approach in order to give a scientific basis to comparative analysis. These were
the words used by Roberts to sum up their intellectual aim mapping the importance of comparison in politics:
"If Easton talks of in puts , outputs, demands, gate-keepers, supports and stresses, env ironmen t, feedback,
values, critical ranges and political authorities; Almond offers a set of input and output fu nction s; Deutsch
borrows a cybernetic language which applies to political systems the concepts of feedback of various types-
autonomy, mem ory, load lag, lead and gain, receptors and comm _ u n ication, se lec ting , screening of infornrntion
· and so on. Almond ' s aims of ' univers ali ty, sums up the purpose for the right choice of such language-they
arc suffic iently general to be applicable to any political unit, regardless of size, perio d, degree of development
or other factors." These seminal theorists of contemporary political science drew on this heritage to rebuild
and reinvigorate the field of comparative politics.
1l1e comparative studies involve comparison of country as its core unit. It takes entire national government
as their level of analysis. However, within a focus of countries , there is a choice between three different
levels of analysis: the institutions of government , the social context of politics or the state as a whole.

Levels analysis in comparlltive politics

Level Forms Example
Institution-centred The organizations of The balance between President and
government and the . Congress in the USA
relations between them
Society-centred How Social factors influence Voting behaviour
individual behaviour in politics?
State-centred The priorities of the state and Building the welfare state; regulating
their impact on the society for economic competitiveness.

Comparing institutions
1l1e tenn is often left undefined but its core reference·is to the major organizations of national
government, particularly those defined in the constitutio n. The legislature, executive and judiciary are the
classic trio. But the use of .the term· often extends outward in two directions. The first extension is to other
governing organizations , which may have a less secure constitution al basis, such as the bureaucracy and local
government. And the second extension is to other important political organ izatio ns , which re not formally
part of the government, notably political parties. So the tenn ' organization ' tends to supplant the word ' ins
titution' . The starting-point of institutional analysis is that roles matter more than the people who occupy
them. It is this assumption that ei1ables us to discuss presidenc ies rather than presidents, legislatures rather
than legislators and the judiciary rather than judges. The value of institution in political affairs is that long-tenn
commitments are more reliable than are those of any single employee, building up trust. (G Majone, 1996,
Regulating Europe, London and New York: Routledge p.46.) Therefore institutions are sometimes
incorporated within law as possessing their own rights and duties.

5
 An institutional approach implies a certain approach to political analysis. As a member of institutions, people
acquire interests such as defending the organizations against predators and ensuring their own persons progress
within the structure. Politics is not just a conflict among social forces or political ideologies; rather, it is as much
about people defending the interests of the organization they work for. In short: institutional define interests. As
March and Olsen conclude in their influential restatement of the institutional approach, 'T he bureaucratic
agency, the legislative committee and the appellate court are the arenas for contending social forces but they are
also collections of standard operating procedures and structures that define and defend interests. They are political
actors in their own right.' (D March and J Olsen, 1984, 'The Institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life',
American Political Science Review, p. 738. Further, institutions bring forth activity which takes place simply
because it is expected, not because it has any deeper political motive. The activity in itself achieves the goal of
meeting expectations arising from the actor's position within the institution. (Peters, 1999).
Comparing Societies
In the 1960s and 1970s the focus of comparative politics moved away from the institutional level.
Decolonisation spawned many new states in the postwar era where the formal institutions of government
proved fragile. The second world had stimulated new development in the social science technique (e.g. attitude
surveys), which younger states were keen to apply to politics. The 'old-fashnioned' constitutions and
government institutions did not lend itself to statistical treatment, in contrast to s mple surveys of political attitudes
and· behaviour in the wider socie ty. So the study of institutions fell out of favour as researchers used the
comparative method in a search for generalizations about the political attitudes and beahviour of individuals.
In this shift to a more society-oriented approach, Easton's system model of the political system was highly
intluentiat. His political system consists of all those institutions and processes involved in the 'allocation of the
values' for society. Specifically, the political system takes support from society, consisting of demands for particular
policies and expression of support. The political system then converts these inputs into outputs which are
enforceable into policies and decisions. These inputs then serve feedback to society so as to affect the next cycle of
in puts. The inputs are regulated by gatekeepers, such as parties and interests groups which bias the system in
favour of certain demands and against others. Easton's model viewed the polftical system as a n_1echanism for
converting demands from society into concrete policies. The inputs were more important than the inst itut io ns. I
ndeed, the institutions of government were reduced to little more than a 'black box'
;nan abstract diagram. In practice, Easton's model also proved to be too static; premised on the achievement of
equilibrium between inputs and outputs. Society-centred analyses fonned part of the behavioural revolution in
politics, an approach which offers a useful contrast with institutional analyses. The central tenet of bchaviouralists
was that 'the root is man' rather than institutions (H Eulau, 1963, The Behavioural Persuasion in Politics, New York
: Random House). People are more than badges of the institution they work for; they possess and indeed will create
some freedom to define their own role. The higher the position in an organization, the more flexibility the occupant
possesses, including the ability to reshape the institution itself.
Comparing States
In the 1980s however , attention returned to the state. 'Bringing the state back in' become a strong rallying- cry in
comparative politics (P Evans, D Rueschemeyer and T Skocpol eds., 1985, Bringing The State Back In,
Cambridge and NY.- Cambridge University Press). Partly, this reflected a belated recognition that the state is the
single central concern in the study of politics. In addition, statistical and behavioural study largely ran out of steam,
becoming increasingly technical and failing to engage with political change. Yet the new focus on the state
represented more than a return to descriptive studies of government institutions; rath_er, the state as a whole,
rather than its specific mainfestations, provided the level of analysis. The focus lay not so much on the
institutional detail but on the state as an active agent, shaping and re-shaping society. Where society-centred
analysis saw the state as embedded in society, the state-centred approach saw society as a part of configuration
defined largely by the state itself. The state acts autonomously and is not just imprisoned by social forces. In
particular, the state is se.en as using its administrative capacity and the monopoly of legitimate force to bring
about fundamental social changes.

6
 State-centred analysis suggest that the uses to which public power has been put by those charged with its
exercise cannot be understood by routine analysis of specific institutions. Rather, the state must itself provide the
level of analysis. The interest of the state can be identified and analysed without going into institutional detail,just
as the country's 'national interest' is a useful guide to its foreign policy even though that policy is in practice the
work of many hands. The state-centred perspective carries implications of a ruling elite, albeit one nested in the
political rather than economic structures . In a comparative context, of course, it is clear that the power of the
state is a variable rather than a constant. For example, in the communist countries, the state was an overarching
influence, pervading virtually all aspects of life. In established democracies, the state is less dominant. In
much of the d veloping world, the state is les important still; its writ may not run far beyond the capital city and
a few major towns. In addition, the powe1' of the _state varies even within the democratic world, as the somewhat
faded distinction between strong and weak, states still makes clear (K Dyson, 1980, State Tradition in Western
Europe: A study of an Idea and Institution Oxford and NY: OUP).

Concluding Observations:
By definition, comparative research demands knowledge of more than one political system. The same
phenomenon can have different meanings in the different countries. This makes it difficult to compare like with
like. Relationships between countries mean that they cannot be regarded as dependent, further reducing our
ability to test theories. There are not enough theories. There are not enough countries in the world to allow
theories to be tested precisely. The countries or the other cases selected for study may be an unrepresentative
sample, limiting the general significance of the findings.
Comparative approach broadens our understanding of the political world, leading to improve classifications
and giving potential for expiation and even prediction. It enables us to find out more about the places we
know least about. Through comparison, say Dogan and Pelssy (1990), we discover our ethnocentrism and
means of overcoming it. Secondly it improves our classification of politics. For instance once constitutions
have been grouped in written and unwritten or electoral systems into proportional and non-proportional, we
can search for the factors, which predispose countries to have one type rather then the other. Similarly, once
we classify executive into presidential and parliamentary type, or party systems into two-party or multi-
party, we can look at the consequences of each. In short, comparative politics turns constants into var ia bles ,
thereby providing the raw material for explanation. Thirdly comparative researchers seeks to understand a
variety of political systems not just for the sake of it but in order to formulate and test hypothesis about
the political system.
SELECTED REFERENCE
I. Alfred Stephen (200 I), Arguing Comparative Politics, OUP.
2. H.J. Wiarda ed. (1986), New Developments in Comparative Politics, Boulder, Westview.
3. Rod Hague & Martin Harrop (2001), Comparative Government and Politics: An introduction,
Palgrave.
4. Ronald Chilcote (1994), Theories of Comparative Politics: the Search for a paradigm Reconsidered,
Boulder, Westview.
5. Jefrey Kopstein and Mark Lichbach eds., Comparative Politics: Interests, Identities and Institutions
in a changing Global Order, NK Publisher

Question
What do you mean by comparative political analysis? Write a critical essay on various developments
in the field of comparative political analysis.

7
 LESSON 2

POWER IN SOCIETY : CASTE & CLASS

Suman Kumar
Research Scholar,
Department of Political Science
University of Delhi

Power is a contested term. There are a number of distinctive perspectives on power. According to The
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Power is "the ability to do or act" or "control over
othe rs". It is the right possessed by or given to a person or gro up .
For Max Weber, it is the probability that a person in a social relationship will be able to carry out his or her
own will in the pursuit of goals of action, regardless of resistance. This definition has the following
characteristics :
(a) power is exercised by individuals and therefore involves choice, agency and intention;
(b) it involves the notion of agency, that is , an individual achieving or bringing about goals which are desirable:
(c) power is exercised over other individuals and may involve resistance and conflict; (d) it implies that there
are differences in interests between the powerful and power less ; (e) power is negative, involving restrictions and
deprivations for those subjected to dom inatio n.
In Marxist sociology, power is regarded as a structural relationship, existing independently of the wills of
individuals. The existence of power is a consequence of the class structure of societies. Poulantzas defines power as
the capacity of one class to realize its interests in opposition to other classes. (Poulantzas : 1973). In this
perspective, power has the following features: (a) power cannot be separated from economic and class relations;
(b) power involves class struggle. and not simp ly conflicts between individuals; (c) the analysis of power can not be
undertaken without some characterization of the mode of product io n.
Foucault writes: "Power is not something that is acquired, seized or shared, something that one holds on to or
allows to sli p away: power is exercised from innumerable points, in the interplay of non-egalitarian and mobile re
lat ions" . ( Fo uc au l t : 19 77). Foucault's account offers a new direction : one in whi c h power is not treated as a
capacity outside and beyond social relations but in co nst itut ive of soc ial relations. It is everywhere and always present
rather than a thing to be fought for and ever.
The pluralistic the o ry co nce ptu ali zes power as diffused through the political syste m, where as Marxists
Sociology sees power co ncen trated in the ruling class. Morgenthau defines power as "man's control over minds
and act io ns of othe r me n" . (Peter Calvert : 1982). Bertrand Russell views power as "the production of intended
results'·. (Bertrand Russel: 1920). Power expresses itself through force but may not be visible essentially. It has many
forms like political, economic and ideological. It is derived through position, status, class etc. Pmve r is relation si nce
it involves a relationship between rulers and ruled or between two sets of pcopk. It is situational because i ts
expression varies from situation to s ituat io n. It has the element of force, so it is coerc i ve . Law i s the source of
powe r, hence it is le git imate.
It is a fact that i neq ua li ti es are inherent in the nature of human beings. It is ca lled natural difference.
Apart from th is , in the social system human beings are differentiated as socially unequal from the point of view of
enjoyment of' social rewards such as powe r or stat us etc. Power in so c ie ty is man i fested through Numerous ways.
Caste and Class are two different frame s of social differentiation aiming at the distribution Or Social rewards. We
shall discuss it under following heads : CASTE & CLASS.
CASTE
The word ·caste' is derived from Latin word - CASTUSA, which means pure. The Portuguese appears to
have used the term ' caste· to denote the I nd ian soc ial classification based on the basis of purity of blood. According to
The Oxfurd Aclvu11ced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, Caste means "any of the hereditary Hindu social
class., or "a rigid distinction of birth, rank, wealth. etc." There is considerable debate

8
that caste system is typical to the Hindu society or weath r it is present in other hierarchically organized societies
also. Caste cannot be defined independent of the caste system. Caste is a system of social stratification. Society
is divided in terms of economic conditions, political power, social status, prestige or honour. This unequal
distribution of goods and services, rights and obligation, power and status is called stratification. Caste structure
is a pattern of social behavior in which groups and individuals are guided by prescribed set of norms, values and
sanctions. The groups and individuals occupy specific status within and in relation to other groups. In this
system individuals are born into a certain caste and thereby acquire the role and status associated with that caste
identity.
FEATURES OF THE CASTE SYSTEM:
Caste is an ascribed status since caste membership is acquired by birth. The main features of the caste system
are:(I) HIERARCHY (ii) ENDOGAMY (iii) HEREDITARY OCCUPATION (iv) LIMITED SOCIAL
INTERCOURSE and (v) DISTINCT CUSTOM , DRESS & SPEECH. Caste is a closed group associated with birth.
The concept of hierarchy is the crux of the caste system. Endogamy or marriages within one's own caste or sub-
caste group is an essential feature ofille caste group. Each caste group is generally associated with an occupation
traditionally performed only by thecp. It is also the basis of their rank or status in the society. Socially, each caste
group is under the strict influehc or control of the elder leaders from their own community. Caste restrictions operate
in marriage or in other inter-dining functions. Every caste has distinct traditions and customs . Their dress is also in
tune with their occupations and the similar pattern is visible with their language. Every caste has its own
surname or surnames also.
The caste system, in cruel or mild fonn, had believably always existed and is still existing in India. The
caste system is a typical feature of Indian society, which appears to have developed from the Varna system. The
twin concept of Varna and Jati/Caste has remained influential through the history of Indian society, because they
have together shaped social relations between various segments. Literally the word "Varna" refers to 'colour'. In
the Rig Vedic society there are four varnas namely BRAHM IN, KSHATRIY A, VAISHYA and SHUDRA.
These four varnas repres e nting four colours white, red, yellow and black respectively are classified as priests
or teachers, warriors, traders and functionary groups.
Initially the varna system appears to have some fluidity with regard to change of duties and functions
associated with a particular vama , but in course of time the varnas seem to have become rigid and insulated enclaves
ithout having any inter-varna relations. But gradually their inter-mixing in terms of profession and social
intercourse lead to the emergence of various castes. As a result, Varna is seen as a notion or moucl rather a social
practice while caste emerges as a social practice and institutional mechanism in real life situation. The Varna
model has some religious sanctity also .
The Hindu system is constituted of four varnas and thousands of caste and sub-castes groups. The presence
of caste system is unique in the sense that even within the geographical boundary of India, one caste present at
one place may not be present at another place. So for an objective analysis we can say that Varna is an all-India
category while caste is a localized phenomenon. In this sense, Brahm ins are placed at number one in the social
hierarchy both in terms of power and prestige. Next to them, there are Kshatriyas, and after that the Vaishyas. The
first three varnas are belived to be twice-born castes, hence much pure comparat ive ly. The Shudras are said to
be polluted and placed at the bottom.
Power structure and caste system in a society is relational realities. A particular caste may be dominant at one
place may be subdued at another place. This shows an unequal distribution of power in society in terms of caste h ie
rarchy, although in terms of social hierarchy they enjoy parity. The caste system is clearly a hierarchical system
although the nature of this hierarchy may be difficult to ascertain beyond certain terms. (Andre Beteille : 1971 ). The
following factors are responsible for it :
(a) The cont rol. o f land and economic resources ;
(b} The numerical stre ngth;
(c) A relatively high ritual status in the caste hierarchy;
(d) Educational stat us .
9
 The above factors combine to place a particular caste group in a position of political dominance. A near monopoly
of managen ent rights in local resources, usually agricultural land, and control of the same, gives the group an ability
to control the lives of the others. Numerical strength alone may not place a group in a bargaining position. It
ndeds an economic power base to backup its strength. Once economic rights are in possession, the size of a grou_p does
become important. The control of resourses by members of a dominant caste lead, in turn, to making decisions for o
hers, which constitutes true dominance. Regional variations that account for dominant caste can be explained as
follow :
• The degree to which a single large land holding caste controls a set of dependent caste,
• Rigidity of caste hierarchy,
• The existence of two or more dominant caste groups in a region.
The pattern in India reflects that dominant castes do not exist everywhere. The land owning class in a
particular area establishes its hegemony in that area if it is numerically strong. Local power flows mainly from
land. In the rural areas land is the main source of power. Power is safeguarded if it is confined to a unified and
numerically preponderant caste group. However number alone cannot guarantee power. Caste groups,
numerically preponderant, but with divided loyalties, creating disunity, may not wield power. It is only when a
caste group be.comes politically united that it becomes a political force. This is very important because in the new
democratic political set-up where every vote counts the numerical preponderance of a caste group gains an
additional meaning. Power may also accrue to a caste when its me:nbers make effective connection with the local
power structure .
The high-ranking Brahmins, in general, possess wealth, power and control, besides the traditional right to
perform rituals; they also have right to religious learning and worship at temples. Subordinate castes are obliged
to worship according to their ritual prescriptions and do not have the right to religious texts. Their economic ang
political subordination further enhances the dominance of the high- anking castes. In regions where power and
caste hierarchy overlap, there is a definite concentration of power, wealth, land invested with high-ranking caste
groups. The ritual sanction reinforces the superordinate status of upper caste groups and subordination of the lower
caste groups.
However, education has brought a wholesale change in the whole structure. The educated castes have earned
a place of pride for themselves. The politi al awareness has also contributed to it la gely. Now the distribution of
power in society is not there according to the social hierarchy but according to tlie political partnership in the
political system, that is also fluid. Caste has emerged as a major tool for the management of power. The rigid caste
hierarchy does not control the distribution of power. Power in society is distributed according to the dominance and
awareness of the caste groups. It is further enhanced by the reservation policy which is bringing a social change,
although slowly.
British colonialism brought about certain changes in the basic design in the traditional Indian society and in
the economic sector that included the introduction of advanced techniques of manufacture, the growth of caste free
occupations, the expansion of cash economy and the development of new markets. All this rcsulte .d into the
erosion of the traditional association between caste and occupation; caste became largely detached from the
economic system and was confined to the ceremonial aspects of social life.
In the post-colonial India, th.e h ig h caste monopoly has been broken by the constitutional guarantees to the
perceived lower castes in the form of 'reservations' and also by the challenge of the castes immediately below the
perceived upper castes, the backwards. While the impact of the former developments has been symbolic, the primary
function of the latter in terms of caste in power has been to transfer authority from higher to middle castes. Adult
franchise, democratic decentralization, panchayati raj all has in practical tenns helped the backward castes to
consolidate their rule. (Rupak Duttagupta : 200 I).
CLASS
Class is one of the fundamental types of social stratification. It is generally defined as a stratum of people
occupying similar social positions. According to The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English,
"Class is a group of people at the same social or economic level". Wealth, income, education,
10
occi1pation a;e some of the basic determinants of a class. It is an open system, and any one who satisfies the basic
criteria can become its member. Class is a universal phenomenon in human societies. It is only the nature and content
of class that change and vary from society to society. Marx and Engels talk about 'master' and ' slave' in a slave-
owning society; 'feudal lord' and 'serf in a feudal socie ty; 'capitalist' and 'proletariat' in a capitalist society. Social
classes are the characteristic features of industrial societies. (Bottomore : 1964, 19 82).
The tenn ' class' has different meanings for Marxist and non-Marxist. As per the Marxist view, economic category
is the basis of a class, whereas for a non-Marxist, it is a social group. The non-Marxists offer numerous criteria of
classes-wealth or property, family or kinship, place of residence, occupation, education, religion etc. Marx analyses
class in relation to the ownership of property, capital and means of production. I le divides the society into two
classes, one who owns them, and, another, who does not own them. So, class becomes a category to describe the
economic position of two groups in society.
Marxism offer a class theory of power. Power is a class concept. It emerges with the emergence of
antagonistic classes in the socie ty. The economically dominant class rules in a capitalist society. This power would,
finally, cease to operate in a classless society. Classes emerge at a particular stage of material development. "foe
economic wealth generates power. 1l1e economic power dictates the political power. Power, as a result of class society,
remains the monopoly of the possessive class in every class society. The state becomes an instrument to
perpetuate the class rule, an instrument of class rule. The workers organize themselves as a revolutionary class and
capture the state power through revolution. Power is used to abolish power.
Weber divides the population into classes according to economic differences of market capacity. Capital is one
source of market capital, but skill and education form another. Weber identifies four classes : the prope1tied class, the
intellec tual, the administrative and managerial class, and the working class. Class conflict is common between groups
with immediately opposite interests.
In regard to the analysis of power in society, Weber again introduces a pluralistic notion. Although he agrees with
Marx in crucial respects, he refines and extends Mars's analytical scheme. For Marx, power is alv.·ays rooted, even if
only in the " last analysis ," in economic relations. Those who own the means of 1 production exercise political power
either directly or indirectly. Weber agreed that quite often, especially in the modern capitalist world, economic power is
the predominant form. But he states, "The emergence of economic power may be the consequence of power existing on
other grounds. " For example, men who are able to command large-scale bureaucratic organizations may wield a great
deal of economic power even though they are only salaried employees.
Weber understands by power : the chance of man, or a number of men "to realize their own will in communal
action, ven against the resistance of others." He shows that the basis from which such power can be exercised m_ay
vary considerably according to the social context, that is, historical and structural circumst ance . Hence, where the
source of power is located becomes for Weber an empirical ques tio n, one that cannot be answered by what he
considers Marx's dogmatic emphasis on one specific source. Moreover, Weber argues , men do not only strive for
power to enrich them. "Power, including economic power, may be valued 'for its own sake.' Very frequently the
striving for power is also conditioned by the social 'honour' it enta ils ."
The society in the developed countries is open as well as conscious. The distribution of power in society is on the
basis of command rather tha11 demand. The mature political culture of this society does not allow any authoritative
tendency to emerge. Military does not enter into the realm of,power, as has bt!en the case in many developing
countries. The social stratification is present but of a different d imens io n. Class power in the developed .society
means the power of the ruling combine. The participatory nature of the society results in the exercise of power by all
the classes of the society. ·
Power in post-colonial countries has been exercised by various coalitions of hetero eneous elite drawn from their
multiple social plurality based on scriptive identities as well as by the social classes. In some states the upcoming
middle class, owing their existence to the state's expansion into the economic, social and cultural activities, has
played a significant role in the power structure of the political system.

11
In others, the military-bureaucratic elite has been dominant. Thus, domination in the post-colonial societies is not
identifiable in a single social group, class, or ascriptive category. Mainly, this is because their structural
inheritances that leaves least possibility of hegemony of any one single social group. It is internally because of the
dependence nexus of international capitalist division of labour and internally due to the pressures of entrenched
civil society against which the post-colonial state has proved to be a weak counterfoil. Unlike the experiences of
the west, the basis of power in the third world is plural or multiple. (Rupak Duttagupta: 00 I)
Major Theories of Power*
The following provides chronologically organized short notes on some of the major theories of power:
PLATO (428BC-347BC) sought to outline the conditions of the ideal republic in which a learned cadre of
intellectuals would gove rn. The vision was a very authoritarian one in which power was held by a few.
IBN KHADDUN ( 1332- I 406) was a Muslim statesman who, following a career in politics, turned to the
study of the ways in which politics and society are interrelated. His work prefigured many sociological concerns and
he related power in cultural and social forms.
NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527) was one of the most innovative theorists of power and his name
has become synonymous with power relations and power struggles. His work.presents ethnography of power in
the ways that tactics are employed to secure outcomes.
THOMAS HOBBES (1558-1679) was a key figure in the development of moral and political philoso phy. Hobbes
sought to understand power relations between subjects and the sovereign and the ways in which stability and order in
society could be secured.
JOHN LOCKE (1632-1704) analysed the ways in' which popular consent was developed within societies and
how far rulers have justifiable power in relation to their subjects. Locke was interested in the means by which
power is legitimized and suggested that if it was not legitimate people had grounds for resistance.
MONTESQUIEU, CHARLES-LOUIS de SECONDAT ( I 689-1755) was noteworthy for his attempt to
integrate environmental and social factors in the development of societies. For Montesquieu. laws were the _
expression of the power relations between the governor and the governed and it was laws that provided the basis for
social control in societies.
JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU ( 1712-1778) is famous for the epigram, 'Man is born free, and
everywhere he is in cha ins ' : society does not offer freedom but constrains. Rousseau was concerned with
developing an account of power relations in which people would be self-governing in conditions of equality.
KARL HEINRICH MARX ( 18 I 8-1883) is recognized as the key analyst of capitalism and radical
inspiration to people's movement worldwide. Marx sought to make the power relations of capitalism transparent and
to link political, economic and ideological forms of power in relation to the lives of working people.
FRIEDRICH WILHELM NIETZSCHE (1844-1900) remains a controversial, figure who suggested that life
should be lived in relation to 'the will of power', which he conceived as the creative and productive impulse of
people. For Nietzsche, power was productive and existed beyond government and institutional arrangements.
MAX WEBER ( 1864-1920) developed an account of power through his analysis of forms of domination, which
were located with different forn1s of legitimacy: traditional, charismatic and legal-rational. Modern nation states were
characterized by growing bureaucratic forms that provided the means whereby citizens were managed.
ANTANIO GRAMSCI (1891-1920) was an Italian Marxists imprisoned by the Fascist & during which time he
wrote an extensive collection of pieces gathered together as The Prison Nolebooks. Gramsci contested the singular
emphasis upon economic relations in Marxism and reasserted the power of ideological an cultural forms in contributing
towards the generation and reproduction of liberal democracy.

12
 HANNAH ARENDT (1906-1975) distinguished between power and violence and dismissed the notion that
violence could be legitimized through the ends to.whic h it was d irected. Arendt sustained and active account of
power and emphasized empowerment.
FRANTZ FENON ( 1925-1961) was a psychiatrist working in Algeria who articulated the violence of racism
and the colonial encounter and its embeddedness within the colonial psyche. He suggested that violenct means were
a cathartic necessity for the emancipation of those colonized and subjugated.
MICHEL FOUCAULT (1926-1984) provided a major impetus to the theorization of power through his
analyst:s of modern societies in which power is dispersed throughout social life. He used the example of the
development of the prison in order to explore disciplinary power and its impact on the modern life, but was
equally concerned to understand the ways in which power is central to the constitution of subjectivities.
ZYGMUNT BAUMAN invokes power relations throughout his work and suggests that power is both
constraining and a source of emancipation. Bauman acknowledges the disciplinary state and state interventions in
individual lives, but re-asserts the necessity of public power as central to a revisioned public sphere.
PIERRE BOURDIEU focuses attention upon the importance of cultural consumption as a means to
securing class and status distinctions in society. These forms interact with 'symbolic power' that is founded on the
authority of experts, trained and certified and able to exercise power over others.
JUDITH BUTLER concentrates attention upon the power of heterosexuality to define the body and
sexuality in society, and the ways in which this generates forms of res is tance . For Butler, gender/sexual identities are
infinitely malleable and it is the attempt of fix the body in one mode , which is a product of power relations then
subverted by forms of per formative power using parody, masquerade and transgress styles.
ANTHONY GIDDENS understands power as ' transform ative capacity' and this allied with an account
of the reflexive self within democracy. Howeve r, power coalesces in specific ways allied with bureaucratic forms and
locales, most especially cities and nation states .
JURGEN HABERMASS ( 1929) develops a theory of communicative action as a basis for outlining
the conditions under which a participatory public sphere can be sustained. This would e11able the widest
possible debate on public issues within the power relations of socie ty.
STUART HALL emphasizes power as practice in a great variety of contexts, from academic debates
conct:rning the role of culture of interventions in the politics of race. Hall has sought ways in which to redefine the
terms in which we construct the social world, emphasizing the power of naming and its role in re-visioning
contemporary metropolitan urban spaces.
STEVEN LUKES defines power in relation to interests and whose interests were served in relation to
the outcomes of power. This was an attempt to remove the discussion of power from an individualist account and
emphasis the social embeddedness of power relations.
(Adopted from Sllllie Westwood, 2002, Power mu/ the Social, Lom/011s, New York : Routledge.)

13
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

I . Andre Beteille (1971), Caste, Class and Power : Changing Patterns of Stratijicativn in a Tanjore
Village, London, University of California Press.
2. Andrew Cox, Paul Furlong, & Edward Page (1985), Power in Capitalists Societies: Theory, Explanation
and Cases London : Wheatsheet Books Ltd.
3. Andrew S. McFarland ( 1969), Power and Leadership in Pluralists Systems,Stanford : California
Standford University Press.
4. Bertrand Russell (1920), Principles of Social Reconstruction, London : George Allen & Unwin.
5. Henri Lefebvre (1967), The Sociology of Marx, London : The Penguin Press.
6. M. Mann (1986), The Sources of Social Power, Vol. l, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Michel Foucault (1977), Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans., Alan Sheridan, London
: AIlen Lane.
8. N. Poulantzas (1973), Political Power and Social Classes, London, New Left Books.
9. Peter Calvert (1982), Comparative Politics : An Introduction, Harlow, England Pearson Education.
10. Robert A. Dahl (1967), Pluralist Democracy in United States, Chicago: Rand McNally.
11. Robert A. Dahl (1961 ), Who Governs? : Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven :
Yale University Press.
1 2. Rupak Duttagupta (2001 ), Classes and Elites in the Third World, Delhi : Authors Press.
13. S. Lukes (1974), Power: A Radical View, London: Macmillan ..
14. Sallie Westwood (2002), Power and the Social, London and New York: Routledge.
15. T.B. Bottomore (1982), Elites and Society, ·Peng uin Books, England.
16 . Tom Bottomore, (ed.) (1991) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Oxford : Blackwell Reference.
Question:
Ddine "power" and evaluate its relationship with caste and class in the present-day world.

14
 LESSON 3

THEORIES OF CITIZENSHIP
Dr. Parmanand
Reader in Political Science,
School of Correspondence Courses

The concept of"Citizenship" occupies a place of prime significance in the gamut of political science, in
general, and comparative political analysis, in pa ular. In fact, the concept is as old as political science or the
state itself. Citizenship is considered a means to achieve certain privileges in the state. On the other
. hand, its absence is considered something synonymous with the absence of those privileges for such
individuals as do not possess this.
The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary defines "citizen" as "a member of a State or
Commonwealth, either native or naturalized (British citizen)". The dictionary also mentions that it is usually
"followed by of' implying that the state's name is mentioned in a natural way. The same dictionary also defines
citizen as "an inhabitant of a city", "a freeman of a city" or as in the US "a civilian". The New Lexicon
Webster's Dictionary Of The English Language , defines "citizen" as "an inhabitant of a city or town",
·
member of a country, native or naturalized, having rights and owing allegiance".
In legal tem1s, an individual possessing citizenship of a particular state "owesallegiance to'.' and "receives
protection from" a particular state. (See Scruton: 1982, 63). Stein Kuhnle (1987:94) is of the view that citizenship
"denotes full and responsible membership of an individual in a state". R. Bendix (1964 & 1977) is of the opinion
that "a core element in nation-building is the codification of the rights and duties of all adults who are classified as
citizens".
It is significant to note that conditions of citizenship are determined for each state in accordance with its
own legal provisions. Besides, it is not necess ary that everyone residing within the jurisdiction of a particular state
should be a citizen thereof...even when he is a "national" of that state anq citizen of no other. It' is altogether a
different matter that such "statelessness" is now rare. The form of government is also often a determining factor of
citizensh ip. (See Roberts : I 971, 30). Roberts rightly gives the example that in some states in the past, only the
wealthy or those of high birth have beeri regarded as citizens. Women have been excluded from citizenship in
various states in the past. In yet ano ther , religious or ethnic groups have been made tests. Ancient Greece or pre-c iv
il war America did not regard .sl ave as citizens.
In most states , though, the re exists a body of law relating to citizenship - which is used to decide disputed
cases and which includes in its codes definitions of citizenship and status of non-citizens.
It is worth mentioning that an ideo lo gical preference for the term "citizen" over the rival "subject" has
hcen common since the American and the French revolution. It is probably rightly assumed that the latter suggests a
condition of subservience, which the former does not. Moreover, one can be a "citizen" only within a certain
constitutio n, which defines the rights and duties of citizenship, whereas one can be a "subject" to an unconstituted
power.
Marshall's Theory : There seems to be a great deal of consensus among comparative political analysts and
even sociologists that it was Thomas H. Marshall (1950) who analysed citizenship as a classic example within an
evolutionary perspective. His effort could be said to be very significant on the plane of theory huilding in this fie ld.
T.H. Marsha ll.(1873-1982) was a professor of sociology at the London School of Economics. Marshali
defined citizenship as a status which is enjoyed by a person who is a full member of a community. He created a
simple threefold typology of citizenship rights and applied it to the historical developments of rights and duties in
Britain since the 18th century. In Marsha ll ' s perspective, the 18th century brought civil rights/or Civil citizenship :
equa li ty before law, liberty of the person , freedom of speech, thought and faith,

15
 the right to own property and conclude contracts. In his view, the 19th century saw the development of political rights
or political citizenship : the right to take part in elections and the right to serve in bodies invested with political
authorities - whether legislature or cabinet. According to him, finally, the exercise of political rights in the 20th
century brought social rights or social citizenship : the right to certain standard of economic and social welfare, the
right to share to the full in the social her itage.
According to Marshall, four sets of public institutions correspond to these three types of rights or
citizenships : the courts, representative political bodie , the social services and the schools.
The important feature of Marshall's theory was his view that there was a "permanent tension or contradiction"
between "the principles of citizenship and the operation of the capitalist market". It is also worth noting that by its
nature capitalism involves inequalities between social classes, while citizenship mvolves some redistribution of
resources, because of rights which are enjoyed and shared equally by every citizen. (See Gordon Marshall, ed., I
998:72.)
T.H. Marshalls theory of citizenship has been subjected to criticism on more than one gro und . Critics argue that
his theory is not a -comparative analysis of citizenship and it is a description of English experience only. It has, on the
other hand, been argued that it does not examine social processes which undermine citizenship and has instead an
evolutionary and teleological view of the inevitable expansion of citizenship. It has also been pointed out that it
does not address gender differences in the experience of citizenship. It has been observed that it fails to address
other types of citizenship, such as economic citizenship. Moreover, it is not clear about the causes of the expansion
of citizenship. (See Ibid.)
Various criticisms of T.H. Marshall's theory notwithstanding, there can be no doubt about the significance of this
theory per se or the substantial contribution that it made to the concept of citizenship itself. Alan Ryan (1987:75) is
of the view that Marshall ' s is the best known attempt to link the welfare state's attack on poverty with the ideal
of the citizenship for all.
Bendix's Theory: Reinhard Bendix (b. 1916) is an American soc iolo g is t whose comparative study of business
ideology and authority in the industrializing societies of Europe and America remains a classic work of economic
socio log y. In his Nation Building and Citizenship ( 196 4), Re inhard Ben<jix elaborated
T.H. Marsha ll ' s view that access to political rights or "citizenship" is important in incorporating the working class into
modern society. In his book on citize nship , he talks about very different traditions of citizenship in different socie
ties . According to Bendix, active citizensh i p, which is based on the achievement of rights through social struggle is very
different from passive citizenship, which is handed down from above by the state .
Bendi x' s theory on active and passive citizens may not be as profound as that of T.H. Marshall, but there
can be no doubt about its significance in historical and behavioral perspect ives.
Liberal Model : Chantal Mouffee, Professor of Poli tical Theory, Centre for the Study of Democracy, University of
Westminster, London (2001:137) stresses that today the liberal model of citizenship has gained a new momentum in
the states where the " ma in task is to establish the basic conditions for civil society and
. pluralistic democracy". Mou ffee, though , feels that it has been increasingly criticized in Western democracies for its
individualistic bias, which is "deemed responsible for the lack of cohesion and the destruction of common purpose
and.co mmun ity values endemic in those socie ties" .
Communitarians' School: Chantal Mouffee (2001 : 137) also alludes to the emergence of a school of "Comm
unitarians, which advocates the revival of the civil republican conception of citizenship with its strong stress on the notion
of a public good " prio r to and independent of individual desires and interests " . Scholars iikc Michael Sandel and
Alasdair MacIntyre have referred to the work of John Rawls with a view to criticizing the liberal view of the citizen and
its conception of the individual as someone who can enjoy rights separately from the community to which he belo ngs .
Mouffee feels that what is at stake is this debate is " the possibility and desirability of a return to a tradition that many
liberals see_as a premodern and incompat•ble with the pluralism that is the novel character of a modern democracy
''.
Rousseau's view : It is widely and rather rightly believed that the universalitstic ideal of citizenship

16
c11l111itnated in the French Revolution (1789) and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. And not less
significantly, the main theoretical referent in this case is Jean Jacques Rousseau' s (1712-78) The Social Contract (1
762). 11,e Social Conlracl is justifiably credited with establishing the modern figure of the citizen by connecting it
to the theory of consent. Rousseau's citizen is free and autonomous in dividua l, who is cntillcd to take part in
making decisions that all are required to obey. In fact, Rousseau ' s view of citizenship
--- which borrows from the classical republican tradition and on modern contractualism --- attempts to link the
republican co·nception of community with the problems of individualism.
Rousseau was writing in the context of an emerging commercial society and , as such, was conscious of the
tension between the common good and private interests. Rousseau saw in the dominance of organized
·group interests the principal danger to the welfare of the people of the nation or society considered as an
organized group of cit izens . Frank Bcaley (1999:53) is of the opinion that the concept of citizenship has
gradually developed over two hundred years, and the debate thereon was initiated by Rousseau.
According to Alan Ryan (1987:74-75), Rousseau's Social Co11tract was " avowed ly hostile to the
<:omplcxity. luxury and individualism"' of the 18th century and looked to Sparta and Rome for i ts political iJ eals.
In t ruth , Rousseau did not admire the ancients' warlike qualities, but he praised the s imp li city of Iheir lives.
their unserving public spirit and their fitness for self government.
It will not be wrong to state that just as T.H. Marshall's theory of citizenship occupies a place of great
significance in comparative political analysis of modern times, Rousseau's views on citizenship occupied a place
of immense importance during the French Revolution and subsequently. It has, ind eed, not lost its importance
even today. Of course, written in the 18th century, Rouss eau ' s views on citizenship could not have been as
exhaustive or as modern as those of Marshall.
Machiavelli's views : Though the views expressed by Italian philosopher Niccolo di Bernardo dei
Machiavelli ( 1469-1527) on citizenship cannot be said to be very organized and focused. his name has come to be
associated with the process of the evolution of concept of citizenship in se. The citizens of Rome were the heroes
of Machiavelli's reflections on the history of the Roman Republic, for. to Machiavelli, it was their "virtu" which
secured Rome's greatness. Machiavelli, indeed, contrasted the instability and vulnerability of Florence with the
stability and power of Rome and asked how the latter preserved her•freedom for so long. And the "vi11u" of her
citizens was a " large part of the answer". (See Alan Ryan , 1987 : 74).
In fact, Rome's freedom had two aspects: her invulnerability to attack by other states, and the absence of
internal tyranny by any class or individual. Machiavelli felt that citizen "Yirtu" produced self-disciplin e, p:ilr iot
ism, simple piety and a willingness to forgo private gain for the sake of public good.
. Cha11tal Moufee (2001 : 136) is of the view that after a long obscurity during the Middle ages, the tradition
of"Greek and Roman republicanism was revived in the Italian republics of the Ranaissance" as it found a good
champion in Niccolo Machiavelli.
Aristtole's views: Aristotle (384-322 BC), acknowledged as the father of political science, could not have
been as comparative or exhaustive about citizenship as later political scientists or cornparativists. But lhe concept
of citizenship did figure in his writings significantly. It is altogether a different matter that the concept was very
narrowly conceived. Aristotole defines a citizen as anyone who can '' hold office" and subsequent ··extensions of
this idea have involved the thought that citizenship (as opposed to subjecthood) is possible only where there are
sufficient offices open to all". (See Scruton: 1982,64.)
Relevant ly, ancient citizenship. which concerned Ar istotle, was understood as the capacity to govern and to
be governed. This citizenship was based on the equality before the law and active political participation. lls
emergence is concomitant with democracy's inception. Significantly, citizenship in the Greek democratic city states
was limited to free and native born men. And citizens represented only a minority of the population even in Athens.
Not less significantly, their participation in public life was only possible because of the presence of slaves---
who were performing the c1ief economic functions.
In any case, pol"itical scientists have, by and large, subjected Aritstotle's concept of citizenship to scathing
criticism just as they have done his theory and advocacy of slavery. Ironically, the two concepts are often

17
 Multienthnicity, multiculturalism and citizenship: A very significant challenge associated with citizenship for
both 'communications' and ’’ liberals " nowadays is how to establish a notion of citizenship that accommodates the
'increasingly multicthnic and multicultural character of a country's population. Chantal Mou flee (2001: 137) feels that
North America has faced this proble m for long wit hout bei ng able to resolve it sa tisfactorily. Apparently the difficulty
lies in the need to create unity without rejecting multiplicity. The quest ion and problem or comb i nin g "e ffec ti ve
pluralism'' with the existing and even competing cultural, linguistic, ethnic. religious and other indentities while const
ructing a common political identitity around an "'allegiance to shared political pri ncipals" remain.
Needless to say, this problem has existed and docs exist in oth er states as well. This was---where citizens of various
republics and cthn ic group, s werc feeling discriminatcd against by the state structure led by the Russians----interalia,
responsible for the dismemberment of one super power in 1991: the Soviet Union or the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republ ics (USSR). States like Yugoslavia and zeckos lovak ia in Eastern Europe also got d ismcmemb ered very
largely for this very reason: citizens of var ious hues in the se sla te s felt d iscrim i nated against on the grounds of
ethnicity, language and culture etc.
In South Asia, Pak istan saw the break i ng away of Bangladesh in 1971 as the Bengalis (Bengali speakers)
--- culturally different from others even though belonging to the same religious grouping --- as citizens of Pakistan felt
discriminated against by the then governing elite of Pakistan. A large number of Biharis (Urdu- spcaking people) left in
Bangladesh wish to go to the present-day Pakistan as they feel they are citizens of Pakistan. The problems remains
unresolved and an irritant in the Bangladesh-Pakistantics. In Pakistan itself, the Moha1j is (the Urdu-speaking people
who migrated to Pakistan after partition of India in 1947) and the Sindhis as Pakistan's citizens keep ventilaing their
grievances against the state structure. Besides one hears from time to time of the interest articulation and interest
aggregation by the Sindh- Baluch-Pakhtoon Front underscoring the disadvantages faced by the Pakistani citizens of the
ethnic groups in Pakistan.
In India ' s Kashmir, Nagaland and Manipur , various grou ps of citizens focusing their political
consciousncss on the basis of ethnicity and cultural salience keep making various demands on the state. It May not be
exaggerated to state, though. that because of it s more flexible and accommodative modus operandi and modus vivendi
India has been able to solve this problem much more ably than it s other South Asian neighbours. Bangladesh' s Chak
mas (a tribal group of the country living prepondcrently in Chittagong Hill Tract and belonging mostly to Buddhist
rcligion) as citizens of that country had a long struggle against the state apparatus and avast chunk of then, had to live
like refugees in India for several years before they could return to the nascent South Asian state.
Bhutan , the second least populated South sian state, is also not free from citizenship problem. Some 1 lakh Nepali
-speaking people claiming to be Bhutanese citizens are living in sew n refugee camps in eastern Nepal. They claim to
have been driven away by the state agencies because of their ethnic , cultural and religious salience in the Buddh-
ist state. The state of Bhutan. though insists that not all camp inhabitants are its citizens. The problem between the
two Himalayan land locked kingdoms is getting internationalized and shows no sign of getting resolved in the near
future.
Another South Asian Himalayan state or Nepal which keeps complaining to the international community about the
burden of a vast chunk of Bhutanese citizens as refugees is it self not free from the problem of citizenship. A la rge
number of the people of Nepal’s Terai (plains) known as the Madheshis (the people of Indian extraction) have been
complaining for a long time that though they are genuine Nepali citizens and have been living in the kingdom for
generations, they are not being given citizenship certificates by the Nepali state. Such people are said to be
numbering about 34 lakhs. A serious and signiticant aspect of this problem is that the Nepali government itself accepts
the problem's existence and claims its seriousness to resolve this problem. This problem too pertains to the ethnic,
cultural and linguistic---if not also religious---differences between the Madheshis and the Paharis (hillmen) who
constitute the ruling elite in the kingdom. The state of Sri Lank a can now claim to have solved the problem of all types
of citizenship techn ically. But to a very great extent the problem of the present -day terrorism or separatism had its
genes is in the state's discrimination against a conscious and vocal -minority of citizens based, again on culture,
ethnicity and language.

19
Ever since 1956. the Sri Lankan Tamils---even though genuine citizens of the Sri Lankan state----have been
discriminated. I against by the Sri Lankan state. whose governing elite has been, since the state's independence in
1948. Sinhalese---the Sinhala-speaking Buddhists.
In a way, the problem that emanated in 1956 had its genesis in 1948 itself, when an Act decitizenised some 8
lakh Tamils of Indian extraction---also known as plantation or upcountry Tamils. In fact, this problem was sought to
be solved through two agreements that Sri Lanka entered with India in 1964 and 1974 - adding international
dimensions thereto.
Modernization and citizenship : Some sociologists, including Talcott Parsons (1902-79), consider the growth
of citizenship as a measure of society's modernization. They are of the view that this is based on valm:s of
u11iversalism and achievement. They came to think on these lines against the backdrop of thinking on the lines of
bourgeois liberalism or radical democratic politics. In former. citizenship involved conservative view of social
participation. In the latter, it was treated as a feature of radical democratic politics. It is either belittled as a mere
capitalistic reform or it is regarded as a basic plank of democracy. Of late, s11ciologists have been asking
questions about the changing relations between the individuals, communities and stalcs---pa11icularly so when the
nation-state is increasingly influenced by supra national organizations. In o doing and understanding the state of
citizenship, such sociologists have gone beyond the concepts of civil society, liberalism and democracy. (See
Gordon Marshall: 1998, 72.)
Summing-up: To sum up, it is not for nothing that the concept of and the problems regarding citizenship has
occupied a place of great significance in the gamut of political science and comparative political analysis. If political
science has revolved round and does revolve round the structure, nature and purpose of the state, a state cannot be
thought of without people. Not unnaturally, then, even since the assumed beginning of political science at the
time of Aristotle,' the concept of citizenship---in the given framework of time and circumstances---has been
occupying the centre stage of discussions. Serious discussions on various kinds of citizenship might have waxed
and woned at different points of time, but have never completely disappeared."
Thus even in this age of transparency and accountability, the problem of citizenship---particularly its equality
and non-discriminatory aspects---remains unresolved in most of the states----even if in varying ways and degrees.

20
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nidit'llas Abercrombie. Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner ( 1994). The Penguin Dicliona,y of Sociology,
I .ondon : Penguin. ·

Frank Bea.l Y ( 1999), 11,e Blackwell Diclionwy Of Political Science; Oxford : Blackwell Publishers.

I{ . Bendix (1964 & 1977). Na/ion-Building And Cilizenship; New York: Wiley.

Tom l3ottomore ( 1996). "Citizenship", in William Outhwaite & Tom Bottomore, eds., The Blackwell
DicJionary Of Twenlielh Century Social Though/, Oxford : lackwell Reference.
Stein Kuhnle ( 1987). "Citizenship", in Vernon Bogdanor, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Political
. lnslilulions, Oxford : Blackwell Reference.
Gordon Marshall ( 1998), Oxford Diclic>nary of Sociology, Oxford : Oxford University Press.

. T . H. Marshall ( 1950), Ci1i::e11ship, Social C(ass and OJher Essays; Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Ch:mtal Mouffoe (200 I). "Citizenship'", in Joel Krieger; ed., The Oxford Companion To Polilics Of /he
World Oxford : Oxford University Press , (OUP)
; 1dn:w Reeve {1996 ), " C itize nsh i p'' . in lain Mc Lea·n . ed., The Concise Oxford Diclionm:y Of Polilics,
<hrord: OUP. .

Gco ffrcy.K . Roberts ( 1971 ), A Diclimwry Qf Polilical Analysis, London : Longman.

/\Ian Ryan ( I 987), "Citizenship", in David Miller, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia Of Polilical Thought,
Oxford : Blackwell Reference.

Roger Scruton (1982). A Diclionwy Of Polilical Thought; London: Pan/Macmillan.

W. Rogers Burbaker { 1992). Citi::enship and Nationhood in France and Germany Cambridge, MA : Harvard
University Press.

Pannanand (1986), ".l he Indian Community in Nepal and the Nepalese Community in India: The Problem
or National Integration," Asian Survey. Berkeley: University of California Press, Vol. 26, No. 9, September.
p.p : I 005-19.

Parmanand and Saroj Khanna ( 1993). "Ethnicity in Bhutan : Causes and Effects," Journal of South Asian
and Aliddle Eastern Studies. Villanova: Villanova Univ. Press. Vol. 17, No. I, pp: 76- 94.
()m·slion :
Whal do you mean by "citizen"? Make a critical evaluation of various theories of cit ize nship .

21
 LESSON 4

CIVIL SOCIETY AND THE STATE

Dr. Parmanand
Reader in Political Science, School
o(Corre:,,po11de11ce Courses

The concept of “Civil Society" has become immenscly fashionable in the gamut of political science and
comparativc political analysis today. Though it has been in circulation in varing degrees and with varying
conno1ations for a very long time, it assumed a great deal or significance in the last part of the last millennium.
In the present-day context, the term is used by all hues of comparativists and social scientists to discuss the
nature and structure of the state are also the state of democracy in a particular state.
And as democracy emerged as the most acceptable or least objectionable form of government in the end of
the 20th century, civil society has assumed further importance and relevance in the discussions on the forms and
fate or democracy in various states of the world. Charlotte P. Gilman once stated: "A concept is strangcr than a
fact". This seems to be more appropriate for this particular concept than others. It has indeed become a
tremendousiy productive concept for many groups.
Definitions: There docs not appear to be much confusion about the concept of civil society among the
scholars interested in this notion. Christopher Candland (2001 : 140) states that for contemporary scholars and
social activists and development professionals, "civil society is that diverse interest groups and social
organizations that is strong enough to provide some autonomy and protection to individuals from the
authoritarian and hegemonic tendencies of states". Candland further adds that by and large civil society
"underscores the importance of markets and liberal states to independent social life''.
Frank Bealey ( l999:59) looks al the concept as one which is used "to describe associations and other
organized bodies which are intermediate between the state and the family". To Jean Cohen and A. Arato (1992) a
civil society is a society in which people arc involved in social and political interactions free of state
conlrol or regulation, such as community groups, Voluntary associations, and even religious groups. To Rod
Hague and Martin Harrop (2001: 119) also Civil society consists of "those groups which are above the personal
realm of family but beneath the state". They add that the term covers “public organizations such as firms, labour
unions. interest groups and even (on some definitions) recreational bodies''. To these authors, such organizations
constitute the "collective life of society and of democracy". But nevertheless, they are “voluntary” in character
and “autonomous from the government".
Civil society in se need not have moral connotations. Antony Black (1987:77) says that in general usage
today civil society “lacks moral overtones, and refers to the non-political aspects of the contemporary social
order so that. for example. it can be debated whcthcr there is congruence or dissonance between civil society and
the state... Black also stresses that in its recent usage, civil society refers to “social and economic arrangements,
codes, institutions apart from the state”.
.lack Gray ( 1996:74) views civil society as "the set of intermediate associations which arc neither the state
nor the (extended) family” . To him, civil society, therefore includes "voluntary associations and firms and other
corporate bodies".
These definitions, of course, without varying much from one another, make it clear that civil society is
a , voluntary phenomenon. It is also obvious that civil society comprise autonomous organizations in any state
which are not as private as family but which arc not as public as the state per sc. They, of course, exist
between the two. In Italian framework. it is said that if the sta te is represented by the palazzo (the palace). civil
society in existence in the streets of the piazza (the square).
It is also obvious, that civil society is composed of institutions of all hues : trade unions, human rights
groups, cultural groups. political parties, religious organizations, environment protection groups or what
22
goes by the name of interest or pressure groups. It is because of this that it is often rightly said that
civil society is very strongly interlinked with the concepts and problems of mass movements and
citizenship. Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1995:28) have rightly stressed the role played by civil society in
making a democracy strong. They have observed that civil society " contr ibutes in diverse ways to
deepening, consolidating and maintaining democracy". They have also emphasized that it "supplements
the role of political parties in stimulating political participation and increasing citizens' political
efficacy and skill" .
Group activity is, needless to say, the hallinark of any civil society. Underlining the significance of
group activity. Almond ct al. (2000:73) observed that is can "help citizens to develop and clarify their
own prcl'erences, provide important in format io n about political eve nts , and articulate the interests of
citizens more dearly and precisely than parties and electio ns". Civil society, indeed, is a pointer to
active public , and an active public involved in a diversity of interest groups provides a fertile ground
for the development of democratic politics.
Genesis and Development: Obviously, the concept became very fashionable during the last phase
of the last millennium. It assumed a great deal of significance and relevance during the process of the
dismemberment of various east European states or during the systemic changes therein in the late 1980s
or what came to be known as the 1989 revolutions. And quite interestingly, it retains its significance in
the post-communist states of eastern Europe. It is widely believed today that the end of the communist
rule in various cast European states did not of necessity result in the establishment of democratic rule
therein. Nor did such changes result in the emergence of strong civil society there. These two
developments broadly go hand in hand.
I lowever, the fashionable use aside, the concept came into existence as early as c. 1400. Antony
Black (1987:77) observes that the concept of civil society from Latin "civilis societas entered European
usage. c. 1400 with a nexus of meanings given to it by Cicero in the first century BC". Black also
mentions that it '"referred not only to individual states but to the condition of living in a civilized
political community sul'ficiently advanced to inc l ude cities, having its own legal code (jus civile) and
with undertones of civility and urbanity (barbarians and pre-urban cu lture s were not civil societies) of
civic partnership--living and being ruled according to civil laws-and of the refinement of "civil life"
and "the commercial arts".
For John Locke ( 1632-1704) civil society was equivalent to political society. John Lo ke's pre-
Scottish enlightenment contract-based civil society is often contrasted with Hegel's " post-Sco tt is h
enlightenment com:cption". (See Candland : 200 I, I 40.) In co nt ractarian political thought, in general,
and in the writings of Locke, in part ic ul ar, '"political or civil societ y" was "contrasted with paternal
authority and the state of nature'' . "The implication" Black write s , " was that a money economy, ready
exchange in something like a free market, techno log ic al development affording comfort and decency
to civilized and intelligent persons, and a law-a bid ing political order com pr ise d a satisfactory and
progressive state of human affairs". (See Antony Black: 1987, 77.)
In the view and writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau ( 1712-78), the " i ns titut io n of private
property and the nH.:chanisms for its protection are fundamental to civil socie ty" . (See Candland :
2001, 141 .) Rousseau has very well a11iculated his viewpoint in h is famo us book, A Discourse on
the Origins of Inequality (1755) in the following words : "The first person who having enclosed a plot
of land, took in into his head to say that this is mine and found people simple eno ugh to belive
him, was the true founder of civil socie ty". (Cited in Ibid.)
German philosopher Georg Wi lhe lm Frie dric h Hegel (1770-1831) came to be associated with the
concept of civil society more prom i ne nt ly than several others of his predecessors and successors or
even contemporaries. According to Hegel, civil society is "not formed by contract but it is the
23
 sphere of contract, i.e . free association between individual''. (See Roger Scruton, 1982,66.) Because
of this, civil society is not a complete entity but one aspect or "moment" of the political order,
another aspect of which is the state.
It is to Hegel that political scien tist s and comparativists owe the modern meaning of the concept of
civil society. In the Philosophy of Right (1821 ), he treats civil society as the sphere of "eth ica l li fe"
interposed between the family and the state.
In his thought on civil society, Hegel followed the British economists and saw the content of
the concept as largely determined by "the free play of economic forces and individual se lf-seek i ng". But to
Hegel civil sm:icly also includes social and civic institutions that " in h ibit and regulate" economic life, "
Lead ing by an ineluctable process of education to the rational Iife of the stat e". "So the particularity of civil
society passes over into the universality of the state". (See Krishan Kumar: 1996,76)
Chr is tohcr Candland (200 I:140) is of the view that in Hegel's conception of civil society ''literally
designates the commercially vital segment of population, namely, traders, busin esspeople, lawyers, and other
prok ssionals, who are afforded residence within the walls of fortified towns as the essence of civil society".
I legcl, significantly, treated the market or "the system of needs" along with "public laws, the cou11s, the
pnlil:c. and the corporations as the pillars of civil society"'. On the other hand , he viewed civil society to be
the cthnical foundation of the state.
Hegel wrote much about the desirability of civil society, but he viewed it as a stage of development
towards a mature statu. (See Frank Bealcy: 1999,59). Gordon Marshall (1998 : 74) is of the view that among
vnrious philosophers Hegel considered civil society to be a "temporary phenomenon" to be transcended when
" parti cu lar and common interests comb ined."
In Hegel's philosophy, the state was essential. He considered the state to be always separate from civil
sol:iety- that is a society with government and laws. Neve11heless, the state "moderates and resolves the
contlict that emerge within civil society". (See Ronald H. Chilcote: 1994,96) To Hegel the state comprises
an ideal relationship of the clements or society and it " aggregates the communal concern of humanity". On
lhe onlrary, civil soc iety to I legel " compr ises the private world of individual interests and act ivities". Hegel
visualized a situation in which the unity between the state and civil society would evolve through various
i nstituti ons. In his instance pf Ru ssia, these institutions included the hereditary king (who was considered
independent of political groupings), the bureaucracy (whose interests converged with those of the state) and
an assemb ly of estates (which reflected a consensus of varying interests of civil soc iety ). (Ibid., 154.)
John Locke and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel differed in their views of civil society, inter alia, because
to Locke civil society was equivalent to political society. On the other hand , to Hegel political society and
lhc stat e arc made possibly by the development of civil society. Locke and Hegel differed probably because
of their pre-Scottish and post-Scottish enlightenment. In any case the origins of the concept lie i11 the Scottish
En Iightenment ( 1740-1 790). In any case, the main current usage of the concept is derived from Hegel.
The name of Karl Marx ( 1818-83), another German philosopher known all over the world, did not come
tn be associated with the concept of civil society as significantly as that of Hegel, the farmer's teacher for
some time. .But that docs not mean that Marx remained unassociated with the concept either. According to
Marx, in medieval times there was less separation between the state and civil society "because civil society
was politi cal society : because the organic principle of civil society was the principle of the state". (Cited
in Chilcote : 1994, 154.) llowever, in earlier period of history Marx separated forms of the state from an
ideal or abstract conception and rooted them in "the material conditions of li fe". Marx stressed that in ancient
( in.:cee, the sta te and eo111111u11ity were combined into the polis-and there was a feeling of union between
the people and the state, between private and public in terests .

24
 Marx beli eved that the state is separate from civil society and is the organization " the bourgeoisie
adopts for the protection of its property and interests". (Ibid., 316.) In his critique of Hegel, Marx probed
the emergence of the state tn modern times. Marx emphasized that the separation between civil society and
the slate was a modern phenomenon strengthened by capita lis m.
In Karl Marx and his co-author Freidrich Engels ( 1820-95), one rarely, if ever, encounters the term
"soc iety'' in isolation. Rather there is a '' more basic dichotomy between civil society (the ensemble of
socio-economic relations and forces of production) 2nd the state (the superstructural manifestation of class
relations i nsid e civil society). Not less s igni ficant ly, in The German Ideology, Marx and Engels stressed
that "civil society is the true source and theatre of all history". In other words, the explanation of political
events, legal changes and cultural development is to be sought in civil society's structure.

In his later writings. though, Marx preferred to drop the expression civil society. He chose to use simple
dichotomy " socie ty state" . Significantly, other writers too--and not necessarily those influenced by
Marx- found less and less reason lo retain the concept of civil society. In the second half of the 19th
century, the conccpt of civil society fell into disuse. (Krishan Kumar : 1996, 76.)
The name of Italian Marxist theorist and a noted critic of economic determinism Antonio Gramsci (
1891- 1937) is associated very significantly with the concept of civil society in recent times . For Gramsci
civil society was the bastion of class hegemony and ultimately (though not unequvivocally)
..Supportive of the sta te ". (Sec Gordon Marshall : 1998, 74.) In fact. it was left to Gramsci to bring the
concept of civil society back into prominence after it had fell into disuse in th e second half of the 19th
century.
In his writings in r/,e l'rison Note/woks ( 1929-35)- which he wrote during his imprisonment during
Musso li ni ' s rure 9ramsci retains his basic Marxist orientations but goes back to Hegel to revitalize the
concl!pt. In truth. he went back further than Hegel in detaching civil society from the economy and
allocating it instead to the state . To Gramsci civil society is that "part of the state not concerned with
coercion or formal rule but with the ··manufacture of conse nt". It is the sphere of "cultural politics".
To Gramsci. the institutions of civil society are : the church, schools, trade unions and other
organizations through which the ruling class exercises ·'hegemony" over socie ty. By the same token,
Gramsci observed, it is also the arena when! that hegemony is challengeable. (See Krishan Kumar :
1996,76.) Gramsci argued that between the coercive relations of the state and economic spheres of
production lies civil society. It is the area of social life which appears as the realm of private citizen and
individual consent. (See Nicholas Abercrombie ct al : 199 4,56 .)

Significantly. Gramsci argued that any distinction between the state and civil society is
only nH:thodological, for even a policy of non-intervention like laissez-faire is established by the state
itse lf . In his l'riso11 Notebooks, Gramsci accepts a role for the state in developing civil society, but
warns against perpetuating ''statolatry or or state worsh ip". The withering away of the state, significantly,
is redefined by Gramsci in terms of a full development or the self-regulating attributes of civil society.
(See Anne Showstack Sassu n : 19 83,74.)

Antonio Gramsci's contribution to the cxplantion and development of civil society was.significant
and ubstantial. The later Marx ians , Marxists and others found it interesting as a basis of further
discussion in the realm of state-individual relationship.

25
 Alexis de Tocquiville ( 1805-59), famous French statesman, historian and autho r, is also very
widely credited for expanding the concept in his writings during his times . Christopher Candland
(2001:140) observes that this concept traces its " in te llectua l origins to Ale ·x s de Tocqueville whose
1835 classic Democracy in America emphasized the imp011ance of independent associations to
social life and to promoting democracy".
Continuing Debate : The abiding interest in and the significance of the concept of civil society
has waxed and waned, but it has never altogether disappeared. Of course, the debate on civil society
has seen variance of degrees in terms of significance, depth and propens ity. Today the debate on
civil society retains its importance because of the state of democracy in various states of the world
and the linkage of the state or democracy with civil society. Another reason for the continuous
impo11ance of this concept is the state of civil society in various post-communist states. It is widely
believed that though various states in Eastern Europe, including Russia (or the earlier formation of the
USSR), have seen the end of the one-pa11y ru le , democracy in the seiise of competitive pluralism
is not very visible or very well-established.
A question that arises in this context is : whether the state in Eastern Europe has taken the issue of
civil society seriously? A complementary question could be why has civil society not shown any growth
though the political environment has changed. Probably the appropriate political culture for the growth
of a concrete and sustainable civil society is yet to emerge .
It can be said with some ce11ainty that because of different political culture-participatory and democratic
in nature and which is based on competitive plualism-the advanced and industrialized states of the
West have heen able to ensure civil society of enduring nature and character. Since the "values" are easily
available and allocated without much conflict in the industrially advanced states, civil society does not
find it difficult tn c:..ist. Besides, there is proper rapport irnd dialogue between the state and civil socie
ty, and both of them take each other relatively seriously. Tens ions between the state and civil socie ty
occur less frequently in these states.
In the Third World state s of Asia, t\ fric a and Latin America, the state of civil society does not
seem to be uniform The nature. structure and purpo se of the state are very much visible in the nat ure,
structure and purpose of civil society in these states. Unfortunately, non-secular contents of civil socie ty
leave much to be d isi red. Worse, caste, etni c, linguistic and religious elements are gaining grot:md in
the formation of civil sot icty in these states. True, and hearteningly, ci\'il society in these states also, at
times, has very visible component of environment and ethical components. This augurs wel l and shows a
different kind of con-.ciousness in civil society.
Mere existence of civil society or mere perm ission for it to exist does not suffice. Unless its existence
and interest art icu lation and interest aggregation are taken seriously by the state apparatus, the existence
of civil society does not become meaningful and purposeful. Also, the hbsence of dialogue between the
two gives rise to volatile situations including murderous te1TOris 111- at times, based on very narrow
fundamentalism.
The state of civil socie ty in India, among the Third World states, could be said to be much better in
co111pmison--cven though it is not ideal. Of late, religious. ethn,i c caste ist and linguistic elements appear
to the making serious and apparently disturbing headway in the country's civil society. Several segments of
civil society also seem to be preferring violence from time to time . The overall pa11 icipato ry democratic
tradition. though. is able lo establish a working-in not an ideal-balance most of the time .

26
India's southern neighb our. Sri Lanka, can boast of enjoying pa11icipatory and parliamentary democracy
for a much longer period than the former. Indeed, uni ver sal adultJ ranch isc become a reali ty in Sri
Lanka as early as 1931-o n ly 3 years after it become so in Br ita in , the then colonizing state of the
island. The island state, th ough, cannot boast of the same healthy or vibrant civil society as in India. Nira
Wickramasinghe l100 I : 170) has stressed that "the timid and sometimes servile civil societ y in Sri Lan
ka is being used by transnational fortes as a way of transfonning more efficiently domestic politics and
society". She feels that it often leads to "a homogenizing of political debate about alternatives to the free
market". Commenting on the developments in the last two decades, she stales that the "grand modern fact
'' if any is " not the creation within local society of a vibrant civil society but rather the emergence of
these new circles f power with a rationable of their own" . Obviously, ii shows that universal adult
franchise's duration need not of necessity be rcllectcd in the duration and strength of civil society per se
'.
The state of civil society in other South · Asian states varies. Thanks to its feudal past, and to a very
great extent present and. above all, the predominance of the military in the country's politics, civil society
could not become strong and meaningful most of the time . At times, the religious, ethnic and and li
nguistic components play their part and even confront the state. Since the 1990s, civil society in Nepal has
become stro11g. But at times it lacks in moral strength and the state appears to take it very lightly. In
Bang ladesh, it is apparently weakening presently, notwithstanding its moral strength. l3hutan and
Maldives cannot boast of any visible civil society that q ue stions the state in any form- at least within
their territories.
Summing-up: In sum, civil society has deservedly a place of prime significande in political science and
comparative political analysis. To a very great extent, a state could be said to be known by the existence
and modus operandi and 111odus ril•e11di of its civil society. And it was for this reason that the concept
has occupied attention of yarious political philosophers from the beginning. True, some philosophers
attached more imp orta nce to it than others did.
The very fact that the concept o f c iv il society has retained and maintained its significance and
prominence in rnmparative political anal) sis sho \o\>s that it is considered a very substantial notion--even
though voluntary and informal-in the state. Most of the time. civ ii society seems to be related to the
problems of human rights. mass moven\ents and citizenship et al.
Civil society in flu ences th e state in decision-making or in distribution of va lue s in that society. But
the state also keeps i n terven ing in the modus operand i of civil society for the purpose of societal
stability. The rclatitinship bet,\ecn thc t, \ o tell s t he rcal stor} of the polity and polit ic in that state.
The growing complexity of any society will call for the existence of more durable and purposeful civil
society. In any case, even.though the state and civil society need not be antithetical, civil society should not
be made a pla)1hing of the state. If this happens, politics moves in dangerous or harmful directions. Intra-
civil society competition and maintenance of civil society, too, would remain a matter of serious debate in
times to come. How the state and civil society stand and interact v. ith each other determine the overall
status of the individual in that particular state.

27
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nicholas Abercrombie, Stephen Hill and Bryan S. Turner ( 1994), The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology,
London : Penguin.
Gabriel A. Almond, Ci. Bingham Powell, Jr., Kaare Strom and Russell J. Dalton (200),
Comparative Politics Today: A World View, 7th ediction, Longman.
Frank Bcaley ( 1999), 77,e Blackwell Dictionary of Political Scienre : A User's Guide. Oxford :
Blackwell PubIishers.
Antony Black (1987), '·Civil Society, in David Miller, ed., The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political
T/1011ghL, Oxford : Blackwell.
Christopher Candland (200I), "Civil Society", in Joel Krieger, ed., The Oxford Companion To the
Politics Of the World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ronald H. Chilcote ( 1994), Theories Of Comparative Politics : The Search for a Paradigm
Reconsidered: Second Edition, Boulder, Colorado : Westview.
Jean Cohen and A. Arato ( I 992), Civil Society and Political Theory, Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
L. Diamond, J. Linz and S. Lipset (1995), "Introduction: What Makes For Democracy", in L. Diamond,
J. Linz and S. Lipset, eds., Politics in Developing Countries : Comparing Experiences. With Democracy,
London : Lynne Reinner.
Jack Gray ( 1996), "Civil Society'', in lain McLean, ed., Ti1e Concise Oxford Dictionary Of Politics,
Oxford: OUP.
Rod Hague and Martin Harrop (200 I), Comparative Government and Politics : An Introduction :
5th edition, New York: Palgrave.
Rod Hague, Martin Harrop and Shaun Breslin (1998), Comparative Government and Politics : An
lntroduction, 4th edition, London : Macmillan.
Samuel P. Huntington (1996), The Clash Of Civilizations and the Remaking Of World Order, New
Delhi : Penguin.
Krishan Kumar (1996). "Civil Society", in William Outhwaite and Tom Bottomore, eds., The Blackwell
Dictionary Of Twentiet/1-Ce11tw:r Social Thought. Oxford : Blackwell Reference.
Gordon Marshall (1998), A Dictionary Of Sociolog\', Oxford : OUP.
/\nne Showstack Season (1983), Civil Society", in Tom Bottornore ed., A Dictio11a,y of Marxist Thought.
Oxford : Blackwell Reference.
Nira Wilkramasinghe (2001 ). Cl\"il Society !11 Sri Lanka: New Circles of Power, New Delhi : Sage.
Roger Scrµton ( I 982), A DicLio11ary of Political Thought. London : Pan/Macmillan.
Question:
Explain the concept of "civil society'' and critically evaluate its relationship with the state in the
contemporary world.

28
 LESSON 5
NATIONALISM, ETHNIC IDENTITY, AND
CULTURAL PLU ALISM
Suman Kumar·
Research Scholar
Department of
Political Science

Nationalism and ethnicity arc the concepts to unify !he people, whereas cultural pluralism 1s a way of national
social life. Cultural pluralism emerges to subside the destabilizing trends set by the ethnic movements under the
banner of nationalism. While nationalism is a bond operating from local level to the national level,
ethn ici ty appears operating primarily at the local level. Generally, it is considered that nationalism has evolved with
the emergence of the nation states. ·
The future of national is was seen very bright, whereas the future of ethnicity was considered bleak as per the
western theorists. To continue this line of western view, the concept of cultural pluralism comes into effect. It is
like an umbrella cover under which in the name of a composite culture every nationality, race, religion, caste,
tribal etc. may live in a harmonious way. ;
Nationalism
Nationalism is an ideology based on the belief that people with common characteristics such as language,
religion or ethnicity constitute a separate and distinctive political community. Nationalists attempt to preserve the
social distinctiveness to protect the social benefit, which flow from national identity and membefsbip. Nationalism
locates the political legitimacy of the state in self-government by co-nationals. According to the Diclimwry of
Politics, nationalism is the political belief that some group of people resents a natural community, which should
live under one political system, be independent of other, and, often, has the right to demand equal standing in the
world order with others. Although sometimes genuine and widespread belief, especially other conditions of foreign
rule, it is equally often a symbolic tool used by political leaders to control their citizens. (Penguin Books, 1986).
The word ' nat io n' is derived from the Latin word ' natio n' that means "be born". Since the nineteenth century. the
term 'nation' and nationality have assumed quite definite meanings. The term 'nation' conveys the ideals of political
independence or sovereignty; while 'nationality' is largely a. non-political concept and can exist even under foreign
domination. It is a psychological quality, although it is often used to convey an ethical and cultural conception as
well. Interpreted in this manner, 'nation and 'nationality' are not identical concepts. A nation, meaning the population of a
self-governing state, may .ve ry well include several nationalities. As soon as a nationality acquires political unity
an_d sovereign independence, it becomes a nat io n.
The term, 'national group' is used to designate a community in which nationality is still in the making and
the 'will to live' as a nation is still lacking. The terms, which are most confused are 'nationality' and
'nationalism'. 'Nationalism' is at times used to describe an exaggerated sentiment of nationality bordering on
aggressiveness. This sentiment, which sees nothing but good in once own nation and its deeds, is not true natio
nalism . Rightly understood, nation stands for the historical process by which nationalities are transfonned into
political units and for the legitimate right of a people who fonn a distinct and vigorous nation or nationality for a
place in the sun.
Like all social phenomena , nationalism is a historical category. It emerges in the social world at a certain stage
of evolution of the life of the community when certain socio-historical conditions, both objective and subjective
nature. Before national co.m mun ities, national societies, national state, and national cultures come into exislence;
comnutnities in various parts of the world generally live through tribal, self, and feudal phase of social existence. At
a certain stage of social, eco nom i_c, and cultural development, nation comes into being. They are generally
distinguished from non-national communities of previous period of social existence by cc.:rtain specific
characteristics such as an organic welding of the members of the nation, living in a distinct

29
territory within a single economy, so that they feel conscious of common economic existence; generally one
common language by them: and further, a similar psychological structure among its members and a common
culture evolved by it.
Ethnicity
Ethnicity has attracted the attention of scholars because of its potential to destabilize a culturally plural
"ocicty. It is a force shaping human affairs. Ethnicity is a fundamental category of social organization, which is
based on membership defined by a sense of common historical origins , and which may also include shared
culture, religion or language. The term is derived from the Greek noun "ethnos", which may be translated as
'a people or nation' (Adam Kuper & Jessica Kuper, 1996).
In the modern political usage the term 'ethnic' is also used for social class or racial or national minority
groups and also for distinguishing cultural and social groups in society. It is generally used as a designation of
social unity based upon common and separate language or dialect, historical living in a defined area,
occupation and mode of lifo, cultural and social traditions, customs and folklore. Ethnicity tends to be viewed as
a destabilizing, potentially revolutionary force that threatens to disintegrate states or at least to disrupt their
smooth functioning. It is a sense of identity used by the people in order to differentiate themselves from
other groups.
An ethnic group consists of people who conceive of themselves as being of a kind. They are united by
emotional bond and concern with the preservation of their type. With very little exception, they speak the same
language or their speech is at least intelligible to each other, and they share a common cultural heritage. Since
those who form such unit arc usually endogamous, they tend to look a like. Far more important, however, is their
belief that they are of common descent, a belief usually generated by myth of partly fictitious history .
Ethnic Movement
The ethnic movement. in general, or the movement for ethnic demands start in a low key. More often than not,
ethnic demands center initially around a single central symbol, such as language, religion, territory or colour. In
due course, because of several factors, including the state reprisals and domineering attitude of the majority
group, on the one hand, and ethnic elites' desire to create strong and greater'internal choices for themselves, on
the other; the agitation takes recourse to more militant stand on their demands. Some ethnic groups go
further than material demands for their members and demand that corporate right be conceded to their group.
They demand a major say for the group in the political as a whole or control over a piece of territory within
the country, or demand a country of their own with full sovereignty.
Many of the ethnic, religious or linguistic conflicts that are taking place in so many countries all over the
world these days raise the question of "self-determination" by which they generally mean "power to shape
their own destiny". (A. S. Narang, 1995). The proposition that every people should freely determine their
own political status and freely pursue its economy, social and cultural development has long been a fm.:us in
the literary world. But in terms of ethnic principles of self-determination, social scientists and stall·smen
have found this very awkward to define and decide whether it belongs to the ethnic groups within states or not.
In every system and regime ethno-cultural resurgence has put to question the very basis of nation-state
and the concept of nationality. Since the last three decades of the 20th century have particularly been a
period during which minority nationalism have multiplied and flourished. The upsurge between ethno-
nationalism the world over in recent decades , a resurgence of ethnic identification as the basis of effective
political action in widely divergent societies, and the continued assertion of ethnic pluralism, not only in the
Third World but also in the industrially advanced democracies have made it clear that assumptions about
modernization ancl assimilation have been proved futile, even fictitious. The prediction that once the y set
themselves on the course of the state and nation-building, a process of homogenization would take over and
dissolve the conflicting ethnic pluralities in the solvent called modern izatio n, seems to have worked no where.
Similarly, the Marxian proposition that the marketplace would integrate the diverse identities of caste,
ethnicity, language etc. in the form of class has not materialized. Besides, the greatest level of ethnic
mohilization in world

29
history has occurred precisely during the period of intense state building, urbanization, rapid development
and modernization. And today ethnic conflicts appear to be a perman en t form of social and polit ical
struggle in the modern world. (A. S. Narang, 1995).
Ethnicity: An Explanation
One of the ear lie s t attempts at explaining the phenomenon of ethnicity comes from Karl Marx and his
contemporar ies who take the stand that such conflicts are a passing phase of capitalists socie tie s, essent
ially irrelevant to the class struggle and certai n lo be engul fed by class warfare and proletariat
internationalism when the latter develops. Mar xist analysis seeks to relate ethnicity with the dynamics of
class struggle, on the one hand , and the 'national' q uestion, on the other. Class ical Marxists consider class
analysis to be theoretically and politically more im portant than the study of the ethn ic question, but they
do und erstan d the powerful impact of ethnic ident i ficat ion and nationa lis m on social and political
processes. The new Ma rxis t analysis recognizes tha t eth n ic group s are in a state of flux . Most certainly
the causes of ethnic confl ict are 110 1 to he sought within the ethnic groups th emse lves, but rat her within
th e contradictions of the wider society in which ethn ic groups may or ma y not happ en to be signi fica nt
actors, as a result of other forces with li ttle. if anything. to do with eth n icity as such.
Next to Marx is ts, th er e are modernization the oris ts. They, like Deus tsc h, view that the social
changes would result in the change of partic u laristic identities into un iversal is tic identities. Among the
type of ident ities to be disappeared i,s ethni cit y. The i r prem ises are that such cu lt ural, lin gu is tic, and
ethnic attitudes leading lo et hn o-national proble m would melt away with the completion of modern izatio n
process. (Karl W. Deutsc h, 1969).
Anthony D. Smith shows that when the new bureaucratic state cannot accomm odate the ever- expanding
popularity of secular intellectuals produced by educational and econom ic modern izat ion then the d is grunt
led return to their ethn ic groups to lead ethn ic political movements that provide an in st itut iona l le
gitimacy for their perception of i njust ice. (Anth ony D. Sm i th , 19 8 I ). In contrast to th is, Joseph
Rothschild argues that modernization and polit ical deve lo pmen t do not provide the necessary conditions
for poli t icization of ethnic ident i fi cations. Instead th e sufficient conditions for th e rise of ethno -poli tical
mov ements are dependent up on the economic. politic3l and ideological resources avai lable to ethnic
groups. (Joseph Rothsch il d, 1981 ).
Paul R. Brass has innovated analytical dimensions of ethnic movem ents and its dynamics theoretical
constructs on ethn icit y evo l ve around two cent ra l ideas: The first is the theory of elite competition as the
basic J ynam ics wh ich precipitates ethnic conflict under specific cond itions and which arise from the
broader political and econom ic environment rather than from the cultural values of ethnic group in q ue stion.
The second theoretical argum ent emphasizes the critical role of the re lat io nsh ip es tab l ished between the
elites and the state, part icularly the role of collaborators and the opponent s of the state auth orit y and state
intru sion into regions inhabited by distinctive ethnic groups. Brass points out that the successful ethno -
national movem ents require well organized political network, skilled political leadership and resou rces to
gain support and to make successful demand s in the political sys tem. He opines that the arrogant and sensi
tive government policies also deter m i ne the course of the ethno -national movements by pushing it from
accom modat ive stage to militant stage. (Paul R. Brass. 1991).
The important point to note here is that ethnicity does not operate in a vacuum. The ethnic as pirations of
a group are directly related to its environm en t. The norm.. values, behav iou r and expec tations of the
dominant group within tire: society may affect the aspirations of the minority. When there is a clash of
interest between the two, ethnic conflict may erupt. Where the state is pen;eived as the instrument of the
majority commu n it y, ethnic distinctions ma y intensify. In such a situation, ethnic conflict assumes a se rio
us d imensio n. Insurgency is t he obvious m ili tary option of the weak against the strong, adopted by aspirant
political grou ps. oppressed classes, i nvadcd people. and by eth nic minorities against foreign conquerors or
oppressive domestic regimes. (Subir Bhaumik 1996).
Ethnic Revival
One of the significant inducements to ethnicity comes from the feeling of in security among ethnic
Minorities of their fear of getting loss in the sea of majority. This may be either because of the d is crimination

30
and oppression by the majority, the state identifying itself with the majority, or the homogenization process
arising out of modernizaation leading to creation of synthetic state culture. The apprehensions of minority
ethnic groups about loss of their cultural identity arise from two sources. The first is the dominant majority,
generally politically powerful also, questioning the so-called privileges or rights of minority and attempting
to impose its own religious or cultural values as that of the whole society.
It means making the political ideology of the core group also the basis of nationalism in the state. This
belief naturally results in strong pressures towards assimilation of the non-dominant groups.
The second arises from the ideology of the modern states to equate the stat with nation. Th is modern
centralized nation-state, even in form a l democracies, thinks of regions and local units as its sub ordinates
and agents. Any challenge from them is considered as anti-national and subversive.
In the Third World countries, the regimes, particularly in their zeal for nation building, pursue policies,
which penetrates homogenizing pressures. In some cases states refuse to recognize even the limited
traditional rights of minorities to religion, language and culture. This not only leads to ethnic rivalry and
conflict but also creates convulsions within the ethnic groups, whereby the traditional elite finds its authority
increasingly cha- llenged. It is also seen the at the state in the inter-and intra-ethnic rivalry or conflicts;
rather than acting as impartial arbiter, emerges as the favouring party to the dominant majority group.
Ethnic Upsurge and External Factor
It is also believed that ethnic revival is due to external factors. It has been adopted by the sates as a part
or foreign policy. Support to various ethnic groups against the state or the state against the sub-national
groups to fulfil one's own interest is the new policy. Ethnic movements may get support in moral and
material form s from bordering states or from the people of the same community living in the various parts
of the world. Other ethnic groups for ideological reason s, such as support to liberation movements, may also
provide support. Whatever the reasons. it is quite clear that external factors can only provide sustenance or a
moral booster to ethnicity. It cannot be the main cause for its origin and existence. It arises from within the
society and polity and has to be seen with reference to specific causes in different societies.
Ethnic mobilization may have multiple causes. No single theory is able to provide a satisfactory answer
to the phenomenon of ethnic up surge in all types of situations. Economic under-development is certainly
one or the root causes, and hence one of the theoretical explanations of the regional and national conflicts
but it is not by itself a sufficient cause for a general theory of ethnicity or regionalism. Economic factors arc,
of course. fundamental in the orctic·1I explanations. but there are many sides and must be considered in
their concrete reality.
Historical and political factors are the most important, but these must also be considered as concrete
elements of specific historical development and of a specific political system. Cultural factor can also
develop in com plex ways, both as a result of political conflict .and of ideological confrontation. But even
these must be considered in terms or their specific realities. Ethnic national ism is also a reflection of
broader and deeper consciousness i n modern society; such disquiet at standardization. may intensify
identity crisis, and growing general dissatisfaction with government and the major parties. Hence,
ideologically, ethno-nationalism offers a combination of older themes related to the community, common
inheritances and culture along with newer one relating to economic development and democratic control.
Also, it is important to note that motivating forces alone do not give rise to ethnic movements. The
degree to which ethnic groups have a well-developed substructure of various kinds of organizations and
association of their own which encapsulate them and keeps them externally isolated from their potential
opponent s is also a necessary determinant.
The effect of' ethnic cleavages and ethnicity on political system and processes, however, vary with the
pattern of cleavages and nature of political structure, of course all ethnic movements do not aspire for
complete in dependence or statehood. Nor do these always result in violent conflicts. To be precis e ethnic
demands or as aspiration can be of four types: (a) for ending discrimination; (b) for greater autonomy and
unquestioned power: (c) autonomy demands related to systematic change; and (d) secession. (A. S. Narang,
I 995).

31
 Similarly ethnic movements can take various shapes ranging from peaceful constitutional protests to civil
war, with ethnic or communal rioting and terrorism in between. Whether in the shape of agitation for the
autonomy or movement for better politico-economic structure, or struggle for separation, the phenomenon
of ethnicity is an intrinsic component of the socio-political realities of most of the multi-ethnic states in the
world today.
Federal Solution
A federal system provides a mechanism, which unites separate polities with an overarching political
system so as to allow each to maintain its fundamental political integrity. Federalism has an important moral
purpose. It is about the preservation of diversity of culture, of religion, of social institution, of educational
politics, and of language codes. It gives all the advantages of a representative government, while it guards
against the mistakes and occasional effect of persons which small communities are exposed.
Federalism implies the division of the strength of the state into a general government for the whole country
and a number of regional governments. Its essence lies in a happy blending of the forces of the union and
separation. So the problem in a federation is for the federating units 'to keep the centrifugal and centripetal
forces in equilibrium, so that neither the planet states shall fly off into space nor the sum of the central
government draw into its consuming fire '. The necessary condition for the formation and continuation of
a federation is, therefore, that its component parts should have the ' desire' and ' capacity' as much to unite
for common purpose as to separate for maintaining individual particularism.
The strength of the federal movement, in general, depends upon the means that it affords for satisfying
the demands of local or national particularism, and at the same time, obtaining unity of political action
between people allied by economic, historical or ethnic i nterests.
Federalism in theory, at least constitutes a delicate balance between the autonomy of constituted territories
and complete integration under a sovereign national government. This duality of state and national government
provides a practical method of meeting truly national problem without the establishment of an arbitrary
central authority. Participation with liberty and equality create a certain amount of responsibility,
understanding, and mutual accommodation among the heterogeneous group of people. The state mechanism
based on the principle of compromise and accommodation prepare a necessary climate for a harmonious
working of social and economic force.
Federalism may, thus, become the most important political st ructure of solving problem associated with
connecting demands for unit y and diversity by strengthening the capacity of national institutions through
a process of accommodation and reconciliation of country ' s internal soc ial, economic and cultural diversity.
Federation: An Explanation
The words " federal", " federat ion", " federalism ", have their etymological roots in the Latin term "foedus",
which according to one Latin dictionary has at least eight meanings: alliance, association, compact, contract,
league, treaty, trust, union. Its historical meaning has varied from actual existential experience, spanning
several centuries in many crad les of human civilization. (Rasheeduddin Khan,199 2).
According to K. C. Wheare, a federal government is a system of government that embodies predominantly
a d ivis ion of power between general and regiona l authorities, each of which is in its own sphere, in coordinate
with the oth er and independent of them ( K. C. Wheare, 1963 ). Federal is a cont ractual non-cent rali zation,
the structural dispersal' of powers among centers whose legitimate authority is constitutionally guaranteed.
It is designed to link the constituent units more closely within a common general government whose
constitution is the supreme law of the land and that maintains direct contact with its individual citizen
(D. J. Elazar, 1991).
Thus, federalis1u means the distribution of power and responsibility to appropriate political levels and
types of institutions, both up and down the scale, so as to combine representation and authority, union and
diversity, organization and freedom. A federal system by distributing authority between central and regional
governments 1nakes possible complete political unity for certain functions and regional autonomy for others.
Compared to unitary institutions, regional autonomy within a federal system perm its the expression of

32
regional claims, which if resisted, might provoke harsh resentment representing a greater threat to national
unity, provides some safeguard to regional groups in the protection of their own special interests , and reduces
the risks of the monopoly of power by an autocracy or a bureaucracy.
Compared to confederal institutions or to intergovernmental cooperation, a federal government enables
positive centralized politics, not dependent on unanimous regional agreement with regard to those functions
assigned to the central government and, in addition, are more likely to provide a focus for the development
for a common nationality. (R. L. Watts, I 996).
The federal idea, then, is an above all an idea of a shared sovereignty, responsive to the needs and will
of tf1e people both as individual citizens and as members of ethnic societal groups.
Multi-Ethnic Society and Federalism
A federal nation is a mosaic of many segments - ethnic, religious, castes, and tribes, linguistic, regional
and cultural. These diverse segments, each distinct and with their own identities, have to be reconciled with
sensitivity into a harmonious responsive federal arrangements. Autonomy and respect for segments have to
go hand in hand with political unity and federal integration. This is the biggest challenge facing the
multicultural societies .
Federalism is essentially a political culture, an outlook on national life. It is a pragmatic scheme where
adjustment has to be made to meet the varying need of the changing times and to harmonize conflicting
interests and to provide security against future conflicts. It is the most suitable institutional way to avoid
fear of cultural domination and feeling of frustration among ethnic minorities. A multi-ethnic society does
not mean there will be as many independent states as there are ethnic groups. Partitioning a country on
ethnic lines is not feasible always because the regions themselves may be heterogeneous. Federal solution
means the cordial harmony in diversity.
A federal system, thus, seeks stability without rigidity, security without inertia. It encourages innovation
in government by principle and guided by purpose. It assures responsiveness-more thoughtful than mere
reflex-and liberty that does not lead towards anarchy. In short, it seeks to hold the delicately precarious
balance between freedom and order upon which depend decisively the li berty, peace and prosperity. Of course,
federalist solutions to nationality and ethnic conflicts are usually viewed with trepidatioh by the central
authority in such state that see their primary purpose as maintenance of unity and territorial integrity of
their state because they fear that federalism is but a step away from secession and disintegration. On the
other side, as Paul R. Brass points out, it is often argued that failure to grant some form of political autonomy
in a federal state to aspirant national groups may itself promote secessionist and disintegrative tendency
that federalism may resolve. (Paul R. Brass, I 991).
Identity and Federalism
Ethnicity and nationalism appear to be opposing to· each other in the modern world. The concept of
cultural pluralism has been fading away. Ethnic movements are taking the violent forms affecting the
developed countries to the developing countries as well. At this crucial juncture the potential to arrest the
destabilizing forces lies only with the federal arrangement of government. It is the accommodative approach
of the federal polity that can produce the magical results and save the countries' geographical boundaries
facing the secessionist movements. l11e process of national integration is linked with the pace of development
like the center and periphery arrangements. The trend for more countries to adopt federal measures to meet
the demand of various groups has further been noticed recently. This strengthens the point that for a durable
political unity it is a pragmatic measure.
The crucial dimension of a federal state, however, is not legal arrangement, but the spirit and
dynamic relationship between the organizational patterns and politics pursued. It is a common
observation that the actual functioning of the federal system in any country does not depend on written
constitution and legal framework, but on the various factors which influence political processes in the
society. Federalism, in other words, is essentially a political culture, an outlook on national life. The
development and maintenance of a federal system, therefore, is directly related to the existence of a
federal spirit.

33
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. S. Narang (1995), Ethnic Identities and Federalism, Shim la: Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Adam Kuper & Jessica Kuper eds. (1996), The Social Sciences Encyclopedia, 2nd edition, London
Routledge.
Anthony D. Smith (1981 ), The Ethnic Revival, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Anthony D. Smith (1986), The Ethnic Origin of Nations, London : Basil Blackwell.
Cynthia Enloe (1973), Ethnic Conflict and Political Development, Boston : Little Brown.
D. J. Elazar (1991 ), "Federal Democracy in a World beyond Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism," {

in McAuley, Alastair (ed.), Soviet Federalism: Nationalism and Economi c Decentralization,

Leicester : Leicester University Press.
Ernest Gallner (1983), Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Joseph Rothschild (1981), Et/mo-politics: A Conceptual Framework , New York: Columbia
University Press.
K. C. Wheare (1971 ), Federal Governments, Delhi : Oxford University Press.
Karl W. Deutsch (1969), Nationalism and its Alternatives, New York: Alfred Knopft.
Michael Banton (1983), Racial and Ethnic Competition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Partha S. Ghose, Ethnic and Religious Conjlicts in South Asia, London: Institute of Conflict Study.
Paul R. Brass (1991 ), Ethnicity and Nationalism, New Delhi: Sage.
R. L. Watts (1966), New Federations in the Commonwealth, Clarendo Press.
Rasheeduddin Khan (1992), Federal India: A Design for Change, Delhi: Vikas.
Sajal Basu (1992), Regional Movement: Politics of Language, Ethnicity Identity, Shim la : Indian
Institute of Advanced Study.
Subir Bhaumik (1996), Insurgent, Crossfire North-East India, New Delhi : Lancer Publishers Pvt.
Ltd.
The Penguin Dictionary of Politics (1986), Penguin Books Limited.
Urmila Phadnis (1990), Ethnicity and Nation Building in South Asia, New Delhi : Sage.
Question:
Define the concepts of "Nationalism" and "Ethnicity" and make a critical evaluation of the role
played by various nationalist and ethnic groups in the present-day culturaily pluralistic state and
society.

'

34
 LESSON 6

REVOLUTION AND SOCIAL MOVEMENTS WOMEN

Nawal Kislwre
Research Scholar
Department of Political Science

A social or political movement is a collective action by people with a view to changing some aspects
of their situation. It involves mobilization and participation of masses and persistence of social action over
a period of time. The participants in a movement share common beliefs, interests or ideology. In some cases,
participants may have a homogeneous background in terms of caste, class, gender, language, religion and
region .
The beginning of a movement is defined by a situation of social or political conflict, reflecting a sort of
'crisis' in the existing socio-political arrangements. Political movements, however, are more clearly oriented
to stake claims relating to power, freedom and legitimacy.
Social and political movements may relate to specific issues such as affirmative action for civil rights,
formation of separate state or large long-term objectives of transformation of existing social and political
order including values and attitudes. However, the order qf priorities in a movement may raise issues about
social content of freedom, political programmes and the political content of social struggles.
This chapter seeks to illuminate and illustrate how women on virtually every socio-economic indicator
have fared worse than their counterparts in some of the poorest countries of the Third World. Such inequitable
distribution of work and benefits are obviously topics, which ultimately need to be probed. Essentially, over
the years approaches to understanding the situation of women in the Third World are reflected in the changing
perception on the development agenda. Various researches and studies have shown gender inequality as
reflected in different indicators of human development.
The status of women : Theoretical issues
The theoretical premise is that subordination of women in rural society of the Third World has two
aspects; first, women are members of households which differ in access to land as well as other means of
production and wage incomes. Thus the conditions of their work are dependent on the survival strategies of
households in specific relation to land and survival resources. Change in landholding patterns and in methods
of agricultural production differently affects different rural households and the work that women from these
households do. Second, rural house ho lds are not harmonious, egalitarian social units, but hierarchical
structures embodying relations of subordination and domination on gender and age. The subordination of
women is commonly expressed in the sex-based division of labour. Women are usually responsible for the
work of food processing, fuel and water collection, and childcare. Whatever work they may do outside the
home but the control over women's childbearing capacity and nutrition and the limits placed on women's
physical movements (such as purdah) are often imposed as an ideology of female inferiority. The subordination
may vary among different class of rural households.
A pivotal aspect.in the maintenance and propagation of male descendant and male inheritance is provided
by gender practices and gendered social functioning which then determine male-female access to resources,
skills and placements within the systemic functioning. The rigid allocation of roles in terms of biological
sex attributes system basically deprives and discriminates against the female gender. The gender system not
only creates condition for confining women to household functioning but also provides them with opportunity
to acquire skills in household management and the qualities of a good nurturer. The male is viewed as the
earner, the protector, and the decision-maker. The logical implication is the denial of opportunities to women
to have maximum access to resources with greater social and financial obligations and corresponding power
and super io rity.

35
 The concept of gender specified role allocations draws on normative and even utilitarian justification
with wide social acceptability, which lends it an invisible character. The ideology of gender system is
intermeshed with 'anonymous social mechanisms' through the institutions of family, education, religion,
politics, law, social norms and value patterns. (Weslergaard and Resler, 1975, Class in a Capitalist Society,
Pe11gui11 Books, p. /.13). Since the functioning of the gender system is integrated into the normative social-
cu lt u ra l, economic and political spheres, it remains largely invisible. At the same time, the gender system
uses coerc io n to ensure the norms, value and practices to conform to the typed male and female role and
behav io urs .
Furthermore, typed female behaviour decrees greater gender conformity. The gender system determines
wome n ' s personal behaviour, d ress , sexual activity, choice of partner and reproductive options, all visible
aspects. Therefore it is easier for 'coercive forces' to. cont rol, in a broad sense , the gender system, its 'l
instruments, both men and women who are propagators of its ideology, social institutions, nonns and traditions
arc all coercive. Thus the differentiating gender system silently propagates deprivation, discrimination and
even atrocities against women. They arc deprived in terms of access to facilities and resources and even '
li fe . They undergo discrimination in earnings, inhe ritance , medical care, nutrition, and education. The
normative gender system acquires visibility when fundamentalist forces appropriate these typical roles and
practice. (Hannah Papanek. 1994. "71,e ideal Women and lhe Ideal Sociely : Co11/rol and Autonomy" in
V. Moghadam, ed. Cons/ruction of ldenlity : ldenlity Politics and Women. West View Press.43,
./5-./6 ).
Based on typed role gender differentiation in practice became gender discrimination, since it negates
wome n ' s rights to productive resources. Gender deprivation is denial of access to resources and skills to
women . The gender system guides male-female access and quality of participation within the system
functioning in accordance with the ideology of gender differentiation. This situation results in the cultivation
of male capacities to control resources on an unequal basis, even to the extent of determining life chances.
All efforts to empower women through increased access and participation within the social system are
hampered. The empowerment of women through the provision of access, participation and skills within the
existing gender differentiating system remains ineffective because social activity is the ideological setting
within which skills are used and power is exercised (V.L. Allen, 1975, Social Analysis: A Ma,xisl Critique
and Altemative, Longman, p. 213.).
Too little been done in terms of technological innovation to facilitate the agricultural task carried out
by women farmers to increase their productive capacity and to reduce their work burde n. Men are usually
the beneficiaries of technology and new skills. Cultural constraints restrict women's control over other
resources, such as land, which prevents them from demanding additional resources. In addition, farmers
who at least urgently need to improve their income and productivity are those who respond to the extension
service readily.
Bina Agarwal argues that the whole range of gender difference regarding the impact of technological
l.:hange in agriculture should be analysed with an insight of initial differences between men and women.
Firstly, the extent and nature of their involvement in agricultural fieldwork; secondly, the extent and nature
of their involvement in non-field work, including cattle rearing, domestic and childcare etc., thirdly, the extent
of their control over a pattern of distribution of household earnings and consumption items. These differences
arc normative in nature, and based on historical, social and cultural factors along with the economic. These
differences also determine the norm vis-a-vis the existing sexual division of labour, both within the home
and outside in any commun it y. These norms are prevalent within the home in women's primary and often
sole responsibility for housework and childcare, and outside the home in women being confined to certain
agricultural tasks and being barred from others. (Bina Agarwal, 1984, A Field of One's Own: Gender and
Land Rights in Soz,ih Asia. Cambridge University Press : Cambridge.)
It is the nature and type of their work and the long work hours, which raise fundamental economic and
social issues. These issues are related to the stage of technological development of an economy as well as
the existing division of labour between men and women in the society. Women's participation in agriculture

36
is adversely affected by modem method of cu lt ivation, which resulted in gradual displacement of rural women
workforce and shrinking of their activities . The introduction of Western model farm implements had affected
the "daily wage-work ' done by women. The improvement brought about by technological innovations both
in terms of benefits and work conditions have been gender bias and gender specific in the purview of male.
Women workforce, meanwhile, continues to cluster in the least skilled, most monotonous , most indispensable
and low paid task in the production process.
The Socioeconomic Positions of Women in the Third World
The socioeconomic position of women and girls in the Third World is reflected in the an-ay of development
statistics. In many countries , female score unsatisfactorily compared to males in every conventional measure of
development , including literacy, school enrollment, clinic attendance , rates of pay, access to land, availability of
credit and political office holdings at all le ve ls . (United Nations Development Programme,
199 4. llu111a11 Develop111e11t Report 1994, Oxford: Oxford University Press, for the UNDP: 138-43, tables
2 and 3).
Females, making up around 50 per cent of the world's populatio n, do an estimated two-thirds of the
world's work. Yet they earn only IO per cent of global income and own less than I per cent of the world's
prope1t y. This implies that much of their work is unpaid, often connected with familial duties, such as bearing
and rearing children, cleaning and maintaining ho useholds, caring for the aged and the sic k, tending animals,
fetching water and fuel for domestic use. In addition to these domestic chores, many women do work, often
poo rly paid, outside the home ( P. Ekins, 199 2, A New World Order : Grass Root Movement for Global
Clumge, London, Ro utledge, p. 73)
They produce 50 per cent of the food worldwide but receive only 10 per cent of the incomes. Women
access to and ownership of resources is less than that enjoyed by men. And even among those who own
prope11y, the control of its us e and dispensation rests more often than not with some male member of the
family. Comparison of the work hours of men and women across geographical regions, show that women
,vork for longer hours than men in both market and non-market activities (International Labour Office, 1979
Yearbook of labour statistics, Geneva). This is especially true of the rural areas.
Of the one billion people in the world who are illiterate, two-thirds are female, while over 60 per cent
of those deprived of primary education - 8 I million out of 130 million people-are girls. 1·11 s um , as James
Grant, Executive Director of UNICEF explains. 'Employment rights, social security rights, legal rights,
property rig hts , and even civil and political liabilities are all likely to depend on the one, cruel chromosome
distinguishing human male from female ' . (V. Br ittain , I 99 4, "Victims from Birth" , Observer, Special
Supplement : 'World on Shoulders' I 6 Oc tober, p. 12). In other words, all indices of modernisation that
promote widespread, self-perpetuating change in society--'- the spread of modern education, increases in
li te racy, urban is at io n, prolonged economic growth and so on - favour men over women apparently regardless
of,' individual countr ies ' c ultures .
Yet, while such is ce11ainly the position of women in the vast majority of the Third World countr ies , the
position is notably better in the Indian state of Kerala and the Caribbean country of Cuba. Kerala provides
a model of incremental but comprehensive poverty alleviation under democratic and decentralised rule. Cuba
furnishes and alternative method of women's empowerment: there a highly centralised state has, since the
inception of the communist regime in 1959, worked assiduously to improve the socio-economic position of
women. This is reflected in a variety of developmental statistics. For instance, infant mo1tality per l 000
lives at births is 14, comparing well with some of Cuba' s neighbours at higher levels of development: 20
in Trinidad and Tobago, 30 in Argentina, 59 in Brazil, 37 in Mexico, 34 in Venezuela. The same picture of
an effort to improve wome n ' s well-being is reread, compared to 80 per cent in Brazil, 21 per cent in Peru, 53
per cent in Guatemala and 29 per cent in Honduras (A. Thomas et al., 1994, Third World Atlas, 2nd edition,
Buck ing am, Open University Press, 74-5). However , Cuba's is a relatively well-known women's ' success
story' .
Women's Empowernment in the Third World
The modernisation approach quite simply ignored women. It was assumed that what benefit men also

37
benefited their 'women'. Women are not recognized as constituting a distinct and particularly disadvantaged-
group. The basic needs or anti-poverty approach to development in the early 1970s expressed, for example,
through conferences on Food and Population held in 1974, for the first time drew attention to the fact that social
policies, development or otherwise, have not been gender neutral. It was recognized that a disproportionate
number of the world's poor are women and that, if considered with the dependent children for whom these poor
women carry responsibility, they constitute the vast majority of the poorest people on earth. Hence their well-
being is a primary ethical question for development schem s. The efforts of development on women and its corollary,
the role of women in the development process, were therefore depended up to research and the Undeclared 1975
International Women's Year, with a major Conferences held in Mexico City.
The period 1975-85 was declared the UN Decade for the Advancement of Women. More radicals' approaches
also stress that women are a separate issue on the development agenda; they do so for functional as well as moral
reasons. They argue either : That the involvement of women is vital for the efficiency of any developmental
schemes; or that the empowerment of women is the motor force for the development of any meaningful kind.
Empowerment, a concept deriving from the work of Brazilian educationist Paulo Freire, means acquiring the
awareness and the skills to take charge of one's own environment. This perspective, combining as it does elements
from Radical and Marxist feminist though, often also takes on board other poor sections who suffered under
colonialism, and who now continue to do so under a form of development perceived as distorted and exploitative
both of people and nature.
Like Western feminist, it appears that many Third World Women are dissatisfied with a position of
subordination; millions have joined action groups for empowennent. (J. Fisher, 1993 , The Road from Rio.
Sustainable Development and Non Governmental Movement in the Third World, Westport, Conn. Praeger, 40)
claims that women's groups - both development and empowerment oriented - are probably the most rapidly
proliferating types of action groups in the Third World. Some idea of the numbers of women's groups in existence
may be gauged from the fact that the New York - based International women's Tribune Center (IWTC) is the contact
and referral office of over 6,000 women's groups in over 160 countries, and average of nearly 40 in each. In addition,
there are probably additionally tens of thousands of women's groups in the Third World that are not registered
with the I WTC . (See Ibid). The p_ oint is tliat women's groups flourish in many Third World regions in part
because men refuse to let women take a full role, whether in running the state or playing a leading role in civil
society.
None the less, in the case studies that follow we see how women in Argentina, Brazil and India have used
democratic space to pursue their interests. The case studies suggest that attempts to improve women's socio-economic
position usually start fl'Qm a concern with so-called 'women's projects' - that is, enhancing housekeeping skills,
handicraft production. or micro enterprise development. Over time, however, women's groups offer to come to a
realisation that a ge11eral amelioration of their members' socio-economic and political position depend on changing
the prevailing power structure in society in order to have an effect on, inter a/ia, infant morality rates and
environmental protection. These initiatives involve educating women to defend and then improve their overall
social position.
Women and Social Change
Women are disproportionately subject to the effects of social change. Modernisation emphasises capital
accumulation. However. the move away from artisan production tends to disadvantage women since as
employees they are not in a position to accumulate meaningful amounts of capital. And if they are married
women, their earnings essentially become the property of their husbands and contribute to his standing rather their
own. Industrialisation makes them part of the labour force in a way that was not previously the case. The most
conspicuou,5 area in which this is true is in electronics and other skilled assembly work, where some 80-90 per
cent are women. Such occupations, even at the very end of the twentieth century, however, are not typical. Some
90 per cent of the world's women still depend directly on the land for survival.
Women produce most of the food in developing countries, and 60-80 per cent in Africa South of the Sahara
(SSA). They work longer hours and do heavier work than men. This view has now been shown to be wrong,

38
as it understates the involvement of women in the modern sector of the economy and ignores the fact that food
crops arc also grown as cash crops. But it still leaves women responsible for the bulk of food production. In China
on marriage a women ceases to be part of her birth family, symbolised by the physical removal of herself and her
possessions to her husband's home, but she does not cease to work.
Energy in the-rural Third World is mainly biomass (fuelwood, crop residues and manure), that is collected by
women and children. Biomass accounts for 75 per cent of fuel used in the world generally and 90 per cent of fuel
consumed in SSA. Fuelwood collection is often blamed for deforestation. However, rural women traditionally use
fallen dead wood. Fuelwood cut from trees are usually for commercial sale to urban areas. Burning dung is, of
course, a contribution to agricultural underproduction, but not a very great one. Women have well-developed skills
in managing resources . They probably know more about sustainable development than men , as they live it more
directly.
Unfortunately, the common factor in limiting the capacity of women to make their views felt and to share
their skills is lack of formal education. There are estimated to be one million illiterates in the world, of which 60
per cent are women. The education of women, their capacity to control their fertility, and their economic
independence are not just concessions to a disadvantaged group. The Third World cannot afford sops. Women are
functional part of the process of development that the Third World cannot afford not to encourage. Women must
play the fuller part in development in this generation and in future through their care and education of their
children. Their lack of education damages their capacity as primary health carers and educ ators.
The reasons why women's productivity is so often underestimated are as follows: The assumption that they are
less strong. This is not necessarily so, and in any case they usually work longer hours. The fact that the
domestic labour is not accorded its proper value. Domestic labour is not still counted in the calculation of GNP ,
although suggests that it must account for a very high proportion of it in less developed countries. The fact that
local economics are ignored in favour of urban and exports markets, and that it is men who own the land in
which cash crops are grown or who manage the factories in which women work.
Women and Structural Adjustmcnt under Globalization
The combined effects of structural adjustment, economic crisis and poverty propel millions of Third World
Women into poorly paid work. Economic upheavals have led to a phenomenon known as the 'feminisation of
poverty' - that is , when females suffer disproportionately compared to males. The numerous ways in which women
absorb the fall-out from economic crisis amount of what feminist economists have called the ' gender -related costs
of invisible adjustment'. This is reflected in relation to work, health and welfare programmes.
A major source of income inequality within countries is gender discrimination in wages, property rights and
access to education. Here globalization, on the whole, may be having some positive effects. In developing countries, the
labour force engaged in global production typically includes a large proportion of women- whether in textiles,
electronics, data processing or chip manufacturing. In many cases, these women work in conditions and for
wages that are appalling, and which we must strive to improve.
But the fact of their employment also has important benefits. These new employment opportunities enable women to
expand the range of critical choices open to them. They can delay marriage, for example, as a result of which
fertility rates often decline . They and their children often gain access to more and better nutrition, health care and
education. As survival rates of their children increase, fertility fates will decline further. The increase in female
employment and earnings may also lead to changes in the perceived 'social vulue ' of a female child, which means
that parents and society at large may become more willing to give girls greater access to education, health care
and nutrition. Liberalization policies have particularly affected rural women in 'India. In 1991, as in 1971 and 1981,
about 87 per cent of rural and about 20 per cent of urban women workers continued to work in agriculture.
The nature of work is manual, mainly field-based operations in those activities where they have little or no role in
decision-making. Although there is a tendency in recent years towards what is being called feminization of the work
force in Indian agriculture, women are still largely confined to work in traditional crops and tasks.

39
They have been systematically excluded from areas where new techniques and new market relations arc in
operation. Also, women's work continues to be paid significant less than that men .
Since women work primarily in the agriculture sector, reforms in fertilizers have potentially massive impact
on women. Sarala Gopalan's research provides data on the sectors in which 84.2 million women work. That is
71 per cent of the wome11 workers are employed in agriculture, 10.86 per cent in animal husbandry and
poultry, 7.73 per cent in services, 2.98 in construction and maintenance, and 2.65 per cent in trade. Pravin
Visaria disaggregates sector-wise employment data for rural and urban India. In rural India, 84.7 percent of
women workers are in agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing; 6.9 percent in manufacture in g; 2.7 per
cent in construction; and 3 per cent in community, social and personal services. In urban India, 29.4 per cent of
Women are in agriculture; 27.1 per cent in manufacturing (11.3 per cent in textiles and 8 per cent in food and
beverages); 3.7 per cent in construction; 9.4 per cent in retail trade and hotels; and 26.6 per cent in community,
social and personal services.
In the 1980s, Structural Adjustment Packages (SAPS) were oriented to markets and in particular to the
removal of what were considered to be distortions in them. This had detrimental effect on the standing of
women. Women were largely excluded from markets, and food subsidies and other support for the poorest
sectors from which they might hope to benefit were precisely the 'distortions' to development identified by the
market liberal approach to development, and their removal was the main target of such adjustments. In addition,
when SAPs required Third World expenditure, (male) vested interests and (male) national pride ensure that
disproportionately large military budget are protected. In turn, since protection for military personnel is built
into those budgets, social services are hit hardest.
Women are an 'adjustment variable' on whom SAPs impact particularly hard. The problem is that austerity
measures intensify as they pass down social structures. The semiautonomous and wholly privately funded UN
agency with responsibility for the children of the world, The UN International Children's Emergency Fund
(UNICEF), estimates that a 2-3 per cent decline in national income in developing countries hits the poorest
sections to the tune of I 0-1 S per cent. At the same time SAPs hit the public sector, and women are
disproportionately likely to be employed as teachers, nurses, etc. SAPs also raised the food cost. Between 1980
and 1983, 76 per cent of IMF supported programmes included increased indirect taxation, 46 per cent increased
tariffs only 13 per cent increases in direct personal or corporation taxes, the least regressive of the alternatives
available.
SAPs have diverted from their families to the marginal economic activities, and thus have contributed to
social problems such as child abandonment and delinquency, as in Brazil. Both directly and indirectly, therefore, they
have lowered standards of health care and nutrition for mothers and children, causing lower bi1th weights, poor
child health and lower intelligence, building up problem for the future. Because of the impact of the SAPs on most
disadvantaged groups , UNICEF has recommended changes : more medium term financial suppo11 and less shock,
the encouragement of policies that do not hit vulnerable groups, sectoral policies confining adjustment to the
protective sectors, policies to enhance efficiency and equity of the social sectors compensatory programmes and
monitoring of living standards. The World Bank is now aware of the impact of SAPs on women and other
vulnerable groups. In April 1987, it issued 'Protecting the Poor during Periods of Adjustment', but argued for
compensatory measures to be added on rather than changing the basic nature of SAPs.
Structural adjustment might alternatively focus on removing economic distortions and inefficiencies, which
primarily benefit the ric h. As noted earlier, however, because structural adjustment package need to be drawn up
quicklY. in response to crisis, they tend to go for the most immediately· effect ive solutions to budgetary
imbalances: for example, removing subsidies to the poor, such as those on basic foodstuffs, without touching
individual subsidies. Thus structural adjustment is nearly always serious for the poor. Given that women are
very often the poorest of the poor, it is not surprising that poor women are often among the hardest hit during
structural adjustment.

40
Concluding Observations
The concluding observations can be1"etlected in the transformation experienced by the society. The
development policy adopted by different state in the Third World has neglected the issues relating to the
women development. Despite the claim of neutrality in technological innovations, its nature has certainly
been suitable and mostly replaced masculine workforce. This is evident in the comparative situation of
women at workplace particularly in rural area where the work performed by women are much difficult and
risky in terms of health. This is alarming with low level of human development, i.e., access to education,
primary health and m01tality rate. At the core of this circle of denial and discrimination in their rightful
entitlements of life, education and training for a scientific technological world, health and social security, lies
the gross violation of the human rights of women. This embodied in invisible structural and outward forms of
violence perpetrated by the triple concentric circle of the family, community and society at large.
This is being compounded since the 1990s by the state under pressure of policy prescriptions of Structural
Adjustment Programme (SAP) under the policy of liberalization, privatization and globalization (LPG). The
gender relationship of dominance and subordination is a political relationship, which derives material
sustenance from conditions and structures of production and its legitimacy from a tradition and culture which
upholds subordination of women .
In India, labour force participation rates of women are comparatively low. According to 1991 census only
22.7 per cent of the women are in the labour force. Further, of all the female workers, 27.2 per cent of them
are working in the rural areas where as 9.7 per cent is working in the urban areas. There has been an increase
in the participation rate of female labour in demand for labour for operation traditionally performed by
females following the spread of new seed fertilizer technology. This led to rise in the demand for female labour in
activities such as dairy. The demand for female labourer also increased due to an increase in the employment of
male labour in non-agricultural activities. As a result, there has been and increase in the real wages of female
labour relative to those for male labour. However, the levels of labour input and wages are still lower of
females than for males.
In addition to improving agricultural practices and protecting the environment, strengthening the position of
female farmers and female labourers, it can contribute significantly to the well being of the)1ousehold.
Women allocate a greater part of their income for household expenditure than men do; they help in improving the
nutrition and care of children, pa1ticularly girl child in the family. Changing property rights in favour of
women, evolving technologies to suit women farmers, increasing the number of women extension workers,
educating and training women farmers, strengthening the thrift societies run by women, and other such
measures may help them to better exploit the emerging opportunities.
Despite the equal Remuneration Act, women generally get 40 to 60 per cent of the male wages and are
given the more labour-intensive tasks such as weeding, transplanting and harvesting. It was rightly observed in
the report of National Committee on status of women (1974) that the loss of employment from agriculture nd
lack of other skill has reduced women to complete destitution. The claims of gender justice primarily draw the
attention towards the contribution of women in development process and its impact on the positions of women. In
fact, every development policy, plan or project has an impact on woman and cannot succeed without the
contribution of womenfolk. Development with gender justice calls urgently for measures that will give women
access to better jobs opportunity; that will diminish the arduous task that hundreds of million of women face ii1
their domestic and other occupations; that will distribute more fairly between sought opportunities for creative
work and economic advancement.

Women participate in development everywhere. But they are not equal participant because very frequently their
status prevent them from having equal access to education, training jobs, land ownership, credit facilities, business
opportunities and even (as mortality statistics shows) to nutritious food and other necessities for survival. The
development of production-oriented societies and the use of capital (whether socially or privatdy owned) have
mostly widened the gap between the different evaluation which society accords to men's and women's work.
As majorities of inventions and technical improvements have been applied to what has been regarded as men' s
job, the effect has been to benefited men's dominant role. This is so because women have unequal access to
education, technology and other assets affecting their productivity.
41
 REFERENCES

I. Bina Agarwal (1984 ), A Field of One's Own: Gender and Land Rights in South Asia, Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
2. Gail Omvedt , ( 1994), " Pea.w11ts Dalits and India's New Social Movements", Journal of
Contemporary Asia, 24/1, 35-48.
3. Jeff Haynes (1997), Democracy and Civil Society in the Third World : Politics and New Political
Movements, Oxford UK : Polity Press
4. Jeff Haynes (1996), Third World: A Concise Introduction, Oxford UK : Blackwell .
5. N. Rao, Rurup & R. Sudarshan eds. (1996), Sites of Change: The Structural Context of Empowering
Women in ll1dia. FES, UNDP.
6. Kofi Annan (2000), Globalizatio11 and Governance, Encounter, May-June 2000.
7. Sarala Gopalan ( 1995), Women and Employment in India, New Delhi Har-Anand Publications
p. 43-47.
8. Pravin Visaria and Rakesh Basant ( 1994 ), Non-Agricultural Employment in India, New Delhi : Sage
Publications.
9. J. Westergaard and 1-1. Resler (19 75), Class in a Capitalist Society, Penguin.
I 0. V.L. Allen (1975), Social Analysis : A Marxist Critione and Allernative, Longman.
11 . P. Ekins ( 199 2), A New World Order: Grass Root Movement for Global Change, London: Routledge.
Question:
Critically evaluate the status of women in the contemporary world and various movements related
to the ovenrl I uplift of women.

42