Welcome to the thirtieth lecture of the course
on sociological perspectives and modernity.
This is the last lecture and will wind up
with this. As you know, we have covered in
this course in total seven modules. Module
one represents thematic preliminaries, module
two sociological modernity, module three the
structuralist interpretation, module four
western marxist perspectives on critical modernist
paradigms in sociology, module five synthesizing
modernity and social theory, module six deconstruction
of modernity and module seven in new totality.
If we go by go in terms of weeks, in the first
week we started with thematic preliminaries
on modernity, then what we have discussed
on thematic preliminaries very briefly? In
thematic preliminaries, we have discussed
how the term interrogating modernity does
not mean only destruction of the hitherto
existing ideas. Interrogating also refers
to the dialectic of engaging with and interrogating
the hitherto existing ideas and the ethos
of interrogating loses its significance in
the absence of a critical engagement with
hither to existing ideas.
That is why; this course aims at a dialectic
of engaging with and interrogating modernity.
Engagement assumes greater significance in
the context of not just interrogation, but
also interrogating the interrogator and both
engaging with modernity and interrogating
modernity are context specific. That is why
this course simply put is about the critical
modernist paradigm in sociology.
We have discussed how sociological thinking
when I say critical modernist paradigm in
sociology, I referred to how sociological
thinking about modernity and sociology as
a modern activity and critics of this approach
may be framed. And then we have discussed
the four central pillars of modernity, four
central pillars of critical modernism or critical
modernist paradigm in sociology namely; holism
or totality, reflexivity, rationality and
social movements. Then I mean, what is holism
or totality? As we have already discussed,
holism or totality refers to the idea that
society is a unit in some sense and that it
can be studied as a single entity.
Reflexivity refers to the idea that we cannot
simply observe society from outside because
we are also involved in it. Rationality refers
to the idea that we can understand society,
in ways we can explain to other people and
social movements refer to the idea that creative
human action both shapes the social whole
and is also set by it.
Why do these ideas? Why do these central pillars
of modernity matter to us? And how do we get
there? The methodological tool to understand
them is through C Wright Mills, the sociological
imagination. I mean the sociological imagination
by C Wright Mills aims to understand; first
understand the larger historical scene in
terms of its meaning and for the inner life
and the external carrier of a variety of individuals.
Secondly, it enables us to take into account
how individuals in the welter of their daily
experiences often become falsely conscious
of their social positions. And thirdly, within
that welter I mean within the welter of their
daily experiences the framework of modern
society is soft and the psychologies of a
variety of women and men are formulated. And
fourthly, the sociological imagination by
C Wright Mills enables us to grasp history
and biography and the relationship between
the two within society.
That is why the methodological tool that that
is required to understand the central pillars
of modernity is lies in the fact that we must
study the sociological imagination by C Wright
Mills. Then, we have discussed concept application,
working relationship with theory then we have
discussed nature of sociological theory, how
we have discussed the social, the interactive
and the communicable. Then we have discussed
ontological questions as well as a epistemological
questions I mean ontology when I say, I mean
the question of existing, the question of
being, the question of the nature, what is
being? What is existing? Leads down to methodology
the question of how we can come to know it.
And therein we have discussed ah the materialist
conception of history by Marx, that it is
not the consciousness of men that determines
their being, but on the contrary their being
that determines their consciousness.
Then within the modernist paradigm in sociology,
we have discussed the type internal logics
and so on and then we have discussed the emergence
and development of modernity and then we have
also discussed the ambiguity of rationality
and control governance versus emancipation
I mean instrumental rationality and so on.
And then we have moved to the sociological
modernism by Marx, there we have tried to
examine certain dramatic transformations in
terms of economic, culture and quality. And
we have tried to examine, all central critical
pillars of modernity, central philosophical
and political foundations of modernity. Namely;
holism or totality, reflexivity, rationality
and social movements through the works of
Marx, this is very important. And therein
we have, how we have tried to look at Marx
is very important. There we have seen, how
we have discussed Marx on modernity and certain
methodological warnings and then when I say
Marx on modernity, we have discussed holism,
social movements, reflexivity and rationality
and then in the third week, we have discussed
the part one of Max Webers reflections on
modernity.
I mean Webers interpretation of modernity,
rationality and modernity, social movements,
reflexivity and so on. And the part two I
mean week four; in the fourth week we have
discussed the part two of Max weber.
And the fifth week captures the ultra rationalism,
ultra modernism, I mean this, the structuralist
case, the structuralist interpretation through
the works of Levi Strauss and Althusser. We
have discussed here in the context of holism
or totality, I mean rationalism and the death
of the subject or of the death of the author,
difference functionalism and modernity.
And then we have discussed social movements
in terms of ideology and function, political
backgrounds, I mean the emergence of two Marx
regimes. Then rationality when we have discussed,
the meaning of science and in the context
especially Althussers concept of rationality,
Althussers delineation of rationality and
so on and then we have discussed in the context
of reflexivity, we have discussed Levi Strauss
uncertainty principle.
Sixth week, we have discussed Western Marxists
perspectives on critical modernist paradigm
in sociology. I mean society as a human creation,
the views from Western Marxism. We have tried
to delineate Western Marxism. The concept
of totality, I mean there are differences
between Western Marxism and structuralism
and then we have discussed I mean when we
discuss Western Marxism we have discussed
it through the works of Georg Lukacs, Antonio
Gramsci and Alan Terrain.
And lukacs reification has significant implications
for the way Marx tried to develop an alienation,
expressive totality and so on. And then consciousness
and action I mean human agency class agency
and class conflict, class consciousness, class
organization I mean, hegemony in more Gramscian
sense, knowledge and action. And in the section
on null reflexivity and rationality we have
discussed self creation, self knowledge and
modernity I mean historicity and then we have
discussed absolute historicism.
In the seventh week we have discussed, how
to synthesize modernity and social theory
part one Wallerstein, Giddens and Habermas.
It is very important to understand how to
synthesize modernity and social theory through
the works of Wallerstein, Giddens and Habermas.
Wallersteins reflections on poor periphery
and semi periphery world capitalist, world
economy and so on, giddens structuration theory,
consequences of modernity and habermas theory
of communicative action.
And part two, we have further tried to look
at the similarities between Wallerstein, Giddens
and Habermas and then we have moved to, I
mean eighth week. In the eighth week we have
tried to bring about the similarities between
Wallerstein, Giddens and Habermas and then
we have tried to take the debate on how to
deconstruct modernity. And deconstruction
of modernity may be divided into three parts;
obviously, there may be multiple parts, but
for sake of convenience we have divided it
into three parts.
One is feminism, secondly, cultural studies
and thirdly, post modernism. And second part
of the eighth week we have discussed, deconstruction
of modernity and the feminist challenge and
we have tried to look at the issues of social
movements, reflexivity, rationality, holism
and the issues of periodization unified systems
of account and finally, what kind of some
of the difficulties that of agreement in 1970s
feminism and some of promise of unified socialist
feminism relates to academic specialization
or reification I mean political economy, biological
determinism, literary criticism, psychoanalysis
and so on. The specialization of these fields
and generation of narrow concepts tends to
lose hold on the totality of lived experiences.
And then we have in the ninth week, we have
discussed deconstruction of modernity towards
cultural studies through the works of three
important authors, but from two philosophical
standpoints.
One, two philosophical standpoints when I
say I mean one, socialist humanism and secondly,
post structure radical post structuralism.
And socialist humanism was strengthened propounded
by E P Thompson and Ramon Williams whereas;
radical post structuralism was propounded
by Michel Foucault.
And there again how we have, the way we have
discussed Thompson and Williams that derived
from Western Marxist tradition, but informed
by lower middle class, working class background
and grassroots political activism, post communist
party formation in the erstwhile Soviet Union.
How both E P Thompson and Raymond Williams
made a refusal of base superstructure model?
What is more important I mean in the case
of social movements? E P Thompson and Raymond
Williams tried to place culture on a high
pedestal. These are the other category in
the context of holism or totality.
They tried to theorize dialectic between experience
and thought in the context of rationality
and reflexivity the way E P Thompson tried
to unfurl the debates on dialectic rationality
whereas, Raymond Williams tried to reflect
on synthetic rationality. I mean, they tried
to deviate from Weberian instrumental rationality
and Michele Foucault as a representative,
as a propagator of radical post structuralist
stands that how he mentioned that a power
is possessed by someone, power is derived
from a central source and power is primarily
repressive and he tried to give the example
of school, prison, mental hospital and so
on.
And then we have discussed what are the common
points or what are the commonalities what
are the similarities that we find a between
E P Thompson, Raymond Williams and Michel
Foucault? And in the tenth week, we have discussed
deconstruction of modernity, the post modernist
critic.
And here we have discussed David Harvey, we
have discussed Fredric Jameson, we have discussed
Michel Foucault again in terms of post modernist
aesthetics, post modernity as a historical
condition, then post modernism as ontology
and epistemology and feminism and post modernism
as a test case.
In the eleventh week, we have discussed a
new totality. It is very important to understand
these responses from the proponents of critical
modernist paradigm in sociology to the opponents
in the form of I mean opponents when I say
I mean post feminism, post structuralism and
post modernism and cultural statistic critics.
And the empirical responses to post modernists
we have discussed in the context of holism
or totality reflexivity and rationality and
social movements. And for reflexivity and
rationality please refer back to Giddens and
Habermas again and obviously, there is continued
difficulty over contingency, necessity and
the difference or otherwise made by human
agency. There is a tendency for accounts to
fossilize into discussion of objectively necessary
developments in which human agencies merely
a conveyor belt.
And feminism appears in rise of new social
movements maybe we do not know and perhaps
only appearance and hence effectively subsumed
under ecology peace movements. Clearly there
is a relationship both with other new social
movements and with for example, development
of welfare state I mean rise of female intelligence,
but this account is not adequate and has nothing
to say about patriarchal organization of society.
Then we have discussed radicalized modernity
through new Weberian and new Marxist perspectives.
When I say new Weberian I mean, I refer to
Giddens and when I say neo Marxist I refer
to Habermas. And Giddens reflections on institutional
analysis of modernity I mean in his work on
consequences of modernity is a Weberian style
multi dimensional or pluralist account. It
becomes of interest in terms of its link to
structuration theory and Habermases theory
of communicative action I mean communicative
rationality must be understood. In the context
of and these two both these accounts must
be understood in the context of radicalized
modernity. And the difference is that which
include maybe discourse of modernity then
counter discourse of modernity.
Subject centered risen intersubjective modern,
subject object rationality I mean instrumental
rationality or goal oriented social action
in a more Weberian sense then communicative
rationality as substantive rationality for
Habermas. Then the difference which also includes
that necessarily good autonomy of economy
and sub states sub systems but for Habermas
it is unbalanced growth increasing autonomy
of ditto.
This is philosophical discourse of modernity
by Habermas must be understood. Here I mean
Giddens argues that Habermas makes use of
three different types of rationality in terms
of local criteria of rationality I mean in
communicative action, giving rise to the possibility
of universally valid judgments as to the rationality
or otherwise of speech and action.
The concept of the rationality I mean comprehensibility
of human action and the social expansion of
rationality in the modern period. That is
our ideal speech situation and so on we have
discussed in this week on a new totality.
And then we have also discussed four I mean
we tried to wind up this week with four T
concepts as problematics of modernity I mean
all holism or totality, reflexivity, rationality
and social movements.
Then modernity as a paradigm and then modernity
and feminism as a test case and then what
kind of outlook that women develop with this.
And then we have discussed in the last week,
in the twelfth week we have discussed modernity
India between worlds India between two worlds
or multiple worlds. And modernity in Indian
context when we discussed, we have already
discussed the reflections made by Gandhi,
Nehru, Tagore, Amartya Sen and Dipankar Gupta
. And how there are differences even while
imagine or while sketching some kind of an
image of nation building in the Indian context.
And finally, we tried to wind up this discussion
by summing up the entire course structure
with this lecture.
Please remember one thing with each week;
you will be given fifteen questions to answer.
One assignment you have to complete and 25
percent from the assignments will be credited
to your final score. There will be 50 questions
for the final examination. Each question carries
2 marks, but in the assignment case each question
carries 1 mark for 15 questions. Now what
do you have to do? Please read them, please
take stock of the slides. If you have any
query please get back to me, there is no problem
anytime you can get back to me; however, we
have four teachers, they can respond to your
query on time adequately.
If need be, I can also ah join them in responding
to your query; do not worry about that. Please
write your assignments properly, do not miss
any assignment, do not skip any assignment.
Each week will have 15 questions each as assignment;
25 percent will be taken into consideration
for the final score. Please do not miss them
and in the final examination, 75 percent weightage
will be there. If you find some difficulty
in making sense of the slides or making sense
of the lectures please get back to us quickly,
we will try to resolve these issues as soon
as possible.
Thank you.
