Comments on How Egalitarian Are the Social Sciences

Comments on “How Egalitarian Are the Social Sciences in India”

                                                             Antony George K.

Gopal Guru’s essay titled “How Egalitarian Are the Social Sciences in India” discusses the privileged status of theory in the field of social sciences. It is a critique of hegemonic and elitist practice of abstracting for the sake of erasing the everyday reality of the oppressed in the social science discourses. As a functioning democracy India has to overcome the exclusionary discourse of theory as merit and experience as empirical. In one way, Guru’s essay reflects the modern European philosophical contention between the empiricists and idealists that still continues without much change on both sides.

            Guru’s argument for “moral opportunity” is a call for ethical redistribution of cultural capital. His concern over “the shrinking social base” of political theory points out the widening gap between the think tanks and the commoners. The underlying historical context of belittling productive labour as sinful operates in a nuanced fashion in the academic world. The varna system in the academies tag some as empirical shudras and brand others as theoretical Brahmins. As Kancha Ilayya put it in his Turning the Pot, Tilling the Land the role of physical labour in the construction of all sorts of knowledge must be recognised by all. The impurity imposed on manual labour and the taboo over progress cannot be overcome without modernity. Yet entering into modernity is so painful, and not an easy task for the dalits.

            Unlike Ilayya’s plea for the recognition of manual/physical/ unskilled labour Guru stands for “freedom from immediate context” or the bare life of the toiling masses. (Does it sound somewhat apologetic and self devaluating?). Similarly Guru’s plan of subverting the existing academic varna system by joining the field of theory by the way of “walk out from the dalit experience” may not be affordable for the majority of dalits. How many dalits could go to Cambridge or Oxford after Ambedhkar?

            Ground rules, procedures, protocols that are restrictive in nature affect the underprivileged in the academies and sometimes drive them away from the world of education. As Guru observes the bridgehead methodology that silences the alternative ideas always severs the inseparable connection between theory and practice. The exclusionary nature of social science theories is the result of the financial exclusion also. However, finding new community resources, for instance the financial assistance from abroad can help the dalits move forward in the casteist academic world. Yet a critical approach to education itself is the need of the hour. Marx’s words: the educator himself should be educated make sense in the field of social sciences also.

            Guru’s description about “feeling nervous” in the intimidating face of theory reminds one of Toni Morrison’s account of sitting in an American classroom where the word nigger is pronounced quite often making her terrified and ashamed of herself. The very word theory may detach the dalit scholar from the field of research and make her afraid of her lack of theory. Is theory high? Can theory survive itself? Is there a theory of everything and where do the theories come from are a few questions arise here.

            Guru’s central argument that dalits need theory as a social necessity overlooks the possibility of alternative social sciences that can counter what he termed “reverse Orientalism”. Spiritual practises of dalits and the teachings of great dalit leaders of renaissance like Tukaram, Poykayil Appachan, Iyothee Thass and others can be termed theory that doesn’t look like theory. Were they less important than the theories of TTB? Dalit intellectuals can develop theory, but the issue is whether they will get recognised?

            The difference between a theoretical Brahmin and empirical shudra is the difference between riding a horse and describing a horse. As Charles Dickens illustrated in Hard Times, the bare back rider fails to give a definition of a horse while the rote learner gives it instantly and becomes a brilliant student. That is the limitation of classrooms in the Victorian England, but it is valid in social sciences in India. The parallel is not unexpected or farfetched. It is the outcome of colonialism both internal and external. The role of dalit intellectuals is to sabotage the privileged status of theory and make a theory of social inclusion. In spite of the mediated speeches and sanctioned ignorance the voice of the dalits is audible to all. And that voice needs no patron, neither rhetorical appreciation.

            The premise of egalitarianism that made this essay possible is contentious in recent sociological theory. As an enlightenment value of Europe and its modernity, the idea of equality underwent a lot of changes recently. The fall of regimes that promised equality and the rise of unequal societies undermined the principle of equality. Yet the struggle for human dignity continues. Guru’s essay is more connected to that.