Sociology

Dhurjati Prasad Mukerji:

Nature of Sociology

D.P. Mukerji was trained as an economist and he was, however, aware of the limitations of the practices of other economists. They were inter­ested in mastering and applying sophisticated techniques and abstract generalizations following the western model. They failed to view the economic development in India in terms of its historical and cultural specificities. He noted with concern that our progressive groups failed in the field of intellect and also in economic and political actions, “chiefly on account of their ignorance of and un-rootedness in Indian social reality”.

Social reality has many different aspects and it has its tradition and future. To understand this social reality, one should have a comprehensive and synoptic view of -

1. The nature of interac­tions of its various aspects, and

2. The interplay of its tradition and the forces leading to a changed future.

Narrow specializations in particular disciplines cannot help this understanding. Sociology can be a great help here. “Sociology has a floor and a ceiling like any other discipline.” However, the specialty of sociology “consists in its floor being the ground floor of all types of social disciplines and its ceiling remaining open to the sky”.

Neglect of social base often leads to arid abstractions as in recent economics. On the other hand, much empirical research in anthropology and psychology has been rendered useless because of its narrow scope. Sociology helps us in having an integrated view of life and social reality.

It will look into the details but it will also search for the wood behind the trees. He learned from his teachers and peers the need for a synoptic view of the vast canvas of social life. He, therefore, consistently harped on the synthesis of social sciences. Sociology might help this attempt at synthesizing.

The first task of sociology is to understand the specific nature of forces that sustain a particular society over time. For this reason, He stresses that sociologists of India must understand the nature of tradition, which has conserved Indian society for centuries. But sociology is never defence of the status quo. He asserts that “sociology should ultimately show the way out of the social system by analyzing the process of transformation”.

D.P. Mukerji’s sociological analysis of the Indian society has the merit of showing that the Indian society is changing but without much disinte­gration. He was, therefore, aware that the study of the Indian social system requires a different approach to sociology because of its tradition, its special symbols, and its special patterns of economic and technological changes in culture and symbols follow there­after. D.P. Mukerji observes: “In my view, the thing changing is more real and objective than change per se.”

DP declares that “it is not enough for the Indian sociologist to be sociologist. He must be an Indian, that is, he is to share in the folkways, mores, customs and traditions for the purpose of under­standing this social system and what lies beneath it and beyond it”.

The Indian sociologist will try a synthesis of two approaches: He will adopt a comparative approach. A truly comparative approach will highlight the features shared by the Indian society with other societies and also the specificity of its tradition. For this reason, the sociologist will aim at understanding the meaning of the tradition. He will carefully examine its symbols and values. At the same time, he will also take a dialectical approach to understand the conflict and synthesis of the opposing forces of conservation and change.

Marxism and Indian Situations:

D.P. Mukerji had great faith in Marxism. Marxism gives an idea of a desirable higher stage in the development of human society. In that higher stage, personality becomes integrated with the others in society through a planned, socially directed, collective endeavour for a historically understood end, which means a socialist order. But, he expressed doubts about the efficacy of the analysis of the Indian social phenomena by the Marxists.

He gave three reasons for it:

1. The Marxists would analyze everything in terms of class conflict. But, in our society, class conflict has for a long time been covered by the caste traditions and new class relations have not yet sharply emerged.

2. Many of them are more or less ignorant of the socio-economic history of India.

3. The way economic pressures work is not that of mechanical force moving a dead matter.

Traditions have great powers of resistance. Change in modes of production may overcome this resistance. A speed change of this nature may be achieved by violent revolutions only. But, if a society opts for revolution by consent and without bloodshed, it must patiently work out the dialect of economic changes and tradition.

D.P. Mukerji emphasizes that it is the first and immediate duty of Indian sociologists to study Indian traditions. And, it should precede the socialist interpretations of changes in the Indian traditions in terms of economic forces.

Rejection of the Positivism of Western Social Sciences:

D.P. Mukerji was against the positivism of western social sciences. For it reduced individuals into biological or psychological units. The industrial culture of the west had turned individuals into self-seeking agents. Society in the west had become ethnocentric. By emphasizing individuation, i.e., recognition of the roles and rights of the individual, positivism had uprooted man from his social moorings. He observes, “our conception of man is purusha and not the individual or vyakti”.

The word vyakti rarely occurs in our religious texts. Purusha or person develops through his co-operation with the others around him, through his sharing of values and interests of life with the members of his group. India’s social system is basically a normative orientation of group, sect, or caste action, but not of voluntaristic individual action. As a result, a common Indian does not experience the fear of frustration. DP makes no difference between the Hindu and the Muslim, the Christian and the Buddhist in this matter.