|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The book is about two points of views, that of an "insider", a sociologist from a village background of Maharashtra, who had been Professor and Head of Department of Sociology, University of Delhi and the other that of an "outsider," an American emeritus professor who was a Chair of the Department of Anthropology McGill University of Montreal, Canada. It is about the system and processes of bringing about social changes in rural parts of Maharashtra. A hybrid view that strengthens the personal approaches of both the authors reflects on the pros and cons of social research by "insiders" versus "outsiders". Parts I and II tell the story of the authors Baviskar and Attwood, respectively. Parts III to V provide details of the field work research related with the sugar industry in rural areas where people still live in a very constricted environment with scarce resources, superstitions, limited opportunities and poverty. Perhaps, it was about such state of poverty, George Bernard Shaw wrote, more than 100 years ago, in the preface to his 1907 play Major Barbara, "The greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is poverty". The great thinker may have chosen very strong words to describe the ill-effects of poverty, but underlying such a choice of words must be his deep concern for the poor. The book which the authors call "not a bookish book" favours comparative social research that communicates across cultural boundaries and encourages objective research by removing personal blind spots and biases. Since no single research can be authoritative, a collaborative approach assumes all the more importance.
Western anthropologists in earlier days could describe and apply certain principles of social research in the field work with authority without the critical gaze of "insiders". Since Attwood did not have that benefit and he was questioned and criticised by Baviskar through a continuous dialogue, the output is a result of multiple points of views. Many thinkers feel that the "outsiders" had to waste a lot of time in drawing inferences after extensive field work, which could be obvious to an "insider". The fact that local scholars have definite advantages over the outside research scholars and that India has some of the best sociologists and economists with good expertise in social sciences, does not take away the merits of a collaborative approach. However, local researchers with an urban background must unlearn their experiences of urban life and learn about rural life. Baviskar, the "insider", with a village background had the benefit of knowing the regional language and understanding the culture unlike Attwood, who may have found many events and traditions rather puzzling and intriguing. Experts may borrow ideas from the West but when such ideas can be configured in different setting, as in the present case of sugar cooperatives of Maharashtra, the outcome may not remain biased and theoretical. The aim of any social
research should be to bring about changes in the pattern of social
action, hence giving priority to words over actions can become a
useless effort. Fortunately, the authors have given the priority to
such words, that is research outcomes, which incite action for
improving the quality of life of deprived millions. The authors
narrate the stories and experiences of many problems faced by the
villagers and how despite many handicaps, they could improve their
lives through raw commonsense The book provides details of extensive research work in cooperatives and can serve as reference by sociologist and anthropologists in India and elsewhere. A very useful book for those involved in management of public administration.
|
|||
|
|
|||
Varied perspectives on social change
