Defining what social deviance is one of the problems that troubles sociologists even to date. Definitions have been formulated, reformulated, discarded, redefined and is in a state of constant flux. This defining and redefining process has been necessitated because of the changing social, legal and moral criterion that guides the studies of sociologists. By and large today there is no dispute about the social construction of the concept of social deviance and the definitions are getting more and more value neutral and morally silent in their tone if not in their undertone. Philosophers, humanists, people who study ethics, theologians and such similar categories of people claim privileged position to their definitions, primarily understandings or viewpoints. However, the construction of social deviance also happens outside the academic arena; various organised groups, mainstream or fringe also claim to have their own definitions and insist on making its followers accept its viewpoints. The usual stratagem of subgroups should orient their aims and ways to the larger goals defined by the laws of the nations, the Constitution in case of India for example, has proved to be inadequate in addressing this issue. This becomes evident when we see the increasing cases of moral policing resorted to by many organisations. Whether it is the case of Sri Rama Sene or Jamaat-e-Islami Hind, these groups take law in to their hands to enforce particular moral stance on the ordinary people, who otherwise are not willing to follow those dictates. The opposition to women going to pubs, celebrating Valentines' day, wearing of certain forms of dresses are all cases in point. This moral policing is incidentally not confined to the religiously inspired groups alone. The other equally religious but supposed to be scientifically spirited ideological groups can also be included in this category. The curious case of violence professing communists of India, communists is a case in point. As Karl Mannheim has shown us in his thoughts on ideology and utopia, sociologists tread a very fragile ground in their analysis of society as far as social deviance is concerned. Similarly, the works of Michel Foucault too has shown us the changing definitions of deviance in the modern world. However, this relativisation of defining social problem has merely excluded a range of activities from the ambit of sociologists' example group and has not led us to arrive at a comprehensive definition, if at all it is possible!
Many of these organisations are sundry, fringe groups that want to register their presence on the larger map of the Indian society. When this is so, why is it that some other groups are equally vociferous in protesting against the moral policing that we see today? The role played by the electronic media, especially the English media is a case in point. If we take the recent attacks on a pub in Mangalore by the Sri Rama Sene activists, we see the opposing groups taking extreme positions. If one group mandates that pub going should stop, the other group assures that go, we will protect; if one calls for non celebration, the other group asks for such celebration, promising its protective arms. Curiously, no one is interested in the agencies of law! Threats and counter threats are taking place with total disregard to the laws of the land.
Even when we see the whole issue in terms of rights of the individual to choose their own paths and the supposed assault on the cultural ethos of the land, the role of nation state is relegated to fringes and the fringe groups come to occupy the main stage. This trivialisation of the nation state, society, group ethos is a major problem that is staring the sociologists since the time of its founding fathers. Karl Marx, Émilie Durkheim, and Max Weber grappled with the issue of balancing the rights of individual with that of maintaining the group life. Karl Marx envisioned a completely free indiviual in a yet to be realised stateless society; Durkheim was afraid of anomie and strove to place society in the place of God. Weber, ever a pragmatic, found solace in the role that a charismatic leader can play in protecting individual freedom. Completely different from all the three was P A Sorokin, who pictured a sane sex order that can possibly lead to a happy society. In this paper, more than this visualised order of society, an attempt is made to understand why groups react with extreme vehemence for the supposed threats to rights, be it individual or group. When the whole issue is see from the perspective of the Sociology of Knowledge, it is observed that the present social order itself promotes such violent tendencies. The framework for this particular seeing of society is borrowed from Sorokin's characterisation of sensate culture. It is argued that the posing of problem in terms of individual vs group itself is problematic and there is a need to rephrase the question. The boundary between the individual and group is too fluid and not amenable to precise definitions. They flow in to each other and any characterisation that lies at the ends of this continuum is liable for misinterpretations, misrepresentations and misunderstandings. The present problem is one such as individuals, ie persons or groups take their rights with an exclusivist perspective which unfortunately even excludes the nation state and civil society. This illegitimisation of the social order gives rise to exaggerated actions and reactions that trivialises the problems we are facing and leading us astray. This trivialisation itself is a byproduct of sensate culture that we are actively pursuing.
No comments:
Post a Comment