Search

This paper analyzes the work of two Indian sociologists who defined the contours of sociology in India in the immediate post-independence decades, M. N. Srinivas and A. R. Desai. It argues that their scholarship can be linked to sociology's legacy as anthropology in India and its embeddedness in the episteme of colonial modernity. It contends that Srinivas's methodology, the field view, attempted to make a break with earlier methods, such as book view. However, his three concepts, that of dominant caste, Sanskritization and Westernization were perceived as civilizational attributes and which had organized social change in India. A. R. Desai, a Marxist historical sociologist, made an incisive critique of capitalist exploitation and elaborated the material conditions that led to peasant and working-class revolts. However, his sociology could not unravel the caste-class linkages that organized the Indian 'social' which was embedded in Indian nationalism. This paper suggests that a definitive understanding of modernity emerges in Indian sociology in the late 70s when the feminist, dalit and tribal movements interrogated the material basis of contemporary India's developmentalism and its capitalist and exploitative character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The modern increase in opportunities for social activities also brings with it unintended side effects posed by the liberating potential and the acceleration of modern life. In this paper it is argued that the views reflected in Georg Simmel's formal approach and in American sociologist Edward A. Ross' reformative sociology are (1) complementary and (2) offer fresh insights for our current sociological understanding of unexpected consequences in contemporary "high modernity" or knowledge societies. A long forgotten nexus between the ideas of Simmel's and the work of Ross will be reviewed in order to point out affinities between the two authors' takes on the unintended and sometimes tragic moments in modern culture and their relevance for sociology today. Based on these discussions a fundamental mode for framing the unexpected in modern society as a recursively-linked component to the intended is illustrated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The following paper uses three of Bauman's interlocutors—Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben and Cornelius Castoriadis—to open issues of the worlds we create, for better and more often for worse. Bauman uses Foucault to rethink the sociology of the factory as a site of discipline, though the fibre of his argument is also open to Marxist social history from below. He borrows more selectively from Agamben, in order to address more general problems of modernity and violence. The work of Castoriadis appears in a more positive register in Bauman's work, for his is also a modern and classical enthusiasm for cities as a counterpoint to camps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]