In what follows I wish to argue out a thesis that society primarily & basically consists of ideas & these ideas give rise to what is known as culture & development.
Before I put forth my views I wish to critically examine some of the prevalent views about man & society.
One of the most influential views of man & society is this: Man is a lump of flesh & blood. The so called mind, spirit and higher values of life are just figment of imagination; they are impositions the above. This view of man gives rise to a particular view of society. It is this: society consists of individual human beings. Historically speaking, this type of view of society goes in the name of contractual theory of society & state. Though the contractual theory of state & society was advocated against divine theory of state & society yet it played a very important role. It gave impetus to the socio-political movement that was trying to justify procure absolute freedom for man. But a little reflection will show that the contractual theory does not have any historical base. It is an ideology advocated in order to eliminate the divine theory of state & society. The theory had its hey day and moulded the attitude as well. This clearly shows that the primary components of society are not physical entities which may be human beings. This view leads us to conclude that ideas, ideologies and value systems primarily constitute the society.
The organicists on the other hand, the so called social contract is absolutely unhistorical. There is no historical record to show that such a contract was ever signed at any point of time by any body. Society & state are built into the very nature of man as it were. This led the great Greek philosopher Aristotle to argue that man by nature is social animal. So much so that he cannot live without society. That is why some philosophers are led to conclude that society and individual are two sides of the same coin. In short, they are the obverse & converse of the same coin. Organismic biology & the orgamic theory of society thus go hand in hand. German philosopher Hegel was the chief protagonist of such a theory. All types of culture & all forms of development are integral & innate to human society. In other words, the so called external forces & causative factors of any culture & development are really insignificant. This appears to be a deterministic & fatalistic perception & interpretation of development & culture but in reality this is not so. This theory simply draws out attention to the fact that development & culture cannot be conceived without reference to a society & to understand culture & development is to refer it to a society. In fact, the externalist view of development & culture is to be accepted only with a pinch of salt. If culture & development are intrinsic to society then freedom & effort of man to change his/her lot is uncalled for. This view makes the freedom lovers to suspect the efficacy of this theory. Is the growth of culture & the so called development spontaneous phenomena or they stand in need of external agencies? This question needs to be answered but the organicists have evaded the question. Therefore the question needs to be addressed. In reply to this question various answers have been mooted. One such answer is that culture & development are internally connected. In short, a particular culture gives rise to a particular development or even hinders it. Max Weber the German philosopher & sociologist is the chief advocate of such a view. According to Weber it is the Protestant brand of ethics that gave rise to capitalistic growth & development. Further, Weber argues that capitalism did not grow in India because of strong belief of Indians in law of Karma & renunciation. Industrial growth & capitalistic development took place in Western Europe because of Protestant ethics &.culture.
Let us examine the Weberian thesis. In a very important sense the Weberian thesis speaks the obvious. It is this: If culture is the totality of what man has created then development whether economic or non-economic is bound to be part of culture. Further this thesis does not have any scope for interference of man with the process of culture. As a matter of fact, there is constant interaction between culture & development.
Let us explain this point little bit. To begin with: culture is not something that is visible & tangible. As we have hinted earlier culture consist of a set of ideas, attitudes & ideologies & value systems. Development theories in this sense constitute and integral part of culture. If this is so then cultures are made, created & could be changed & altered at any time. This is what we wish to characterize as transcending culture and this transcendence is possible only through constant reflection, analysis & examination of what we call culture. With this background in mind let us discuss society, culture & development in India in general & North-East in particular. The multiethnic multilinguistic, multi religious & multicultural nature of Indian society is both boon & bane to it. Cultural pluralism adds colour to Indian society but at the same time it has put stumbling block to economic & cultural progress & deve10pment. Sheer physical vastness of the country stands as a natural barrier to communication. This is so much so that people from one part of the country can find it difficult to understand their counterpart belonging to other part of the country. As for instance, many educated people in Orissa, Bengal & even Tamil Nadu when they meet Naga students, they ask them if they are from China. Twenty five years back when the writer of the paper was travelling by ship from Mumbai to Goa on excursion was asked by the ticket collector to show his passport & visa thinking that I was from China or Japan. In this sense the huge size of the country creates hindrance in way of communication & interaction.
This is not all Multi culturalism has been creating hindrance on way to economic, social & educational development & uplift in the country. There are cultural & ethnic communities in the country who oppose all types of socio-economic changes. To
cite some instances; Years back the proposed Central Government to extend Railway line from Gauhati to Shillong, instead of welcoming the move, the Khasi Students Union (KSU) alongwith some political parties raised hue & cry & opposed the proposal. Their argument was that extension of Railway line to Shillong will encourage the outsiders (Dakhar) to enter into Meghalaya. Consequently the proposal was dropped. Further, in eighties North-Eastern Hill University Shillong (NEHU) gave a proposal to the Central Government to allow them to open Engineering & Medical Faculties in NEHU. The proposal was Okayed but as usual it did not see light of the day because of opposition as the above said logic. At a time, there was also opposition in Meghalaya to take away all Central Government offices & not to open any new one. All this clearly shows how ethnic, cultural & religious pluralism standing on way to development.
Now the question is: How to overcome & get rid of these impediments? The founding fathers of Indian constitution including some conscientious politicians & statesmen devised & introduced the concept of secularism to fight against the cancer of divisive forces. But this method also did not succeed. In due course of time all the political parties without any exception tried to rake up and mobilize communal forces of various hue & types keeping in view nefarious objective of electoral politics.
This is true that there is no substitute for democracy but the fact remains that democracy appears to be the worst form of Government, for the simple reason that political power holds the key to economic power & in a democratic set up individuals political parties struggle hard somehow to capture & if possible to share political power. This strange & rapacious instinct in politicians bring about grinding halt to all types of development, whether economic, political, social & educational. What is to be done now? How to improve, the situation? In answer to this it can be said that there is not a single method to cure this malaise. This is the duty of al enlightened citizens, politicians, teachers & student leaders to come forward & save the situation. But the fact remains that this is the most difficult path. Either we have to turn pessimistic & keep on brooding that nothing could be done & we pick up courage & look within & muster up strength that the prevailing situation could be changed, modified & altered. All out efforts should be made by all concerned to create a new culture free of all sorts of complexes & inhibiting forces. To reiterate my critical position, success of development depends on culture & culture is created by man & it is not given to us by society. It is not intrinsic & innate to society. It is created, made, unmade, modified & altered by men in society appropriate & intended development could be ushered in only when there is suitable and appropriate cultural set up & cognitive mind set.
Xavier Pfokrehe Mao
Department of Philosophy NEHU, Shillong
