Unit I: Conception of Society
The concept of society is foundational to the study of politics, culture, and identity. In the context of Culture and Politics in India, society cannot be understood merely as an aggregate of individuals or institutions; rather, it must be seen as a historically produced, culturally mediated, and politically structured formation. The conception of society explored in this unit foregrounds the ways in which social life is shaped by meanings, symbols, power relations, and collective imaginaries, rather than by material structures alone.
This approach marks a shift from purely structural or institutional analyses toward an understanding of society as a cultural and political process, continuously constructed and contested through ideas, practices, and representations.
Society beyond Structure: A Cultural Turn
Classical political and sociological thought often approached society as a system of structures—economic, legal, or institutional—that regulated social behavior. While such approaches remain important, contemporary scholarship emphasizes that society is also constituted through culture, language, memory, and everyday practices.
Society, from this perspective, is not simply what exists “out there” as an objective reality; it is also how people imagine, interpret, and experience their collective life. Cultural norms, moral values, religious beliefs, and symbolic practices play a decisive role in shaping social relations. Politics, therefore, does not operate on society from the outside but is embedded within these cultural processes.
This understanding challenges the assumption that social order is purely rational or functional. Instead, it highlights the role of emotions, identities, traditions, and narratives in sustaining or transforming society.
Classical Conceptions of Society: Points of Departure
To understand contemporary debates, it is important to briefly locate them against classical conceptions of society. Thinkers such as Karl Marx, Max Weber, and Émile Durkheim offered influential but differing frameworks.
Marx viewed society primarily through the lens of material relations and class conflict, emphasizing how economic structures shape social life. Weber, by contrast, highlighted the role of ideas, values, and meanings, particularly religion and culture, in shaping social action. Durkheim conceptualized society as a moral and collective entity, held together by shared norms and social solidarity.
While these frameworks differ, they collectively underline an important insight: society is not natural or given, but socially produced and historically contingent. Contemporary cultural approaches build on this insight while expanding the scope of analysis beyond class, rationality, or moral consensus.
Society as a Historical and Discursive Formation
A key contribution of postcolonial and cultural theory is the argument that society must be understood as a historical and discursive construction. This means that social categories—such as tradition, community, nation, or modernity—do not possess fixed meanings. Instead, they are produced through historical struggles, intellectual debates, and political projects.
In the Indian context, colonialism played a crucial role in reshaping the conception of society. Colonial knowledge systems classified Indian society through categories such as caste, religion, tribe, and community, often freezing fluid social practices into rigid identities. These classifications did not merely describe society; they actively reorganized social reality.
Postcolonial scholars argue that understanding Indian society requires questioning these inherited categories and examining how social knowledge itself is linked to power.
Society, Culture, and Power
An important dimension of the conception of society emphasized in this course is the relationship between culture and power. Culture is not a neutral domain of shared meanings; it is a site of contestation where dominance and resistance are produced.
Cultural practices—rituals, festivals, language use, dress, literature, and art—often reflect unequal power relations. At the same time, they also provide resources for critique and resistance. Society, therefore, must be seen as a field of struggle, where competing visions of identity, morality, and belonging confront one another.
This approach destabilizes the idea of society as harmonious or consensual. Instead, it foregrounds conflict, negotiation, and contestation as central features of social life.
Society and the Question of the Self
The conception of society is inseparable from the conception of the self. Individuals do not exist prior to society; they are shaped by social norms, cultural expectations, and political institutions. Society produces particular kinds of selves—gendered, caste-marked, religious, national, or modern.
Modern social thought emphasizes that the self is neither fully autonomous nor entirely determined. It is formed through social interaction and cultural mediation. This insight becomes crucial in later units of the course, particularly in discussions on modernity, nationalism, and identity.
Understanding society, therefore, requires examining how individuals come to see themselves as social beings, citizens, or cultural subjects.
Indian Society: Diversity, Hierarchy, and Plurality
Any conception of Indian society must grapple with its extraordinary diversity and deep hierarchies. Caste, religion, language, region, and gender structure social relations in complex ways. Rather than viewing diversity as a simple plurality of cultures, contemporary approaches emphasize how diversity is organized through unequal power relations.
Indian society cannot be understood through a single unifying principle. It is marked by tensions between unity and difference, tradition and change, domination and resistance. Cultural practices often mediate these tensions, making culture a central site for political contestation.
This perspective challenges homogenizing narratives of society and calls attention to marginalized voices and subaltern experiences.
Critique of Universal Models of Society
A major theoretical concern in contemporary debates is the critique of universal models of society derived from European historical experience. Scholars such as Dipesh Chakrabarty argue that concepts like modernity, civil society, and secularism cannot be uncritically applied to non-Western contexts.
According to this view, Indian society cannot be understood as a delayed or incomplete version of European society. Instead, it represents a distinct historical trajectory shaped by colonialism, cultural plurality, and indigenous traditions. This critique urges scholars to rethink society in plural and contextual terms, rather than through linear or evolutionary models.
Conclusion: Society as a Dynamic Cultural–Political Process
The conception of society developed in this unit moves away from static, structural, or purely institutional definitions. Society emerges as a dynamic, contested, and culturally mediated process, shaped by history, power, and meaning.
By foregrounding culture, discourse, and identity, this approach allows for a deeper understanding of how politics operates in everyday life. Society is not merely the backdrop of politics; it is one of its primary terrains. This conceptual framework sets the foundation for subsequent units that examine the modern self, nationalism, resistance, and urban culture in India.
References
- Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference.
- Mohanty, J. N. The Self and Its Other: Philosophical Essays.
- Sen, Amartya. The Argumentative India.
- Marx, Karl. Selected Writings.
- Weber, Max. Economy and Society.
- Durkheim, Émile. The Rules of Sociological Method.
