Especially,as far as the left is concerned,There is no contradiction between party interests and society.since ,they don't like to consider any difference between civil society and party .Party is the whole representation of the society.Earlier,cpi's andra unit(c.rajeswar rao study centre) conducted a seminar on this subject.How is to anlyase the assertion of new social movements and their differences with class and mass organisation of the cp's.? One of the prominent ideologue(i.k.sukla) says-civil society is nothingelse but an elite discoure(english educated indian middle class's space). The core question is -what is the the relation between civil and political society?
--- S sanjeev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It'd be interesting to look at one of civil > society's major organs, the human rights > organizations. It is commonplace in keralam to > accuse many of them as masks of "Islamic > fundamentalist outfits". The logic is simple and > modern: "humans" cannot and should not have other > identities in this realm of universal rights. Not > even the idea of "lesser humans" could be > legitimate! It's amazing that the civil society in > keralam is so comfortable with this logic that > majority of our civil society idols subscribe to it > lock, stock and barrel. This is exclusion at its > best. So it'd be worthwhile, as damodar suggests if > we could deploy Partha Chatterjee's concept of > civil/political society critically in this context. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: damodar prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Green Youth Movement > <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 2 June, 2008 6:36:21 AM > Subject: [GreenYouth] civil society & left > > > Hello, > Sorry for the pretty longish posting. > > This is only to share a few thoughts that came up > after reading TT Srrekumar's "Civil Society and > Left". Hope some of you have seen and read the > articles in this book and also saw the reviews that > recently appeared in malayalam weeklies. mnw, > Sreekumar has referred to a discussion in an e-group > in one of his articles and to a particular posing by > nri youth. As a person who closely observes > discussion in e-groups, my posting here has some > justification!!!! > 1. In the aftermath of the soviet coup led by the > CPSU PB members in 1991, which dislodged Gorabachev, > people came out in large to the streets to protest > and strike against this take over of the soviet > state. The reports of these days points to the > uncertainty and tension mounting on the streets. But > people were determined to face the eventualities. > They put up barricades. Within a few days after the > direct confrontation between soviet military and > people, the world came to know that coup has > collapsed. > > 2. This urgent gathering of the people right in > Moscow square was something the empire never > would've imagined. What made this possible? The > civil society was till then conditioned to exist as, > TT Sreekumar says, a "civic engagement." (In the > article "Class struggle and the Marginalized). > > 3. The resentment against the soviet state was > brewing in the minds of soviet people, which > gradually evolved and solidified through the period > of glasnost. The emotional release points at > schools, universities, offices, factories, home > since the introduction of glasnost would've > certainly enabled people to associate and restore > (!) the possibilities of a civil society. Here, the > civil society was in direct opposition to the soviet > state. > > 4. Except two years of emergency under the rule of a > CPI Chief Minister and a constabulary headed by > Karunakaran, Kerala is indeed fortunate not to have > experienced a tyrannical regime. But then the civil > society in Kerala did not in that sense evolved in > direct opposition to state as perhaps has happened > in Europe, Latin America etc. However, the new > micro-movements which strengthened and democratized > civil society had to face the severe onslaught from > the political society along with the state > repression. > > 5. Sreekumar's assessment of the emergence of new > social movements and its resilient strength to put > upfront concerns hitherto marginalized by the > political society and the conditioned Left is > premised in the concept of civil society. The > concept is western in its origin. Nevertheless, it > is impossible to understand the political modernity > of non-western society without the concepts > originated in western social and historical > conditions. But then it is equally important to > field the concept in our own grounds. How has > Sreekumar grounded the concept of civil society in > the political processes of Kerala? > > 6. The beginning article of the book titled "space > of civil society and spaces in civil society" is > informed with conceptualizations of civil society. > > 7. Central to the assessment of NSM is the > distinction set forth by Sreekumar between the > concept of civil society as propagated by the > "Nallam Lokam" and people's plan theorist and his > idea of 'civil society'. Sreekumar initially points > to the fact that it is difficult to advance praxis > on a pre-condition that civil society is a "realm of > freedom". As he remarks, it is also an area > colonized by the post-Marxists, religion, market > fundamentalists, bourgeois liberal and organizations > like RSS. > > 8. Rejecting the notion of civil society as applied > in the literature of people's movements and > auxiliary organizations, Sreekumar derives a new > meaning for civil society informed with a Gramscian > understanding, which is well- rooted in the politics > of Kerala. Nevertheless, civil society is not > devoid of problems inherent to it as several > interests compete with each other. > > 9. Crucial to this understanding of 'civil society' > is the distinction between civil and political > society. Political society, in this sense, is venue > for the instruments of the state to enforce and > perpetuate their interest. Whereas civil society is > a venue constituted by different agencies such as > new social movements, independent individuals, > spokespersons of the market etc. > > 10. Political society and the state are relentlessly > opposed to civil society initiatives. The > single-issue movements, micro-political > mobilizations, identity-based political movements > which have evolved through the period had to face > the brute forces of the state and the political > society. > > 11. Very importantly, Sreekumar in the article > "Class struggles and the marginalized" calls to our > attention the structure of the civil society, which > is its inclusiveness. The inclusiveness is > identified as an issue. The inclusiveness > facilitates the forces of market and capital to > intrude into and appropriate the civil spaces. > > II. Political society: after-effects > > 1. It is agreed that civil society is inclusive by > nature. But then it is also the point of > disagreement. From here the vulnerability of the > concept of the "civil society" begins to get > exposed. Because the civil society is inclusive only > to the extent that the entry into this "inclusive > zone" is based on an exclusive mobilization > strength. > > 2.Sreekumar identifies the new social movements that > have ignited the political imagination of Kerala. > They are the movements led by the fishworkers, > women, adivasis and broad-based environmental > groups. > > 3.The struggles of Adivais, Fish workers, and > women's movement all signify the agility and > politics of the possible of the civil society. In > developmental discourse, the communities were > originally termed as 'outliers' of development. It > is also an indication of the way dominant > developmental discourse coming to terms with the new > social movements. The NSM largely also brought into > the question of citizenry and spoke on behalf of > constitutional rights, which were denied to them. > > 4. Through persistent struggles, these movements > could mobilize from inside and strengthen the base > within the community and seek attention of the > public at large. I am not disputing the liberating > possibilities of these movements. > > 5.With respect to citizenry, which is territorial by > nature, the civil society reduces itself to an > exclusive zone as and when the 'minorities" seek > civil rights. By minorities, I mean, perhaps > numerically limited and "visibility" limited people > such as sexual minorities, Pakistan citizens living > in Kerala, Sex workers, and migrant laborers. > > 6.The mobilization of fisher community, adivasis and > dalits are possible not only based on identity issue > but also as they raise concerns of political > economy. In short of an effective political > mobilization seeking concerns beyond political > economy, the "minorities" work outside the 'civil > society". > > 7.To engage with such contemporary issues of > concern, a new understanding and conceptualization > of "civil society" and "political society" is > needed. Partha Chaterjee outlining of "political > society", which very different from the Gramscian > notion gains much importance in this context. > > === message truncated === --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
