What is to be a Lecturer
                                       - Randhir Gautam

‘To be a teacher does not mean simply to affirm that such a thing is so, or to deliver a lecture, etc. No, to be a teacher in the right sense is to be learner. Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner, put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he understands and the way he understands it “
- Soren Kierkegaard, the point of view for my work
as an Author (1848)


I love teaching. My aim of life is seeking to arrive at an understanding of meaning of life. Teaching is a noble profession. It gives the opportunity to touch so many souls in a beneficial and indelible way.Teaching is what gives propose and meaning to my life, and I cannot imagine myself doing anything else. I have no real interest in any career outside of university.

University is my second home. Even my bed room is full of thinking of my classroom. When I go to room after giving a lecture, I pass a sleepless night thinking what I ought to have said that I didn't say. I develop simple process of thoughts and concepts in order to make students understand. To be a lecturer is to develop a habit of theory building. Learning comes from doing. I feel so happy when I am surrounded by curious mind of learners. Intelligence of students is my gift that ultimately gives me power of imagination.


Moreover, sociology is what I do by nature, I have three degrees in the field (BA, MA and qualification
of assistance professor). Teaching sociology is the perfect calling for me, and it is a calling I will follow till I am physically unable to stand in front of students. I am pro-Gandhian by temperament so I feel guilty if I am not working. Teaching gives me ultimate source of satisfaction in life.


Lecturer and education
Thinking is an art which is done at a deeper level when you try to make understand after
understanding by yourself. If the listener is ready to listen, you certainly get to power to think more
thoughts than that of you usually think. Nothing is more bliss than a situation where you are engaged to produce the utility of your thoughts. Making someone understand something means to develop simplicity of your thinking process.

Lecturer is an academic rank in university. Therefore, role of a lecturer corresponds to university and its commitment for society. There is significant role of lecturer in university. At the one hand a lecturer is supposed to develop creative learning method and pedagogy on the other hand he or she has to develop the expertise.


Lecturer and profession

A classroom is a synthesis of the mind of lecturer, listeners and theorists. Teaching method of lecturer is to actualize the conceptions, to figure out the limitation of theorists and to develop application of thinking. Decoding reality and to make students to unlearn the constraints of scientific thinking are two important tasks of a lecturer.

The main task of a lecturer is to make students to unlearn the habit of “things for granted reality”.
Through classroom conversation a lecturer is supposed to teach the utility of reasoned thoughts in everyday life. I encourage my students to think beyond common sense and to practice the art of ‘thinking out of the box’ that is to say to be creative rather than experts. The first and foremost task of a lectureris to make students aware.

As far as the profession is concerned a lecturer should also work for the betterment of the growth of his discipline.To revisit the earlier theories and to look for the alternatives. Lecturer is considered to be privileged profession in all society.
We design Our profession.
I think a lecturer can never be out of students. A student is made of curiosity, doubt and uncertainty. Teaching is never ending learning process, where both teacher and student work together to learn and develop knowledge from each other.

A lecturer needs the ability to command over his subject at the one hand and to convey its essence
to students on the other. He is able to translate theoretical knowledge, scientific approach, good
judgment, practical knowledge, and wisdom into a significant knowledge of a subject that is fully
understood by the student. To be a lecturer is to have some skills such as Patience, passion, up to date information, situational analysis, positive attitude, strong control over class room, a professional reader and good evaluator.

For me to be a teacher is to inspire students to be critical and curious. My teaching is more about
suggestion rather to dogmatize the mind of students. Teacher is the maker of huaman. He is entrusted to impart to the pupils under his charge, not only that but he has to be insight about the pupils to whom it teaching and training. Lecturer is the one who acts as a field worker in the educational programme. Willing to perform for the benefit of the learner is the ultimate goal of lecturer.

I am going to end my essay with a beautiful quotation of cicero
‘History is truly the witness of times past, the light of truth, the life of memory, the teacher of life, the
messenger of antiquity, whose voice, but the orator’s, can entrust her to immortality?’

"We must enter the new period our own way and solve its questions for ourselves, because though truth, the radiance of reality, is universally one and the same, it is mirrored variously according to the mediums in which it is reflected. Truth appears differently in different lands and ages according to the living materials out of which its symbols are hewn.

Concepts and words are symbols, just as visions, rituals, and images are; so too are the manners and customs of daily life. Through all of these a transcendent reality is mirrored. They are so many metaphors reflecting and implying something which, though thus variously expressed, is ineffable, though thus rendered multiform, remains inscrutable. Symbols hold the mind to truth but are not themselves the truth, hence it is illusory to borrow them. Each civilization, every age, must bring forth its own.

We shall therefore have to follow the difficult way of our own experiences, produce our own reactions, and assimilate our sufferings and realizations. Only then will the truth that we bring to manifestation be as much our own flesh and blood as is the child its mother's; and the mother, in love with the Father, will then justly delight in her offspring as His duplication. The ineffable seed must be conceived, gestated, and brought forth from our own substance, fed by our blood, if it is to be the true child through which its mother is reborn: and the Father, the divine Transcendent Principle, will then also be reborn―delivered, that is to say, from the state of non-manifestation, non-action, apparent non-existence. We cannot borrow God. We must effect His new incarnation from within ourselves. Divinity must descend, somehow, into the matter of our own existence, and participate in this peculiar life-process.

According to the mythologies of India, this is a miracle that will undoubtedly come to pass. For in the ancient Hindu tales one reads that whenever the creator and sustainer of the world, Vishnu, is implored to appear in a new incarnation, the beseeching forces leave him no peace until He condescends. Nevertheless, the moment He comes down, taking flesh in a blessed womb, to be made manifest in the world which is itself a reflex of His own ineffable being, self-willed demonic forces set themselves against Him; for there are those who hate and despise the god and have no room for Him in their systems of expansive egoism and domineering rule. These do everything within their power to hamper His career. Their violence, however, is not as destructive as it seems; it is no more than a necessary force in the historic process. Resistance is a standard part in the recurrent cosmic comedy that is enacted whenever a spark of supernal truth, drawn down by the misery of creatures and the imminence of chaos, is made manifest on the phenomenal plane."

―Heinrich Zimmer, from_Philosophies of India_

                                             

A religious life, not all the religions, not the monks and all that. They are not religious. I know they would abhor me when I say that. I will show it to you logically why it is not. It is all put together by thought. The invention of god is put there by thought. It is simple. All this is clear when you understand the activity of thought.

So what is a spiritual life? I am asking you. You have strange robes, you attend churches, mass, or do some kind of puja in India, or go to temples and mosques, what is a spiritual life? The word spiritual is not pleasant but we will use it for the moment. What is a spiritual life? Would you say a spiritual life is a life of total freedom? Freedom from sorrow, freedom from fear, freedom from all the conditioning - right? To be free. Most of us are in prison - prison of our own making of ideas, or other people's concepts, their own prejudices, their own experiences, they are like bars that hold us in prison. Most of us are slaves to tradition, slaves to some kind of belief, faith, or to experience. To be totally, completely free of all that. Freedom as we said before, that very word implies love. If there is no freedom there is no love. You cannot possibly achieve that freedom through some figure, symbol, person, idea. Freedom means the ending, the ending of the self, the me, the images I have about myself. Then when the brain is free, only then is there that supreme intelligence. Not all the rituals, all you know, all the trivialities, for god's sake, sitting in a posture, meditating, breathing, you follow? That is not - if one can use that word - spiritual. That is all the movement of memory and thought. And thought is limited, which we have gone into, I won't now. So we have reduced our life into a very small petty little affair. To be free of that entirely. And it is possible. Don't accept my word for it. I say it is possible. Find out. Do it. So that a religious, a so-called spiritual life, then there is no division between you and another. You won't kill another. Your country is the country of the world. The world is your country. The world is your religion. But when you say you belong to no religion, living a spiritual life, a life that is holy, it is not something for the elite, for the few, but if that is what is necessary work at it, not pretend and all that nonsense.

So a religious mind, a religious human being, one that doesn't belong to any religion, but a brain that is functioning with truth and therefore with great intelligence and compassion.
                        - Krishnamurti

                                                           What is concept?

                                                                                         Randhir Gautam

One of the major functions of theory is to order experience with the help of concepts. It also selects relevant aspects and data among the enormous multitude of “facts” that confront the investigator of social phenomena. -

                      Lewis Coser, “The Uses of Classical Sociological Theory,”

Concept is the major constituent of social theory. Concept is language of theorists. Concepts are the tools with which we think,  argue, criticise, analyse and explain. 
Ideas are originated from everyday life, personal experiences, daily observations or creative imagination.

Concept is a generalized idea of class of objects which is a product of mental construct and its meaning is same at all times under certain circumstances. The chief characteristic of social theory is that it constitutes a series of conclusions stated in terms of concepts and them inter relations.   For example, structural theory is made of concepts such as System, equilibrium, dysfunction, division of labor and social order. Social exchange theory is made of concepts such as rewards, approval, sense of gratification, Opportunities, balance, credit. Conflict theory is made of concepts such as social inequality, alienation, Power, exploitation, struggle.  Thus, the process of theory formation then requires concepts formulation and their interrelations.  

 Everything is construct in this world. No theory can construct without concept. No abstraction can be done without concept. Concept is being used for the very purpose to define particular phenomena. concepts are products of mind, and when their meaning is shared, communication of ideas takes place in daily life as well as in intellectual communities. Concepts are mental constructs or logical abstractions. 

 No definition can be absolutely true in social science, therefore a definition is to be understood as a resolution.  A concept is used for precision and to clear researcher’s conception. Therefore, it is important for theoretical formulation.

A researcher must keep in mind that the contracted concept must denote the unique qualities of that which is being defined. Concept development shows a researcher’s maturity. Concept formation is an essential step in the process of reasoning. 

   

Concepts vary according to their level of abstraction

A concept is either defined objectively or operationally. When concept is having empirical variable standardized referents (scales), then it is considered to be objectively defined.

when concept is defined in terms of process or behavior, then it is considered to be operationally.  To operationalize concept means to define concepts in terms of its attributes which could be empirically observed during research.  This is the way to convert concepts into empirical measurements. There is a room for disagreement in such concepts because it lacks uniqueness.

Concepts are used to scaled variables in theory building. A concept is an idea which can either be expressed as a symbol or in words. A good concept has five attributes –  clarity, appropriateness, measurability, reproducibility and comparability.

Theoretical concept is an idea that is thought through, carefully defined, and made explicit in a theory. Concept clarifies thinking. It has a critical role in advancing knowledge and in organizing the way that we conduct research. As social thinker, we tend to define concepts more precisely than what common people perceive in daily life. We link concepts in a theory with research studies and empirical data.  We build up our knowledge of the world not simply looking as it but through developing,  redefining and reexamine concepts which will help us make sense of it.  Concepts are building blocks of human knowledge.  Concepts help in understanding of reality that a science is engaged in studing.  

                           Neo-functionalism

                                                                                    ~     Randhir Gautam

  

After 50 years of its emergence (1930), functionalism started to lose its popularity in 1980s.

Ignorance of the question of social conflict, disorganization of society, and change prove its conservative bias, one-dimensional views and idealism in terms of theory building. It misunderstood hierarchy as order. Universalization of application of its theory was illusory. In order to overcome its major difficulties, neo-functionalism came into existence.

 Epistemological orientation –

 The mid-1980s   was a time of non-ideological orientation of theory building in social sciences. Alexander himself states that “neofunctionalism is a tendency rather than a developed theory” (1985).  Paradigms were differentiated in oppositional group between conflict and order theories, micro and macro approaches, structural and cultural views.

As we know the very emergence of parsionian sociology began with the question of social action which latter become the crux of micro sociology. Parsonian functionalism was obsessed with system theory that is to say it   solely interested in explaining the survival of society.  functionalism ignored   dynamism and creativity of an individual. Individual is only rational but also has expressive action in this way parsonian and Weberian action theory limit the sense of action.  I will later talk about social action in details.

  Context of theory building -

 Social theories give birth in particular context. Neofunctionalism was born in a context of the Vietnam War, civil Rights movement, women movements, student movements and Black movements. conservative orientation of sociology significantly replaced by many different orientation of theories. Hierarchy, war, conflict and social justice come into the center of conceptualization of society. 

 Alexander provides new insights by making functionalism self-critical while retaining its theoretical core. Therefore, his goal is to create a more synthetic theory which can incorporate the concerns of culture and individual. He changes parsonian theoretical orientation towards dynamic, multi-dimensional, open-ended and plural theory. He also rejects menopausal determinism and reductionism in theory building.  He tried to discernment between personality, culture, and society in order to make social theory systematic. He thinks theory building is considered to be independent of all the levels involved in sociological analysis.

 

  Methodological question of neo-functionalism –

 Alexander emphasizes the role of presuppositions In theory building. He states Presuppositions are of a metaphysical nature, and therefore cannot be empirically validate, but they constitute to produce theories by inspiring and guiding the notions drown from empirical world.  

Why are presuppositions useful?

They are useful because they establish their epistemological foundations, in the sense that they point out general standards of validity for social sciences, and provide them with general principles able to subsume principles deriving from lower analytical levels.

 He further states social changes involve a theoretical change only if only thinker’s reformulate propositions. Once Alexander said “theoretical changes take place not because of new empirical evidences, but because of the scientist’ new epistemological and theoretical orientation”

 For example, Female gender was excluded from the civil sphere until feminist movements took place in 20^th century. He is one of the first thinker who identified intellectual perspective as a connotation of social change.  He further states conceptual distinction in social sciences is not to be seen as opposition but these conceptual categories are only made for the purpose of study.

   What is the perspective of neofunctionlism?

The major contributor of neofunctionalism in America are Jeffrey Alexander and Paul Colomy and Richard Münch in Germany. These thinkers tried to integrate theories such as pragmatism, symbolic interactionism, phenomenology, Frankfurt school, exchange theory and so on.

Neofunctionalism operates with in a formulation of ‘strong programme’ with a descriptive model of society that sees society as composed of elements that, in interaction with one another, form a pattern. This pattern allows the system to be differentiated from its environment. Parts of the system are “symbiotically connected,” and their interaction is not determined by some overarching force. Alexander argues social change is not productive of conformity and harmony but rather “individuation and institutional strains”. He states neofunctionalism pays equal attention of both micro and macro constituents of society.  Neofunctionalism is also concerned with interest in integration, not as an accomplished fact but rather as a social possibility.

Alexander argues    promoting social order through shared value systems must be balanced by explicit recognition of conflicting interests, environmental conditions and constraints, and the unforeseen contingencies individuals face in dealing with the particular situations in which they find themselves.  

Here I am going to quote Alexander for the better understanding of neo-functionalism.

“The central question that every social theory addresses in defining the nature of action is whether or not–or to what degree–action is rational………. [T]o presuppose that action is instrumentally rational is to assume that action is guided by ends of pure efficiency. In terms of the more differentiated terminology of goals and norms, it assumes that goals are calculated to achieve broader normative purposes in the most efficient manner possible, given the constraining external conditions. Because any relation of goals to norms that is not efficiently rational is disregarded, goals can be viewed as performing a function similar to means. Ideally oriented goals, are, in effect, reduced to materially oriented means, and more general norms as such become irrelevant: action is viewed as a continuous effort at economizing, calculating, and, indeed, “rationalizing.” (Alexander)

   This quotation itself answers the most important question. Whether social order to be seen as reflecting objective or external constraints or subjective internal commitments?

Alexander does not argue that social order is insignificant but he ask more fundamental question how social order is created and sustained?

parsons, Marx and  Weber all interpreted human action in one dimensional way. Marx emphasized social consciousness, Parsons emphasized on voluntarism and Weber empathized on meaning making interaction. Neo-functionalism analyses alternative way and argued for a multidimensional framework

 Sociology of culture

   Why culture is important for Alexander?

 One of the main functions of culture is that it allows people to express themselves, sometimes aesthetically . culture is very significant in Alexander's analysis in terms of multi-dimensional and systematic understanding of social action . 

Alexander calls neo-functionalism; strong program. He wanted to conceptualize the relationship between society and culture.  His quest for sociology of culture is quite significant for sociology. He claims the autonomy of culture from any social determination. He advocates new approach of social investigation. What is ‘strong programme’?

The strong programme attaches great relevance to meanings, narratives, beliefs, symbols and ideologies, collective representations, and in general to the cultural aspect of social life. He seeks to interpret actors, and taking into account the hierarchies and the social institutions that mediate the relation between actors and culture. Criticizing Parsons' view of culture, he states culture is not merely institutional regulating and controlling system.

Alexander also questions the distinction between social agency and social action by stating that social   action is the movement of persons, intended as actors, in time and space. Social agency means actors’ freedom to move among the three structured environments of the social, the cultural and the personality system. He criticized Giddens for that matter.

   Criticisms of Neo-functionalism - 

  Some sociologists argue Individuals are still regarded as ‘reactors to the system’ rather than ‘dynamic and creative actors’. Social Conflict and racial stratification are recognized but remains at secondary place in the theory (Abrahamson 2001).  Social movements are certainly not considered. So, some thinkers argue ‘isn’t neofunctionalism old wine in new bottles.

McLellan criticizes that the thesis expounded in the ‘strong program’ is not sufficiently argued, because Alexander’s insistence on the relevance of values, rather than on other constitutive elements of civil society, is neither historically nor theoretically justified.

                Despite such criticisms neo-functionalism provides all the limitations of contemporary sociological theories. From Weber to Hebermass, form Parsons to Marx. such as Parsons was ambivalence about order and normativity. Weber was ambivalent about the consequences of modernity so and so forth. I think you most look Alexander most recent work the dark side of modernity. 

                "Observation  Method"

                                                 - Randhir Gautam

Science begins with observation and must ultimately return to observation for its final validation (Goode and Hatt ,2006). That is to say all research ultimately depends upon the observation.
The history of research is replete with discoveries based on observations. To use observation
method is to record behaviour as it occurs around us. It consists of cognitive powers of a researcher.
It enables researcher to Interpret the field. An observer is a mediator between field and data.
Observation is an art of scientific investigation.

Observation is a primary method of data collection. As a method of inquiry, this method is an alternative or complement to the use of interview, questionnaire data and documentary.

Observation is the most important method of behavioral sciences. But simply seeing the world
around us is not observation, observation becomes scientific tools of investigation only if a
researcher has a formulated research questions and research plan.

Whatever the purpose of the study, four broad questions confront the observer (1) What should be observed? (2) How should observations be recorded? (3) What procedures should be used to try to assure the accuracy of observation? (4) What relationship should exist between the researcher and the research, and how can such a relationship be established

observation involves a researcher watching and listening to actions and events within some context over some period of time, and making a record of what has been witnessed in his or her field study.


Characteristics of observation  -
1. Full use of human sense
2. Deliberate and minute study
3. Direct study
4. To know about mutual and causal-relationship
5. Study of collective behaviour

observation provides us insightful means to see the pattern of human interaction and behavioural
pattern.


 Following are some of the popular definitions of observation -
“How odd it is that anyone should not see that all observation must be for or against some view, if it
is to be of any service”. (CHARLES DARWIN)


“A Deliberate study through the eye may be used as one of the methods for scrutinizing behaviour
and complex social institutions as well as the separate units composing a totality (P V YOUNG)


“…In the strict sense, observation implies the use of the eyes rather than of the ears and voice (C A
Moser)

“Accurate watching, noting of phenomena as they occur in nature with regard to cause and effect or
mutual relation ‘(oxford concise dictionary).

It may be helpful to provide a check list such as the one which follows. A researcher must first clear about his Categorical recording. –
1. The participants
2. The setting
3. The purpose.
4. The social behaviour
5. Frequency and duration

Following are types of observation. -
1. Structured observation - when a researcher use standardised conditions of observation
and the selection of pertinent data of observation, the observation is called as structured
observation. It is used in descriptive studies

2. Unstructured observation- when a researcher counts or measure the frequency of particular
types of act of social action for the better understanding of phenomena, unstructured
observation technique is used. It is often used in qualitative research. It is not governed by
any pre-established set of categories. It is used in exploratory studies.


3. Participant observation - If the observer experience what the members of the group
experience, the observation is called as the participant observation. Participant observation
deals with inside view. familiarity of respondent because researcher witness observerbing
phenomena in their natural setting provides more authentic explanation of phenomena.
this method is closely associated with ethnography.
 This method originated in the field work of social anthropologist and in the urban research of Chicago school. The first time Lindman
used the word participant observation in his book social Discovery in 1924



John Howard study of prison ,Malinowski study of Agronauts ,Remond firth study of Tikopia
Erving Goffman study of mental hospital are some of important studies of participant observation .
participant observation does not mean to act or thinks like respondent. The sociologist
cannot, for example, become a criminal in order to study a criminal gang.
Participant Observation carried out without the explicit awareness and agreement of the social unit being studied. It is most intensive and minute study. In participant observation one may have to
sacrifice scientific precision to some extent. Naturalism, low reactivity are something which a
researcher is supposed to have.

A researcher enters the field with a focus to know something unknown. participant observation is
highly labour –intensive method of discovery and mapping of multiple perspectives with an
enquiring minds . In social interaction necessarily requires a deep knowledge of the participant
culture with long period of observation.
If a sociologist wishes to learn about marriage ceremonies and to explore social relations among the families in a suburban community, participant observation is one of the best method. suppose if one is asked to do a sociological studies of a factory workers. While one can learn much about the life of a factory worker by taking a job in a factory, introspecting on his own experience and watching the behaviour of others, she/ he may need to supplement this by getting individual to explain what they are doing or why they are doing it.


Followings are some merits of the participant type of observation

1. The observer is enabled to record the natural behaviour of the group.
2.The researcher can even gather information which could not easily be obtained if he observes in a disinterested fashion.

3.The observer can even verify the truth of statements made by respondent in the context of a questionnaire or a schedule

The central methodological problem of such research is balancing adequate ‘subjectivity with
adequate objectivity. Too much detachment weakens the insights that participant observation
brings in other words the researcher may lose the objectivity to the extent he participates. Too
much involvement will render the data of questionable value for social science.


4. Non-participant observation - when the researcher observes as a detached emissary
without any attempt on his/her part to experience through involvement what others feel,
the observation of this type is often termed as non-participant observation. A researcher
becomes a passive observer but with an active mind. He or she is not supposed to use
instrument of precision.
Non-participant observation is used in exploratory research.

5.COVERT OBSERVATION – covert participation is less likely to raise problems of latent
identities and therefore preferred where practicably and ethically possible.


6.Overt observation – participant observation carried out with the agreement of the subject
being studied

7.Disguised observation - When the researcher is observing in such a manner that his/her presence
may be unknown to the people he/she is observing; such an observation is described as disguised observation.

Sometimes we talk of controlled and uncontrolled observation also. observation takes place in the
natural setting in uncontrolled observation, but when observation takes place according to definite pre-arranged plans, involving experimental procedure, the same is then termed controlled
observation.


Participant observer in particular and observer in  general faces especially severe difficulties in
maintaining objectivity.
 following are some of the effects that can lead to unscientific study.

1. Hawthorn effect - It refers to the behaviour modifying effects. when a respondent act like
unnatural or rather behaves artificially.
2. Elevation effect - When a researcher has a tendency to use a particular part of the
scale in recording an interaction, this phenomenon is known as the elevation effect
3. Halo effect – when a researcher allows his or her judgement to influence his or her
observation for example when white race is considered to be more intelligent and most
sociable. This can happen in teaching when a teacher’s assessment of the performance of a
student in one subject may influence his/her rating of that student’s performance in another.


 An observer must aware about the conception of ‘Reactivity ‘. Basically there are two types of
reactivity
1. Personal –It is concerned with the impact of behaviour of researcher on observed action. A
good training of researcher comes in the picture. when you state participant observation
you have to minimise the effect of your personality by entering into group. The researcher’s
latent identity should to hidden for that matter.

2. Procedural – It is the effect that the whole structure of a research method may have on
subjects’ responses.


In order to get rid of the demerits of non-participant and participant observation Goody and Hatt suggested "quasi participant observation". An observer has to strike a balance between his
involvement and detachment from his field.
Participation facilitates observation. An observer must have empathy. An observer uses techniques
such as Interview, personal letters and diaries official files and video recording for the deep
understanding of society.

While doing observation in field a researcher has to focus two things. Whether the situation is to be
a ‘natural’ one or a contrived one. Whether those observed are to be aware or unaware of the
observation.

Social scientists developed an approach of observation called ‘systematic observation’. Systematic observation limits the prejudices and biases. Making the respondents feel the situation as natural,but far more through the applications of controls on the observer in the form of mechanical synchronizing devices, team observation, films and recordings, schedules and inventories, the
development of elaborate categories for locating, and inventories, the development of elaborate
categories for locating and coding behaviour quickly.

  There are some more difficulties in observation methods.  Sometimes People may not have the time, or they may not be interested to be interviewed ,They may resent being singled out or being asked questions whose purpose is obscure to them, they may object to being tested, out of fear that they may not come up to the standards of their group; and so on are some of the concerns that an observer should always keep in his mind .


Narrative, recording and Using scales in observation are important thing . But the observation itself may be defective and illusory or ideologically; wrong, associations may make it imperfect; judgments may misinterpret the experience; and suggestive influences may falsify the data of the senses .
A researcher must be good Communication skills.
One of the greatest sources of unreliability is the constant error introduced by the observer because of distortion of his perceptions by his own needs or values.

 The observer is always a variable to be
taken into account. observation method has various limitations. Firstly, it is an expensive method. Secondly, the information provided by this method is very limited.
Observation methods deals with the question of accuracy and reliability. It provides insight to
formulation of hypostasis and being a popular method.
Once Bertrand Russel said,’ The kernel of the scientific outlook is the refusal to regard our own
desires, tastes, and interests as affording a key to the understanding of the world ‘


An observer must check his or her physical, physiological and psychological effects on his
observation and will explore unknown facts more scientifically. A scientific observation is foundation of science .



References

Goode,J William and Hatt ,K Paul.2006 ‘Methods in Social research ,New Delhi :Surjeet Publication

Wilson.M.J and Miller P.Mcc ,1993.‘A Dictionary of Social Science Methods,New York:John Wiley &
Sons

Mishra ,R P ,1989. ‘ Research Methodology ‘ New Delhi :Concept Publication Company

Holt, Rinehart and Winston , 1967. ‘Research Method in Social Relation United States of America:

THE SOCIETY FOR THE PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY OF SOCIAL ISSUES

Scott,Johan and Marshall Gordon , 2005. ‘ Dictionary of Sociology’ New York :Oxford University Press

“Gandhi is free from ‘Ism’ “
                                              - Randhir Gauatm

                     

   
Submission to any ideology is an anti-critical act. Survodaya premises led to non-ideological
movement in India. Since Gandhian thought is of more an attitude and less of a doctrine. Gandhi
himself declares that he has no desire to found a sect. Ideology causes many maladies in society.
Ideological conditioning led to all type of violence in society. All ‘ism’ creates more problem than it
solves. It always limits the realization of the greatest good for all. since Gandhian philosophy is the reflection of the ideas of Survodaya. Gandhian thought is a rational critique of all the radical
ideologies. The very philosophy of means and ends approach is to be the sole understanding of the essence of Gandhian thought. The central point of his concern is that violence, command, cannot be accepted in any just society. Annihilated of liberty cannot be compromised. Gandhi said loyalty to a corrupt state is a sin, disloyalty a virtue. Once sociologist M N Srinivas said that Gandhi was at heart anarchist, deriving inspiration from his ideas from Tolstoy, Ruskin and Thoreau. I think Gandhian anarchism is to seen as against the state-led violence and war. His anarchism is not against state but transformation of state into a society with the decentralization of power with seems to me more democratic and that is necessary for the sustainable growth of democracy. The idea state is to be the network of independent village republics.





Society as well as science are suffering from the diseases. Historically Gandhi has been misreading.
Instead of applying Gandhian method in order to get rid of dogmatism and fundamentalism,
Gandhian thinkers makes all Gandhian through as if charismatic truth. Social sciences have been
suffering due to objectivist and positivist understanding of phenomena which can be solved by problematizing the Gandhian thought for its better application. The nucleolus of Gandhian thought is peace. I think that’s a fundamental descripting of what thinker should approach to society. In order to develop epistemological trust there must be bridging gap between through and practice of theoretical formulation. one of the big uniqueness of Gandhian thought is coincide of his theory with  practice.


Ideas of trusteeship develops a new understanding of the method of protest. This is significant and provides more democratic dimension of indigenous movement. Bohdan movement of Vinoba and JP movement have seen the importance of people’s orientation towards trusteeship in terms of national building. Though fundamental duties and 73 and 74 th amendment proved how decentralization led to democratization of all realms of society. Fighting against injustice and oppression in a non-violent way is the ideal way of political protest in any democratic society.

The readiness on the part of oneself to suffer voluntarily a ‘change of heart of oppressors and
unjust authority is a creative aspect of Gandhian politics. His methodology to seek to conquer
violence and hatred through love. Gandhi proved that Passive resistance is a weapon of weak
and Satyagraha is a powerful approach to insistence on truth. Law of love is the answer of all the ideological theories in political realm which causes destruction in society.
Gandhi praxeology helps the helpless and needy. His philosophical problem with desire could
be solution of many problems that comes with egoism. Once Gandhi said human life is a series
of compromises for it is not always ways to achieve in practice what one has found to be true
In theory. Gandhi once said ‘My life is governed religious principles teaches us to practice
Ahimsa (to avoid violence to others). He had never lost sight to his principle that governed his
life, since he began dabbling in politics.


His God is Truth. In his view Truth is loving others as thy self’. Gandhian thought practices transcendental ethics without being utopian.
Belief in God with tolerance of other religion (Ganga Yamuna tahjeeb). God/Truth/Love is the very foundation of deeds of peace, forgiveness and mercy. Once Gandhi said “Don’t go to your books, or to your teachers, with impure hearts, go with the purest hearts and you will get from them what you want in life”

Gandhi conception of truth is not objective but universal and subjective, Gandhian paradigm is
orientated towards philosophy than thought. Gandhian ethics is more oriented towards it practice than theory building. Gandhian notion of truth felt by intuition is afterwards confirmed, examined and explained by reasoning. India is in transition has to incorporate the Gandhian ideals both in terms thoughts and practice in order to have fearless cultural environment, perfect chastity and sustainable growth. There is no room for fear in ahimsa. Gandhian thought provide vision not ideology because it itself has dynamism of change.


Indian Politics is full of the manipulation of Gandhian method. It seems it is being done more for personal gains than for others. Gandhian thought makes us to realize the “ourness” of other. Where ideology make us to realize the consciousness of self as against the other.
I think Satyagrah can be the principal of state policy. Killing of one’s faith is also violence. Gandhi seems more visionary if one read the conversation between Gandhi and s c Bose and between
Gandhi and Ambedker one can find how and why the question of peace and ethics are the nuclei of
Gandhian thought.
It seems me to exaggeration of critic of Gandhi with call him as utopian thinker. For me Gandhi is a realistic utopian. Utopian realist Gandhi is somewhat correct than ideological Gandhi. I think that is totally incorrect to say “Gandhism”.

Gandhi always advocated very different realm of politics which gives more power to people. Latter
Vinoba and JP applied Gandhian politics and did politics for the betterment of society without being politicians, I think Vinoba and JP give two scope of Gandhian thought. one’s connotation is spiritual and another’s connotation is political. Gandhi believes plurality in thought even once he said ‘if
communism came without any violence, it would be welcome’’.

His patriotism has concerns for other nationalities. He approaches his opponents in a very kind
hearted way. we are suffering now a day with the intolerance and not even ready to listen others.
where Gandhi taught us that truth often lies hidden in untruth, even as god hidden in things evil.
Gandhian thought raised the banner of peace, love and non-violence. We are in an age where
nationalism creates more problems than it is supposed to solve. we have to define patriotism with significant connotation of internationalism. His greatest achievement was to convert the national movement into a mass struggle with an effective act. All such conception of Gandhi gives
philosophical insights to the solution of contemporary problems of society. All conceptions are interrelated; no conception can be explained separately.

 Rising gap between poor and rich the fact
of neoliberal growth, Gandhian method of achieving divestment and manner of organizing
economics life such divesting of vested interests.


Once Marx said that philosopher have interpreted the world, the problem is to change it. Gandhian
thought provided the actualization of true ends and means in order to achieve those goals.
Gandhi has become more relevant to today’s time where our society needs non-violence, mass
education, communitarian faith and peace. My quest is to prove Gandhi did not advocate any
ideology. Even he is against Gandhism. Gandhian thought provides us methodology of life telling
how to save us from the ‘egoism’ in particular and how to save us from the diseases of ‘ism’ in
general. Gandhi helps us to get rid of devil, get rid of impurity that has seized us.

           Media: An agency of ideological system
                                           

                                                  Randhir Gautam


     

We live in the era of post truth where propaganda has become truth. Sociologically propaganda
itself is neutral but it can be intrumentalised. News is created and managed by capitalist and right
wings under ideological system. News is debated on the basis of too little information. Media
encourages intolerant outlook among groups through manufactured truth which ultimately leads social disharmony among groups.
 propaganda and publicity have become the whole mark of politics. Both radical left and radical
right have same orientation of doing politics that is to say to change public interest for their
ideological satisfaction. Idea of justice and vision of equalitarian society are completely missing in
the discourse of politics. politization of  social movement by opposition parties for their own benefits lessen credibility of civil society.
Majotarian democracy brings favour to masses of one group into the cost of another group. Media
tells us hyper truth. It has become the instrument of misinformation. public mind is being shut.
Media as a medium of public demand is losing its credibility by favouring majaotarian interest’ and
advocacy of capitalist agenda.
Organ of public opinion is being controlled by media. Indian media is a dominating outlook of Hindu middle class. This class enjoy the profits of capitalism and love to see authotarian leadership into regime. The voting pattern after 1990s shows why right wings government et its popularity in urban area.
In order to have a publicly accountable political democracy it is vitally important to have a
democratic media. We live in the age of information society the role / responsibility of media has become more important than past. Democracy and Media strengthen each other . A media has to be democratic in terms of public debates.
Herbert J. Altschull describes the relationship of democracy and the news media. He says: "In a
democracy, it is the people who rule, and their voices are heard in the voting booths. The decisions made by the people in voting booths depend upon the information made available to them. The news media primarily provides that information. Hence, the news media are indispensable to the survival of democracy. To carry the assumption a bit further: A democracy is a free society. In no other form of government are citizens fee. Hence, for a society to be free, the flow of information to the citizens must come from news media that are free. By now this is a central assumption not only to Americans but also to the most other citizens in the capitalist world".



What is democratic media? - Forget the notion of a "free media" the concept is a misnomer, an
oxymoron, a myth.... A democratic media is where the various different factions each have their
access to the media, the ability to put their stories out and have their position or case advanced.
Democratic media has emerged as one of the most powerful components of social management.
The reason why free media is a myth is because every news journalist, editor and producer has their own biases at one hand , on the other hand educationists, journalists , activists and experts, leaders of different political parties, religious leaders, workers ,trade unions and peasants Unions, etc. have different interests and ideologies.
Their own ideologies and even with the best will in the world to have "journalistic integrity" their prejudice will come through. I argue that it is better to have ab honest media, where journalists and media organisations put their political biases up front and then present the news... this way the audience can understand what perspective or slant, and figure out how to compare different media sources to try and gain a better understanding. Manufactured trust
and particular agenda advocating act must be stopped at least from the news room .

To have any real attempt at political democracy all political sides need to be able to make their case
and ideologies clear. In reality most political parties and politicians are trying to lead /govern /do politics in the best interests of the nation and their supporters. They often tend to have very
different ideas as to "how to achieve this", and come with very different sets of priorities, cultures
and ethnocentric demands.

Television debate is an art where an anchor plays a very significant role. In anchoring the debate my
advice is try to get the various debating groups to state "where they come from", "what their goals
are" and "how they would like to achieve them".
I would also press them on whether they want a democratic tyranny where they think that power
should reside with the winner, or if they think that a democratic system should be about power
sharing and compromise to meet the needs of "who" (nation, political supporters, elites, the
people), where the different parties work together with the overall leadership and direction setting
going to the "winners" (as opposed to complete power).
It's also worth bringing up the role of social media in this, and the ability for debates to happen
involving thousands of people and across regions, nations and the globe using technology.
Indian mainstream media are owned by capitalist so it has become more politicised and the failed
reality of what has and is happening in that country after most of the mainstream media abandoned any semblance of impartiality to attack right wings , and the consequence that is having. Capitalists and right wings are become the helping hand of each other’s.



In conclusion I want to quote Manueal castells
"There is nothing that cannot be changed by conscious ,purposive social action ,provided with information and supported by legitimacy . If people are informed ,active and communicate throughout the world , If business assumes its social responsibility if the media become the messenger rather than the message ;
If political actors react against cynicism , and restore belief in democracy
If culture is reconstructed from experience ,if humankind feels the solidarity of the species throughout the globe
If we assert intergenerational solidarity by living in harmony with nature
If we depart for the exploration of our inner self ,having made peace among ourselves.If all this is made possible by our informed conscious ,shared decision ,while there is still time ,maybe then , we may ,at all least ,be able to live and let live ,love and be  loved "
                              

Fall in love
with a man
                 

who wants to be the best person of your life!
who wants to visit each adventurous place with you!
who motivates each moment of your life!
who is your sunshine in day and star at night!

who makes each day as your birthday!
Who makes each your mood honeymoon!
who inspires you to dream for the best future!
who changes each mistake into a lesson!
who loves your madness!
who becomes sadder when you are sad!
who becomes happier when you are happy!
whom you name and feel the sense of blessing!
who is your better half!
whom you are the first priority of his life!
who can make all your dream into reality!

whom first meeting itself says he is made for you!
who gives you a sense of husband even before getting marry!
whom you think and get happiness in your heart and smile over your face!
With whom you start to celebrate each movement as part of great journey!
who has no problem with your past !
Who wants to gives you the best time of your life!.

@copyright Randhir Gautam 

                                              “Differences   between sociology and Anthropology”

-          Randhir Gautam 

Baress and Bicker "sociology is regarded neither as the mistress nor as the handmaid of the social sciences but as their sisters"

 A L Kroeber calls ‘twin sisters’ when he understands the relationship between sociology and anthropology

“The social relations between sociology and Anthropology are closer than those between Anthropology and political science, that is partly due to greater similarity in a way of work” – Robert Redfield

Reading the origin of the anthropology, Talal ashed argues,’ there was degree of collaboration between anthropologists and colonial authorities. The history of sociology in India began with anthropological analysis of society, monographs, ethnographical studies through colonial intervention for colonial interest gave rise to anthropological work.

According to Descola ‘Anthropology starts with ethnography, goes on to ethnology and ends with anthropology. Ethnography is basically the collection of data, ethnology the analysis of those data in a comparative framework in which models are constructed. We know, interpretation of action in the light of anthropological theory becomes construction in the light of theory. Anthropology is a project more than a science- takes up old project of philosophical anthropology of making sense of general problems of social life.

With the rise of epistemological trust in anthropological studies, after second world war when nations started to gain freedom and advent of postmodernism these incidents have very deep impact of the paradigm of anthropology.  Anthropology inculcates a sense of cultural relativism in its practitioners.  sociological gaze came only after popularization of American sociology.

sociology and anthropology are practically indistinguishable. But in conceptualizing society, sociology and anthropology have quite different origins. their concepts, methods of investigations and analysis and approaches are different.

   According to   Wolff and Bennett “sociologists and anthropologists approach and perceive man differently. They have different images of man. In his search for laws and in his interest in the abstract, the sociologist tends to view man as technically a ‘non-human ‘item, subject to many forces (including the sociologist’s impersonal measurement) in this view man is an element of nature, immersed in his environment, and the sociological student apart observing and measuring man-in-environment. For the anthropologist, man is not a figure within a ground, but rather a figure against that ground; he is human phenomenon, everlastingly variable, predicable only within broad limits if at all, and knowable only on a series of virtually infinite levels of understanding’’

To define exactly the relationship between sociology and anthropology is difficult because both discipline continue to grow and change. It seems me that sociological work encroaches anthropological direction of interests in the context of interdisciplinary approach. Particularly Anthropology overlaps sociology as a science of culture.

  Following are the important differences between sociology and anthropology.

1.      1. Anthropology study primarily primitive or non-literate (tribal society and village society non-industrial society) humanity whereas sociologists study advanced civilizations.

2.      2.Anthropology tend to study society as a whole sociologist by contrast, usually study parts of a society that is to say they prefer institutional analysis of society in other words Sociologists study part of society as institution such as family, marriage, religion so and so forth and process of change in society.

3.      3.  Anthropologists often live in the society or community they study in order to record custom and observing members behavior.  You can see the work of Malinowski Argonauts of the Western Pacific. Functional analysis, ethnographic account, field work and participant observation are the hole mark of anthropological studies . For them the technique of participant observation is soul of understanding of society and culture. Sociology on the other hand relay on statistical data use instruments such as questionnaires observation, interview. social survey. 

4.       4. Anthropology study small scale self -contained groups or communities, whereas sociologist study large, impersonal organizations and processes. As john Beattie defines ‘social anthropology as the study of custom, social institution and values and their interrelation in the context of small scale communities.

5.       5.  Anthropology is a study of man and his characteristics during his various stage of development. Anthropologists focus on human factor of cultural set up and its evolution.Sociologists study man as member of society, culture bearing and culture participant member.

6.     6.  The primary aim of anthropology is to determine the theories of social change and sequence and these principles are sociological principles. If you read evolutionary theorists like L H   morgon, comte and spencer you can see the measure difference between sociologists and anthropologists that sociologists focus society where anthropologists focus on evolution of man.

 functional analysis with the advent of the work of Durkheim’s functionalism sociologists and anthropologists came together for the conceptualization of social process. The interdependence between these two social sciences is thus established. But there you can see The approach of anthropology is functional (Malinowski, Radcliffe-Brown, Firth, Evans Pritchard) and structuralist (Levi Strauss) while sociology is historical (see the work of weber and Marx) and sociologist follow the tradition of structural functionalist (parson and Merton)

7.      7. Sociology concerns itself with society conceptually. It lays much emphasis upon the patterns of interaction among the group members where us need for counting and categorizing. An anthropology is concerned with man and his distinctly human product, culture.

8.     8,  Sociologist measures society. sociologists perceive man ‘objectively. Sociologists are inclined to focus attention primarily on social data through they may go up the fringes of the combined socio-cultural dimension alone. Their concern is with specific problems which are sharply defined and delimited so that a hypothesis may be tested on the basis of maximum controlled data.

Anthropologists do not lay emphasis on the rational dimension alone.  The anthropologists begin his intensive study with a rather broad and general theoretical interest and conceptual framework

9.     9.  Smelser has clearly opined that sociology does not deal with a special class of behavioral data but interests behavioral data within a special type of conceptual framework

sociological perspective is different from that of anthropological perspective. sociologists want quantified data and uses statistical techniques. Anthropologists advocates face to face experience with its subject because of his great love of facts. Anthropologists delimits understanding of society. Anthropology ultimate aim is to understand everything about man. Hence it is broader perceptive than sociology. Basically it has 4 perspectives. 1. Cultural 2. Linguistic 3. Physical. Archaeology

 10.   Historically the difference is that sociology studies one’s own society, whereas anthropology studies ‘foreign societies’. But this seems awfully arbitrary distinction, so if you look at Bourdieu he is bit of hybrid figure, where there are methodological similarities between his ‘anthropological gaze’ in Algeria and his; sociological gaze; in France.  Recently prof  Betellie has redefined sociology as being concerned with ‘comparing institutions of various societies in order to reveal their similarities and differences.

 conclusion - 

Sociologist warren claims that the anthropologist can study a modern nation as he can a primitive society; The basic body of theory and method remains the same … because contemporary society does not differ in kind but only in the degree from the other societies.

 Two discipline share common interests. Both are committed to understand and analyse them in terms of structure, process, function and change. Hare I want to recall Krober who puts an insightful remark that sociology and anthropology are temperamentally different and are almost anthetical in their motivations.

📞+918527029931

   Political philosophy of Subhash Chandra Bose

-         Randhir Gautam

                  

 A thinker never dies. History keeps him alive.  A thinker can be misunderstood and misinterpreted.  We live in a time when political parties create illusion by misinforming of history.  Recently subash Chandra Bose suddenly came into Media. His political projection is being done for the benefit of right wings. 

As we know Bose was an extremist and too radical thinker. Shri subhas chandra Bose neither belongs to "left" Nor "right". He does not belong to Congress anymore.  Rather he was an opponent of Gandhi's congress.

 Netaji was born on January 23 ,1897 in Cuttack, Orissa. He believed in shakti cult (Hinduism). He practiced yoga and prepared himself for self – renunciation. He graduated from the Calcutta university with Philosophy Honours.

When Bose was in Cambridge in 1919. He once stated that I feel happy when I see white people serve me and brush my shoes. He was deeply influenced by   Bengal revolt. He appeared, at the

 ICS examination to please his father Janakinath Bose and resigned from the service to fulfill the mission of his life (Indian’s freedom).

Subhash Chandra’s political life was solely inspired by his own conscious ideal. He studied the history of successful revolutions in the world. He became a firm realist in politics.  His philosophical orientation was more close to Hegel because he believed in synthesis of ideas. In this way he was philosophical opponent of Marx. 

As we known Subhas political Guru was Deshbandhu C R Das.   Deshabandhu believed in the practice of extreme politics. He thought that there was no taboo on diplomacy and the principle of; end justifying the means’. Deshbandhu teachings dominates the mind of Bose throughout his life. I think this is the seed which creates opponent views between him and Gandhi. Gandhi’s clash with Bose was the clash of two different ideals – the ideal of Reformation and ‘ideal of revolution. The differentiation between two is based on means – ends philosophy.

 Some social scientists argue Bose was like Machiavelli without his vices. Bose in many times thought of his political incompleteness with Gandhian politics. satyagrashs, KHADI and chakra were becoming popular among Indian masses.

 Irish political revolution gave him insight of complete independence. He approached Hitler just being an enemy of enemy. His philosophy has nothing to do with " Right wing”. He was a great fighter of evils of his time. His fight should be looked in to context of those time.

A true Anti-imperialist and radical leader. He himself preferred "leftism" To describe his own ideology in politics on that time.  on that time leftism and anti-imperialism was interchangeable.  Though he believed in socialist vision not socialist politics.

Shri subhash chandra nationalism was in no way was opposed to internationalism. He likes Deshbandhu das who always cherished the hope that India would take the lead in forming an Asiatic federation of free –nations as concrete move towards a world federation.

He spoke at Ramgarh conference (1940) "when freedom comes, the age of national reconstruction will be the socialist phase of our movement. "His programme of socio-economic reconstruction was the same as that of the socialist. Once he said ‘India freed means Humanity saved ‘

He was elected Rashtrapati in congress. He was Rashtrapati of Tripuri congress. it shows how popular leader was on that time. But congress high command dislike him with his strong move. Even Gandhi once said ‘sittarammya’s defeat is mine. Replying to Gandhi Bose said,’ I always want to win the confidence of Gandhi. Bose went to wardha to meet Gandhi.

        Later Bose free himself from congress and went to Europe. From 1933 to the beginning of 1938. Bose was lived in Europe, He worked was making India known to Europe. He also understood Europe. He wrote an articles ‘Europe to-day and tomorrow’ in which he differentiates the world in two categories ‘Haves and Haves not.

 When he came back in India. He decided to form forward Bloc. His aim was to collect all radical groups to fight against imperialism. He adopted violence method.

 On the other hand, the congress has repeatedly declared its entire disapproval of the ideology and practice of fascism and Nazism.   Nehru, who condemned the ‘forward Block as an evil’. He was a lonely warrior. Anti-imperialist was soul of his fight.   freedom of Indian was his life’s goal. He thinks whatever favored the achievement of that goal was him quite welcome. when Lenin helped capitalist country like Ireland that was against socialist ends but for him anti-imperialism should be the first priority.

  Politically he does not belong to any category of contemporary politics. He does not belong to any "ism" Because he believed in idea of change. Progress corresponds to change.  Change should also be reflected in terms of mentality.