See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326835470

The Social Bases of Politics

Chapter · August 2018

CITATIONS READS
0 234

1 author:

Sujay Ghosh
Vidyasagar University
21 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sujay Ghosh on 06 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Pradip Basu (ed.)

Political Sociology

(Kolkata: Setu Prakashani, 2015), pp. 25-41

ISBN: 978-93-80677-71-2

This is an updated version

Dr. Sujay Ghosh, Associate Professor

Department of Political Science with Rural Administration, Vidyasagar University, India

Web: http://vidyasagar.ac.in/Faculty/Profile?fac_u_id=Fac-POLS-204

E-mail: g_sujay@ymail.com and sujay69@gmail.com

Sujay Ghosh

For understanding the social bases of politics, we must start with conceptualising both

society and politics. Society needs individuals for its formation who, as social animals

also need society for their truly human existence. Unlike other social animals, human

beings can redesign and change the world and nature, with ideas and efforts – the

collective enterprises that depend on mutual communication to take shape. Language,

symbols were the media for such communications, which again facilitated sharing

experiences and future planning. Encountering life involves preparation for future, which

make use of the experiences to entrench and strengthen social existence. Communications

are also necessary to share emotions, thus giving birth to culture – manifested in various

attributes like music, arts, literature, games and sports, cloth, food habits and overall, the

way of life: they played significant role in the shaping of human civilisation. Society thus

expresses the natural human impulse of being connected, mutual interaction – the

ensemble of our ideas, emotions and experiences, flowing through various means of

communication like language, gestures, expressions and symbols.

The fundamental pillars of society are money, authority and knowledge. Money

indicates its’ resources and prosperity; authority is the legitimate recognition bestowed

upon society to use power for organising itself; and with knowledge, a society takes care

of its present and prepares for future. The social bases of politics need to be understood in

this background. Politics, despite many prejudices at popular levels, undoubtedly is an

integral part of our existence. Held and Leftwich’s definition of politics about three

decades back seem relevant even today.

1
 Politics is about power; about the forces which influence and reflect its

distribution and use; and about the effect of this on resource use and distribution;

it is about the ‘transformative capacity’ of social agents, agencies and institutions

(Held and Leftwich, 1984: 144).

Several conceptualisations of politics have preceded and followed this definition: such as,

a sphere where ‘fundamental conflicts are fought out and social possibilities determined’

Shapiro (1999: 9). Thus, even the later-day definitions do not appear so definite yet wide-

ranging – they encompass a broad area of social interaction; yet definitely indentify

power-relations as the point of departure. Politics therefore appear to cover almost all

aspects of life; Feminists for instance, believe that power relations are ingrained in every

spheres of our social existence.

Points to Remember:

· Society is composed of its individual members – the human beings, the sensible

and rational agents.

· By nature, human beings communicate with others through media like language

and symbols.

· Communication envisages interaction.

· Power relations at different levels of social interaction are the defining feature of

politics.

Academically, society and politics are studied under two social science disciplines:

Sociology studies the society in general; Political Science studies politics and its’ various

2
dimensions, as identified above. Bridging them together, the subject: ‘Sociology of

Politics’ emerged, although implying Political Science to be the sub-field of Sociology.

Political Scientists vehemently opposed the move: both the disciplines are enriched by

and benefit from each other. Signifying a two-way relationship, the subject came to be

known as ‘Political Sociology’: Sociology contributes on themes like caste, religion and

civil society; Political Science develops knowledge on issues like citizenship, class and

nation – they provide common touchstones for both the subjects.

The social base of politics is a theme central to Political Sociology. We shall first

discuss the relationship between state, society and citizens. Next, we shall seek to locate

politics in society: understand how politics emerges from society in terms of culture,

institutions and ideas.

Politics, Society and the State

The overall relationship between politics, society and the state, involve citizens. The

three most important concepts that criss-crosses the relationships between individual on

one hand and the state, society and politics on the other, are: citizenship, civil society and

political society. Understanding the state-society relationship is also important, because

the state embodies supreme repository of all powers in the society.

Citizenship

Originally, residents of the city in medieval Europe were referred as citizens. With the

advent of democracy, the term ‘citizenship’ acquired normative dimensions, particularly

3
at state-policy levels: a package of benefits and entitlements came to be associated with

the question of citizenship.

In democracy, citizenship is recognised as a ‘status’, envisaging the individual not

as ‘subject’, but ‘citizen’ (Chandoke 2003: 2957-58). In addition, it defines the individual

not only as legal member of the state, but also a competent member of society. Marshall

(1977) traces the growth of citizenship in modern times, particularly with reference to

Britain: first articulating the claim for civil rights, such as rights to life and liberty. Next,

citizenship articulated the demands for political rights: to vote and contest for elections;

finally, in the 20th century, particularly the post-war period, the articulation of citizenship

was manifested in the claims for social rights: access to health, education and various

aspects of social security. Rights express a ‘claim’ to civilised life: ‘to be admitted to a

share in the social heritage, which in turn means a claim to be accepted as full members

of society…as citizens’ (Marshall 1977: 76).

Points to Remember:

· Under democracy, the individual is recognised as ‘citizen’; not subject.

· At present, citizenship means membership to both state and society, with both
rights and duties.

· Duties compliment and strengthen the rights.

Rights thus define the modern concept of citizenship – national or global. Yet, rights

represent only one side of the relationship between the state, society and individuals.

Bellamy invokes the duty-based concept of citizenship. He proceeds from the rights-

4
based arguments which envisage human rights as the defining and delimiting the political

sphere for protecting individual liberties from governmental interference. However, a

moral framework of politics requires citizens to participate in collective decision-making

and treat the views of fellow citizens seriously. Consent must be open to refusal or

renegotiation in order to avoid the problems of coercion or false consensus. Rights might

be self-contradictory at times. Duties on the other hand, are successfully identified

through the rejection of those actions violating the principle of heterogeneous public

sphere where everybody can participate on roughly equal terms. In addition, as a

framework of action, duties chart out what should be done. With collective arrangements

in mind, we may consider the feasible methods for exercising rights. Moreover,

institutional rights emerge from political deliberation if the duty to participate is

undertaken. It strengthens democratic bodies like local organisations and legislatures,

countering concentration and centralisation of decision-making power (Bellamy 1993:

63-69). Generally, we may sum up a few duties associated with citizenship: to participate

in the affairs of state and society; and to respect others rights.

Civil and Political Society

The other relevant concepts for comprehending the relationship between individual, state,

society and politics are civil and political society. Great political philosophers like Locke

and Hegel initially articulated these ideas. In recent times however, the idea of civil

society became fashionable with the fall of dictatorial regimes across the world since the

mid-1980s. Particularly in Eastern Europe, it appeared that state control excessively

interfered with the private life of the citizens.

5
 Civil society can be conceived as an aggregate of institutions whose members are

engaged primarily in a complex of non-state activities – economic and cultural

production, household life and voluntary associations – and who in this way

preserve and transform their identity by exercising all sorts of pressures or

controls upon state institutions (Keane, 1988: 14).

Thus, civil society is essentially about the non-state social sphere. Shils (1991: 4-10)

points out a few features of civil society:

· It comprises a web of autonomous institutions – economic, religious, intellectual

and political, distinct and independent from other spheres like family or state.

· Recognises various rights, including the right to property.

· Carries the idea of political community: citizenship – recognising the citizens’

rights for public office; participation in discussions and decisions on public issues.

Giner ((1995: 319-320) predicted that the rise of new social movements, autonomous

bodies, voluntary bodies would contribute to the growth of political sphere, guaranteeing

the growth of a strong civil society.

However, Marxist thinkers have vehemently condemned the conceptual

domination (and the virtual legitimation) of market in civil society, relegating the notion

of state to an abstract corporate identity. It represents a new type of social power, now

shifted from the state to private property, class exploitation and market. Market has the

capacity to subject all human values, activities and relationships to its own imperatives.

This

6
 ‘privatisation’ of public power that has created the historically novel realm of

‘civil society’...with a distinctive presence of its own, a unique structure of power

and domination, and a ruthless systemic logic (Wood, 1995: 254-255).

Both Keane and Giner also predicted some unhealthy social trends on civil society:

racism, partisan arrogance and the domination of traditionally privileged groups.

Pertinently, Shils have particularly emphasised ‘civil manners’ or civility as an essential

feature of civil society, where members treat others with equal dignity, even if they have

different political, religious or ethnic orientations. Civility in the sense of courtesy

mollifies the strain inevitable in our highly competitive modern society, where some

members are bound to lose (Shils, 1991: 12-13).

Points to Remember:
· Civil Society is conceived as distinct from the state.
· It envisages a sphere encompassing a broad range of human activities and
interests.
· Yet, it may also entail social and economic oppression by dominant groups.
· Therefore, various aspects of civility are emphasised for maintaining the ‘civil’
identity of civil society.
· Political society is characterised by mobilisation of the population for various
welfare and protective benefits; and mediation between government and
population.

It is rather useful to conceptualise civil society as a ‘social space’: (i) decisions to be

based on reason and knowledge; (ii) mutual and free interaction among the members

irrespective of boundaries such as religion, gender and like; (iii) absence of any form of

coercion. In India, although numerous caste and religious groups have worked as buffers

against state coercion, themselves have maintained control over their own groups,

7
through coercive means like out-casting, fatwas or open violence (Saberwal, 2005). In

this context, Mahajan (1996) argues that the constitution-bound democratic state can

protect individual rights and liberties more effectively.

The idea of political society in recent times has gained popularity in the hands of

Indian political scientist Partha Chatterjee. He defines political society as ‘a domain of

institutions and activities where several mediations are carried out’ (Chatterjee, 2002:

173). In developing countries, democracy works as the medium of mobilisation for

ventilating popular demands. Political society has four features: (i) some demands entail

clear violation of law, such as ticketless travelling or tax defaulting; (ii) still,

governments’ welfare is demanded as a matter of right; (iii) rights are demanded

forcefully, as collective entitlements; (iv) agencies associated with policy making, such

as government, NGOs treat these groups not as citizens, but as population groups

demanding welfare (Chatterjee, 2002: 176-177). Population is thus an essential ingredient

of political society – the source of its strength. People here interact with the state beyond

formal, constitutionally defined domains: they expect and demand the government to take

care of their welfare, whereas the government is also anxious to control them. The

‘political society’, characterised by population, mobilisation and mediating institutions, is

quite different from the idealised notions of civil society ruled by reason, which can be

quite violent and dangerous at times (Chatterjee, 2007).

State-Society Relations

Political philosophers, from Plato to present, offer different theories on the nature and

origins of state. However, they agree upon one point: it is the state that has emerged from

8
society, not the other way round. We shall now discuss the state-society relations in

particular, following Bob Jessop – one of the most influential thinkers on the subject.

Jessop (1990) recognises historically four ‘overlapping’ phases of state-civil

society relations: (i) rise of sovereign, centralised states over many independent,

authoritarian societies; (ii) anti-state impulse and strengthening of civil society to secure

justice and liberty; (iii) strong state for restoring order in civil society; and (iv) pluralism

to counter authoritarian state on behalf of civil society.

His arguments on state-society relations can be briefly disaggregated as follows:

first, the state plays central role in political life: it cannot be adequately understood

without referring to its social environment where it is located. Modern societies are

extremely complex – characterised by many sub-systems which cannot be controlled

comprehensively. Being on the top of such complexities, the state manages their

interdependence. Secondly, the genesis of various state organisations and institutions can

be traced to the socio-historical formation of a particular state (e.g. capitalist or feudal

state). The boundaries of state and society are often constituted through the same process,

which are not clearly demarcated, particularly at micro level. Under normal

circumstances, legitimacy of the state is constituted in various ways; violence is the last

resort, when all other methods of enforcements have failed. Thirdly, interests and

capacities of the state managers (such as politicians, bureaucrats) are also important: they,

along with various social forces, activate state power at different points of time. The

successful execution of such actions are often made possible by unacknowledged

conditions and associated with the possibilities of unanticipated consequences. State

power is always conditional and relational, depending on structural ties between state and

9
society, in their complex web of interdependencies. The more the state intervenes in the

different spheres of society, the more it becomes internally complex; its power gets more

fragmented among various branches and policy networks. The state depends on various

social forces for the success of its projects; state power thus becomes dependent on

external forces – the society. Finally, several factors determine the state system in a

society: geo-political location; the role of military in developing a state; and the state’s

capacity to enforce collectively binding decisions, shaping the character of institutions

and social forces (Jessop, 1990).

Remember on Jessop’s Theory:

· Modern societies, with many sub-systems are extremely complicated; state often
mange their interdependence
· State organisations and institutions are rooted in their respective histories.
· Particularly at micro-levels, boundaries between state and societies are blurred.
· State requires the cooperation of society for the success of its projects and
programmes and therefore has to informally share power with them.
· The capacity of state is continuously scrutinised in terms of its relations with
various elements of society.

Jessop presents a comprehensive account of state-society relations; however, at

times the formulations are somewhat sketchy of being accommodated in an article: many

issues are mentioned at one go. Some of them require appropriate examples for

substantiation of the claims. Moreover, they require further elaboration, such as how the

military may represent social forces instead of being a mere professional body in the state

system. Whereas Jessop is correct that the boundaries of state and societies are somewhat

10
blurred down at micro levels, his account also does not discuss the domains of state and

society clearly. Nonetheless, Jessop makes it abundantly clear that although state

embodies the ultimate power-relations in society, it has to rely upon society for the

smooth realisation of its various projects and programmes. This provokes us to conclude

that no state power can solely rely upon brute force. This richly developed theoretical

article provides an important starting point to discuss on state-society relations and the

social bases of politics should be understood in this context.

Social Bases of Politics

In this section, we shall find out how politics is rooted in the social process: the multitude

of ways through which various dimensions of society are reflected in politics. There are

at least three channels through which society makes demands on politics; or, in other

words, attempts to set its agenda. Those are also political acts, as they involve continuous

interaction and negotiations with the multidimensional facets of power relations that exist

at various levels of society. Broadly, those channels are culture, institutions and ideas.

Culture

Culture is broadly a way of life, reflecting our values, attitudes, norms, habits and others

that guide our daily process of life and shared living in society. History, language,

religion, geographical features, accumulated experiences and worldviews are both

reflected in and do enrich our culture. As an important social input into politics, culture

takes various forms. First, it shapes the identity of an individual, society and community;

community is a place where people stay and work and generally have face-to-face contact

11
with one another. It is true that this idea of community is changing with the rapid

emergence of social media, social networks and friendship in the cyber world, but

geographical proximity is still a powerful factor. There can be many communities in a

society and almost every society is sensitive about culture: for instance, people in West

Bengal are often identified with Rabindrasangeet, football and fish in many parts of

India. This is not a matter of conflict, but the political dimension is not fully absent.

Some people may resent such ‘stereotyping’: where diversity of individual lifestyles are

not taken into account. Stereotyping often favours the powerful: it reduces the cost of

policy-making and at times, may promote formation of negative image about a

community, as if they have nothing beyond these factors. For example, during colonial

rule, British administrators have designated several indigenous tribes in various parts of

India as ‘criminal tribes’ – whose vocations were resorting to crime. Such a stereotyping

has not been completely removed in post-colonial India and people in those categories do

still face many disadvantages. Given the indeterminacy of life at modern times, the

contraction and fixation of such identities might sometimes become fatal. Again, many

social conflicts, both nationally and internationally, have occurred around cultural

identities – in the names of religion, language, ethnicity and even regions, either to claim

supremacy over others or for protecting identity through protests or violence. Identity is

double-edged: a given social group defines itself on the basis of some cultural symbols,

yet expect the others to recognise it.

Secondly, the demand for recognition of each culture is quite politicised. As

social creatures, the identity of an individual or group becomes meaningful when

recognised by others. Multiculturalism is expression of such social demand; an influential

12
concept in contemporary political theory. It is specifically concerned with equal rights

and protection of each culture, against the domination of particular cultural narrative in a

state. However, Sypnowich (2000) argues that some moderation in multiculturalism is

necessary: integration (not absorption) is necessary; any society which wants to achieve

success must have some agreement on its fundamental aims.

Thirdly, cultures may provide important input for social movements, which are

political acts: they involve sustained protests against dominant groups and ideologies by

relatively less powerful group of people for quite some time. Previously, political parties

were in the forefront of organising social movements, but at present, with their national

level dimensions and bureaucratised organisational structures, they are often unable to

respond to particular and local needs. Hence, people in modern democracies organise

themselves to articulate their grievances, often at local levels; known as ‘new social

movements.’ Cultures often help mobilising people towards the cause these movements

represent, seeking change or modifications in the existing social arrangements. As

regards change, for example, dalit movements in various parts of India occurring since

early 20th century have been seeking empowerment of the traditionally depressed castes

and liberation from dehumanising oppression. Culture is an important front to carry this

movement forward: in the course of their struggle, dalit activists frequently encounter

Brahminical worldviews favouring caste-based social stratification, which they believe to

represent oppression and inequality that established an unjust social order for the

advantage of few. Regarding modifications, a movement has been launched over two

decades to revive a nearly extinct Saraswati River in southern West Bengal, demanding

authorities to remove illegal encroachments and make efforts to de-silt the river. The

13
activists had often taken recourse to its heritage in shaping Bengali culture: when the

river was in healthy shape a few centuries back, agriculture and trade flourished, human

settlements developed and the literary works like Mangal Kavya became the prime

contributor to the development of Bengali language (Ghosh, 2011). Thus, various

elements of culture such as geography, history and language help articulating a demand,

which is political for two counts: decision-makers were addressed to; and included the

politically explosive demand of removing the illegal encroachers.

Points to Remember:
· Culture shapes the identity of a person, society or community.

· Every society is sensitive about culture, because that is the identity of that society.

· Identity has two dimensions: the way individuals or groups intend to represent
themselves before the rest of the society; and it should be recognised or perceived
by others. Such demand for recognition is political by nature.
· Cultures provide useful inputs for social movements, aimed to change or modify
the existing social arrangements.
· By articulating appropriate norms and values, culture is used to construct the
legitimacy of a regime.

Finally, for a political regime to survive, brute force is only the last option; an

emergency provision: it cannot sustain for long. The regime and its’ rulers must acquire

legitimacy in the eyes of the governed: culture shapes legitimacy of the regime. It

constructs appropriate social norms and values that strengthen the regime. For instance,

legitimacy for authoritarian rule in many Middle East countries have been constructed on

the basis of family values: as people obey the rule of the family-head, similarly they are

14
obligated to obey the rule of the head of the state (Hinnebusch, 2006). However, when

the regime faces crisis, in terms of warfare, internal strife (particularly on ethnic lines) or

economic slowdown, such value-foundations are open to serious challenges.

In fine therefore, as an important organ of our social life, culture contributes to

politics in distinctively three ways: it provides identity to a society and various

communities therein and legitimacy to a regime; it provides important inputs when a

society or part thereof aspires for change or modification in social arrangements; and

finally, culture itself is susceptible to politicisation, when specifically demands others’

recognition – then it contributes to political theory as well.

Institutions

Can cultures affect social change? Institutionalists disagree: they argue that institutions,

characterised by rules and incentives, are major determinants of social change: it occurs

when powerful actors intend to change the rules (Jackman and Miller, 2004: 21-23).

Institutions are concerned with ‘the rules of the games’ and rules are standard operating

procedures (Rothstein, 1996: 134). Social institutions, in their various forms, provide

strong foundations of politics. First, the birth of institutions themselves is political by

nature, as they involve power struggle. Huntington (1968) argues that institutions emerge

from compromises among members of society, reflecting their moral consensus and

mutual trust. Later day social scientists opposed this view. Knight (1992) argues that

institutions have arisen for resolving conflicts over the distribution of resources. Moe

(2005) argues that such ‘compromises’ in fact took place between powerful actors who

15
controlled the agenda of a society. Hence, conflicts or compromises, the birth of

institutions themselves are political acts, because they involved adjustments in the

existing power relations.

Secondly, various social institutions like family, educational institutions and

workplace perform important political functions. They are the major arenas for political

socialisation – inculcating particular political values and attitudes. In addition, they often

provide the networks for participation in politics. For instance, many politicians are

recruited from family networks – through other members of the family, family-friends

and relatives who are engaged in political activities. Family is an important institution to

reproduce the society, both biologically and culturally: people from generation to

generation transmit their experiences, social norms and values – this process is known as

acculturation. Many people acquire political values and attitudes in student-life – their

experiences of holding responsible (and often prestigious) positions kindle ambitions of

making career into politics. Workplace offers many conditions and experiences, where

people join into politics for survival or upward mobilisation. Networking –

companionship with like-minded people, particularly those in the positions of authority

plays an important role both in educational institutions or workplace.

Thirdly, in India, social institutions like caste are often important bases of politics,

occurring in many ways.

· Caste institutionalises inequality: it ascribes the individual’s position in society

since birth. Generally legitimised by religious sanctions, caste has been

traditionally and systematically used as a framework of discrimination and

oppression, resulting into social exclusion – people from disadvantaged social

16
 background were deprived from social heritage. Social heritage is manifest in

education, culture and overall social progress: institutionalised inequality does

systematically deprive some groups of people from accessing them. This is social

exclusion – those people are excluded.

· The protest against caste-based oppression has occurred since ancient times: both

violent and non-violent. Such protests clearly assume political character.

Buddhism is the first most organised protest against casteism. Again, individuals,

at local levels responded to caste-based exclusions in the ways such as converting

into other religions like Islam or Christianity, which do not have formal caste

divisions; though gradually, such hierarchies have also crept into their ranks!

With the advent of capitalist mode of production under the British rule, caste

identities became politicised and started crystallising since the early 20th century.

The spread of education, quests for religious reform, development of modern

means of communication and changes in economic activities, had facilitated a

section of hitherto oppressed castes experiencing substantial empowerment. Their

leadership made rich intellectual contributions to social justice, alongside fighting

casteism, particularly untouchability, which found resonance in the freedom

struggle, having visions of modern, oppression-free, independent India. After

independence, universal suffrage and competitive party-system greatly

contributed towards their empowerment. The power of vote, collective organising

and bargaining were seen as the means to challenge social exclusion. Caste has

emerged both as a framework for socio-economic and political mobilisation and a

site for social conflicts. For instance, the V.P. Singh government’s decision to

17
 introduce caste-based reservation for ‘Other Backward Castes’ (OBC) in public

sector jobs, invited acrimonious responses from upper-caste people; resulting in

its’ fall, with subsequent crystallisation of communal politics. Thus, caste is an

important social basis for politics in India.

In fact, retaining caste-based unequal privileges and protests against them – both

constitutes political act: they revolve around existing power-relations in society.

Points to Remember:
· Institutions are concerned with rules and norms that govern mutual interaction in
a society.

· The birth of institutions themselves is political by nature because they involve

· Various social institutions like family, workplace work as important avenues for
participation in politics, as they contribute to particular values, attitudes,
experiences, conditions and opportunities for networking.

· Social inequalities, institutionalised through caste system are political by nature in

· Economic institutions also play definite political roles.

· There are distinct political institutions that work in modern state, particularly in
democracies.

Thirdly, economic institutions also work as social bases of politics: economy

deals with the aspect of resources in society, particularly its’ distribution and use. Pristine

economic institutions like money stabilise the relations of exchange. Another institution:

18
property traditionally consigns the division between rich and poor in society, rooted in

the distribution of resources. Both Marxist and Liberal thinkers have emphasised the role

of resources in shaping political agendas and outcomes. For instance, national and

international business interests plays vital role in shaping the policies of contemporary

states and the international politics as well.

Finally, many institutions are themselves political, known as political institutions.

Traditionally various arms of the government: the legislature (for rule-making), executive

(for rule-execution), judiciary (for rule-adjudication) and administration (for rule-

application) were recognised as political institutions (Rothstein, 1996). With the

expansion of democratic politics, several other institutions, particularly those mediating

between society, citizens and government, such as political parties, interest groups and

nowadays, the Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have also emerged as political

institutions. Political institutions continuously interact with various segments of society

for their sustenance; otherwise they would lose their vibrancy.

Culture needs institutional foundations for its’ flourishing; institutions need

culture for their sustenance. In this sense, they are complimentary to one another; and

therefore, quite difficult to definitely identify on which one is predominant. Together,

both culture and institutions produce another fundamental social basis for politics: ideas.

Ideas

Ideas are relevant social bases of politics, because: (i) we cannot grasp the many changes

that have occurred on the eve of the 21 st century, such as end of the cold war, without

referring to their ingrained ideational nature; (ii) if institutions are concerned with

19
people’s goals and interests, idea provided the ‘raw materials’ for such concerns. Ideas

are the medium by which people can imagine outside status quo and make efforts to

change them (Lieberman, 2002: 697-98).

Points to Remember:
· Culture contributes in the shaping of ideas.

· Ideas are strengthened by institutional support.

· Ideas help concretise people’s imagination and the resulting impetus to challenge
the status quo.

· The possibilities of change imagined by ideas are also political by nature:

· The clash of ideas may lead to social conflicts.

Ideas are also the products of intellectual development of a society, which may generate

own ideas from its accumulated experiences, or borrow ideas from other societies. At

certain points of time, both assume political significance. It is not easy to engraft a new

idea in the existing social fabric, particularly when they contradict the interests and

worldviews of powerful and dominant people and groups. Yet, as Victor Hugo once

commented: ‘There is nothing stronger than all armies in the world, and that is an idea

whose time has come.’ We may notice that the word ‘stronger’ contains an element of

power. New ideas challenge the existing modes of life: prospective beneficiaries support,

while those risking losses oppose it. That loss can be both material and psychological:

some people fear losing wealth and power if new ideas come to operate, others find the

way of life to which they are accustomed as disturbed. It often leads to varying degrees of

20
social conflicts. Many social movements have emerged from ideas. However, ideas can

affect changes substantially when institutions develop to support them.

Culture, institutions and ideas contribute to and also reflect various social norms

and practices. They also become visible in the political arena. In fact, politics in a given

society acquires its practices and norms. When such practices and norms change, the

vocabulary of politics also changes. In fact, changing such norms and practices are also

political acts, because they involve adjustments or modifications with the existing power

relations. For instance, practices and norms governing the changes in gender relations

may not be welcomed by a visible section of a society: even small alterations like males

sharing household chores with women have invited sharp social reactions in past. The

relationship is therefore, two-way: culture institutions and ideas on one hand; and

practices and norms on the other, both condition one another.

Conclusion

This paper has attempted to identify the social bases of politics. As sensible and rational

social animals, human beings, who are also the raw materials for any society, does make

conscious efforts to entrench and strengthen their social existence. Through various

means of communication like language, expressions, gestures and symbols, they

interacted with fellow human beings since the beginning. Such interactions were used for

sharing and accumulating experiences and a fund of social heritage thus accrued. Politics

deals with the power-relations aspect in multidimensional ways and the state is the

reservoir of supreme power in a society. The large terrain dominated by the relationship

among state, society and individuals may be conceptualised by issues like citizenship,

21
civil society and political society. The relationship between state and society is extremely

complex and multi-dimensional. Citizenship is a status that recognises an individual as a

full member of the society, in terms of rights and duties. Civil society is concerned with

designating independent social space for citizens, although this notion is open to various

critical interpretations. Political society represents the site for collective bargaining and

negotiations between the state and collectively organised citizens.

The social base of politics has to be understood in this background: politics

emerges from society through culture, institutions and ideas. Culture is a way of life and

acts as a powerful medium for the sustenance or change of regimes. It also points out the

power relation that exists in societies. Institutions, through conflicts and compromise,

establish rules and procedure in society. Ideas accompany culture and institutions to

provide the social bases for politics.

References

Bellamy, R. (1993) ‘Citizenship and Rights.’ In: R. Bellamy (ed.) Theories and Concepts

of Politics (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 43-76.

Chandoke, N. (2003) ‘Governance and the Pluralisation of the State: Implications for

Democratic Citizenship’, Economic and Political Weekly, 38(36): 2957-2968.

Chatterjee, P. (2002) ‘On Civil and Political Society in Postcolonial Democracies.’ In: S.

Kaviraj and A. Khilnani (eds.) Civil Society: History and Possibilities (New Delhi:

Foundation Books), pp. 165-178.

22
Chatterjee, P. (2007) The Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in

Most of the World (Delhi: Permanent Black).

Ghosh, S. (2011) ‘Protecting Natural Resources: Course of a River Movement’,

Community Development Journal, 46(4): 542-557.

Giner, S. (1995) ‘Civil Society and its Future.’ In: J. Hall (ed.) Civil Society: Theory,

History, Comparison (Cambridge: Polity), pp. 301-323.

Held, D. and A. Leftwich (1984) ‘A Discipline of Politics?’ In: A. Leftwich (ed.) What is

Politics? The Activity and its Study (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 144-159.

Hinnebusch, R. (2006) ‘Authoritarian Persistence, Democratization Theory and the

Middle East: An Overview and Critique.’ Democratization, 13(3): 373–395.

Huntington, S. P. (1968) Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press).

Jackman, R.W. and R. A. Miller (2004) Before Norms: Institutions and Civic Culture

(Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press).

23
Jessop, B. (1990) ‘Putting States in their Place: State Systems and State Theory.’ In: A.

Leftwich (ed.) New Developments in Political Science (Aldershot: Edward Elger), pp. 43-

60.

Keane, J. (1988) Democracy and Civil Society: On the Predicament of European

Socialism, the Prospects for Democracy and the Problem of Controlling State and

Political Power (London: Verso).

Knight, J. (1992) Institutions and Social Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press).

Lieberman, R. C. (2002) ‘Ideas, Institutions, and Political Order: Explaining Political

Change’, American Political Science Review, 96(4): 697-712.

Marshall, T.H. (1977) ‘Citizenship and Social Class.’ In: S.M. Lipset (ed.) Class,

Citizenship and Social Development (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), pp. 71-

134.

Mahajan, G. (1999) ‘Civil Society and Its Avatars: What Happened to Freedom and

Democracy?’ Economic and Political Weekly, XXXIV (20): 1188–96.

Moe, T.M. (2005) ‘Power and Political Institutions’, Perspectives on Politics, 3(2): 215-

233.

24
 Rothstein, B. (1996) ‘Political Institutions: An Overview.’ In: R.E. Goodin and H.-D.

Klingemann (eds.) A New Handbook of Political Science (New York: Oxford University

Press), pp. 133–166.

Saberwal, S. (2005) ‘Democracy and Civil Society in India: Integral or Accidental?’ In:

N. Jayaram (ed.) On Civil Society: Issues and Perspectives (New Delhi: Sage), pp. 110-

123.

Shapiro, I. (1999) Democratic Justice (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).

Shils, E. (1991) ‘The Virtues of Civil Society’, Government and Opposition, 26(1): 3-26.

Sypnowich, C. (2000) ‘The Culture of Citizenship’, Politics & Society, 28(4): 531-555.

Wood, E.M. (1995) Democracy against Capitalism: Reviewing Historical Materialism

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

25

View publication stats