In this seminar, modern manifestations of dan, both as individual philanthropic initiatives and corporate social responsibility, were discussed.
We began the discussion by considering whether all actions are embedded in instrumental rationality. However, we realised that instrumental rationality is itself embedded in culture. Thus, Bornstein’s reading of Weber seemed misplaced because Weber had also shown how instrumentality cannot be extracted from culture or religion. It is this cultural logic of instrumentality that is of interest to the anthropologist. Rather than individual motivation to engage in acts of philanthropy, it is the social contexts within which philanthropy is performed that is of interest to anthropology.
A question that emerged during the discussion was why there had been such a plethora of anthropological writing on Hindu dan when all religions encourage charity in different forms. This could be a product of early Sociology of India which saw caste and hierarchy based on notions of purity and pollution as fundamental structures within Indian society. These notions of purity and pollution perhaps influenced how dan was viewed.
The class also spent some time trying to understand how the dan of bio-medical substances is tied to notions of purity-pollution. Assuming caste is ‘carried in one’s blood’, how does pollution not pass through blood transfusion? Early anthropological work had assumed caste to be a fixed identity. However, the practice of dan in bio medical substances seems to suggest that caste is a more fluid entity as demonstrated by later ethnographic work. In this context, the class also raised the recent news of ‘re-conversions’ to Hinduism and the ability to choose one’s caste.
A question was raised about the difference between dan and seva. Is the distinction that of caste? The class did consider the question of whether dan as a category of anthropological inquiry was over determined. Did anthropologists hope to find the ‘pure gift’, despite recognising its non-existence, through dan? In this context, the class also considered the fact that Bornstein in particular maybe doing ex post facto rationalisation of kanya dan/rakta dan.
We also discussed the emergence of newer forms of dan through the internet. At a time when people are not embedded in traditional religious systems, they seek solutions on the internet to understand ‘correct’ practice of dan.
In understanding newer forms of gift, Cross considered the value of the corporate gift to workers. Seeking to look at practice within discourses, he unpacked different narratives to show us how the working class attached meaning to the corporate gift differently from the managerial class. By linking their understanding to the Jajmani system, workers demonstrate a particular cultural perspective and world view. Cross does not suggest that the corporate gift is akin to the Jajmani system. It might however work as the means of unpacking the cultural meanings of the gift for the workers. While receiving the gift, workers were referred to by a name and not just a number and this for them was a significant moment of social recognition. This could be seen as corporate hegemony or false consciousness but Cross insists that much more is at work. It is important to acknowledge how even in the most exploitative conditions, workers seek to make a life for themselves.
With regard to the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) readings by Shamir and Rajak, the class acknowledged that capital has been continuously working towards recognising and co-opting newer discourses and resistances. Capitalism seems to have the ability to absorb and domesticate all forms of opposition within itself, and so today ‘doing good’ has become a market opportunity. It is important also to recognise that CSR has moved away from old fashioned philanthropy as demonstrated by the governance approach of World Bank reports which emphasise risks and opportunities.
Shamirs’ piece talked about how capital has taken over the role of the state and civil society leading to the emergence of ‘governance’ that encourages individuals to learn to ‘play the game’ in terms of neo-liberal rationality. Those that fall outside of this dominant discourse seem to get marginalised. However, a significant question remained where criticality can come from if all critical language is appropriated and made digestible to the mainstream? The class also acknowledged that these set of readings were not critical of the premise or ideology on which CSR is based.
Neo-liberal rationality that privileges the idea of governance seems to reduce the idea of the social and make the individual the agent of all forms of policy and practice. There is thus in policy discourse a de-politicisation and de-socialisation reducing the agenda merely to the cognitive and behavioural. In the process, the idea of the 'social being' seems erased. The focus of multi-lateral agencies is on understanding how individuals can be made to ‘follow’ policy.
The critical question we were left with was whether, despite the ability of neo-liberal logic to subsume resistances, the space for criticality remains.
- Keya and Savitha
.
We also discussed the emergence of newer forms of dan through the internet. At a time when people are not embedded in traditional religious systems, they seek solutions on the internet to understand ‘correct’ practice of dan.
In understanding newer forms of gift, Cross considered the value of the corporate gift to workers. Seeking to look at practice within discourses, he unpacked different narratives to show us how the working class attached meaning to the corporate gift differently from the managerial class. By linking their understanding to the Jajmani system, workers demonstrate a particular cultural perspective and world view. Cross does not suggest that the corporate gift is akin to the Jajmani system. It might however work as the means of unpacking the cultural meanings of the gift for the workers. While receiving the gift, workers were referred to by a name and not just a number and this for them was a significant moment of social recognition. This could be seen as corporate hegemony or false consciousness but Cross insists that much more is at work. It is important to acknowledge how even in the most exploitative conditions, workers seek to make a life for themselves.
With regard to the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) readings by Shamir and Rajak, the class acknowledged that capital has been continuously working towards recognising and co-opting newer discourses and resistances. Capitalism seems to have the ability to absorb and domesticate all forms of opposition within itself, and so today ‘doing good’ has become a market opportunity. It is important also to recognise that CSR has moved away from old fashioned philanthropy as demonstrated by the governance approach of World Bank reports which emphasise risks and opportunities.
Shamirs’ piece talked about how capital has taken over the role of the state and civil society leading to the emergence of ‘governance’ that encourages individuals to learn to ‘play the game’ in terms of neo-liberal rationality. Those that fall outside of this dominant discourse seem to get marginalised. However, a significant question remained where criticality can come from if all critical language is appropriated and made digestible to the mainstream? The class also acknowledged that these set of readings were not critical of the premise or ideology on which CSR is based.
Neo-liberal rationality that privileges the idea of governance seems to reduce the idea of the social and make the individual the agent of all forms of policy and practice. There is thus in policy discourse a de-politicisation and de-socialisation reducing the agenda merely to the cognitive and behavioural. In the process, the idea of the 'social being' seems erased. The focus of multi-lateral agencies is on understanding how individuals can be made to ‘follow’ policy.
The critical question we were left with was whether, despite the ability of neo-liberal logic to subsume resistances, the space for criticality remains.
- Keya and Savitha
.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.