Impact of asymmetrical globalisation on social development in India

Basic strength of Indian culture comes from the spiritual prosperity and not from the material prosperity. Indian culture shows the path of dharma, truth, morality, ethics and values. It is based on the concept of ‘integral humanism’, accommodation, peace, social harmony and above all prosperity of all, happiness of all. Vedic concept of ‘sarve bhavantu sukhina sarve santu niramaya’ explains the wider concept of humanity and the theory of ‘universal brotherhood’ to the world. Vivekananda said that spirituality is foundation, the backbone, the life-centre of India and this foundation determines the actual growth of development.

There are various personalities who have broadened the concept of globalisation. Some of such concepts include Marshall Mcluhan’s concept of ‘global village’, David Held’s concept of ‘world brotherhood’, Anthony Gidden’s concept of ‘unification of social relationships’, R. Gilpin’s concept of ‘economic unification’, Robertson’s views of ‘universalisation of particularisation and particularisation of universalisation’ etc. What is actually lacking is the means to achieve the ends and means is only the foundation of cultural heritage of India which depends on spiritual development. Spiritual development is the key to the overall development whether it may be social, economic, cultural, political or material prosperity. The anxiety against the bad effects of globalisation and its asymmetrical impact on the social and economic development is visible in the views of the modern political scientists like Noam Chomsky, A.G Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Hirst and Thompson etc. which force us to think seriously about the myths of Globalisation which appears to us just like mirage.

            The asymmetrical effects of globalisation is visible in various forms like poverty, declining social values, social crimes, unemployment, corruption etc. Cultural imperialism gives birth to polluted society, polluted customs, polluted thinking, declining moral values and consumer culture in the society. In the name of modernity and globalisation we are now in the grip of barbaric methods of development where quantity is more important than quality. The contemporary model of development on which principles of globalisation is based is, ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘struggle for existence’, which is contrary to the cultural heritage of India. Civilisation, modernity and development must be linked with ‘good conduct’ as well as ‘spiritual progress’ and that is the cultural heritage of India. Gandhi condemned modern civilisation not because it was western or scientific but because it was materialistic and exploitative. Speaking to the Meccano club, Calcutta in August 1925 he said: “Do not for one moment consider that I condemn all that is western. For the time being I am dealing with the predominant character of modern civilisation. Do not call it western civilisation and the predominant character of modern civilisation is exploitation of the weaker races of the earth. The predominant character of modern civilisation is to dethrone God and enthrone materialism.’’

Modern civilisation, Gandhi said, is based on a faulty concept or model of man as materialistic or body centered, limitless consumer of utilities. In reality, globalisation is based on the same faulty concept where man is alienated from his own product and from his work process because the worker plays no part in deciding what to produce and how to produce. Man is alienated from nature; man is alienated from other man through the competitive character of the economic system which forces everyone to live at someone else’s expense. It divides society into irreconcilable class interests. Finally man is alienated from himself because the realm of necessity dominates his life and reduces him to a level of an animal existence, leaving no room for a taste of cultural heritage. 

What is required now is to develop the Macpherson theory of democracy based on humanist vision. It will emancipate human beings from the constraints of the prevailing competitive social order of the capitalist world and usher in a new society which will promote ‘creative freedom’. He wanted to prevent the use of extractive power and to promote developmental powers of all human beings. The new theory of globalisation is based on extractive power where social development in India is losing its developmental power. Now time has come to rejuvenate our cultural heritage once again for the welfare of humanity and to prevent the impact of asymmetrical globalisation on the social development in India. Gandhi’s had expressed his views, which is very true: “I want the cultures of all land to be blown about as freely as possible, but I refuse to be blown off my feet by any. Let the winds come from all sides but not let be blown away by winds.”

Firstly, globalisation theory has negative impact on subaltern groups. The concept of the subaltern was introduced in social theory by Antonio Gramsci. Subaltern perspective on justice is concerned with the plight of those groups in society who are more or less permanently placed in subordinate position because of various constrains inherent in the social structure. These are exploited, oppressed and marginalized groups. Because of an inherent division of society into the ruling and subaltern groups, a lion’s share of all benefits accruing from the total efforts of society is cornered by a tiny class variously described as ruling class, dominant class or the elite. And the majority consisting of various subordinate groups who put their abilities and efforts into the creation of these benefits are left with a meagre share thereof.

Secondly, the negative impact of globalisation is visible in the concept of humanitarianism principle. Humanitarianism is the spirit of human welfare which impels us to help the needy, the poor and the helpless. It is based on the view that every human being has the right to social assistance in the case of utter necessity. If somebody is in distress, he cannot to left to languish and die. It is the duty of society to come to his rescue and provide him with necessary means of subsistence, medical care and treatment to protect his life. So globalisation provokes anti humanitarian principle and relies on the principle of free market society. Free market society is that model of society where all social relationships are reduced to market relations i.e the relations between supplier and consumer. Accordingly all individuals (or families) are expected to ascertain each other’s needs and earn their living by fulfilling them. Thus it cultivates respect for each other’s abilities and achievements, and encourages their dealings for mutual advantages. However, since its organisation is based on the cruel forces of demand and supply, it has little room for humane considerations or a sympathetic treatment toward disadvantaged people.

Thirdly, the negative impact of globalisation is reflected in alienated human beings. In his book, “One dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society”, Marcuse dwelled on the theme of alienation in contemporary western society. He gave a penetrating critique of capitalism as regards its impact on human freedom. According to him, capitalism exercises monopolistic control not only on production and distribution, it also creates the desire and demand for commodities through a clever manipulation of the mass media. The result is a widespread craze for consumer goods which develops into a distorted second nature of man.Consumer capitalism renders the oppressed sections insensitive to their original discontent, by simulating their trivial, material desires which can be easily satisfied.Under the spell of gratification of these trivial desires, the genuine urge for freedom disappears. Against this background, the alienated human beings become unaware of their alienation. Under the circumstances, they should first be awakened to realise their condition of alienation in order to arouse their urge for freedom.

Thus, Marcuse’s concept of one dimensional man is very much reflected in the hindrance of social development in India due to impact of asymmetrical globalisation.The prime objective of social development should be social equality and social justice. Scientific thinking about the social structure led to the demand for social change. J.J.Rousseau, in his book, “Discourse on the origin of inequality”, drew an important distinction between the two types of inequalities found in social life, one is natural inequality and the other is conventional inequality. Natural or physical inequality as a statement of fact, consists in the differences of age, health, bodily strength and qualities of mind and soul. Conventional inequality on the other hand consists in the different privileges that some men enjoy to the exclusion of others, such as inequalities of wealth, prestige and power. Recognition of conventional inequality provides for ample scope to review the basis of social distinctions and to restructure social relations according to new concept of social justice. It is significant that with the advance of scientific knowledge and technology, more and more areas of natural inequality are coming within the ‘alterable’ sphere. The availability of these benefits to any individual is again dependent on his socio-economic status and the technological development of the society in which he lives. It is becoming increasingly clear that a large part of humanity is being deprived of the benefits of modern civilisation largely because of the prevailing social distinctions and inequalities, not because of some divinely ordained system.

State should promote social justice. The policy which seeks to prevent concentration of valuable resources of the community (wealth, prestige and power) in the hands of the chosen few and to create a social order which will enable the deprived and the under privileged sections to gain a respectable share thereof by virtue of their ability, effort and need. More emphasis should be given on distributive equality. Society should treat its members more equally in moral as well as material sense.

 Hayek, a liberal philosopher who is keen to promote excellence in society and promoted market society. He is not worried about the plight of poor and unlucky. Hayek would wish that the distinguished members of society should maintain and enhance their excellence even if poor become poorer. Hayek not only rejects social justice, his philosophy also militates against the spirit of humanitarianism. Our concept of social development should focus on the communitarian prospective. Thus against the liberal concept or asymmetrical concept of globalisation of ‘isolated self’, communitarianism introduces the concept of ‘situated self’. While liberalism defines the common good as the sum total of individual goods, communitarianism on the other hand  treats the common good as one entity, which is the source of good for each individual. Communitarian view also differs from liberal view on the respective status of ‘right’ and ‘good’ in determining the principles of justice. Liberal theory of justice, particularly the Rawls’s theory of justice accords priority to ‘right’ over ‘good’. Rawls in his theory of commended justice as ‘the first virtue of social institutions’, as truth is the primary consideration in accepting any system of thought. For communitarians on the other hand, ‘the right’ implies virtue, and when we accept the ‘good’, the right has already been taken care of.

Maclntyre rediculated the liberal notion of individuals as ‘autonomous moral agents’ operating in an atmosphere where they are disconnected from social context. In his view, individuals flourish only within the context of socially established co-operative human activity, which is designed to encourage the development of human excellence. Thus unless and until the concept of globalisation is failed to recognise our embeddedness in a humanitarian and communitarian perspective we fail to create a fully just society. To combat the gap between rich and poor as well as erosion of values and moral degradation of society which blocks the social development the need of the hour is to curb conspicuous consumption in the society. It is a pattern of consumption of goods and services designed to display the possession of wealth and a high standard of living. This term was first used by Torstein Veblen, American sociologist to suggest that those possessing wealth beyond their needs do not have a sense of security about their social position, hence they tend to spend it lavishly with a view to enhancing their social prestige. In fact conspicuous consumption  is the characteristic of neo-rich class which emerged due to unprecented expansion of business and industry in recent times. Its members are not sure whether they are held in high esteem in society like the traditionally rich classes.

Conspicuous consumption by the richer classes sets such standards of social prestige that the ambitious but poorer sections of society are tempted to emulate them by adopting corrupt and immoral practices. In short, conspicuous consumption causes erosion of values and moral degradation of society and globalisation promote conspicuous consumption by the richer classes.

The policy of globalisation is based on the false myth which implies that ‘the self’ is prior to its ends, it is rather constituted by its ends, which are not chosen but discovered by the self by virtue of its being embedded in some shared social context. Friedman Tonnies a German sociologist observed that loss of sense of community in modern societies was responsible for social problems created by the background of traditional social structures. So the demand of time is to rejuvenate our spiritual glory for strengthening our social prosperity and social development.            

References:

1. C.B. Macpherson, Democratic Theory –Essays in Retrieval, The new world of Democracy.

2. J.R. Lucas, The principles of politics.

3. Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi.

4. O.P.Gauba, Dimensions of social justice.

5. John Tomlinson, Globalisation and culture.

6. Bhiku Parekh, Gandhi’s political philosophy: A critical examination.

7. R.N.Iyer,  The moral and political thought of Mahatma Gandhi.

8. Collected works of Vivekananda.

9. MacIntyre, Whose justice? Which Rationality? (1988)

10. Michael sandel, Liberalism and the limits of justice (1982)

11. Will Kymlicka, Contemporary political philosophy.

12. Gramsci, Prision Notebooks.

13. Hayek, Law, Legislation and liberty: the mirage of social justice.

14. Rawls, A theory of justice.

15. Robert Nozick, Anarchy, state and utopia.

16. Thorstein Veblen, The theory of leisure class.

17. J,J,Rousseau, Discourse on the origine of equality.

18.Herbert Marcuse, One dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society.

19. O.P.Gauba, An introduction to political theory.