Krishna Hachhethu’s article in favor of ethnic federalism published in this daily (“Clear Choice”, March 21) was received with widespread criticism for his unacceptably teleological explanation. My intention here is not to argue in favor or against federalism but to show how notoriously vague are the arguments of our scholars who have fallen into the trap of old ideological thinking. In social science, such reasoning (for example his claim that Chhetri-Bahuns have caused structural domination and inequality or that their dominance pervades the entire social body) are criticized today as ‘grand narratives’ by postmodernists for their dramatic failure and inadequacy.
With his rationalist and individualist analysis of hegemony, Hachhethu aims to expose the ideological strategies used by dominant groups in Nepal to legitimatize their domination through a sweeping generalization of caste superstructure. But such a notion of structural domination doesn’t reflect the present societal reality in Nepal. Hachhethu, therefore, belongs to that old school of thought that may fit the social reality that pervaded Marx’s world in the nineteenth century when industrial revolution was sweeping Europe. It is further incorrect to say that even if such a superstructure existed in Nepal (albeit on the basis of occupational structure), it rested on cordial relations. Therefore, Hachhethu’s argument that ethnicity-based federalism is truly helpful for reasonable distribution of power among social groups has a significant contradiction.
First, Hachhethu’s analysis falls within the functionalist crisis for it gives serious consideration to the possibility that Chhetri-Bahuns, acting in terms of their own particular interests, dominate other groups. Second, there is the hypothesis that ethnicity-based federalism will solve this problem but it does not explain how. This is where the hegemonic model of the radical sociologists fails. There are many critics of this thinking,what contemporary sociologists refer to as‘teleological’thinking. Historical sociologist Max Weber, who developed his theories of social domination, is among those who rejected Marx’s historical materialism, critiquing it as being overly deterministic. More than functionalist, what Hachhethu does in this article is something similar to classical Marxist analysis—present a highly abstract view through a grand theorizing of class structure, conceiving the society in conflict and arguing that progress is possible if the conflict caused by one-sided domination of a particular group ends.
On the contrary, postmodernists argue that the notion of progress, so central to Marxism in particular, resulted in the bestiality of Stalinism, the Gulag, the Show Trials and all the rest. Western European liberalism and social democracy, despite the depth of its society’s civilization, the long centuries of high culture and its maturity, ended up producing Hitler and the Holocaust. This is how the postmodernists show the catastrophic failures of the grand narratives in their social and political application in the real world. What Hachhethu does in his article is present this grand narrative of human emancipation by arguing that providing ethnicity-based federalism will make Nepal an egalitarian society free from domination (in his belief domination is one-size-fit-all repression exerted by Brahmins and Chhetris over the rest of the social groups as a universal phenomena) or class/caste oppression. My argument is that class/caste one-sided domination is not enough to define the complex characteristics of contemporary societal realities; that status/lifestyles, as realized through personal participation in consumption, are now perhaps more fundamental determinants of personal identity and social hierarchy than one’s place in the division of labor or conventional social hierarchy of caste. Social hierarchy of an individual is dependent upon his or her capacity to consume rather than class/caste division as shown by Hachhethu.
The class relations in Nepal are characterized more by interdependence and cordiality than by hostility and antagonism.
It is also not entirely true to claim an antagonistic relation exists between classes. Many anthropologists who base their research in Nepal tend to attack Hindu social practice and project class-relations with negative overtures. The class relations in Nepal are characterized more by interdependence and cordiality than by hostility and antagonism, as projected by Marxian theorists. For instance, changes in the income of a Brahman also affect the income of a Dalit. So it is illogical to claim that one class will remain happy over other’s sufferings or poverty or that a particular class will try to repress another. This is because there is a mutual dependence among classes and their survival depends on cooperation rather than conflict.
There is now the emergence of new identities in Nepal—the middle-class—which totally escapes Hachhethu’s social category. In his recent research on Nepal titled Suitably Modern: Making Middle-class Culture in a New Consumer Society, Mark Liechty has shown how the middle-class is growing to be the largest social group in future, for whom ethnicity, class, caste oppression will have absolutely no relevance. For this category of people, which does not own landed property, ethnicity-based federalism will have no meaning. Despite his brilliant sociological idea, Marx failed to anticipate and see this category of people when he made his analysis of the 18th and 19th century Europe and therefore, comes under immense criticism today.
Hachhethu’s idea of ‘power’ and class dynamics are ananachronism in modern Nepal. This is because the general trends post-1990 and the 2006 April ‘revolution’ bring about a profound shift in the notion of class and caste dynamics in Nepal. Not only is the production equation changing or diffusing (example, under the changed circumstances, Bahuns and Chhetris become equal partners with Dalits and Janjatis in production function and consumption of goods), but there is also a shift in the notion of power from what was earlier believed to be determined by class or caste to now one of privilege in terms of ‘know-how’ and competence of an individual.
Overall, Hachhethu’s analysis falls within the ongoing Marxian theoretical crisis for he fails to go beyond Marxian understanding of class consciousness and identity.
There is now in Nepal a dangerous trend of making assumptions. In other words, the statements or utterances are judged by whether they are true, not by whether they are useful and efficient. Self-reflexivity or critical suspicion of one’s own hypotheses is a must in today’s postmodern world. Therefore, before we borrow wholesale from the rationale presented by Hachhethu for an ethnicity-based federalism model, we may need to ask whether Hachhethu actually knows if Nepal will be better-off with such a federal structure and whether this is desired by all the people in Nepal.There needs to be a more widespread public discourse and intellectual debate on this.
The writer is a Phd fellow with the Department of Psychology and Educational Studies, Roskilde University, Denmark
nitya@ruc.dk
Related story
Happy Birthday, Karl Marx. You Were Right!
