Globalization and Totalization of Power *

Dr. S. Lourdunathan Head, Dept. of Philosophy Arul Anandar college, Karumathur, Madurai Dt 1. Globalization (G) as an economic and political process cuts across the boundaries of nations. Hinduization (H) as a political and cultural process is consolidated with in a political space. Thus, Globalization conceived in the sense of trans-nationalization and Hinduization operating with in the political territory of the nation appears to be mutually conflicting. Surprisingly our everyday experience is that in the recent past and the present both these programs are increasingly operative in the social fabrics of Indian society. On the one hand, we come across the slogan Buy Indian and on the other hand because of Globalization, we have the practice of buy the foreign. Hence, in this paper let me try reflect the conceptual consensus between Globalization and Hinduization as the two important forces that are not necessarily opposed to each other. Such a consensus I try to argue from the perspective of the notion of politics of Powerrelations termed as Totalization of power. Taking to this objective, let me try to respond to following issues in this paper. How or in what sense Globalization and Hinduization are mutually inclusive of each other and as a result what is aimed is totalization of power relations. What is meant by totalizattion of power? The programs of Globalization and Hinduization are not promoted in a vacuum. They are not practiced in a society that is just and equal. Rather we are well aware that the human society in which these forces are practiced remains to be unequal and unjust. It is with in the unjust social setting that these programs are increasingly and coercively introduced. Any economist and a social scientist would easily provide us with sufficient data that prove the fact that we are living in an unjust unequal human society. The economists tell us that, a 20% of the world population the so-called upper class continue to enjoy 85% of the total world resources and the remaining 80% of the population are forced to distributed amongst themselves the rest 15% of the world resources. Unfortunately, these 80% of the worlds population, a vast majority of them live in the developing and yet-to be developed countries. The disparity of distribution of resources would in turn pave way to the disparity and discrimination in social status. It is in this context Globalization and Hinduization is promoted.

2.

3.

-----------------------------* A paper presented at National Seminar on Globalization and Rural Development on 1-2. March 2001 at Dept. of Rural Development Science, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai.

4.

The second assumption that is not questioned in this paper, is that our Indian culture is not really Hindu Indian alone; It is a nation of multiple cultures, nations, religions, language, etc. Multiplicity or heterogeneous-ness marks the characteristic feature of the Indian cultural space. According to 1991 census, religions vise the population of Hindus are 672.6 millions, Islam populations is 95.2 million, Christians are 18.9 million, Sikhs are 16.3 millions, Buddhists are 6.3 millions, Jains are 3.4 millions and others are 3.5 million. The political force called Hinduization is forced within this diversity only. We know that the term Hindu, did not have any meaning until the late 19 the century. The term Hindu is a political and cultural construction only at the end of 19 th century onwards. And scholars point out such a term was constructed in parallel with and an alternative to Christian or Islamic notion of singular or ONE religion. With in this context of Hindu India as singular in religion and polity, the politics of Indian independence, the politics of Congress party is to be situated. The social contribution of Indian renaissance movements like Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, and few other revival movements revolve around this socialization process of Singularization of Indian culture. Such a politics continue until the present day politics. It is not far from truth if we say that the ruling political party of our nation is an off shoot of this socially constructed program that started in the end of 19th century. From Renaissance period until the present political period, any scholar would easily draw a horizontal line and a vertical line in conceptual bearing and in political success. Such a monolithic dimension of reconstruction Hindu nation or Hindu religion in to a singular entity\identity is purpose-intended. The purpose is political in order to safe guard the interest of the class and caste privileged society. (In the Indian history, the process of Singularization of Indian culture is a backward movement) Habermas, of the Frankfurt school of critical theory distinguishes between two types of human action. Our actions are interest bound. (i) Action oriented to success and action oriented to understanding. Action oriented to success is interest bound, and is characterized as instrumental and strategic, pragmatic and profit interest-bound. Action oriented to success believes in force, coercion, technocratic manipulation, authority, dictation etc. Success and Failure is structured in such instrumental rationality i.e. in the action oriented to success. Whereas Action oriented to understanding is not strategic, not pragmatic and its interest is communication relation between social actors. The transnational capitalism and its program of Globalization (neo-colonialism) as a human action may be categorized as Action oriented to success. It implies that it is interest bound, profit motivated, and power structured. Those who perform action oriented to success- are only those who have the ability to do so. Those who are already socially structured or determined to perform such action. In other words, success is predetermined, manipulation is legally based and politically and strategically achieved. At the local national level the political action called Hinduization may also be characterized as Action oriented to Success. It is purposive, manipulative, preconceived, socially programmed, profit-motivated and political in nature. The success

5.

6.

7.

8.

and profit of the already existing capitalists in different nations and the failure of those who lack sufficient Capital, the success of those high caste people, and the failure of those lower ones is structured both in globalization and in Hinduization. 9. The powerful and forceful ones in the Indian political arena, and the capitalists of the developed countries enter in to a contract that would maintain their power supremacy either political or economical or both. Consensus is the way (notion) that operates in such economic and political contract. Those multi-nationalists and those rich nationalists consented to themselves to gain profit at cost of any service sectors. The market economy through a political contract is let-open for the multinational companies for purpose of exploitation of human labor and natural resources. Thus, the ideological foundation of globalization is Pragmatism, an American trend that believes that meaningfulness is matter of being useful. So long, the factor X is useful, it is meaningful, and if and when it exhausts its utility, then such X is to be thrown away. Use and Throwaway (cosumerism) relation is the characteristics of both Globalization and localization. Both converge on this ideological foundation which believes in Pragmatism as a value. Pragmatism as value, believes that the one who is in possession of the forces of production and marketing ability (utilizer) assumes a socially advantageous position of being considered superior. And that which or who is used\exploited is deemed inferior, reduced to an object or a commodity, and therefore vulnerable for any violations. Therefore, deep down, both in globalization and in Hinduization Violence is structured. It is on this violent and mutually exclusive and exploitative relation the forces of Globalization and Hinduisation is founded upon. (e.g. Volcano) Therefore, it is no wonder, at the social plane there remains the practice of mutilating, disfiguring and injuring the minorities, the people of the downtrodden communities and powerless ones. Mono Culture: Globalization produces two types of cultures: (i) The culture of the economically advantageous as against (ii) the culture of disadvantageous ones. The culture of the economically advantageous tactically exploits the resources of the culture of the disadvantageous ones and reduces them to subordinate positions. The former by its political strategy encompasses and enslaves the culture of the later, and in the long run, sweeps away less privileged and reduces them as unprivileged class and there by h militantly forces them to the periphery. Consequently poverty is and unemployability is maintained in order that cheap labor is guaranteed. Humans of the periphery are reduced in to less-humans and less-humans are reduced into no-humans with no culture at all. The economic culture of the upper class would continue remain the dominant one. Accordingly the progress of the dominant culture will promoted at the expense of the dominated ones. Such a progress will be projected as human progress veiling its violent face. Thus globalization may be termed as economic Darwinism and Hinduization may be termed as political and cultural Darwinism.

10.

11.

12.

13.

History will be interpreted as the history of dominant ones or the successful ones and history of dominated ones will be systematically lost. History will remain lopsided. 14. The issue of Totalization of Power In all societies two classes of people appear- a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, performs most political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the latter is directed and controlled by the first ... Ruling classes do not often justify their power exclusively by de facto possession of it, but try to find a moral and legal basis for it, representing it as the logical and necessary consequence of doctrines and beliefs. Wherever and whenever there is hierarchy and inequality it presupposes a relation of Power of some over or against many. The notion of the analysis of power is a recent one. Four distinct forms of social power often identified by sociologists are force, dominance, authoritarian, and attraction. Force is the intentional exertion of social pressures on others, to achieve the desired outcomes. G & H is force in the sense that G employs economic forces, pressures to achieve the intended profits towards the wealth amassment of the upper class. H is force in the sense that it employs political pressure in order that the multiplicity of cultures is converted in to a single totality. (The massive re-conversion program at the point of threat or political persuasion). Dominance is characteristic of G & H. It involves the control and regulation of information flows, economic networks, transport services, governmental decision making. Authoritarian in the sense of taking possession of political, legal and religious power to make decisions in favor of the upper class. Attraction as a social power is employed in order to promote habituation characteristics of uncritical and unresisting mass obedience. (The defense of G & H is maintained on the grounds that they are inevitable, natural) There are different theories on Power: What is the theory of power that is operative in G & H? is our inquiry now. On the Creation of Social power three important theories of Social Power may be highlighted with reference to the issue how social power is created or generated. (a) The Dependency theory of power (Richard Emerson 1962) believes that social power rests on social interdependence. A person or social institution X exercises power over Y to the extent that Y depends upon X. such a dependency is not natural but historical and made natural; it is constructed and maintained through a system/grammar/logic that would sustain X supremacy over Y in continuum. Such a power is activated as X utilizes Ys dependency to make demands on Y that result in changes in Ys actions or ideas and perceptions. To put it formally, the dependency of Y on X is directly related and proportional to Ys social and economical needs, provided by X. It is also true if we say that the social power of X over Y is directly proportional to the degree of Ys dependency on X and inversely proportional to the amount of resistance by Y that X can not over come. (And resistance need not always be attributed interms of some sort of violence any resistance to violence, what ever form it may be can not be and is different from violence; the issue of violence Vs non violence is always an existential and factual and situational). In the words of Emerson, The Power of X over Y is equal to, and based on, the dependency of Y on X.

15.

16.

17.

(b) The Trust theory of power (Talcott Parsons 1963) believes that social power rests on peoples involvement in social relationships in which they trust others. This is based on the notion of Mutual responsibility in the ways that benefit mutual relationship. Family for example rests upon the basis of Truth theory of power. But in a larger social groups and formal organizations the issue of Trust is supplemented by Contract, constitution or legal contract. Tu put it formally, the creation of social power with in a collectivity is directly proportional to the investment of trust in it by its participants namely the actors in the social order. Conflict theory of social power believes that social power rests on the notion of Conflict, which is a historical social continuum. For Marx, the class struggle between owners and workers is a social, political and psychological reflection of objective economic conflicts. Exploitation is built in to capitalism as an economic system, which in turn polarizes two classes of people setting against each other and therefore, increases the chances of revolution. Of these three theories on Power, G & H reflects the first one, namely the dependent theory of power. Every social act is an exercise of power and every social relationship is a power equation and every group or system is an organization of power. And Societies are constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociological networks of power. Perspective of Power: (a) The Elite Perspective of Power (b) The Marxist perspective of Power (c) The Pluralist perspective of Power. Of these, elitism can be found in writings of Plato, Machiavelly and many other philosophers and sociologists. The common theme of elitism is concentration of social power in a small set of controlling elites in all societies who by virtue of they being elites are in possession and justification and interpretation of power relations. Social change according to elitism can occur through gradual circulation of elites and their impetus only. Therefore, to understand any society we must examine the culture of elites. Such a thesis of elitism negates or is in sharp contrast with the Marxist perspective of power. The second namely, the Marxists perspective hold that there are three important models on the base of which the notion of power may be examined. A class model based on the primacy of economically generated social power; a historical model describing the process of dialectic social change and a sociological model describing the inevitable conflict between two social classes. In so doing, the Marxists have contributed a very useful tool of social analysis to understand the power structure of society. While both the Elitism and Marxism claim that power has tended to be centralized, in contrast, The Pluralist perspective of Power holds that power is at least moderately dispersed and could be extensively decentralized by proper management of it. From this

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

brief survey on perspectives of power, G & H believes in the perspective elitism rather dominant elitism. 24. In globalization, the practice of imperialistic domination is carried out at two levels. The economic and the political governmental, supported by military control. In Hinduization the practice of caste domination is carried out at multiple level: the cultural, the social, religious and economical and ideological. In the context of globalization, power is economism i.e. possession of the Power of Capital. In the context of Hinduisation, power is High caste political and economic domination converted into social domination. Both converge on the conceptual foundations of pragmatism, dependent theory, and elitism. The moments of such conceptual bearings in total may be termed as the Totalization of power of singular or monolithic class and culture against the multiplicity. It is the monopoly of one against many. By entering a contract transnational Globalization and Hinduized nationalism totalize or converge in to a singular totalized entity as the One Culture. In so doing, the totalized power culture of upper class sets itself against the Many, namely the plural periphery in continuos conflict and resistance with the singular totalized entity. A singular totality when it absolutizes itself it is already sets itself historically against the other cultures by practicing a denial. Thus, conflict and resistance become the characteristic feature of social life. War is its ultimate fulfillment. When the multiplicity of the peripheries, no longer accept being violated by tactical repression or institutionalized violence, instrumental rationality, or peace tactics, the totalized culture begins a war at the practical level. The plural periphery is forced to safeguard themselves by any means possible. Conflict theory of power relations is continued at multiple levels. Such a conflict or contest would restore the rights to be different in differences. Thus in the context of Globalization and Hinduization, the issue of Power is a contested reality. On whose side Power is invested. Consequently, at whose expense power is utilized? How to respond to this unjust situation? If so, what is ethical dimension with which we need to respond to the dynamics of Power? These questions should continue to motivate our search for alternatives. -----------------

25.

From Phenomenology to Liberation 1. Philosophy to be authentically socially relevant, it should necessarily address the nonphilosophical. The non-philosophical here refers to the Global Social Reality whose dimensions are political, economical, cultural, and so on. By responding to Global social reality from an ethical standpoint philosophy may be claimed to be practical in the sense of socially relevant. It would save itself from the common criticism armchair philosophy or philosophy merely interpreted the world. When philosophy addresses or ponders itself, then there is the problem of sophistry, or mere idealization; From the point of view of a Philosophy of liberation from the phenomenology of suffering, Philosophical texts are pondered not in the sense of textual authenticity for it would lead to the problem of vicious circularity or textual proof type of Philosophy rather, it is done exceptionally as a pedagogical or methodological propaedutic to provide itself with interpretative categories. Authenticity of philosophizing involves the critical reflection of the nonphilosophical -the phenomenon, the reality textured in our social living. 2. Philosophy, when it set itself to reflect on its own reality by way of distancing itself from what already is, from its own world, from its own system from its own space. If not, it would fall back to itself. Its result would be self-enclosure with in its own world. . Selfenclosure is a refusal to relation. Self-enclosure conceals the desire and the practice of playing superior or the dominator, the Elite. 3. The philosophies that have emerged from or for the affirmation of the existence of the Non-Being, the matter, the poor, the periphery must also be cautious that it should not again fall back to the center. Materialism for example by affirming its own prime existence commits the difficulty perceiving everything from its own world. Again this will lead to the same old problem of One against Many; for what is defined as Being or One or foundational existence is conceived in such a way it supercedes over the many. The very definition of Oneness counts against the presence of the Many-ness in totalities of all totalities. 4. What is Phenomenology and what is meant by phenomenology of suffering: we shall try to clarify these here: Phenomenology as its name implies, concerns itself with What is Given, or what \how it appears from the reality of the world; It refers to the social reality as it appears or given to us in a specific social system; The issue of Being here refers to What is given as a system (ideological\philosophical or structural); it refers to acceptance of the system (Being) as given). 5. By the term phenomenology of Suffering we may refer to the issue of Discrimination, domination, and power relations, those underlie the phenomenon, the Being or the System. With in the Classical and European Philosophy, the issues of the phenomenon would be: Being and Non Being; Permanence Vs Transitory; Eternal Vs the temporary; Spirit or Matter; One Vs Many; Dual Vs Non-Dual; Soul\Mind or Body\matter; Divine or human;

the male Vs the female, human or animal; nature or culture; Science or Pseudo Science, civilized Vs the uncivilized, the ruler Vs the ruled, the powerful Vs the powerless, the capitalists Vs the poor etc. Such a polarization of categories may be extended further both in the actual as well in the dominant philosophical worlds. 6. Each camp tries to affirm philosophically (provides epistemic or moral justifications) its own claim of meaningfulness from its own stand point or school of thought. Those philosophies that emerged from the Center, its own construct for the affirmation of its own Self, as One, as Being or as Existence. 7. We shall clarify further: For the purpose of clarification, the approaches to the question of Being \ existence in the history of Philosophy may be classified as falling into three major dimensions or approaches. They are (i) the ontological approach (ii) the Functional approach and (iii) the critical-liberative approach. Clarification of these approaches would in turn pave to the understanding of the phenomenology of suffering and liberation from a philosophical perspective. 8. What is the ontological approach? This is an attempt to provide a constitutive (theoretically reduced) definition of Existence, man, society etc from an onto-logical point of view. It is an attempt to provide pure definitions divorced from the non-philosophical reality. It is purely a rational attempt that provides an idealized definition of Being or Existence. Often the type of philosophizing results from the Dominant Center in Philosophy. it simply reflects the worldview of the dominant culture or society. It often looks for the most fundamental definition of what Is. This Is defined in contrast to what is not. 9. The theoretical formulation of these diverse issues may be singled out as falling into category of what is X in its ultimate constituent sense? The X, as a variable here would easily be instantiated as Reality, Man, God etc. For example, for Plato, the ultimate nature of existence is pure idea, pertaining to the world of forms. This pure idea stands in opposition to the imagery or the shadowy world. For Sankara, the ultimate sense of reality is Non-Dual and what is non-dual is in opposition to the world of duality. Here arises the philosophical dualism of Appearance Vs Reality. For Aristotle, the ultimate reality is the ontological reconciliation of Form and Matter. God, as the ultimate reality, for St. Anselm is purely ontological. For St. Thomas, X is trans-cosmological. 10. By employing the method of deduction and the method of doubt (doubting the other) Descartes of the Modern Philosophy derives that Existence or Being is purely rational. Such a Being for Descartes and many other rationalists exists in itself. That which is defined to exist in dependent to Spirit is considered as irrational therefore secondary. Parallel to Descartes, the philosophy of Samkhya established the dualism between Pursa as prime category and Prakriti as the jada or matter (inactive). The point here is that category of existence that is defined as occupying the central or essential is conceived to be the Primary as against the category of that which is defined as the Secondary. In the practical language, the male or the human of the European is placed higher than the non-European. This is the politics of the philosophy of Modernism.

11. The dialectical manifestation of the One in to many and the surrender of Many in to One establish Hegelian Idealism. Is Aurobindos philosophy comparable to that of Hegelianism?. The Subjective idealism of Berkeley is from the point of view of a Philosophy of liberation, may be said to conceive a sense of subjugation of the object that is perceived by the subject who perceives. That is why the claim is To be is to be Percei ve and to be perceived. 12. Whether monistic or dualistic, idealistic or realistic the ideological frame of such abovementioned philosophies conceives a sense of domination of the One, the Primary as against the Secondary or Many. This is what I mean by the phenomenon of separation or discrimination that enforce a sense of oppression of the Dominant over the Other. The cumulative effect of such philosophies at the social reality is Suffering. Take for example How Plato, in tune with his philosophy of idealism conceives an Hierarchically spaced or construed society, which in turn is justified in Plato as Justice and (made) Natural. 13. Thus the characteristic feature of the ontological sense of philosophizing remains to be axiomatic, Value-Hierarchical (vertical), formal, structural, pure-existential. Such a philosophy is other wise termed as the Philosophy of domination. In the sense of promoting a theoretical position and epistemic justification of the undue affirmation of the Primacy of the Ontological, such a philosophy contributed to political promotion of an unequal social order. The dualistic trends by placing the Spirit category as superior over matter, served to distance the Powerful and the Powerless by means of systematic domination and discrimination. What is Holy is defined in terms of what is not Holy and what is touchable is defined against what is untouchable and so the case with any other value-dualism. 14. Jaques Derrida would criticize such Philosophy as logo centric, whose central con cepts are eidos, arche, telos, etc. They remain to be ones mind-constructs in order that the Class of people who conceive such logo centrism remains to be the Philosopher King. 15. What is Functionalist sense of approaching to the question of Being or Existence? remains to be our next inquiry. To put it briefly, The term functionalism is extendable to Scientism, Positivism, Behaviorism, linguistic analysis of meaning, and Pragmatism. In the modern world this may be termed as economism of the trans-national capitalism. Functionalist are those who seek an explandum model for the existing system (Being). They make a slight divergence from the question of what is X to What X does or How X is displayed/performs with in the given system. For example, the phenomenon of Capitalism is understood by what or how it successfully performs itself. 16. Functionalist are those who do not question ethical dimension of a system, rather they rely on the pragmatic morality of a system or reality. Meaning is a matter of utility, positivistic, verifiability, testability, repeatability, orderly etc. The danger of functionalism or modernism is that it projects itself as the only correct model of explanation of reality. Such a projection in the social life tend to monopolize, envelop, neo-colonize the realities of the world in its own and only way. Its morality is instrumental, and profit designed.

17. We shall explain this by analyzing the phenomenon of Globalization in the notes entitled as Globalization as totalization of Power. Before we take into such an analysis, it is better that we take look of the dualistic or contradictory economic reality of the global market today. (add here facts and figures regarding the reality of economic disparity ) 18. Take a look at these following facts and figures: Global Trends 2015 a study report by the United States Intelligence Community lists out problem s of the world for the next 15 years. And for India: Aids will be a major problem; arable lands will be more degraded; deforestation will be more and more intensifying pollution; Coral reefs will be disturbed; ... India and China will rise in power and can cause adjustment problems; internal conflicts such as communal disputes will be bitter, vicious, long-lasting and difficult to terminate; they may become interstate conflicts; some of the northern states will have more population with about 50 per cent points and the four southern states may have 16 per cent; and the India Pakistan gap will be widened. (The Hindu, Sunday, January 7, 2000). Poverty is on the rise, in 1989 34.3% of the population of India was under the poverty line, with the Globalization and New Economic policy there was a steep increase in poverty line. In 1992 it was 40% and in 1997 it was almost 50%; (Unfortunately the political claim is that globalization would erase the poverty line). According to the World Bank Report, in East Asia excluding China, 76.4 million people are living below poverty line. According to 1991 census, religions vise the population of Hindus are 672.6 millions, Islam populations is 95.2 million, Christians are 18.9 million, Sikhs are 16.3 millions, Buddhists are 6.3 millions, Jains are 3.4 millions and others are 3.5 million. The political force called Hinduization is forced within this diversity only. In the worlds population, those who are in poverty make up to 1.1 billion of the 5 billion people of the Planet. The economists tell us that, a 20% of the world population. the so-called upper class continue to enjoy 85% of the total world resources and the remaining 80% of the population are forced to distributed amongst themselves the rest 15% of the world resources. Unfortunately, these 80% of the worlds population, a vast majority of them live in the developing or yet-to be developed countries. The disparity of distribution of resources would in turn pave way to the disparity and discrimination in social status. If we could shrink the earths population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratio remaining the same, it would look like this: There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from western hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans. Of the total population 51 would be female and 49 are male; 70 would be non-Christians 30 Christians; 50% of entire worlds wealth would be in the hands of the only 6 people and all 6 would be citizens of the United States; Nearly 80 persons would be living in substandard housing; 70 persons would be unable to read; 50 would suffer from mal nutrition and one would be near death and one would be near birth. Only one would have college education ( Jivan, May 1997) The position of India concerning education is very low among the countries of the world. Only 40.90% of the people are literate. What adds to the problem is that there is strong gender discrimination in the field of education. Out of the total literates 64.13% are male

10

while only 35.87% are female; the status of female literacy in 1971 was 18.44% and it has increased to 35.87% in 1991. While the male literacy in 1971 was 39.5% and in 1991, it was 64.13%. Literacy rate of male is higher than the female. Humanity is currently in crisis in many dimensions, perhaps the most distressing is the problem of large scale refugee displacement seeking a home in homeless land. The result of political wars, persecution, discrimination, and intolerance is the emergence of refugees. Today there are 19 million refugees around the world and another 24 million men, women and children are displaced in their own lands. One in every 130 people on earth has been forced to face the problem of displacement (FAR Issue 3 December 1999) In the political life, there is a growing tendency to move from democracy to authoritarianism. The emergence of the modern elite with its control of State mechanisms has developed varying forms of domination and oppression When the country has entered into contract with the multinationals, the peasantry which constitute 70% of India are forced to commit suicide due to the problems of land alienation, product alienation, crop failure and indebtedness. More than 325 small and marginal farmers mostly cotton growers have committed suicides in Andhra pradesh in 1999. Suicides have been reported from Karnataka, Maharstra, and even from the state of Green Revolution i.e., Punjab. The epidemic suicide all over the country is a clear evidence of the price (here human death) that the nation has to pay with its subjugation to the transnational capitalism and its market economy.

19. Globalization is a phenomenology of suffering to those who are secondary, developing or under developed nations and very especially to those who are already poor, who do not have the capacity to market economy. It is a form of thought, called economism that bifurcates the powerful vs the powerless. In its actualization process it allows suicidal of the poor or the oppressed. Properly conceived, Economism (of Globalization) has a long standing colonial history of philosophy. 20. The third type of approach in Philosophy is termed here as the critical-liberative approach. The critical liberative approach emerges from the periphery, by pondering the nonphilosophical as well as the philosophical that conceal the non-philosophical. It is an attempt to understand the phenomenology of suffering (discrimination, subjugation and domination and power-relations veiled in the dominant world view and its social practice) Philosophy is liberative when it permits itself to think the themes in favour of the oppressed and suffering people. It is not a love of wisdom for its own sake, but a love of wisdom for the sake of the discriminated Other. It is not mere friendship nor fellowship but the love of the broken-particular that is ethical and spiritual

11

Power therefore is multi dimensional. In the context of Racism, it is racial supremacy. These (however brief reduction) theoretical framework of power, I believe would provide ample scope for your discussion and deliberations. From this brief enumeration, (the truth we could evolve is that) Power, whether cultural or Philosophical is inevitable. One can not pretend a world of powerless ness. However, the significant questions that we need to introspect is: On whose side Power is invested?. Consequently, at whose expense power is utilized? If so, what is ethical dimension with which we need to respond to the dynamics of Power? With this short note,

Welcome & Introduction Address Dear... I welcome you all wholeheartedly for this state level seminar on Culture & Philosophy: Dynamics of Power, organized by the department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur on 27 28 February 2001. I thank you for your real and actual presence here. Each one of your presence here reaffirms the sense of fellowship, mutual solidarity, communion, commitment and celebration. Your coming-together is a revelation of the basic truth that As humans we are bound to be WE ARE. We are unintentionally and necessarily related to each other and only as inhuman we tend to practice unrelatedness, veiling of each other with specific politics of power-relations. Permit me to introduce the perspective and the focus of these two days seminar. The dynamics of Power in Culture and Philosophy is the problematic rationality of this academic seminar. The issue of the dynamics power (in culture and Philosophy) is as old as human civilization. Along with human evolution, the question regarding POWER has also evoluted. What is Power? For Socrates this (power) is a Who am I question. For Plato, this is the Philosopher -King. For the scholastics, this is a shift from the known to the unknown. For modernists, this is reason. For Darwin this is a survival of the fittest. For the post-Darwinians, this is Social Darwinism. For the existentialists, this may be a debate between essence and existence and ultimately human existence. For the Marxists, this is a class struggle. For the colonialists this is the sun never sets in the British Empire. For the Trans-national capitalists, power is Globalization. For the Advaitin this is Brahman-Atman identity. For the neo-advaitins, this is Political construction of Hindutva. For some, it is nationalism and patriarchy. For political democracy, this is a politics for number or vote bank. For those who occupy institutions, this is hierarchy. But for the powerless, power is solidarity and relationship. Perhaps the most ancient people identified Power with idea of something beyond, (supernatural). This is found expressed in mythologies of ancient civilizations. Later (we find) the notion power is identified with the notion of God. And such a God was perceived to be the most Powerful.

12

But then, if we continue to confront human history, we would immediately learn that our history is a history of conflicts and wars for Power. It is marked with wars between tribes, classes, races, cultures, and ideologies. The one who is deemed/hailed successful has forced and ideologised himself to be the privileged and the ruling class. And the one who is defined to be not so successful is reduced to be the ruled class. Thus, the dynamics of historical and cultural change in all societies remains to be a continuos conflict between two classes of people - a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, is socially and politically constructed to perform most political functions; it monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the latter, namely the ruled-class is structured in such a way that it subordinates the rule of the powerful. It remains to be directed and controlled by the first. However, the ruling classes do not often justify their power exclusively by de facto possession of it, but try to find a moral and legal basis for it, representing it as the logical and necessary consequence of doctrines and beliefs. Human history is therefore is a history of politics of power, whose characteristics may be institutional, ideological, cultural, social and Psychological. Learning from human history, the underlying and vital issue that needs to be pondered is the issue of the Dynamics of Power in Culture and Philosophy. The dynamics of power is the basic Philosophy against or in favor of which, problems of Philosophy and human society needs to be perceived. Most of the structures of thought, feeling and action exist both as systems of meaning and significance and as systems of power and domination, Reason always existed, only not always in reasonable forms (Karl Marx). Power domination belongs to the very structure of technical reason. An honest examination of history of ideas, reveal that human Reason (be it west or East) is most often identified with the notion of Power and domination. Our Philosophies (the so-called world outlooks could either be liberative or dominative. It is dominative when it encloses\refrains us our from relationship. It is liberative when it discloses relationship. When it permits itself to think the themes in favour of the oppressed and suffering people in order to be in proximity. Such proximity is not friendship or fellowship between the any two ruling class or caste but it is essentially the love of the broken-particular. It is the love of the unloved. It is the education of those who are deprived of education. It is a reclamation of faith. In this sense, our discourse would remain to be authentic, ethical, and spiritual. This is why the question regarding the Dynamics of Power both in Philosophy and Culture needs to be given a special attention and serious study in social sciences and very especially in the departments of Philosophy. This is the perspective and the focus of our two days Seminar. In order to facilitate an indepth and organic reflection and action. I welcome each one of you to this moment of self-reflection. ... Dr. S. Lourdunathan .

13

FORMS OF CASTE POWER DOMINATION AND DYNAMICS OF DALIT LIBERATION: SOME THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS

1. In this, paper two issues are addressed. What are the forms of caste power-domination that maintains/perpetuates the poverty of the powerless people, namely the Dalits? And as a response, we would in turn discuss on the dynamics of a philosophy of liberation of these made-powerless ones? By doing so, we attempt an interface between the dynamics of caste power domination and non-caste power relation. 2. In all societies, there always existed two classes of people a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first one, though most often to be less numerous, but monopolizes social power (economic and cultural power) and performs most political functions. And the class that is ruled succumbs to the power-domination of powerful class. Consequently they suffer perpetual dependency, economic exploitation, social discrimination, and political powerlessness and are forced to be treated less human and for some Non-human. 3. Between these two classes of people, there always exist a relation of power, of that of domination, dominated, of that of oppression, and oppressed. Between the dualities domination and dominated there exist a social (cultural, economic & political) a structure and a specific practice of domination. 4. On the Creation of Social power three important theories of Social Power may be highlighted with reference to the issue how social power is created or generated. (a) The Dependency theory of power (Richard Emerson 1962) believes that social power rests on social interdependence. A person or social institution X exercises power over Y to the extent that Y depends upon X. such a dependency is not natural but historical and made natural; it is constructed and maintained through a system/grammar/logic that would sustain X supremacy over Y in continuum. Such a power is activated as X utilizes Ys dependency to make demands on Y that result in changes in Ys actions or ideas and perceptions. To put it formally, the dependency of Y on X is directly related and proportional to Ys social and economical needs, provided by X. 5. It is also true if we say that the social power of X over Y is directly proportional to the degree of Ys dependency on X and inversely proportional to the amount of resistance by Y that X can not over come. (And resistance need not always be attributed interms of some sort of violence any resistance to violence, what ever form it may be can not be and is different from violence; the issue of violence Vs non violence is always an existential and factual and situational). In the words of Emerson, The Power of X over Y is equal to, and based on, the dependency of Y on X. 6. (b) The Trust theory of power (Talcott Parsons 1963) believes that social power rests on peoples involvement in social relationships in which they trust others. This is based on the notion of Mutual responsibility in the ways that benefit mutual relationship. Family for example rests upon the basis of Truth theory of power. But in a larger social groups and

14

formal organizations the issue of Trust is supplemented by Contract, constitution or legal contract. Tu put it formally, the creation of social power with in a collectivity is directly proportional to the investment of trust in it by its participants namely the actors in the social order. 7. (c) Conflict theory of social power believes that social power rests on the notion of Conflict, which is a historical social continuum. For Marx, the class struggle between owners and workers is a social, political and psychological reflection of objective economic conflicts. Exploitation is built in to capitalism as an economic system, which in turn polarizes two classes of people setting against each other and therefore, increases the chances of revolution. 8. is hitehr to: conflict between settled and nomadic communities; self eenclussers 9. Dr. Ambedkar in his anthropological analysis points out that the conflict between two tribes the settled ones Vs the nomadic generated the enclosure of each other in exclusiveness. In other words, territory occupation and gradual consolidation of multi faceted social power domination (religious, ritual, political, economical, psychological (according to Ambedkars analysis) serve as the dynamics that explains caste power domination in Indian society. Both Ambedkar and Marx, agree in a specific sense i.e, both of them consider conflict as the source of social power-domination for Marx, it is foundationally an economical category, a singular one, but for Ambedkar though conflict is foundation to caste power cleavage, its practice is multi faceted. it includes socio-political , economical and cultural categories. Thus, for Ambedkar the foundations of caste power domination is not single dimensional but multi dimensional and yet interwoven to each other. 10. \ Dynamics of execution of social power:

The dynamics or process of exercising social power involves four important but often highly interwoven facets: Possessing Resources, Committing resources, converting resources into power actions and overcoming resistance (Blalock 1989). Some of the structures of thought, feeling and action exist not only as systems of power and domination, but also as systems of meaning and significance to their actions and existence The world-out look images and self images that shape social action The problem of caste is ultimately a problem of objective social structures of thought and feeling, of action and social relations. A caste system is a historical form of life Caste hierarchy implicitly sustains specifically a Moral sense of self\life.

15

An unforgettable and unforgivable hierarchy of power and privilege, of stigma and value, forms the social backbone of many societies with its racial, gender and class hiearchies and this is very true of India Caste society. Caste remains is preoccupation, occupation, obsession, and determination in the Indian society. Therefore, the problem of poverty and net works of power relations in India can not be divorced from issue of caste.

The wage labour exchange within capitalistic power relations may be treated just, under capitalism. The freedom to sell your labour to any capitalist that will buy is infact freedom under capitalism. This justice and freedom are infact injustice and wage-slavery from the emancipatory standpoint of a potential social transformation.

16

State Level Seminar on CULTURE & PHILOSOPHY: Dynamics of Power 27 - 28 February 2001 Welcome & Introduction Address Dear... I welcome you all wholeheartedly for this state level seminar on Culture & Philosophy: Dynamics of Power, organized by the department of Philosophy, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur on 27 28 February 2001. I thank you for your real and actual presence here. Each one of your presence here reaffirms the sense of fellowship, mutual solidarity, communion, commitment and celebration. Your coming-together is a revelation of the basic truth that As humans we are bound to be WE ARE. We are unintentionally and necessarily related to each other and only as inhuman we tend to practice unrelatedness, veiling of each other with specific politics of power-relations. Permit me to introduce the perspective and the focus of these two days seminar. The dynamics of Power in Culture and Philosophy is the problematic rationality of this academic seminar. The issue of the dynamics power (in culture and Philosophy) is as old as human civilization. Along with human evolution, the question regarding POWER has also evoluted. What is Power? For Socrates this (power) is a Who am I question. For Plato, this is the Philosopher-King. For the scholastics, this is a shift from the known to the unknown. For modernists, this is reason. For Darwin this is a survival of the fittest. For the post-Darwinians, this is Social Darwinism. For the existentialists, this may be a debate between essence and existence and ultimately human existence. For the Marxists, this is a class struggle. For the colonialists this is the sun never sets in the British Empire. For the Trans-national capitalists, power is Globalization. For the Advaitin this is Brahman-Atman identity. For the neo-advaitins, this is Political construction of Hindutva. For some, it is nationalism and patriarchy. For political democracy, this is a politics for number or vote bank. For those who occupy institutions, this is hierarchy. But for the powerless, power is solidarity and relationship. Perhaps the most ancient people identified Power with idea of something beyond, (supernatural). This is found expressed in mythologies of ancient civilizations. Later (we find) the notion power is identified with the notion of God. And such a God was perceived to be the most Powerful. But then, if we continue to confront human history, we would immediately learn that our history is a history of conflicts and wars for Power. It is marked with wars between tribes, classes, races, cultures, and ideologies. The one who is deemed/hailed successful has forced and ideologised himself to be the privileged and the ruling class. And the one who is defined to be not so successful is reduced to be the ruled class. Thus, the dynamics of historical and cultural change in all societies remains to be a continuos conflict between two classes of people - a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, is socially and politically constructed to perform most political functions; it monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the latter, namely the ruled-class is structured in such a way that it

17

subordinates the rule of the powerful. It remains to be directed and controlled by the first. However, the ruling classes do not often justify their power exclusively by de facto possession of it, but try to find a moral and legal basis for it, representing it as the logical and necessary consequence of doctrines and beliefs. Human history is therefore is a history of politics of power, whose characteristics may be institutional, ideological, cultural, social and Psychological. Learning from human history, the underlying and vital issue that needs to be pondered is the issue of the Dynamics of Power in Culture and Philosophy. The dynamics of power is the basic Philosophy against or in favor of which, problems of Philosophy and human society needs to be perceived. Most of the structures of thought, feeling and action exist both as systems of meaning and significance and as systems of power and domination, Reason always existed, only not always in reasonable forms (Karl Marx). Power domination belongs to the very structure of technical reason. An honest examination of history of ideas, reveal that human Reason (be it west or East) is most often identified with the notion of Power and domination. Our Philosophies (the so-called world outlooks could either be liberative or dominative. It is dominative when it encloses\refrains us our from relationship. It is liberative when it discloses relationship. When it permits itself to think the themes in favour of the oppressed and suffering people in order to be in proximity. Such proximity is not friendship or fellowship between the any two ruling class or caste but it is essentially the love of the broken-particular. It is the love of the unloved. It is the education of those who are deprived of education. It is a reclamation of faith. In this sense, our discourse would remain to be authentic, ethical, and spiritual. This is why the question regarding the Dynamics of Power both in Philosophy and Culture needs to be given a special attention and serious study in social sciences and very especially in the departments of Philosophy. This is the perspective and the focus of our two days Seminar. In order to facilitate an indepth and organic reflection and action. I welcome each one of you to this moment of self reflection.

18

This history of war for Power is multi dimensional. They are ideological, religious, racial, linguistic, political, social, cultural, economic, and individual except that there is nothing spiritual in it. Even the so-called Asians, who are proudly, call themselves as inheritors of the most spiritual, defined themselves as Powerful and simultaneously defining the spiritually powerless people; The Greeks believed their civilization is the most powerful civilization, born to rule over the earth. The Romans politically constructed themselves in order to be Powerful. Consequently, slavery was justified, even considered sanctioned by Divine ordinance. During the medieval period history tells us the conflict between Religion and Politics centered on the vital issue who is more powerful. There was a gradual forgetting of the notion of God as powerful, and in its place, Man described/announce himself to be the most powerful in the order of creation. Unfortunately, wherever there was power, there was an hierarchy of power relations. In the modern period, man deemed himself as powerful because he considered himself rational. By defining his rationality he projected himself to the position of Powerfulness, and reduced the non-human to be powerless and therefore subservient to him. Reason always existed, only not always in reasonable forms (Karl Marx).We read in the human history, there was always existed War between people of two different nations, races, castes etc. The Revolutions, whether Industrial or political or scientific or technological or ideological, they always conceive and conceal the notion and practice of Power of some against the powerless. An honest examination of history of ideas, reveal that human Reason (be it west or East) is most often identified with the notion of Power and domination existence The meaning of Power and Powerlessness, of Freedom and Slavery, of Caste and Dalit, of high and low, depends in part upon the social context and concept and the kinds of domination and oppression practiced or endured by a given generation in particular cultural and historical context. The context of Capitalism and Trans national capitalism, with its Globalization tactics, is identifiable with idea and practice of power relations. The context of racial superiority against any other races is identifiable with idea and practice of power relations. The context of caste superiority against low caste inferiority is scrutanizable is with idea and practice of power relations. The concept and context of Male superiority against the female inferiority is identifiable with idea and practice of power relations. The concept and context of religious holiness against non-holiness of the-other, is identifiable with an idea and practice of power relations. The concept and Context of political/institutional status or locus against the less or nonpolitical or non-institutional is identifiable with idea and practice of power relations. Sufficient times have been spent on the notion of ideal society, ideal man, ideal God, ontological essences, and so on. In such discourses, consciously or unconsciously, Philosophers spearheaded the tactic of domination. By ascending to a special world of

19

language game, many philosophers concealed the practice of power domination against the many. We need to descend to life, from language to life, from power to powerlessness, from caste to castelessness, from institutions to persons, from state to people, from locus to non-locus, from Brahman to human, from holy to ordinary, from a morality of charity let us desend to an ethic of sharing, sharing the bread. From pragmatic profits to people in relation.

Have you ever suffered hunger in your own flesh? Have you ever suffered imprisonment in your own flesh? Have you ever suffered untouchability in your own flesh? Have you ever suffered discrimination in your flesh? Have you ever suffered illiteracy in your own flesh? Have you ever suffered discrimination in your own flesh? Have you ever suffered homeless ness in your own flesh? Have you ever suffered torture because you robbed some bread for your hunger? If yes, you belong to a humanity that is deemed powerless and if yes, you belong to a (Hu)manity that is Power-dominative. .

Globalization and Rural Development A Focus. We are at an important period of transformation in the history of humankind. The concepts of nationalism, national frontiers, borderline militarism etc are gradually transformed into a singular notion, called Globalization. The world is increasingly reduced into a global village. Though the forces for the beginning of globalization lie down in the historical layers of human civilization, Globalization as a transnational economic phenomenon lies in the historical moments of transitions. They include the transition from agrarian society to trade society, from trade to colonialism and from colonialism to neo-colonialism called globalization. Five centuries of arrival of Vasco da Gama was marked in the year 1998. With that the victory of colonialism was either celebrated or regretted. What remains is that the human face continues to shrink with the newer forms or scars of colonization. The years of 2000 would mark the strengthening of the forces of globalization in the face of the earth. The situation that leads to the strengthening of forces of globalization needs to analyzed. In addition, the forces that ensure or resist these new forms of colonialism needs to studied and the impact and value that globalization cause need to be researched. Alternatives or responses need to be worked out. This is context that this seminar is located.

20

It has been documented that globalization, wherever adopted, has caused massive transformation - a transformation of the economies from command economy to market economy. This change is more vivid in the east European countries, South Asia where the shift towards market-oriented economic regimes. Many scholars document the impact of such massive transformation on the economy in general and the impacted common person in particular. However, the issue of Globalization and Rural Development with specific reference to Indian Rural context has not been sufficiently analyzed and brought to the public awareness. Having felt this vital necessity, to study and document the impact of Globalization on Rural Development, the Department of Rural Development Science, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, has come forward to conduct this two days discussion. The impact of Globalization, its market-economy, its information technology, its affective social change on the rural development, therefore remains to be the focus of this Seminar. At the international level, globalization is viewed as a path to deepen modernity; it is also claimed that it strengthens polity and society. It is hypothesized that globalization would revitalize democracy, federalization process, agriculture, and would promote decentralization of economic and political power, ensure accountability on the part of the political leaders as well as people and transparency in administration. It is most often claimed that economic resources of the entire globe would be in easy access to everyones doorsteps because of Globalization that the world is increasingly shrinking to global village. Nevertheless, our sincere inquiry on these days is going to converge on the following vital issues: Could Globalization contribute to rural development? What are its challenges to the rural fabrics of our nation? Are we going to close the doors of Globalization by adopting strategies of protectionism, nationalism integration and so on Or, are we going to extend globalization to various other fields such as education and rural development? And if we claim that Globalization is inevitable, in the sense that one can not resist this global phenomenon, then in what sense one should respond to the issue of globalization and its impact on rural development? We have invited academicians, social activists, agricultural scientists, political scientists, Developmental and communication personals, people who are concerned with environmental issues, economists and various other consultants from different disciplines of social sciences to ponder on these issues. I am extremely happy that they have identified issues such as Globalization: Bio-diversity and Environment, Globalization and Rural Industries, Globalization and development programmes, Implications of WTO Accord, Finance and Issues related to Trade and Patent, Globalization and totalization of power, Globalization and food security, globalization and Civil society, Agricultural policies in the context of globalization, Globalization and Polity and self rule, and Globalization and Social Struggles. On behalf of the department of rural development science of our college, I cordially invite you and thank each one of you for having come over here. The moment we communicated to this

21

seminar, we have had innumerable and a very encouraging responses from all of you. I thank you for the same. By way of serving as the convenor of the Seminar, I would only be happy to tell you that the department of rural development science is at your service in times of your needs in these two days. On behalf of the department May I extend you best wishes for a fruitful participation in the seminar and discussion on the theme of Globalization and Rural Development. I assure you that your stay at AAC for these two days will be meaningful and useful. Thank you One and All.

Phenomenology of Suffering and Liberation (Lecturers delivered at the Refresher Course organized by the Sri.Aurobindo School of Eastern and Western Thought, Pondicherry University, Pondicherry, 11 13 June 2001) Dr. S. Lourdunathan Head Department of Philosophy Arul Anandar College (Autonomous) Karumathur 626514 Madurai Dt

22

Tamilnadu Lecture 1 Perspectives wittgenstein ; our philosophicla perspectives are not innocet The Global Reality and the emerging Issues Lecture 2 An Understanding in to the phenomena of Suffering Lecture 3 Dynamics of a Philosophy of Liberation

1. The differntia in social, political and cultural space To be born in India is different from to be born in the United States. This would simply mean that a person born in India is geographically, culturally, socio-politically is different from the one who is born at New York. The first world to much extent is different from that of the developing or underdeveloped countries. The same is the case with a person born at New Delhi Vs a person born at a remote village in far south. The difference lies in Socio Political Space amongst individual selves. In the Racial frame of mind, a White (non-Black) is politically, culturally spatially different from a Black (Non-White). With in India given to the social frame of Casteism, there is a world of geo-political difference that is made to exist between persons of different communities.

Most often classical tradition in Philosophy speaks of human nature in general.

Inequalities are pervasive throughout the world. They relate to unequal distribution of wealth, status, knowledge, skills, and power across different units such as individuals, nations and regions, castes and communities. The absences of equal opportunities for different social categories spaces the discriminated groups at a disadvantaged. Inequalities and discriminations are related phenomena and reinforce each other. Inequalities betwen groups can be a source of prejudice and discrimination if the dominant groups come to hold the subordinate groups in low esteem. Lewis (1985) observes that, tjpse we

23

Economism as a problem

Contradictions (Exercise: How will you title these Issues\problems give a suitable heading and share your immediate reaction to these issues) (enumerate Who is a philosopher in such a context. 1. Global Trends 2015 a study report by the United States Intelligence Community lists out problem s of the world for the next 15 years. And for India: Aids will be a major problem; arable lands will be more degraded; deforestation will be more and more intensifying pollution; Coral reefs will be disturbed; ... India and China will rise in power and can cause adjustment problems; internal conflicts such as communal disputes will be bitter, vicious, long-lasting and difficult to terminate; they may become interstate conflicts; some of the northern states will have more population with about 50 per cent points and the four southern states may have 16 per cent; and the India Pakistan gap will be widened. (The Hindu, Sunday, January 7, 2000). 2. If we could shrink the earths population to a village of precisely 100 people, with all existing human ratio remaining the same, it would look like this: There would be 57 Asians, 21 Europeans, 14 from western hemisphere (North and South) and 8 Africans. Of the total population 51 would be female and 49 are male; 70 would be non-Christians 30 Christians; 50% of entire worlds wealth would be in the hands of the only 6 people and all

24

6 would be citizens of the United States; Nearly 80 persons would be living in substandard housing; 70 persons would be unable to read; 50 would suffer from mal nutrition and one would be near death and one would be near birth. Only one would have college education ( Jivan, May 1997)

3. The position of India concerning education is very low among the countries of the world. Only 40.90% of the people are literate. What adds to the problem is that there is strong gender discrimination in the field of education. Out of the total literates 64.13% are male while only 35.87% are female; the status of female literacy in 1971 was 18.44% and it has increased to 35.87% in 1991. While the male literacy in 1971 was 39.5% and in 1991, it was 64.13%. Literacy rate of male is higher than the female. 4. Poverty is on the rise, in 1989 34.3% of the population of India was under the poverty line, with the Globalization and New Economic policy there was a steep increase in poverty line. In 1992 it was 40% and in 1997 it was almost 50%; (Unfortunately the political claim is that globalization would erase the poverty line). According to the World Bank Report, in East Asia excluding China, 76.4 million people are living below poverty line. In the worlds population, those who are in poverty make up to 1.1 billion of the 5 billion people of the Planet. The economists tell us that, a 20% of the world population. the so-called upper class continue to enjoy 85% of the total world resources and the remaining 80% of the population are forced to distributed amongst themselves the rest 15% of the world resources. Unfortunately, these 80% of the worlds population, a vast majority of them live in the developing or yet-to be developed countries. The disparity of distribution of resources would in turn pave way to the disparity and discrimination in social status. 5. Humanity is currently in crisis in many dimensions, perhaps the most distressing is the problem of large scale refugee displacement seeking a home in homeless land. The result of political wars, persecution, discrimination, and intolerance is the emergence of refugees. Today there are 19 million refugees around the world and another 24 million men, women and children are displaced in their own lands. One in every 130 people on earth has been forced to face the problem of displacement (FAR Issue 3 December 1999) 6. In the political life, there is a growing tendency to move from democracy to authoritarianism. The emergence of the modern elite with its control of State mechanisms has developed varying forms of domination and oppression

25

26