Question -
Answer -
…., nearly all ‘new social movements’ have emerged as corrective to new maladies – environmental degradation, violation of the status of women, destruction of tribal cultures and the undermining of human rights – none of which are in and by themselves transformative of the social order.
They are in that way quite different from revolutionar}1- ideologies of the past. But their weakness lies in their
being so heavily fragmented
…a large part of the space occupied by the new social movements seem to be suffering from … various characteristics which have prevented them from being relevant to the truly oppressed and the poor in the form of a solid unified movement of the people. They are too fragmented, reactive, ad hocish, providing no comprehensive framework of basic social change. Their being anti-this or that (anti-West, anti-capitalist, anti-development, etc.) does not make them any more coherent, any more relevant to oppressed and peripheralized communities.
-Rajni Kothari
(a) What is the difference between new social movements and revolutionary ideologies?
(b) What according to the author are the limitations of social movements?
(c) If social movements address specific issues, would you say that they are ‘fragmented’ or that they are more focused? Give reasons for you answer by giving examples.
Answer
(a) The difference is that like revolutionary ideologies none of new social movements are in and by themselves transformative of the social order but they emerged as corrective of new malodies.
(b) According to author these movements are not any more coherent, relevant to oppressed and peripheralised communities. To some extent these are effected by party politics.
(c) If social movements address specific issues, we would say that these are fragmented which provide no comprehensive framework of social change i.e., Anti-arrack movement, Dalit Panthers etc.