Dr Ambedkar’s Method of Social Change: Debating Means and Ends

IF 0.3 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Dinesh Kumar Ahirwar
{"title":"Dr Ambedkar’s Method of Social Change: Debating Means and Ends","authors":"Dinesh Kumar Ahirwar","doi":"10.1177/2455328x231198716","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ambedkar’s method of social change is about its commensurability with critical methods leads the legitimatization over radical means. The preconceived method devoid of reality was not only failed but also disastrous. The theory and practice are an integral part of the theory of social change of Ambedkar. It has laid the contrast between two methods of social change that is Marxist and Pragmatist. Ambedkar’s method of social change influenced from pragmatism. It was not only the relevance of his thought but also the legitimacy of his methods used for bringing about change in Indian society. Ambedkar’s Critical method for social change upholds the idea of democracy and justice while radical violent means which emphasized on the equality without much space for democracy and freedom of speech delegitimized the purpose of communist society. The article is divided into two major parts; first part dealt with the critical theory and its primary concern for social change. It also contrasted with Ambedkar’s method of social change. Second section focused briefly on the debate between Marxist Trotsky and pragmatist John Dewey over use of means for achieving the ends. The experiment of the Cultural Change in the case of Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution in China by Mao Zedong and the methods of the Cultural Revolution proposed by Ambedkar is also part of the discussion where two experiments for bringing about cultural changes in Chinese and Indian society. The legitimacy of the democratic means remains unbeatable in the case of Ambedkar while violent radical means lost the legitimacy in Chinese experience. The struggle of Ambedkar who secured the rights for untouchable in the Indian constitution was not less than a revolution. Banning practice of Untouchability in any form and making it the punishable offence was the victory of the democratic means.","PeriodicalId":53196,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Voice of Dalit","volume":"24 21","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Voice of Dalit","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2455328x231198716","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ambedkar’s method of social change is about its commensurability with critical methods leads the legitimatization over radical means. The preconceived method devoid of reality was not only failed but also disastrous. The theory and practice are an integral part of the theory of social change of Ambedkar. It has laid the contrast between two methods of social change that is Marxist and Pragmatist. Ambedkar’s method of social change influenced from pragmatism. It was not only the relevance of his thought but also the legitimacy of his methods used for bringing about change in Indian society. Ambedkar’s Critical method for social change upholds the idea of democracy and justice while radical violent means which emphasized on the equality without much space for democracy and freedom of speech delegitimized the purpose of communist society. The article is divided into two major parts; first part dealt with the critical theory and its primary concern for social change. It also contrasted with Ambedkar’s method of social change. Second section focused briefly on the debate between Marxist Trotsky and pragmatist John Dewey over use of means for achieving the ends. The experiment of the Cultural Change in the case of Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution in China by Mao Zedong and the methods of the Cultural Revolution proposed by Ambedkar is also part of the discussion where two experiments for bringing about cultural changes in Chinese and Indian society. The legitimacy of the democratic means remains unbeatable in the case of Ambedkar while violent radical means lost the legitimacy in Chinese experience. The struggle of Ambedkar who secured the rights for untouchable in the Indian constitution was not less than a revolution. Banning practice of Untouchability in any form and making it the punishable offence was the victory of the democratic means.
安贝德卡博士的社会变革方法:辩论手段和目的
安贝德卡的社会变革方法是关于其与批判方法的通约性,导致激进手段的合法化。这种缺乏现实的先入为主的方法不仅失败了,而且是灾难性的。这一理论与实践是安贝德卡尔社会变革理论的有机组成部分。它形成了马克思主义和实用主义两种社会变革方法的对比。安贝德卡的社会变革方法受到实用主义的影响。这不仅是他的思想的相关性,而且是他用于改变印度社会的方法的合法性。Ambedkar的社会变革批判方法坚持了民主和正义的理念,激进的暴力手段强调平等,没有太多民主和言论自由的空间,使共产主义社会的目的失去了合法性。本文主要分为两大部分;第一部分论述了批判理论及其对社会变革的主要关注。这也与安贝德卡的社会变革方法形成了对比。第二部分简要介绍了马克思主义者托洛茨基和实用主义者杜威之间关于使用手段达到目的的争论。在安贝德卡事件中,民主手段的合法性仍然是不可战胜的,而暴力激进手段在中国的经验中失去了合法性。安贝德卡在印度宪法中为贱民争取权利的斗争不亚于一场革命。禁止任何形式的贱民制度并将其定为可惩处的罪行是民主手段的胜利。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Contemporary Voice of Dalit
Contemporary Voice of Dalit SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
自引率
42.90%
发文量
153
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信