[Reader-list] Second Posting

[sunandan kn]

Hi all,
As explained in my first posting, I plan to trace the
informal training processes in small scale industries
at Coimbatore. I haven’t yet conducted a proper field
study but I was looking the archival materials to map
the history of industrialization process. In this
posting I wish introduce some theoretical aspects of
this study.
In the nationalist and Marxist histories, the
transformation from artisanal production to factory
production is considered as a development in the mode
production which is again thought as inevitable. One
of the fields of their struggle against colonialism
was located on the complaint that the British
government is hindering this historical process: the
development of capitalism in its ‘proper way’. 
But if we look into the history of artisanal
production, we can see that another form of resistance
has been going on against colonialism, which I think
was profound but silent and unnoticed. 
Many historians have already noted that various
institutions like universities, museums, and courts
reproduced and disseminated the colonial domination in
multiple forms. These institutions were considered as
independent, secular in character and objective in
nature. The nationalist who demand for the
representation of Indians in these institutions some
way presupposed that these are neutral forms of
‘modern’ governance and so our independence is
directly connected to ‘capturing power’ in these
institutions.
Now we are clearer about these institutions:
especially how they perpetuate the dominant
discourses. Hence we know that resisting to
participate in these institutions itself is a form of
struggle. What I found in artisans is this form of
resistance.
Alfred Chatterton, the industrial secretary of Madras
during the first years of 20th century tried his best
to bring the traditional weavers into the powerloom
mills by offering better wages and other amenities. He
says that he was not surprised to note that not a
single weaver accepted these offer because this was
not a question of wages but a question of freedom. The
director of the Madras School of Arts, E.B. Havell
also notes in 1897 that the weavers were very specific
and careful to the modernization of their machinery.
They accepted some if they found it useful (not in its
economic aspect) but rejected those that restricted
their freedom of movement. For example they rejected
the new weaving machinery which could be installed
inside their home or workshop. They preferred to do it
in open air. Here the question of ‘method’ was very
much intertwined with the question of freedom and
hence it was a political choice.
These factors are important to my study because I am
looking how different forms of knowledges are
reproduced even within the ‘modern’ forms of
production practices.  I don’t want to use the word
‘tacit’ knowledge to represent the skills developed in
the so called apprentice training because then we are
presupposing that there is some other form of
professional, objective knowledge. What I would try to
focus is this aspect of method or absence of method in
all forms of knowledge production which is also a
political question. Is there a subversion taking place
or is it just domination: exploitation, child labour,
unhygienic working conditions, low wage etc., etc.
Sunandan



		
__________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner now. Go to http://yahoo.shaadi.com