Items Description of Module Subject Name Social Work Paper Name History and Philosophy of Social Work Paper Coordinator Dr. Ruchi Sinha Content Dr. Alex Akhup and Joy Prafull Lakra Writer/Author (CW) Content Reviewer Prof Manish Jha Module Name/Title Taxonomy of social theories—Part7 The Lived Struggles of tribe/Adivasi In India: Understanding Tribal Social Work Module Id 27 Objectives • To understand the anti-oppressive perspective of practice with specific reference to Tribal and Dalit Social Work • To learn aspects of practice with indigenous peoples Key words Indigenous peoples, struggles, perspectives, anti-oppressive practice, structural social work Introduction Module 16 and 26 deals with structural perspective to social work that locates the primacy of context, structures and processes in social work theory and practice. This perspective is based on sociology of structural change and offers a experiential view of the social world. Within this perspective we discuss emancipatory practice, which is aimed at addressing structural inequalities upon people’s lives. It adopts a processual methodology to understand structural relationships between state and people, individuals and society towards empowerment of marginalised sections of society. This approach in Social Work scholarship and practice at times is referred to a anti- oppressive practice, a social work response to struggles of ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, feminists etc. In order to establish a transparent link between social work practice and social justice through eradication of oppression, anti-oppressive practices aim to challenge structural power dynamics. In particular, it focuses on Indigenous & Decolonizing Social Work that that elucidates number of processes embedded in thought and practice concerning colonialism, oppression, sovereignty, self-determination as well as cultural rights. The concept of “decolonizing social work” therefore is seen as although not exclusively but majorly concerned with the rights of Indigenous Peoples, tribes/adivasis (Gray, Coates, Bird, & Hetherington, 2016). This module aims to highlight this and the importance of the structrual perspective in social work theory and practice, through the Lived Struggles of tribe/Adivasi in India Learners Objective 1. To understand the context and cultural practices of Tribes/Adivasi 2. To understand worldview and philosophies that define tribal societies and their struggle 3. To understand lived reality of tribes/adivasis for structural social work theory and practice Key Words: Tribal soceity, Adivasi, worldview, struggles, social work, survival politics, cultural rights, customary practices. In the worldviews of tribes/Adivasis and indigenous peoples, life and world around is realised through a struggle. Existence itself is a struggle that precedes all things. It is a struggle to live within their land, worldviews and cultures. It is a struggle to occupy a point of view without being assimilated or displaced. Every activity of their lives is part of this struggle. It manifests in their daily lives; cultural process, livelihood, worldviews, beliefs, and aspirations. This worldview defines the very principle that upholds a social reality. 1. Conceptualization of Tribal/Adivasi Society In social science literature concerning tribes, it is observed that structural approach on understanding tribes/Adivasi picked up momentum in 1940s when status societies, clan societies were identified as different from the social contract societies. In fact, then, tribes were identified as political and cultural entities often referred to as having segmented social structures. Although, still within the uni-linear evolutionary approach, segmented societies (acephalous in nature) were then not considered as anachronism but the main. The construct of tribal societies as segmented was further enhanced in 1960s through social theory of change and dynamicity. Dynamic theory of social structure propagated an understanding of tribal societies as not fixed, taking a theoretical break from the elementalist approach that objectifies tribes. In fact, emphasis was made that dynamicity of their social structure was a necessary condition against hegemony of contract based state societies. The dynamic nature of their social structure could protect them from exploitation, displacement and assimilation. However, understanding arrived then being still within evolutionary perspective could not stand the critique of historiography. Question was raised on the process of differentiating between the stages of civilization such as band, tribe, chieftainship and state. In particular, the problem of differentiating stages between tribe and chieftainship was emphasised. This evolutionary stage of classification further gave rise to understanding of tribes both as a) stage in civilization and b) a type of society. In particular, there were theoretical discussions on tribes and Adivasis in relation to “tribes-in-transition”, “tribe-caste continuum”, “livelihood based” and “ecology based” in the Indian context. Besides, there emerged a critique of evolutionary approach of colonial ethnography paving way for understanding tribal societies from a historical approach. This gave primacy to time and space. In such theoretical backdrop, contextualisation and regional understanding came into picture. The emerging theoretical debate relied on the framework of relative ethnicity where social boundary became important site of study. In fact, in India, debate on tribe came to be closely linked to coexistence of caste and tribe, civilization and tribe. This framework opined that there is permeability of boundary, social interaction across tribes and others. It is argued that tribe and civilization are always coexisting in South Asian context. At this time, in the background of the nation state building process in India three perspectives on understanding tribes emerged; assimilation, isolation and integration. One observes that the approach to assimilate culturally and politically was made a policy strategy for peninsular region. While in the north east, ground reality oriented only a strategy of political assimilation, which generally is understood as integration approach. However, these formulations are pitched in the backdrop of categorization process of state expressed in census surveys where several categories have been used to refer to tribes in Indian context such as; 1. Forest Tribe in 1891 census 2. Animist as added in 1901 3. Hill Tribes in 1921 3. Primitive tribes in 1931 In the Constitution, they came to be categorised as Scheduled Tribes. According to Census 2011, Scheduled Tribes constitute 8.6% (104 million) of the total population in India. Around 83% of them belong to the Eastern, Central and Western belt of our country. Around 12 percent inhabit in north-eastern states. However, the academic debates regarding tribes did not end with the Constitutional recognition of scheduled tribes or scheduling of tribal areas. In fact, in 1990s, this became more intense in which the concept such as Adivasi, indigenous, ethnicity, nation and nationalities were used to refer to the reality of tribes. Further, the recent empirical analysis indicates issues and problems faced by tribes in the state described as process of social exclusion. Towards this, the latest government High committee report, 2014, apart from giving detailed picture of tribal reality, indicates a situation of adverse inclusion when especially viewed from a political economy of development. 2. Worldview of Tribe/Adivasi In the cosmology of tribes, there is an intrinsic relationship between earth, people, economy, social and political. It is a holistic worldview. Human beings are therefore fundamental part of the natural world. The ecosystem and the social structure are congruent. The social is the natural. The law of nature shapes cultural processes and manifests itself in variegated biodiversity. Every aspect of life and human culture is nit closely with ecology, cosmocentric in nature. Earth is considered as source of life. The clan totems, rituals and cultural festivals reflect this lifeworld. Human society is embedded in cosmology and provides a vital base to a way of life, specific and meaningful to lived experience. This understanding posits an embedded philosophy of human beings, culture and ecosystem. As seen in history, this society came into contact with colonial epistemology in the event leading to nation-state formation predominantly shaped by a civilization project and possibly having an extended manifestation in the post colonial state context. This circumstance reoriented the process of change and transformation affecting tribal societies. In fact, this event necessitated the primacy of a critical theoretical disengagement for any meaningful academic attempt to significantly foreground the foundational nature of ecology. It makes a defence of the human right, democratic, civil and political rights anchored in the framework of egalitarian society, democracy, consensus and progress. However, right often comes within the purview of the economics which shapes a concept of a nation-state and citizenship which excludes certain section of the society and could hamper a progressive change. Given below are some important features of the worldview of tribes/Adivasi; i) In Harmony with Nature Tribes are very close to nature and its environment. Tribal life revolts around different seasons and different festivals and reflects closeness to nature. For example,