‘ECONOMIC INSTITUTIONS’ Having enunciated the principles of socialism to usher in a welfare state. Thiruvalluvar suggests that the ‘ends’ could be achieved by adopting the ‘means’ most appropriate for an agrarian economy.
Agriculture does indeed occupy a central place in the treatment of various subjects by Thiruvalluvar. While placing agriculture on a high pedestal, he considers it the queen among occupations.
Amidst all avocations, the world stands behind the plough
in spite of the difficulties, agriculture is still the chief. (104.1)
In the case of those who pursue agriculture as an occupation, he proclaims them as crusaders and sees them as harbingers of hope for the eradication of poverty.
Those who toil and earn their livelihood from lands
will not beg, but will freely give to those who beg. (104.5)
Besides agriculture proving itself to be a feeder industry on whose success depends the fortunes or otherwise of other avocations, agriculture is
seen as one which is capable of catapulting the
economy into soaring heights.
The farmers form the backbone of the society; for
they support those who are unable to till the land . (104.2)
Those are men who live, that plough the land
all the others go behind for food with folded hands. (104.3)
The farmers who bring rich harvests to their chief
will see the flags of other Chiefs, below theirs, creep. (104.4)
While agriculture holds the key to plenty, prosperity and progress, which are the essential ingredients to keep disorder at bay,
commerce cannot be said to have received a raw deal at the hands of Thiruvalluvar. Thiruvalluvar brings out the essentiality of capital formation for ensuring the success of business.
There is no income without capital; even so
there is no status without support proper. (45.9)
Thiruvalluvar suggests that businessmen should imbibe an egalitarian sense of dealing in
order to stay put in business. The relevancy of Thiruvalluvar’s wise counsel has to be seen in the context of today’s commercial activities which are in the cold grip of competition. Such competitions represent an indirect form of conflict and undermine social order.
The best interests of merchant are to act
taking care of other’s interests, as his, when he transacts.(12.10)
Though commerce is an integral part of the economy, commerce was not at its pinnacle of glory unlike its counterpart agriculture during the period when Thiruvalluvar lived. Notwithstanding the fact that commercial transactions were done mainly on an individual basis, the importance commerce assumes in shaping the economy has not failed to catch the prying eyes of Thiruvalluvar.
‘SOLIDARITY GROUPINGS’ It is social experience which is seen as engendering the self. Since ‘reality is a social construct’, a linkage could be established between social order and socialization when the notion ‘what is acceptable’ is taken up for consideration. Individuals’ conformity with practices accepted as proper behaviour patterns provides the answer to the question of social order. When conformity indicates the existence of social order, non-conformity or deviance spells chaos or disaster. Social order cannot be brought about unless
Individuals take over the meanings, values and
expectations of the social group with which they interact. It is precisely here that a relationship existing between social order and socialization could be discerned. While socialization involves transmission of behaviour patterns, proper performance of the role by the occupants becomes the determinant of social order. As roles and statuses are the obverse and reverse of the same coin, what is expected of each incumbent of a role needs to be taken cognizance of.
The ‘code of conduct’ which Thiruvalluvar enunciates is not only a ‘macro’ concept, but also could be brought down to a level meaningful to the individual. Though Emile Durkheim, considered to be one among the ‘sociological trinity’, was seen as arguing that social norms came to be internalized in the personality of individuals, Thiruvalluvar not only touches upon the aspect of ’internalization’, but besides speaking about what one has to ’internalize’, he exhorts that one should shun those practices which have been disapproved by the society.
There is no need to shave the head or grow a beard
if acts condemned by the world are spared. (28.10)
With courage of conviction, Thiruvalluvar says that one is certain to meet one’s end when one pursues the path that is ‘prohibited’ or allows oneself to be carried away by following what is ‘prescribed’.
Destruction will be the culmination
of the acts of commission and omission. (47.6)
Thiruvalluvar brings out the existence of a homology between the expectations and acceptance since performance of role obligations is guided by expectations and acceptance.
Do not enter into things that have no authority
and acceptance of the society. (47.10)
It is not only necessary for an individual to fall in line with societal expectations, but it is equally important for him to take stock of where lies his own strength as otherwise he is likely to pay the penalty for being unaware of his own capacity and capability.
He, who is not adjustable, nor aware of his strength
but always indulges in self-praise, will soon be wrecked. (48.4)
Having postulated among others, principles of acts considered ’prohibited’ and ’permitted’, Thiruvalluvar brings out the futility of knowledge, as according to him, its roots lie in what the society enjoins on the individuals as practices ’prescribed’ to be followed. The three ‘Ps’ of behaviour pattern, namely ‘prescribed’ ‘permitted’, and ‘prohibited’ have received elaborate treatment at the hands of Thiruvalluvar.
More summaries about the IMMORTAL TAMIL POET THIRUVALLUVAR ON SOCIAL ORDER: PART III