Beyond Civil Society: Understanding Politics in Most of the World
Social and political scientists have for long faced the challenge of how to apply concepts with Western derivations to the non-Western world. While earlier generations of scholars took for granted the universality of these concepts, in the past few years an increasing number of authors sought to decolonize Western political thoughts by re-examining the familiar concepts of social theory, such as civil society, citizenship and rights, etc. Among them, Partha Chatterjee develops a set of conceptual arguments to understand “the politics in most of the world”, and at the same time positions the arguments in a globalized context.
The issue here is twofold: first, to what extent do those former colonial or dependent countries follow the same path as their Western predecessors, or, can be understood and interpreted in that way? Second, how should relations between the government and the people be recognized if going beyond the framework of sovereign nation-state and seeing the globe as an “empire”? In the book The Politics of the Governed, or more precisely the seven interrelated but independent essays, Chatterjee attempted to provide his answers.
Ⅰ
The classical ideal of civic nationalism was extracted from the Western experiences during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The participation and deliberation of a limited number of entitled citizens, usually well-educated males, formed the civil society, and then the nation. That is how “the idea of popular sovereignty, expressed in the legal-political facts of equal citizenship, produced the homogeneous construct of the modern nation” (p.36). The later extension of citizenship and the emergence of mass democracy highlighted the empirical concept of “population”, which does not carry the ethic connotation of citizen, but makes available to the government as target of, in Foucault’s sense, “governmentality”.
The chronological sequence in “developing” countries is quite different, however. In the modern West, citizenship moved from the institution of civic rights in civil society to political rights in the fully developed nation-state where governmentality finally took over; while in those countries, governmentality predated nation-state and mass democracy anteceded modernization. It became awkward, therefore, to continue to adopt the term of “civil society” that contains the implication of equality, autonomy, deliberative procedures of decision-making, recognized rights and duties of members. One of the resolutions offered by some scholars is to revise the meaning of civil society to adapt to the non-Western scenarios. Chatterjee, in comparison, does not want to sacrifice the normative sense of civil society; instead, he chooses to retain the classical meaning of “civil society”, and develops a parallel conceptual line to depict the different political phenomena. It is here that grows Chatterjee’s central theme of “political society”, a terrain in which the heterogeneous population groups connect with government agencies pursuing multiple policies of security and welfare.
Political society includes individuals and groups that are historically marginalized by the rules of civil society, who make claims based on a governmental relationship with the state, not based on their rights as citizens. Here Chatterjee builds his argument on Michael Foucault’s “governmentality”. Government classifies, surveys and controls population, and in this sense, “government is a question not of imposing law on them, but of disposing things; that is to say, of employing tactics rather than laws” to cater to the needs of a particular population group.
Still the concept of “political society” deviates from Foucault’s “governmentality” in two lines. First, by “governmentality” Foucault refers to the whole development process from the sixteenth century, mostly in Western countries, of the administrative apparatus that overlaps with the realm of civil society and civic rights. In contrast, Chatterjee underlines a sphere other than civil society, i.e. the “political society”, where the population channels their particular demands for governmental policies and welfare benefits. Second, while “governmentality” focuses on the role of the government, and the ruled, etc, Chatterjee emphasizes the interaction between the electoral mobilization and the government agencies, taking the form of contestation and negotiation. The mass (e.g. residents in slums) organize into an identifiable group to articulate their demands, often paralegal, and promise electoral support to government representatives. Thus “multiple and flexible policies were put into operation, producing multiple and strategic responses from population groups seeking to adapt to, cope with, or make use of these policies”. (p.137) When “government is the right disposition of things” as Foucault argues, the population is also in need of mediators to “apply the right pressure at the right place in the governmental machinery”, i.e. “mediate between those who govern and those who are governed”. (p.66)
In an earlier work, Chatterjee once summarizes four features of political society in post-colonial democracies: First, many of the mobilizations in political society which make demands on the state are founded on a violation of the law. Second, even as they appear before the state as violators of the law, they demand governmental welfare as a matter of “right”. Third, even as welfare functions are demanded as a right, these rights are seen to be collective, not individual, rights. Finally, the agencies of the state and of non-governmental organizations deal with these people not as bodies of citizens belonging to a lawfully constituted civil society, but as population groups deserving welfare . These arguments are further developed in The Politics of the Governed via a number of examples in India, and mainly West Bengal where Chatterjee lives for years.
These cases also indicate how the problem of modernization in India is located in the representative democracy. From colonial times, a group of elites seek to conduct transformative projects that would change the traditional beliefs and institutions, in order to build India into a modern nation; still, competing appeals and practices have always been there, whether from intellectuals, politicians, or the mass, that minorities and villages should have the right to preserve their culture identities. Hence, the ongoing or “unfinished” project of modernization and secularization are set in the democratic system. Religious and ethnic groups utilize the democratic tools, mobilizing the electoral population to express their wills through parties, social movements or non-party political formation in the nebulous zone of political society, “often a zone of paralegal practices, opposed to the civic norms of proper citizenship…yet there are attempts to devise new norms of fairness and justice in making available the welfare and developmental functions of government to large sections of underprivileged people”, the poor and the minorities included (p.128).
The different chronological sequences in “developing” countries facilitate the following transition: legitimacy is no longer secured by the open deliberative participation of citizens, but by appropriate policies to maintain economic growth and to promise wellbeing to the population. The independence of former colonial countries corresponds with the expansion of welfare state in Western countries, thus in those countries, governmentality expanded even before the ideals of republican citizenship have ever been realized. Unlike the normative discourse of civil society, Chatterjee recognized “political society” as a sphere where “more real, rather than the merely formal, struggles take place over distribution of rights”, and that is exactly the place where to “discern the shifting historical horizons to political modernity in most of the world.”(p.75)
Chatterjee does not see any need turning the population to “proper citizens” in order to observe the “fictive ideals of civil society”. Rather, he lays great emphasis on democracy. “A conflict that lies at the heart of modern politics in most of the world,” contends Chatterjee in the first chapter, “is the opposition between the universal ideals of civic nationalism, based on individual freedoms and equal rights irrespective of distinctions of religion, race, language, or culture, and the particular demands of cultural identity, which call for the differential treatment of particular groups on grounds of vulnerability or backwardness or historical injustice, or indeed for numerous other reasons.”(p.4) This accords the “political society” with wider implications that lies Chatterjee’s modest vision of modern politics, both locally and globally.
Ⅱ
What’s new about the current process of globalization? In the second part of the book, Chatterjee recognizes the globalization today as “the expanding of the international financial market…with the dominance of a few major institutions…the decentralization of manufacturing…and the centralization of control and profit earning”. (p. 87 ~ p.90) His concern became more salient when he turns to its effect on Indian cities from 1990s. Inspired by Sassen’s The Global City, he states that “the new metropolis will belong to the managerial and technocratic elite…the elite will form its own exclusive community…” and consequently “the new metropolis will be a place of new social disparities”. (p.144)
Following the Foucauldian tradition, Chatterjee intends to disclose the power relations hidden in the global order, or more exactly, the global civil society. In Chatterjee’s framework derived from Indian experiences, the actual exclusiveness of civil society is responded by the concept of “political society”, which may be filled with conflicts and the instrumental settlements, involving “the bending and stretching of rules, because the existing procedures have historically worked to exclude or marginalize them (p.66).” The state deals with the situation by “dual strategy”: “on the one hand, continue to be affirmed and protected within the legally constructed domain of civil society; on the other hand, rearrange or supplement on the contingent terrain of political society”(p.74), which is, governmentality.
The “dual strategy” is grounded on real-life context. Within the Western countries, the “normative equilibrium of civil society and state…is disturbed by the new immigrants of the past few decades”, who are beneficiaries of governmental welfare, but not necessarily, citizens . Apparently, what Chatterjee implies is that the strategy could be extended to the new global “empire”: assuming the existence of universal civil society and “governing” the globe with flexible capital that can adjust itself to conjunctural and local situations. However, the “governmentality”, alongside with the political society, has never been acknowledged. “It is morally illegitimate to uphold the universal ideals…without simultaneously demanding the politics spawned by governmentality as a equally legitimate part of modern political life” (p.25), otherwise governmental technologies will continue to proliferate with the global capitalist order, in the name of global civil society, inheriting the internal inequalities of power.
What Chatterjee wants to stress by different chronological sequence, or in his words, “the heterogeneous time”, is the confrontation between civil society/modernity and political society/democracy . Today lots of scholars and social activists applaud the emergence of global civil society together with the global modernity. Chatterjee’s underlying attitude toward them is clear: just as the resistance encountered by Indian modernization project and the problem facing Western countries’ attempt to reserve civic nationalism, promoting global civil society, an ideal not shared by all, is both morally undemocratic and pragmatically unrealistic.
This is the contrary serving as the driving force of politics in many non-Western countries as well as operating at the very heart of Western nation-states and liberal democracies, and in Chatterjee’s sense, could be rendered on a global scope. The solution Chatterjee proposes is democracy in the realm of political society. Given the historically entrenched inequalities and the recently modernized countries that compose the “most of the world”, it is substantially important to acknowledge the newly raised claims, though violating the universal “modern” conventions of civil society, and the terrain in which governmentality deals with and interacts with those claims, i.e. the political society. Instrumental and temporal as they are, the new form of democratic institutions and practices is the only way to mediate among the nation-state, the civil society, the government and the population. This would be “the politics of the governed”—in a world of governmentality instead of people sovereignty, people in most of the world “are devising new ways in which they can choose how they should be governed…and are learning, and forcing their governors to learn, how thy would prefer to be governed”. (p.78 ~ p.79)
Ⅲ
Chatterjee’s concept of “political society” encompasses two sides of his contribution: the understanding of the current political life and the vision of its future.
New circumstances emerge in developmental states as well as Western countries, firmly intertwined with the context of globalization which introduces inquiries on “crisis of sovereign nation-state” –these are the phenomena that nearly all the scholars discern, and they strive to invent new ideas and conceptions to modify or replace the classic political notion of civil society and state. Among these alternative accounts Chatterjee offers a convincing one. He seeks to acknowledge the newly recruited members of the political sphere and their activities of paralegal contestation and negotiation with the state, echoing with Foucault’s concept of “governmentality”. In the book, the concept of “civil society”, whose predicaments in contemporary society are successfully revealed by Chatterjee, is supplemented, with its normative ideals remaining, by the notion of “political society” which grasps the hurly-burly of today’s politics and the transformative effect through expanding freedoms of marginalized peoples, combining to form a broad picture of modern political life.
It would be interesting to contemplate whether the concept of “political society” is applicable to other “developing” countries, namely, China. In my conjecture the answer is positive. On the founding of the communist regime, populations are classified into several categories: workers, peasants, intellectuals and army-men, and thus governed by different social and economic policies. Rather than strictly conforming to the established laws, the ruling groups underscore the necessity to respond to particular needs of people, which some scholars conceptualize as “principled particularism” . In the long-term interaction between the government and the people there emerges an entire set of paralegal arrangements that binds people’s practices in the political sphere in reality. Of course, though, more explorations are needed on this conjecture.
Chatterjee puts forward his framework in a quite cautious manner. Although he advances an ambitious claim: to understand the politics in “most of the world” through conceptual arguments according to observations of Indian experiences that he believes can be universalized, he is prudent and careful in applying the notion to scenarios outside India, no matter Western countries, other “developing” states or the globe. This, actually, makes his argument kind of obscure.
As a matter of fact, this copy is close to a collection of essays that write down his thoughts and feelings on the issue of civil society / state and global / local. Therefore, the concept of “political society” is largely hermeneutic, far from being developed into a convincing logical inference. He also does not conduct dialogue with other literature on civil society，which may include modification and refutation, whether theoretically or empirically, to the classical account of civil society as well. For this reason, it becomes difficult to identify his own contribution within a larger framework.
His cautious manner and the concomitant under-theorization of the concept “political society” lead to another consequence: the dark side of political society is less talked about, causing his “vision” of future political life, if we say in this way, vulnerable to questioning. He only states that we need to “recognize political society as a legitimate part”, but mentions little about what problems will come forth after the recognition. Specific to India, he evades the issue of communal violence which is obviously pertinent to political society. If seen in a wider scope, he also does not cope with the possible political disorder or governance failure that are closely related to the realm of political society. Nor does he discuss how the political society could “renew itself” (p.66) and avoid growing into another oppressive power structure.
References:
Michael Foucault, Governmentality, in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller, ed., The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Partha Chatterjee, On Civil and Political Societies in Post-Colonial Democracies, in Civil Society: History and Possibilities, Sudipta Kaviraj, Sunil Khilnani, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Partha Chatterjee, Beyond the Nation? Or Within? , Social Text, No. 56 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 57-69
The issue here is twofold: first, to what extent do those former colonial or dependent countries follow the same path as their Western predecessors, or, can be understood and interpreted in that way? Second, how should relations between the government and the people be recognized if going beyond the framework of sovereign nation-state and seeing the globe as an “empire”? In the book The Politics of the Governed, or more precisely the seven interrelated but independent essays, Chatterjee attempted to provide his answers.
Ⅰ
The classical ideal of civic nationalism was extracted from the Western experiences during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The participation and deliberation of a limited number of entitled citizens, usually well-educated males, formed the civil society, and then the nation. That is how “the idea of popular sovereignty, expressed in the legal-political facts of equal citizenship, produced the homogeneous construct of the modern nation” (p.36). The later extension of citizenship and the emergence of mass democracy highlighted the empirical concept of “population”, which does not carry the ethic connotation of citizen, but makes available to the government as target of, in Foucault’s sense, “governmentality”.
The chronological sequence in “developing” countries is quite different, however. In the modern West, citizenship moved from the institution of civic rights in civil society to political rights in the fully developed nation-state where governmentality finally took over; while in those countries, governmentality predated nation-state and mass democracy anteceded modernization. It became awkward, therefore, to continue to adopt the term of “civil society” that contains the implication of equality, autonomy, deliberative procedures of decision-making, recognized rights and duties of members. One of the resolutions offered by some scholars is to revise the meaning of civil society to adapt to the non-Western scenarios. Chatterjee, in comparison, does not want to sacrifice the normative sense of civil society; instead, he chooses to retain the classical meaning of “civil society”, and develops a parallel conceptual line to depict the different political phenomena. It is here that grows Chatterjee’s central theme of “political society”, a terrain in which the heterogeneous population groups connect with government agencies pursuing multiple policies of security and welfare.
Political society includes individuals and groups that are historically marginalized by the rules of civil society, who make claims based on a governmental relationship with the state, not based on their rights as citizens. Here Chatterjee builds his argument on Michael Foucault’s “governmentality”. Government classifies, surveys and controls population, and in this sense, “government is a question not of imposing law on them, but of disposing things; that is to say, of employing tactics rather than laws” to cater to the needs of a particular population group.
Still the concept of “political society” deviates from Foucault’s “governmentality” in two lines. First, by “governmentality” Foucault refers to the whole development process from the sixteenth century, mostly in Western countries, of the administrative apparatus that overlaps with the realm of civil society and civic rights. In contrast, Chatterjee underlines a sphere other than civil society, i.e. the “political society”, where the population channels their particular demands for governmental policies and welfare benefits. Second, while “governmentality” focuses on the role of the government, and the ruled, etc, Chatterjee emphasizes the interaction between the electoral mobilization and the government agencies, taking the form of contestation and negotiation. The mass (e.g. residents in slums) organize into an identifiable group to articulate their demands, often paralegal, and promise electoral support to government representatives. Thus “multiple and flexible policies were put into operation, producing multiple and strategic responses from population groups seeking to adapt to, cope with, or make use of these policies”. (p.137) When “government is the right disposition of things” as Foucault argues, the population is also in need of mediators to “apply the right pressure at the right place in the governmental machinery”, i.e. “mediate between those who govern and those who are governed”. (p.66)
In an earlier work, Chatterjee once summarizes four features of political society in post-colonial democracies: First, many of the mobilizations in political society which make demands on the state are founded on a violation of the law. Second, even as they appear before the state as violators of the law, they demand governmental welfare as a matter of “right”. Third, even as welfare functions are demanded as a right, these rights are seen to be collective, not individual, rights. Finally, the agencies of the state and of non-governmental organizations deal with these people not as bodies of citizens belonging to a lawfully constituted civil society, but as population groups deserving welfare . These arguments are further developed in The Politics of the Governed via a number of examples in India, and mainly West Bengal where Chatterjee lives for years.
These cases also indicate how the problem of modernization in India is located in the representative democracy. From colonial times, a group of elites seek to conduct transformative projects that would change the traditional beliefs and institutions, in order to build India into a modern nation; still, competing appeals and practices have always been there, whether from intellectuals, politicians, or the mass, that minorities and villages should have the right to preserve their culture identities. Hence, the ongoing or “unfinished” project of modernization and secularization are set in the democratic system. Religious and ethnic groups utilize the democratic tools, mobilizing the electoral population to express their wills through parties, social movements or non-party political formation in the nebulous zone of political society, “often a zone of paralegal practices, opposed to the civic norms of proper citizenship…yet there are attempts to devise new norms of fairness and justice in making available the welfare and developmental functions of government to large sections of underprivileged people”, the poor and the minorities included (p.128).
The different chronological sequences in “developing” countries facilitate the following transition: legitimacy is no longer secured by the open deliberative participation of citizens, but by appropriate policies to maintain economic growth and to promise wellbeing to the population. The independence of former colonial countries corresponds with the expansion of welfare state in Western countries, thus in those countries, governmentality expanded even before the ideals of republican citizenship have ever been realized. Unlike the normative discourse of civil society, Chatterjee recognized “political society” as a sphere where “more real, rather than the merely formal, struggles take place over distribution of rights”, and that is exactly the place where to “discern the shifting historical horizons to political modernity in most of the world.”(p.75)
Chatterjee does not see any need turning the population to “proper citizens” in order to observe the “fictive ideals of civil society”. Rather, he lays great emphasis on democracy. “A conflict that lies at the heart of modern politics in most of the world,” contends Chatterjee in the first chapter, “is the opposition between the universal ideals of civic nationalism, based on individual freedoms and equal rights irrespective of distinctions of religion, race, language, or culture, and the particular demands of cultural identity, which call for the differential treatment of particular groups on grounds of vulnerability or backwardness or historical injustice, or indeed for numerous other reasons.”(p.4) This accords the “political society” with wider implications that lies Chatterjee’s modest vision of modern politics, both locally and globally.
Ⅱ
What’s new about the current process of globalization? In the second part of the book, Chatterjee recognizes the globalization today as “the expanding of the international financial market…with the dominance of a few major institutions…the decentralization of manufacturing…and the centralization of control and profit earning”. (p. 87 ~ p.90) His concern became more salient when he turns to its effect on Indian cities from 1990s. Inspired by Sassen’s The Global City, he states that “the new metropolis will belong to the managerial and technocratic elite…the elite will form its own exclusive community…” and consequently “the new metropolis will be a place of new social disparities”. (p.144)
Following the Foucauldian tradition, Chatterjee intends to disclose the power relations hidden in the global order, or more exactly, the global civil society. In Chatterjee’s framework derived from Indian experiences, the actual exclusiveness of civil society is responded by the concept of “political society”, which may be filled with conflicts and the instrumental settlements, involving “the bending and stretching of rules, because the existing procedures have historically worked to exclude or marginalize them (p.66).” The state deals with the situation by “dual strategy”: “on the one hand, continue to be affirmed and protected within the legally constructed domain of civil society; on the other hand, rearrange or supplement on the contingent terrain of political society”(p.74), which is, governmentality.
The “dual strategy” is grounded on real-life context. Within the Western countries, the “normative equilibrium of civil society and state…is disturbed by the new immigrants of the past few decades”, who are beneficiaries of governmental welfare, but not necessarily, citizens . Apparently, what Chatterjee implies is that the strategy could be extended to the new global “empire”: assuming the existence of universal civil society and “governing” the globe with flexible capital that can adjust itself to conjunctural and local situations. However, the “governmentality”, alongside with the political society, has never been acknowledged. “It is morally illegitimate to uphold the universal ideals…without simultaneously demanding the politics spawned by governmentality as a equally legitimate part of modern political life” (p.25), otherwise governmental technologies will continue to proliferate with the global capitalist order, in the name of global civil society, inheriting the internal inequalities of power.
What Chatterjee wants to stress by different chronological sequence, or in his words, “the heterogeneous time”, is the confrontation between civil society/modernity and political society/democracy . Today lots of scholars and social activists applaud the emergence of global civil society together with the global modernity. Chatterjee’s underlying attitude toward them is clear: just as the resistance encountered by Indian modernization project and the problem facing Western countries’ attempt to reserve civic nationalism, promoting global civil society, an ideal not shared by all, is both morally undemocratic and pragmatically unrealistic.
This is the contrary serving as the driving force of politics in many non-Western countries as well as operating at the very heart of Western nation-states and liberal democracies, and in Chatterjee’s sense, could be rendered on a global scope. The solution Chatterjee proposes is democracy in the realm of political society. Given the historically entrenched inequalities and the recently modernized countries that compose the “most of the world”, it is substantially important to acknowledge the newly raised claims, though violating the universal “modern” conventions of civil society, and the terrain in which governmentality deals with and interacts with those claims, i.e. the political society. Instrumental and temporal as they are, the new form of democratic institutions and practices is the only way to mediate among the nation-state, the civil society, the government and the population. This would be “the politics of the governed”—in a world of governmentality instead of people sovereignty, people in most of the world “are devising new ways in which they can choose how they should be governed…and are learning, and forcing their governors to learn, how thy would prefer to be governed”. (p.78 ~ p.79)
Ⅲ
Chatterjee’s concept of “political society” encompasses two sides of his contribution: the understanding of the current political life and the vision of its future.
New circumstances emerge in developmental states as well as Western countries, firmly intertwined with the context of globalization which introduces inquiries on “crisis of sovereign nation-state” –these are the phenomena that nearly all the scholars discern, and they strive to invent new ideas and conceptions to modify or replace the classic political notion of civil society and state. Among these alternative accounts Chatterjee offers a convincing one. He seeks to acknowledge the newly recruited members of the political sphere and their activities of paralegal contestation and negotiation with the state, echoing with Foucault’s concept of “governmentality”. In the book, the concept of “civil society”, whose predicaments in contemporary society are successfully revealed by Chatterjee, is supplemented, with its normative ideals remaining, by the notion of “political society” which grasps the hurly-burly of today’s politics and the transformative effect through expanding freedoms of marginalized peoples, combining to form a broad picture of modern political life.
It would be interesting to contemplate whether the concept of “political society” is applicable to other “developing” countries, namely, China. In my conjecture the answer is positive. On the founding of the communist regime, populations are classified into several categories: workers, peasants, intellectuals and army-men, and thus governed by different social and economic policies. Rather than strictly conforming to the established laws, the ruling groups underscore the necessity to respond to particular needs of people, which some scholars conceptualize as “principled particularism” . In the long-term interaction between the government and the people there emerges an entire set of paralegal arrangements that binds people’s practices in the political sphere in reality. Of course, though, more explorations are needed on this conjecture.
Chatterjee puts forward his framework in a quite cautious manner. Although he advances an ambitious claim: to understand the politics in “most of the world” through conceptual arguments according to observations of Indian experiences that he believes can be universalized, he is prudent and careful in applying the notion to scenarios outside India, no matter Western countries, other “developing” states or the globe. This, actually, makes his argument kind of obscure.
As a matter of fact, this copy is close to a collection of essays that write down his thoughts and feelings on the issue of civil society / state and global / local. Therefore, the concept of “political society” is largely hermeneutic, far from being developed into a convincing logical inference. He also does not conduct dialogue with other literature on civil society，which may include modification and refutation, whether theoretically or empirically, to the classical account of civil society as well. For this reason, it becomes difficult to identify his own contribution within a larger framework.
His cautious manner and the concomitant under-theorization of the concept “political society” lead to another consequence: the dark side of political society is less talked about, causing his “vision” of future political life, if we say in this way, vulnerable to questioning. He only states that we need to “recognize political society as a legitimate part”, but mentions little about what problems will come forth after the recognition. Specific to India, he evades the issue of communal violence which is obviously pertinent to political society. If seen in a wider scope, he also does not cope with the possible political disorder or governance failure that are closely related to the realm of political society. Nor does he discuss how the political society could “renew itself” (p.66) and avoid growing into another oppressive power structure.
References:
Michael Foucault, Governmentality, in The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality, Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon and Peter Miller, ed., The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Partha Chatterjee, On Civil and Political Societies in Post-Colonial Democracies, in Civil Society: History and Possibilities, Sudipta Kaviraj, Sunil Khilnani, ed., Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Partha Chatterjee, Beyond the Nation? Or Within? , Social Text, No. 56 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 57-69
有关键情节透露
- 作者: Partha Chatterjee
- 出版: Columbia University Press
- 定价: GBP 17.50
- 装帧: Paperback
- 页数: 200
- 时间: 2006-12-6