B. Devi Prasad
Introduction
Sociological writing is an art, but its path is full of difficulties and challenges. Novices in the field spend a lot of their time looking for tips for the writing, and narratives of personal experiences of writers to understand the process. The confessions of authors regarding the peculiar habits and intimate details of their writing process in a seminar class on wring by Howard Becker reveals the need for straightforward experiential accounts by writers (2007, pp.1–25). Such accounts are immensely useful for both new entrants and seasoned writers as well. Most social scientists wrote about how research is done. But how writing is one and its nitty gritty details also need attention. In this article, some of these challenges are addressed.
How I write?
For me a piece of writing always begins as a small thought, an idea, or a feeling. Usually, it occurs to me (it may be different for others) while taking a morning walk, or attending to my morning routines in the bathroom, or reading an absorbing book, or sitting quietly in a favourite place of mine.
Once the idea surfaces, it gathers a few words around it to become a sentence, a question, a provocative statement, or simply a tentative title. I jot it down in a notebook by capturing a few more thoughts hovering around the question or title. It may turn out to be either a few sentences or one or two paragraphs. It may also include titles of books that I have read or bring back an idea that caught my attention longtime back and was still there at the back of my mind. It is an interesting process. There will be restlessness, excitement, with a passionate engagement in terms of brooding and reading.
To track this process, I religiously kept a journal by noting down whatever that came to my mind during the period. I must confess here that I was immensely benefitted by the journal keeping idea. I learnt about this practice from reading ‘On Intellectual craftmanship’ in C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination (1959) and Somerset Maugham’s A writer’s notebook (1949). Both used different formats but the purpose was the same — keeping track of the progress of the writer’s ideas and experiences. Let me start with two of my recent examples.
When the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic, people were forced to stay in their homes during lockdown for months. Most of India’s 1.3 billion population were pushed into home isolation due to the lockdown during which as a result of the closure of offices, schools, and factories, young and old went back to their native places and parental homes. Prolonged quarantines forced them to spend time with parents, grandparents, siblings, extended relatives and even with pets in the house. Such a historical situation led me to ask the question: what is the impact of this unprecedented stay at home situation on the household interactions with-in the families? Did it strengthen their bonds and gave them space for contemplation or created more conflict and dissension between members of family? These questions led me to the study of impact of the first lockdown on the middle-class urban households in India with interesting results. The results were published in the Economic and Political weekly under the title — The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on intra-household interactions in India (Devi Prasad, Rao, Thusoo, and Inamdar, 2022). Simultaneously, another question of mine led to an investigation about the role of professional social work in India. The question was: What is the response of professional social work in India during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially during its second wave? The results were published by NAPSWI — India under the title: Professional social work response to COVID — 19 affected families in India — Facilitating services and building awareness during the second wave (Devi Prasad, Keshri, and Deshwal, 2022). I can give many such examples, but these two recent ones would suffice.
After I put down my thoughts around an idea or a topic, I begin working on it. In a considerable number of instances, the possibility is that the idea will stop kicking around and fizzle out at this stage itself. There were many such ideas that I could not pursue to their completion.
Those topics that I could work toward completion, though a few, took a lot of time — usually 1 to 2 years or more in some cases. It will involve months and years of intense work — reading, collecting data, writing, and finalisation. Though the effort was intense and full of twists and turns, I enjoyed the process immensely and never regretted.
Now, let me talk about the topics which I could pursue successfully till the end.
In these cases, generally I do a quick reading or if it is a current issue — ask my colleagues or students to share their thoughts about the topic. It was at this stage that I chose some of them as my co-investigators. Most of them jumped enthusiastically into the wagon on my request.
Having done this preliminary sounding, I then begin in earnest to work on the topic. At this point, for crystallisation of my thoughts, of interrelationships of concepts within the topic — I frequently used conceptual diagrams. I started using the diagrams probably after 2000s. Previously, I used to take elaborate notes in a notebook, arrange the ideas in some order begore beginning a more logical exploration of the ideas.
Post 2000s, the conceptual diagram method proved to be a very beneficial tool in developing, if it is a formal research article, objectives or research questions, in ascertaining relevant variables for study and their relationships, and in identifying areas of literature to be looked at. At a later stage, the diagram was also helpful in preparing tables or data displays from the data and in logically setting out my arguments for interpreting results and drawing conclusions. The simple diagrams I worked on would become more detailed and more refined as the study progressed. Often, it may be more than one diagram. Thus, the diagram (s) held through — throughout the research process — and gave me direction and focus.
I was never tired of drawing them when needed or work on them to perfection. Some of my co investigators were bewildered by them, could not understand my obsession with them, though a few could see some usefulness in them. Mostly they were oblivious to my conceptual diagrams, I shall admit.
I need to mention another dimension of my experience here. It is about how I experience the journey through the investigation. Once I start working on the topic, I start thinking about it day in and day out. It will be simmering in the back of my mind, and I keep on meditating over its meaning, relationship with other concepts, its larger context, and the other concepts that I may need to read to understand the topic better. I would feel feverish, and it would be like a possession that had come over me. While eating, sleeping, walking, or talking — I would be in that mood. That was the reason why while I work on one idea, I was incapable of working simultaneously on another creative writing project however small it may be. It is only after I come out of it that I would be able to pay attention to the next.
My co-investigators/coauthors were/are mostly my students and scholars and less frequently my colleagues. My experiences with this arrangement are mixed. Let me be brief. In most cases, I collaborated with them to challenge my arguments, supplement my ideas, and used them as a sounding board for the investigation during the journey. I genuinely looked forward to seeking their observations and never asked for their acceptance of my ideas just because I am their teacher or their colleague either senior or junior. I always took this position seriously and have ruthlessly defended it. As for my scholars and students, I have taken a lot from them. I depended on them to do the preparatory work — such as corresponding, feeding data into SPSS or Excel or other program, preparing and refining tables after my data analysis, and carrying out corrections. When they were attending to this work, I had time to read, think, and prepare the arguments for the paper. During the effort, we used to subject the different components of the paper — review of literature, methodology, sampling, analysis, and interpretation — to our critical scrutiny and thinking. These collaborations were mutually beneficial. For students it was apprenticeship in putting to practice what they learned in the classroom. They were learning about SPSS, Atlas ti, questionnaire development, identifying samples, corresponding with respondents, journal editors and so on.
As a matter of fact, this part of collaborative journey has been tough and needed a great deal of mutual respect, democratic sharing (not piggybacking), challenging each other with respect and accepting each other’s differences gracefully, and if needed sticking to one’s ideas without compromising.
From this point of view, it is also a sensitive phase. It is during this phase that I fell apart from some of my co-investigators. There were differences of opinion about an idea, an argument, or an approach. Sometimes it was their lack of cooperation in the process of working to the point of piggybacking me or a co-investigator. During such instances, I had to take a decision of moving out or dropping them from the project. Sometimes it was painful, but it was needed. Whatever it was, I have taken precautions to acknowledge their work done thus far at the end of the journey in terms of mentioning it in the article. In most of the cases, the collaborations were fruitful and led to more enduring, rich, and respectful relationships.
To be politically right is one crucial challenge all writers face during their careers. Therefore, I must mention my position regarding this challenge. I found that trying to be politically correct was never in consonance with intellectual honesty. Oftentimes you would end up saying something to avoid controversy, or not to incur the displeasure of your colleagues, or to keep up a progressive and respectable appearance within your circles. A person may think that by doing a thing which is politically neutral or correct for the time being may assuage the discomfort caused to a group of people and is harmless. However, by not stating what is correct according to your conscience you are not only compromising yourself but also doing harm to the cause of truth. The latter is far more dangerous and impedes rigorous pursuit of truth even though it may immensely benefit one in the pursuit of recognition and respectability. I avoided trying to be politically right and I stood by the statement which was close to my conscience.
At the end of the day, after completing the investigation, and having found a source to publish the article, it was a pleasure seeing our work in print. After its publication, I usually go through the same once or twice and that was it. For a short while, my mind would be blank. A feeling of emptiness would engulf me. I would wander, have a binge of watching TV or run pending errands. It would take at least a week or two or even a few months before I settle for something new.
What I Wrote?
I have always seen myself as a failed fiction writer who somehow ended up a social science writer instead. Truly, I dreamt so passionately of becoming a great fiction writer. A non-conformist, radical and unique writer — someone like Chalam[i], Maupassant[ii], Chekhov[iii], or Flaubert[iv] — of that genre. I imagined that I should work to reach the top of Telugu literature. I am aware that I do not have such kind of stuff but that was my aspiration! I tried my hand at some stories and essays. I published 4–5 stories — they were in fact not stories but pungent and satirical commentaries on the state of Telugu literature at that time. Essays came out well but not that great. With that my experiments with Telugu writing ended.
As I was teaching social work and an avid reader of works in the areas of my interest, I thought I should devote my energies and passion to social science research and writing. While I wrote some essays on dowry, women’s property rights and so on in Telugu, the first published article of mine in English was on ‘Campaign against dowry practice’ (Devi Prasad, 1987) in the Social Welfare magazine published by Central Social Welfare Board (CSWB). It was followed by publications in the Indian Journal of Social Work brought out by Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.
Looking back, I can divide my writing career as passing through three stages: i) mostly descriptive, and non-critical studies, ii) exploratory and methodologically rigorous studies and iii) critical and non-conformist analytical studies. I have frequently used a versatile method — content analysis — in a considerable number of investigations and some of them stand apart as good exercises of the application of the method.
Of the articles that I published post 2014, some are worth reading. To mention a few, the article on the development of the field of family studies in India and the West; reflections on families of future; qualitative content analysis; and the Impact of COVID-19 on household interactions. I consider the last article, ‘Impact of COVID-19 on household interactions (Devi Prasad et al., 2022),’ as a unique and historically important study since it captured the impact of a 58-day lockdown on urban middle class family interactions. The study captured and did not shy away from reporting the rather positive and bonding impact that the lockdown had on these families when they were totally confined to the four walls of their house without having to do anything for most of the time.
One important thing I would like mention here is that by early 2000s, I started to see more clearly the domination of western concepts and knowledge in what I read and taught in social work and social science research. I had this feeling much before, even before I began my university studies. But I became more disturbed and concerned starting from 2000 and began reading works of authors with this focus in mind. Some of the scholars who guided my thinking during this phase were: I.P.Desai, A.M.Shah, Claude Alvares, Edward Said, Samir Amin, Syed Alatas, Ashish Nandy, S.H.Pathak, G.R. Banerjee, A.K. Ramanujan to mention a few. My interactions in Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Mumbai, Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA), and with some of my colleagues gave me an opportunity to delve further into the subject. Primarily, I could not only see the domination of western knowledge but also the undermining and discounting of the Indian knowledge systems and approaches. It may not be Indian only — sometimes it is Asian or of East. It is not only knowledge systems which were discredited but institutional systems and practices. The discrediting is done more subtly from the western scholars’ side which we accepted for a variety of reasons as progressive and final because of our colonial psyche, I told myself. And I decided that there shall be no compromise in locating and highlighting such discrepancies. I did this in some of my articles oftentimes to the discomfort of a few of my colleagues which I do not regret. Post 2000s is characterized by this struggle of mine in most of my writings.
In retrospect, I find that the research areas covered in my social science writings were diverse. They touched women’s studies, family studies, domestic violence especially dowry related violence, civil society, social capital, self-help groups, industrial pollution, Ageing, elder abuse, consumer awareness, media coverage of elections, manual scavenging, research methodology, social policy, social work education, COVID-19 pandemic and so on. Currently I am working on a very interesting set of projects — a content analysis of Chandamama, a popular children’s magazine of India, a sequel study of the impact of one year of stay at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic on household interactions, and editing of a book entitled ‘What is a social work lens?’. There are a few more articles in progress as well. I do not venture to summarize my work here which will be irrelevant to the current essay. Hence, one may look for the studies I mentioned so far and other studies in the Research gate website: www.researchgate.net/profile/Devi_Prasad9
Why I write?
Fame and money? I need not mention money as a reason as there was none for me in this form of writing. And writing for recognition was never my motive. I have not had chances of being recognised as a social science writer of a stature. Fortunately, there was also no need for me to pressure myself to publish to ascend in my academic career. It so happened that whatever I wrote was timely and came in for use to be submitted as part of my career requirement. So, I am a very modest person in this genre, that is, a writer.
Having set aside these mundane matters, let me explore the question ‘why I write,’ a little deeper.
To my mind, if writers sincerely consider stopping writing that does not add to the understanding of this world in any manner, it will contribute to greater good or at least leave the world less confused. The world was already flooded with millions of books in which writers have said something about everything under the sky. Then, why add one more book or an essay that does not lead anyone anywhere? So, whenever I was tempted to write, I asked myself the question: will it help someone to understand better anything of importance? I proceeded further only when the answer was in the affirmative. Of course, I am aware that every writer would think what he/she writes is worthwhile hence would see no reason not to write. That is a different subject of discussion which I do not want to indulge here. In fact, it was also my belief that, even if the answer was yes, it would be perfectly alright not to write.
Next, I consider writing as an exploration of truth, in the context of the subject areas of one’s interest. Description of reality is the first step to its understanding. Most writing in social sciences is an attempt to objectively document an idea or a phenomenon as far as possible. It may be about dowry as a marriage custom, families as social systems, content analysis as a method of research, elder abuse, the impact of the pandemic on families or the charm held by a magazine like Chandamama across generations.
I always strove to understand and document the phenomenon with as much objectivity as possible. All writings be it literary or social sciences pass through certain peer checks. They may be the reviewers, your colleague, or a critic. My work was not an exception. Additionally, I always took the help of my coauthors, students, and colleagues as my sounding board. I am grateful to them as they never failed me in giving their honest feedback. Therefore, the element of objectivity was taken care of to a great extent.
Lastly, writing is a form of expression of life. If you are living and have that profound excitement throbbing with in you, you will be the vessel manifesting that expression. As the great Telugu poet Bammera Potana (1450–1510) said:
పలికెడిది భాగవతమట, పలికించెడి వాడు రామ భద్రుండట
నే పలికిన భవహరమగునట, పలికెద వేరొండు గాథ పలుకగ నేలా?
“That which is spoken is the Bhagavatam and the one who made me speak this is Lord Rama. The result of chanting this (Bhagavatam) is ultimate Liberation of soul. So, let me sing it, since there is no other story better than this (Bhagavatam).”
In essence he said, “I am an instrument in the hands of God in authoring this work.”
I believe that a writer or an artist of any format should be able to constantly indulge in this self-introspective stance with all its humbling insights. Any activity, leave alone writing, shall flow from such awareness. Then only it can be an illuminating, enthralling and self-annihilating experience to the writer. Such writing is a blessing.
References
Becker, H.S. (2007). Writing for social scientists — How to start and finish your thesis, book, or article (2nd Edn). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Devi Prasad, B. (1987). Campaign against dowry: Women’s unity essential, Social Welfare, 34 (6), 8–9.
Devi Prasad, B., Keshri, A.K., and Deshwal, S. (2022). Professional social work response to COVID — 19 affected families in India — Facilitating services & building awareness during the second wave, New Delhi: National Association of Professional Social Workers in India (NAPSWI), napswi.org/pdf/SWR-COVID-19-BOOK-F.pdf
Devi Prasad, B., Rao, A.E., Thusoo, S., and Inamdar, V. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 lockdowns on intrahousehold interactions in India, Economic and Political Weekly, LVII (16): 43–50.
Maugham, S. (1949/2009). A Writer’s notebook. New York: Vintage International.
Mills, C. W. (1959). On intellectual craftmanship, In The Sociological imagination (pp. 195–226). New York: Oxford University Press.
[i] Gudipati Venkatachalam (1894–1979) was an Indian Telugu writer, feminist, and philosopher.
[ii] Guy de Maupassant (1850–1893) was a French writer and a celebrated master of the short story.
[iii] Anton Chekhov (1860–1904) was a Russian playwright and short story writer.
[iv] Gustave Flaubert (1821–1880) was a French novelist and a leading exponent of literary realism.