NUEVAS CONCEPCIONES DE LECTURA Y ESCRITURA

the oustees? If orders are not established according to wishes what were the limiting factors and can the problem be rectified? Do oustees have control over new borders?

Existing literature on home and orders It is evident from the Narmada literature that hill adivasi have their own socio and spatio-temporal orders, although not necessarily conceptualised in this way. The literature documents the greater freedoms enjoyed by Bhil women compared to women living in the plains (Hakim, 1997; Tata Institute o f Social Science, 1997; Centre for Social Studies, 1997). For instance they report that women oustees now have to retreat to the

privacy o f the house when they want to smoke as non-adivasi hosts frown upon women smoking. This is clearly evidence o f changing sociocultural orders o f the kind described by Dovey (1985).

Hakim (1995) and others have described the different agricultural cycle in the plains whereby work on the fields has to continue throughout the year, whereas in the hills there was a significant interval when adivasi could have parties, weddings and feasts and make trips to see relatives. These changes again point to the establishment o f new types o f temporal order.

During my preliminary field visit to Suka resettlement site oustees spoke o f how their children are taking up new opportunities. Rather than working on the fields they want to take up non-agricultural jobs and if they do so, clearly new social and spatio-temporal orders will be established. For example the times that people will be away from home will be dependent on the employer not the agricultural cycle and relations with householders may change if no longer working side by side on the family field. Perhaps the holdings at the vasahats are insufficient to meet the basic needs o f a family, requiring young people to search for alternative livelihoods or perhaps movement to mainstream culture has created or fuelled aspirations which cannot be fulfilled through agricultural production whether in the hills or in the plains. If the latter it may signal that some people find the existing orders restrictive. It is precisely because the home/hearth can be restrictive that Tuan (1996) advocates efforts to free people from their constraints as described in the following section.

3.5.4 Home and development

It is often the restrictive nature o f hearth that causes Tuan to advocate what he calls ‘high modernity'. The original project o f modernity was to liberate people from their traditional ties, their hearths, in order that they could enjoy being cosmopolitan. It was a belief that no-one need be locked into a place (whether that is a locality or a type o f occupation). The idea was to liberate groups from their fixed conditions. However over the last thirty years a counter-ideology has

developed, partly due to disillusionment with the enlightenment project. One element o f the attack on modernity tries to restore place as a locus o f human fulfilment. The relativist tendencies o f post-modernism have left us in a position where each group’s culture is valued and preserved. It does not, however, allow minorities or the underprivileged to jum p from their own patch into another’s if they wish to do so. Tuan (1996) believes that cultures deserve affection rather than idolatry as they are our first homes rather than our last. However, a balance needs to be struck between hearth and cosmos for although the cosmos can be liberating it can also be bewildering and threatening. This can be achieved by adopting ‘high m odernism ’, giving importance to both hearth and cosmos. At the moment only the elite in this world have both world and home. They can be cosmopolitan and still return to hearth for nurture and renewal when needed. Those adopting the high modernity approach seek to free others so that they too can have this privilege. However, there are others who denounce modernism ‘as a hegemonic ideology somehow linked to imperialism, that has trampled on the w orld’s diverse cultures, each o f which has been a nurturing hearth to a people’ (Tuan 1996: 179). Tuan believes this counter-ideology to modernity is unhelpful and its advocates are hypocritical when they themselves enjoy being cosmopolitan.

Although responding to a different group o f critics (western feminists). Young (1997), like Tuan, identifies the dual role o f home, both as oppressive (when it represents a longing for fixed identity) but also enabling (through its capacity to provide safety and security). Following bell hooks, she suggests ‘having a home is currently a privilege’ and that the values o f home should be democratized’ (Young 1997: 157). Similarly, Dovey (1985: 43) identifies the enabling role o f home for those enjoying it: ‘knowing that we have the power to remain in place and change it permits us to act upon and build our dream’. Thus for the development o f individuals in society it is important to find ways o f enabling people to simultaneously enjoy being at home and also be cosmopolitan.

Tuan (1996) describes how the concept o f community is at odds with the development o f cosmopolitanism. He describes how the concept o f community has its historical roots in toil and struggle; in scarcity and a narrow and ego­

centric conception o f mutual help; in social immobility and in indifference to the uniqueness o f the individual. Community develops from a common fight against an external other. This other can be nature, for example, such that even if people dislike each other they are forced to cooperate and form communal bonds to survive. Although reciprocity produces bonds it can become dangerously close to bondage.

Many close-knit groups project an outward air o f calm and mutual solicitousness [...] People stand by or lean on one another as houses do. Nevertheless, behind the walls we should not be surprised to find tragicomedies o f betrayal or lives stunted (Tuan 1996: 148).

Research questions on home and development

1) W hat is the impact of resettlement on tribal aspirations? What were/are