• 042-35941921, 0316-4402724
  • info@kipscss.net


  • Nov, 2017
  • 227
  • Literature

A Comparative Analysis

The novel is about the confusion and bewilderment on part of the Muslims at all these changes. This is a story of a nation that once has been apple of world's eye but here comes a time when it is languishing in search of identity

Abstract- The research is designed to explore the similarities and differences in developing socio-cultural discourse about 'Delhi' by two writers of different times, cultures and religions. Framework developed for this research is based initially on the works of two anthropologists cum sociologists Scupin and Erikson. Qualitative methodology is used to explain the derived aspects of culture: material culture and non-material culture. These aspects of culture have been discussed to explain the archaic and human history of the city, being propped up by three standard works on Delhi. (1) Celebrating Delhi (2) City Improbable: writing on Delhi (3) The Crisis in the Punjab from the 10th of May until the fall of Delhi. Social aspects of the novels are discussed according to the derived paradigms regarding socio-political and religio-historical aspects. In this comparative study of two novels both the texts are analyzed under the finally coined aspects of culture-'material culture' and 'non material culture'. These two aspects of culture are discussed in the light of cultural theory presented by Faiz (2004).


Socio political; Religio-historical; Material Culture; Non-Material Culture; Delhi; Turmoil; Oppression; Human behaviour.....

INTRODUCTION: or the present research the selected field is socio-cultural study of Delhi. This research provides an understanding of the gradual change in the human behaviour as well as the cultural values of the same phenomena (Delhi depicted by a Muslim writer in 1940 and a Sikh writer in 1990). The Concept of culture and society in relation to literature and anthropology has always been the hot issue for the theorists, sociologists, anthropologists and literary critics. Robert Lowie (1917) said that culture was not something genetic and racial. He is of the view that culture is always an outcome of the human activities and culture is the very source to inculcate specific characteristics in individuals. In his opinion a few important elements of culture are language, religion, arts and architecture, customs, values, morality, cuisine, tastes, aesthetic norms, family structure, attitude towards one's own self, attitude towards sex, gender and poverty. He describes culture as a thing of 'shreds and patches'. In his view it is a phrase which contains everything. But Kroeber (1952) considers culture super organic. He is of the view that in itself culture becomes a source to keep all the elements together. Infact it gives meaning to all the elements He presents an analogy of a coral reef to explain the meaning of culture. He says as a reef comes into being by several creatures but always stands and exists independently likewise culture is a product of human beings but simultaneously it exists independently of them.

Another theorist Sapir (1956) viewed that there had been as many cultures around the world as there were individuals in a group. And amazingly every individual becomes a representative of his own different views about a specific culture. Therefore this clash of opinion is considered legitimate keeping in view their individuality. Ruth Benedict (1934) created a middle way in between the approaches of Kroeber(1952) and Sapir(1956) while saying that culture could not solely be the all powerful force in itself otherwise how it could have generated deviants in a particular society. It is only because of the difference of opinion among the individuals about cultural norms which makes a few think those norms as merely the things that can be crossed upon as well. In twentieth century the anthropologists like Tylor(1947) and White(1975) also presented their theories about culture .They are of the view that culture is an object which needs to be analyzed on scientific basis. They consider anthropology a science which explains human life in general. They think cultures are different stages in the journey of evolution of human beings as species. They believe in the study of society in terms of its features which are responsible to fulfil certain needs of the natives and these needs are basic to all human beings as a whole. They also give flexibility to their theory while saying that these needs could be meted out in distinctive ways and they can also be different in accordance with their cultures. This comparative study of cultures is called scientific approach towards culture. Marx (1848), Erickson (2004), Scupin (2012) and Faiz(2004) did not agree the theory of diffusion. Because they uphold the idea that why only certain traits get diffused f...

Share on facebook or twitter

Email to a friend