The document discusses two approaches in Indian sociology - the book view and the field view. The book view develops a picture of Indian society based on descriptions in Hindu scriptures, while the field view develops understanding from first-hand experience in the society. The core difference is the physical presence of the sociologist. While the field view has drawbacks like sociologist bias, developing a careful field view would provide a better understanding than solely relying on descriptions by orientalist theorists, which may not reflect present-day realities.

1. Text view and Field view in Indian
Sociology
The two major differences in going about the way one studies the Indian
society are in the way in which the sociologist derives information about
thesociety. Thebook view and thefield view aresuch two approachesthat
make the core difference between how sociologists with these two
approaches would perceive and subsequently write about a society.
The book view in Indian sociology is one that would make a sociologist
develop a picture of the Indian society which would very much be in line
with thewaytheHindu scripturesdescribeit, which iswhat theorientalist
theoristsused todevelop anunderstanding oftheIndiansociety. Thefield
view, on the other hand, isthe view that one would develop after stepping
intothesocietythat thesociologist intendsonstudying and having a first-
hand experience. This began as a view that had come to replace or
probably modify the book view. This view would also acquaint one with
thesocialrealitiesofthesociety. Sincethecoredifferencebetweenthetwo
views is the physical presence of the sociologist, it is bound to produce
very different results in what a sociologist takes from their research
depending onwhether theychoosetogobythebookview or thefield view.
Thebest wayof studying a societywould betohaveanapproach thattakes
both the book view and the field view of the Indian society into account
and doesn’t get swayed away by the book view in the process. Of course,
the field view may have its own drawbacks, such as the risk of having the
sociologist’s biases. Yet, one could fairly easily argue that developing a
carefulfield view would bebetter thansimplygoing bywhattheorientalist
theorists had described, which, along with being a colonized and
stereotypical account, would be a view which may not hold true to the
present-day realities.