Gegenstand dieser Arbeit sind die (Selbst-)Darstellungen von Gründer_innen von Nichtregierungsorganisationen (NGOs) im Bereich Kinder- und Frauenrechte in Tamil Nadu, Südindien. Um diese (Selbst-)Darstellungen angemessen analysieren zu können, wird zuerst eine analytische Herangehensweise entworfen, die davon ausgeht, dass bestehende soziologische Konzepte, die in erster Linie in Auseinandersetzung mit einem spezifischen (west-europäischen) Kontext entstanden sind, nicht unhinterfragt auf andere Kontexte übertragen werden können. Das erschwert die Verwendung von Begrifflichkeiten wie „Zivilgesellschaft“, „Entwicklung“ oder auch der scheinbar klaren Dichotomie von Moderne und Tradition. Eisenstadt machte diese Problematik in der von ihm begonnenen Debatte um „Multiple Modernities“ deutlich. In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird an diese Diskussion mit handlungstheoretischen Argumenten angeknüpft, um auch Akteursperspektiven angemessen analysieren zu können. Nachdem der theoretische Rahmen und die methodische Grundlage der Arbeit erläutert wurden, wird Kontextwissen erarbeitet, um die Analyse der Interviews einzubetten. Es werden Diskurse um Kaste und den Status von Frauen sowie Aspekte der aktuellen politischen Situation Tamil Nadus betrachtet. Die (Selbst-)Darstellungen lassen sich dann anhand der im Titel angedeuteten Dreiteilung aufschlüsseln: Die Gründer_innen setzen sich zum ersten mit der eigenen Rolle auseinander. Sie beschreiben sich als „social worker“ und greifen in den Selbstbeschreibungen zum Teil auf populistische Elemente des politischen Umfeldes zurück. Zum zweiten beschreiben sie die eigene Position gegenüber ihren „Zielgruppen“. Dabei wird deutlich, dass die Beziehungen zwischen NGO und „community“ zwischen Partizipation und Paternalismus schwanken. Zum dritten formulieren sie Zielsetzungen in Abgrenzung zu anderen (lokalen) politischen Akteuren: Sie grenzen sich zum Beispiel von einem ihrem Verständnis nach „westlichen“ Begriff von Entwicklung ab und formulieren demgegenüber „eigene“ Ziele. Sie reflektieren über lokale Kooperationen, z.B. mit politischen Persönlichkeiten, Kastenassoziationen, aber auch über Abgrenzungen oder Zusammenstöße, die sich dabei ergeben. Insgesamt wird deutlich, dass die (Selbst-)Darstellungen der Gründer_innen sich spannungsgeladen und ambivalent auf unterschiedliche Diskurse, Ideen und soziale Praktiken beziehen. Sie lassen sich insbesondere nicht in eine Perspektive von „Entwicklung“ einordnen, welche auf der Dichotomie von Moderne und Tradition aufbaut. / The subject of this thesis are the (self-)descriptions of founders of children's and women's rights NGOs in Tamil Nadu, South India. To allow an appropriate analysis of these (self-)descriptions, an analytical framework is constructed which is based upon the assumption that sociological concepts which are products of involvement with western-European contexts cannot be transferred to different contexts unquestioned. This complicates the use of existing concepts, as "development", "civil society" or the seemingly simple and evident dichotomy of modernity and tradition. Shmuel N. Eisenstadt started the discussion about the difficulties connected to this dichotomy through the debate about "multiple modernities". The thesis takes its point of departure from this debate and develops action-theoretical arguments to draw a framework for the analysis of the perspectives of actors in the field of NGOs in Tamil Nadu. A discussion of the analytical and methodological framework of this study is followed by a description of selected contextual aspects of the interviewee’s lives. Particularly interesting in the study of Tamil Nadu are discourses about the status of women, the relevance of caste, and facets of the (current) political situation. The analysis of the (self-)descriptions is structured by the tripartion visible in the title of the thesis: Firstly, the founders have to deal with their own position. They describe themselves as "social workers" and are to some extent drawing on elements of the (current) populist political environment in Tamil Nadu to define this role. Secondly, they describe their position towards their "target groups". It becomes clear that the relationship between founders and "communities" fluctuates between participation and paternalism. Thirdly, they formulate their goals in relationship to other (local) political actors: They dissociate themselves from "western" views of development and frame their "own projects" in opposition. They reflect on the possibilities as well as the restrictions of local cooperation, for example with political figures, caste associations, and so on. It becomes clear that the (self-)descriptions of the founders suspensefully and ambivalently draw from different social practices, discourses, and ideas. They especially cannot be classified from the perspective of a (linear) "development" based upon the dichotomy of tradition and modernity.

Classical approaches to conflict resolution assume that inducing conflict parties to analyse conflict constellations precipitates that the disputants recognise mutually shared needs or interests. Partially in critical reaction towards this assumption, a more recently emerging approach envisages setting up a communicative framework within which the conflict parties are supposed to harmonise their conceptualisations of the conflict. This dissertation, in contrast, argues that work within the frameworks of these classes of approaches is impolitic as long as war-related hostilities stay intact, since conflict parties which see the existence of the adversary as the core of the problem are unlikely to engage in a process of open communication or open analysis, so that trustbuilding is a sine qua non. Practice experiences of local NGOs in the former Yugoslavia suggest that the following activities can be conducive to trustbuilding: 1) supporting exchanges on personalising information, so that the internal heterogeneity of the opponent's group is rendered visible; 2) bringing intergroup iii commonalities to the foreground, either through cooperation on shared aspirations, or by unearthing interpersonal overlaps e.g. common feelings, values, and war-related experiences; 3) undermining the imagination of the own side's moral superiority by fostering the recognition of crimes and suffering inflicted by the own side. For those cultural and religious differences which persist after basic trustbuilding, a contingency approach is proposed: 1) Fostering the exploration of commonalities and differences; 2) If disagreements remain despite a better basic understanding, tolerance of these difference can be based on a better understanding of the values' background, and on an acceptance of differing beliefs as equal in valence; 3) Supporting the discovery of joint values to raise awareness for options of cohabitation with differences; disagreements which cannot be solved might be continued within an accepted communicative framework based on these shared values.

Classical approaches to conflict resolution assume that inducing conflict parties to analyse conflict constellations precipitates that the disputants recognise mutually shared needs or interests. Partially in critical reaction towards this assumption, a more recently emerging approach envisages setting up a communicative framework within which the conflict parties are supposed to harmonise their conceptualisations of the conflict. This dissertation, in contrast, argues that work within the frameworks of these classes of approaches is impolitic as long as war-related hostilities stay intact, since conflict parties which see the existence of the adversary as the core of the problem are unlikely to engage in a process of open communication or open analysis, so that trustbuilding is a sine qua non. Practice experiences of local NGOs in the former Yugoslavia suggest that the following activities can be conducive to trustbuilding: 1) supporting exchanges on personalising information, so that the internal heterogeneity of the opponent¿s group is rendered visible; 2) bringing intergroup iii commonalities to the foreground, either through cooperation on shared aspirations, or by unearthing interpersonal overlaps e.g. common feelings, values, and war-related experiences; 3) undermining the imagination of the own side¿s moral superiority by fostering the recognition of crimes and suffering inflicted by the own side. For those cultural and religious differences which persist after basic trustbuilding, a contingency approach is proposed: 1) Fostering the exploration of commonalities and differences; 2) If disagreements remain despite a better basic understanding, tolerance of these difference can be based on a better understanding of the values¿ background, and on an acceptance of differing beliefs as equal in valence; 3) Supporting the discovery of joint values to raise awareness for options of cohabitation with differences; disagreements which cannot be solved might be continued within an accepted communicative framework based on these shared values.

No description available.