Sixty years after Independence, India now faces critical political situations as shown by the rise of Hindu Revivalism. In this connection, it is highly pertinent to evaluate the basic political trends in India and formulate a somewhat long-term view of her political future. In order to tackle this problem, this article aims to analyze the political culture of India, especially the concept of power in Indian political tradition. India has cultivated two distinct concepts of power: a secular concept of power embodied by the traditional Kshatriya and shared by the dominant castes in contemporary India; and an idealistic concept of power exemplified by Gandhian saintly politics, which is based on Brahmanical tradition. In the political field of modern India, these two rather opposite political orientations are intermingled and have exerted complicated but tremendous influences and determined her course of political development.

In spite of its ideology, Hindu Revivalism represents the secular political trend, and as such it lacks the potential to glorify the Indian state as well as mystify its political values. In this sense, politics of Hindu Revivalism is not qualitatively different from that of the Indian National Congress, which has been strongly influenced by the dominant castes since Independence. However, if Hindu Revivalism pursues its political objective too uncompromisingly, Indian politics might be drawn into a deadlock. And when the political confrontation becomes too acute, saintly politics may re-emerge. This type of politics is based on values that lie at the center of Indian tradition, so that it has the capacity of asserting itself when the situation becomes too serious, as is shown by the rise of Mahatma Gandhi during the Independence movement. Of course, it is uncertain whether this type of politics will re-emerge. However, if it does, it will stabilize the political system, by restraining political behavior and purifying the political process.

American families have become more diverse and choice-based since the 1970s as feminism and post-Fordism gained momentum: feminism criticized the traditional division of gender roles in a family, and post-Fordism introduced a flexible lifestyle. The nurturing father, who flexibly juggles work and family, plays a major role in families as a choice. Drawing on Lisa Duggan and Nancy Fraser’s discussion that identity politics have been instrumental in underpinning neoliberalism, this paper critically examines the cultural representation of white middle-class nurturing fathers in late twentieth-century American novels (Robert B. Parker’s Early Autumn and John Irving’s The Cider House Rules) and films (Kramer ns. Kramer and Mrs. Doubtfire). Being an “entrepreneur of himself,” the nurturing father is a poster child of neoliberalism; to borrow from Wendy Brown, the nurturing father illustrates how “the rationally calculating individual bears full responsibility for the consequences of his or her action no matter how severe the constraints on this action.”

The nurturing father looks liberating in terms of gender, but its intersection with race and class is equally crucial in illuminating the significance of the freedom and self-reliance he embodies. The nurturing father is almost always represented as white middle-class with its counterpoint of African American and/or working-class fathers as deadbeat dads. The white middle-class nurturing father’s new lifestyle enjoys broad support in the late twentieth century because it evokes the anxiety about the family gone awry when fathers are liberated from the yoke of traditional gender roles.

Similarly, the discourse of the nurturing father accuses mothers of irresponsibility. Mothers in these novels and films often choose their career at the sacrifice of their families; nevertheless, they insist on their custody rights when they divorce. These novels and films also blame the law which unreasonably intervenes in a family’s private problem and favors mothers by naturalizing the bonds between mothers and children. In other words, white middle-class fathers in these novels and films are represented as victims whose love for children is misunderstood by the society. As such, the dis-course of the nurturing father demands the deregulation of the familial law to reinforce the authority of the father.

The diversification of American families also means the expansion of economic inequality between families. In the age of neoliberalism, the nurturing father is a privileged status given to only those who can juggle work and family flexibly. However, the discourse of the nurturing father obscures this privilege by turning child care into a matter of fatherly “love” rather than domestic labor; and those who do not have resources to juggle work and family are deemed to be heartless. The nurturing father is a neoliberal subject who heroically takes the risk of privatization in the demise of the welfare state; the white middle-class father still knows best in the late twentieth century.