Via Marginal Revolution, a wonderful interview with mathematician, Alain Connes, and another article on Russian Math from the Wall Street Journal, which, among other things, talks about the mathematician Gregory Perelman who proved the Poincare conjecture. There are many interesting insights in both texts about the sociology of knowledge. As Connes states, and as Perelman exemplifies through his decision to give up mathematics, the value of mathematical knowledge cannot be measured in monetary terms. One can extend this point to knowledge in general: this is a model of knowledge that, for all its seeming utopianism, is very much worth preserving. It is refreshing and heartening to see this sentiment in an age when the "for-profit" paradigm is touted as the answer to everything from social justice to global poverty and when academic autonomy seems increasingly under threat from think tanks, corporations and governments.
In stark contrast to Connes and Perelman, there are academics like Montgomery McFate and Marcus Griffin: as this article in Counterpunch, "Empires and the Sullying of Anthropology" by Robert Lawless points out these anthropologists provide their academic services to the US military in Iraq. Anthropology has a long history of complicity with imperialism, of course; the tradition seems to be flourishing.
Full post...
Monday, November 9, 2009
Dr. Roshan G. Shahani's essay, "An Indian under the Crown"
Interjunction features a detailed essay, "An Indian under the Crown" by Dr Roshan G. Shahani.
The essay engages with the autobiography (titled The Story of My Life) of an unfairly neglected figure whose life spanned part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a Parsi lady by the name of Dosebai Cowasjee Jessawalla. Dosebai travelled to Europe in the early twentieth century, met the king and queen of England (and presented them with embroidery studded with rubies), travelled in a hot air balloon with a bottle of wine in Paris, and met the Pope (but refused to kiss his toe on religious grounds). She was an unabashed Anglophile and an ardent admirer of Macaulay but steadfast in her Zoroastrian faith despite its negative portrayal by the British. She was very much of a privileged class and hence not a subaltern but also took on the Parsi male orthodoxy in asserting her rights (and her right to education). She also lays claim-- controversially- to belonging to the family that pioneered women's education in Bombay.
The book, as Dr Shahani argues, is more than an autobiography; it is also a history of the Parsi-British encounter during the Raj; a fascinating travelogue; and a recreation of nineteenth-century Bombay. The essay also raises questions about private and public history, the collective cultural memories of Bombay's Parsis, and the family as an archive, in conversation with scholars such as Antoinette Burton, Urvashi Butalia, K. Lalita and Susie Tharu.
The poet Adil Jussawalla, from the same family as Dosebai, very kindly shared the manuscript with Dr Shahani.
Full post...
The essay engages with the autobiography (titled The Story of My Life) of an unfairly neglected figure whose life spanned part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a Parsi lady by the name of Dosebai Cowasjee Jessawalla. Dosebai travelled to Europe in the early twentieth century, met the king and queen of England (and presented them with embroidery studded with rubies), travelled in a hot air balloon with a bottle of wine in Paris, and met the Pope (but refused to kiss his toe on religious grounds). She was an unabashed Anglophile and an ardent admirer of Macaulay but steadfast in her Zoroastrian faith despite its negative portrayal by the British. She was very much of a privileged class and hence not a subaltern but also took on the Parsi male orthodoxy in asserting her rights (and her right to education). She also lays claim-- controversially- to belonging to the family that pioneered women's education in Bombay.
The book, as Dr Shahani argues, is more than an autobiography; it is also a history of the Parsi-British encounter during the Raj; a fascinating travelogue; and a recreation of nineteenth-century Bombay. The essay also raises questions about private and public history, the collective cultural memories of Bombay's Parsis, and the family as an archive, in conversation with scholars such as Antoinette Burton, Urvashi Butalia, K. Lalita and Susie Tharu.
The poet Adil Jussawalla, from the same family as Dosebai, very kindly shared the manuscript with Dr Shahani.
Full post...
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Big ideas and small ideas
A recent article about Macolm Gladwell's new book in The Guardian draws attention, among other things, to his ability to articulate big ideas: the tipping point, outliers, etc. A recent profile of Larry Summers in The New Yorker notes that Summers' influence in the field of economics has been profound but he is known for many small insights rather than for one revolutionary big idea.
These observations raise the question of what is it that makes us long for big ideas? What form of messianism or salvation does the big idea promise?
And ten, twenty, fifty years from now, how many of these big ideas will endure?
Full post...
These observations raise the question of what is it that makes us long for big ideas? What form of messianism or salvation does the big idea promise?
And ten, twenty, fifty years from now, how many of these big ideas will endure?
Full post...
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Sumanta Banerjee 's excellent article
Sumanta Banerjee has a terrific article in the Economic and Political Weekly, "Two Parallel Narratives"
"The case of the Sri Ram Sene leader Pramod Muthalik, who is facing some 40 criminal cases in Karnataka, epitomises the Indian state’s pussyfooting in dealing with Hindu religious extremists, while that of the Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy typifies the same state’s trampling down on dissenters upholding the cause of the poorer classes. In parallel, the confrontation between the morality of those who govern the Indian state and that of their Maoist opponents can best be encapsulated in a recapitulation of the careers of Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram and the Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy."
Full article here
Full post...
"The case of the Sri Ram Sene leader Pramod Muthalik, who is facing some 40 criminal cases in Karnataka, epitomises the Indian state’s pussyfooting in dealing with Hindu religious extremists, while that of the Maoist leader Kobad Ghandy typifies the same state’s trampling down on dissenters upholding the cause of the poorer classes. In parallel, the confrontation between the morality of those who govern the Indian state and that of their Maoist opponents can best be encapsulated in a recapitulation of the careers of Union Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram and the Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy."
Full article here
Full post...
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Arundhati Roy's superb article on Maoists
More often than not, I disagree with much, if not most, of what Arundhati Roy says in her articles. Here, however, is a superb article by Roy on P. Chidambaram's "War on Maoists".
Notwithstanding whatever grounds on which one might criticize Roy, there are several things that she needs to be unconditionally respected for: her courage, her insistence on speaking truth to power, and her willingness to be contrarian.
And Roy is to be especially congratulated, in my view, for refusing to believe that the free market game is the only game in town, and that the Indian political and economic space must be made safe for the optimal functioning of the market at any cost, including uprooting and devastating the lives of million of Indian citizens. Especially at a time when more and more Indian intellectuals appear to be meekly parroting that view (including many who for several decades maintained the exact opposite political position!)
This essay is sure to send partisans of the India Shining and magic-of-markets schools into a tizzy, if not outright rage. That itself is reason to celebrate the essay and Roy.
On related matters, here, on Interjunction, is my interview with Sudeep Chakravarti author of Red Sun, an excellent book on Maoist movements in South Asia.
Full post...
Notwithstanding whatever grounds on which one might criticize Roy, there are several things that she needs to be unconditionally respected for: her courage, her insistence on speaking truth to power, and her willingness to be contrarian.
And Roy is to be especially congratulated, in my view, for refusing to believe that the free market game is the only game in town, and that the Indian political and economic space must be made safe for the optimal functioning of the market at any cost, including uprooting and devastating the lives of million of Indian citizens. Especially at a time when more and more Indian intellectuals appear to be meekly parroting that view (including many who for several decades maintained the exact opposite political position!)
This essay is sure to send partisans of the India Shining and magic-of-markets schools into a tizzy, if not outright rage. That itself is reason to celebrate the essay and Roy.
On related matters, here, on Interjunction, is my interview with Sudeep Chakravarti author of Red Sun, an excellent book on Maoist movements in South Asia.
Full post...
Monday, October 26, 2009
Stalin Good, Mao Bad? Comrade Karat forgets his Marx!
Simple-minded and spurious reasoning from the CPI(M) head honcho. Proving why the 'progressive' Indian position that the CPI(M) for all its faults is better than the BJP or Samajwadi Party is utterly unfounded.
Karat suggests that Naxalites--- who, as is well known, are Maoists--- are not a "Left trend" and not "Marxists". Here's the problem Mr Karat-- whatever you think of Mao and Maoists, it is impossible to claim that they are not Marxists! They do not exhaust Marxism and there are legacies of Marxism that would squarely contradict the theory and praxis of various Maoist movements. But Maoists across the world have been and continue to be an integral part of the lived and living history of Marxism. The ostensible reason for the expulsion of Indian Maoists from the Marxist fold is the former's use of violence-- particularly violence directed against CPI(M) members. But Karat is being hypocritical here, of course, as will be glaringly obvious to anyone even cursorily familiar with the ideology of the CPI(M).
For this happens to be the same same Karat of the same CPI(M) that (a) has never repudiated the use of political violence when directed against 'enemies of history' or 'enemies of the party' or 'bourgeois imperalists' (b) has never repudiated or criticized Stalin for the pogroms sanctioned by the leader which resulted in the death of millions, and (c) in fact, considers Stalin a very important figure from whom much can be learnt. (I am told but do not know for sure that CPI(M) offices have posters of Stalin.) Karat himself is often described by Left folk as Stalinist in his ideological purity (read dogmatism). Here, for instance, is an extract from a 1992 CPI(M) resolution, "On Certain Ideological Issues: (Resolution Adopted at the 14th Congress of the CPI(M) Madras, January 3-9, 1992)", which, while acknowledging some minor faults in Stalin's administrative style, does not even hint at the violence that he was responsible for.
Karat betrays the same kind of doublespeak that politicians from all Indian parties are famous for. It is obvious that Karat's position is compelled by the tide of anti-Naxalite public opinion. If for whatever reason, the Naxalite movement gains public sympathy in India, Karat is quite likely to embrace them again. And the complicated family squabbles among the various Left parties in India are also a factor of course.
Whenever I see the CPI(M) up to its shenanigans, I am reminded of Nehru's astute and acerbic observation in the Discovery of India that for the Communist Party of India the history of India starts in 1917 with the Russsian Revolution.
Full post...
Karat suggests that Naxalites--- who, as is well known, are Maoists--- are not a "Left trend" and not "Marxists". Here's the problem Mr Karat-- whatever you think of Mao and Maoists, it is impossible to claim that they are not Marxists! They do not exhaust Marxism and there are legacies of Marxism that would squarely contradict the theory and praxis of various Maoist movements. But Maoists across the world have been and continue to be an integral part of the lived and living history of Marxism. The ostensible reason for the expulsion of Indian Maoists from the Marxist fold is the former's use of violence-- particularly violence directed against CPI(M) members. But Karat is being hypocritical here, of course, as will be glaringly obvious to anyone even cursorily familiar with the ideology of the CPI(M).
For this happens to be the same same Karat of the same CPI(M) that (a) has never repudiated the use of political violence when directed against 'enemies of history' or 'enemies of the party' or 'bourgeois imperalists' (b) has never repudiated or criticized Stalin for the pogroms sanctioned by the leader which resulted in the death of millions, and (c) in fact, considers Stalin a very important figure from whom much can be learnt. (I am told but do not know for sure that CPI(M) offices have posters of Stalin.) Karat himself is often described by Left folk as Stalinist in his ideological purity (read dogmatism). Here, for instance, is an extract from a 1992 CPI(M) resolution, "On Certain Ideological Issues: (Resolution Adopted at the 14th Congress of the CPI(M) Madras, January 3-9, 1992)", which, while acknowledging some minor faults in Stalin's administrative style, does not even hint at the violence that he was responsible for.
The CPI(M), since the Burdwan Plenum in 1968, has repeatedly made clear its assessment of the positive and negative aspects of Stalin's leadership. While being severely critical of certain gross violations of inner-party democracy and socialist legality, he May 1990 C.C. resolution had stated: "The CPI(M) rejected the approach which, in the name of correcting the personality cult, is negating the history of socialism. The uncontestable contribution of Joseph Stalin in defence of Leninism, against Trotskyism and other ideological deviations, the building of socialism in the USSR, the victory over fascism and the reconstruction of the war-ravaged Soviet, Union enabling it to acquire enough strength to check imperialist aggressive moves, are inerasable from the history of socialism.
Karat betrays the same kind of doublespeak that politicians from all Indian parties are famous for. It is obvious that Karat's position is compelled by the tide of anti-Naxalite public opinion. If for whatever reason, the Naxalite movement gains public sympathy in India, Karat is quite likely to embrace them again. And the complicated family squabbles among the various Left parties in India are also a factor of course.
Whenever I see the CPI(M) up to its shenanigans, I am reminded of Nehru's astute and acerbic observation in the Discovery of India that for the Communist Party of India the history of India starts in 1917 with the Russsian Revolution.
Full post...
More of the NY Times' double standards
The New York Times has another one of its stories that periodically puts the developing world in its place. This story is about the Chinese regime's undemocratic rules, specifically a rule that cars should be saluted by kids.
I have no objection to the story in itself. There is no doubt a story here. And I am no fan of undemocratic policies anywhere in the world, whether India, China, or the US.
But why does the sharp journalistic eye of the Times fail to see similar coercive pressures in the US? It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to criticize the American military or troops, regardless of whether the person is for or against the war. Criticizing the troops, beyond singling out a "few bad apples" responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture, runs the risk of exposing one to accusations of being 'anti-American' 'unpatriotic', 'treasonous', or worse. I recall Vijay Prashad mentioning in an interview in Social Text that he routinely gets threatening messages on his phone for his political beliefs. This social impossibility of being able to criticize the troops-- even if legally one has freedom of expression to do so--is generally true of corporations, or university settings (for all their genuine commitment to freedom of expression), or the public sphere. A Chomsky can do so but even he gets assaulted by the Right. This phenomenon is, of course, a function of the American Right exploiting the notion that liberals led by Jane Fonda let down, and vilified the American troops in Vietnam.
In this respect of insisting on obeisance to certain symbols of national authority, with the possibility of punitive social (and often, but not always, legal) sanctions for violating such injunction all nations-- the US as much as China-- appear to be alike.
I don't recall seeing a single prominent American liberal or libertarian voice defend the principle of freedom of expression in this context. Not the libertarian economists who valiantly defend the freedoms of corporations against government interference. Not the libertarian political scientists who never fail to remind us why the West beat the rest (a commitment to freedoms being one reason!). Not all the liberals who defended the war as a 'just' intervention.
Another coercive pressure manifests itself as the demand that all minorities-- and some more than others-- should constantly prove their loyalty to a certain conception of the nation. Which is why gas stations owned by South Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans are likely to have many symbols of patriotic sentiment visibly displayed all across their establishments.
Not a squeak from the Times about any of this.
And what about the Times' own rule-following when it came to the official Weapons of Mass Destruction line trotted out by the White House, which the Times lapped up without question?
This is why many academics have a poor opinion of the Times, even if they will not say so openly. As a tactical matter, these academics will not refuse a chance to publish in the Times, given the influence, prestige, and reach of the paper. But from conversations with several academics about the mode in which the Times covers the world, none of them really expect the Times to get the complexity of the situation. They don't expect the Times to be reflexive about its own assumptions either.
And yes, it is possible to get the complexity of a situation in a newspaper article or op-ed. This is not a journalist versus academic mode of writing issue at all.
Full post...
I have no objection to the story in itself. There is no doubt a story here. And I am no fan of undemocratic policies anywhere in the world, whether India, China, or the US.
But why does the sharp journalistic eye of the Times fail to see similar coercive pressures in the US? It is impossible, for instance, for anyone to criticize the American military or troops, regardless of whether the person is for or against the war. Criticizing the troops, beyond singling out a "few bad apples" responsible for the Abu Ghraib torture, runs the risk of exposing one to accusations of being 'anti-American' 'unpatriotic', 'treasonous', or worse. I recall Vijay Prashad mentioning in an interview in Social Text that he routinely gets threatening messages on his phone for his political beliefs. This social impossibility of being able to criticize the troops-- even if legally one has freedom of expression to do so--is generally true of corporations, or university settings (for all their genuine commitment to freedom of expression), or the public sphere. A Chomsky can do so but even he gets assaulted by the Right. This phenomenon is, of course, a function of the American Right exploiting the notion that liberals led by Jane Fonda let down, and vilified the American troops in Vietnam.
In this respect of insisting on obeisance to certain symbols of national authority, with the possibility of punitive social (and often, but not always, legal) sanctions for violating such injunction all nations-- the US as much as China-- appear to be alike.
I don't recall seeing a single prominent American liberal or libertarian voice defend the principle of freedom of expression in this context. Not the libertarian economists who valiantly defend the freedoms of corporations against government interference. Not the libertarian political scientists who never fail to remind us why the West beat the rest (a commitment to freedoms being one reason!). Not all the liberals who defended the war as a 'just' intervention.
Another coercive pressure manifests itself as the demand that all minorities-- and some more than others-- should constantly prove their loyalty to a certain conception of the nation. Which is why gas stations owned by South Asian-Americans or Arab-Americans are likely to have many symbols of patriotic sentiment visibly displayed all across their establishments.
Not a squeak from the Times about any of this.
And what about the Times' own rule-following when it came to the official Weapons of Mass Destruction line trotted out by the White House, which the Times lapped up without question?
This is why many academics have a poor opinion of the Times, even if they will not say so openly. As a tactical matter, these academics will not refuse a chance to publish in the Times, given the influence, prestige, and reach of the paper. But from conversations with several academics about the mode in which the Times covers the world, none of them really expect the Times to get the complexity of the situation. They don't expect the Times to be reflexive about its own assumptions either.
And yes, it is possible to get the complexity of a situation in a newspaper article or op-ed. This is not a journalist versus academic mode of writing issue at all.
Full post...
Thursday, October 22, 2009
In praise of academic difficulty
It is a plague that afflicts popular writing about literature and the humanities-social sciences. It is seen in Indian and Western media alike, in newspaper columns, blogs, and trade books. It is often but not always those trotted out by right-wing culture warriors, and sometimes by those with one foot in the academy. I refer to the chronic grousing about the 'difficulty' of academic scholarship in general and about literary criticism and social theory in particular. This grousing has a few favorite targets-- the unholy trinity of Edward Said, Homi Bhabha, and Gayatri Spivak, but others too, such as Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman, Lacan, Chomsky, or Zizek.
The work of such scholars is routinely criticized for being 'difficult' and 'inaccessible', for putting paid to the good old days when social theory or literary criticism *really* illuminated the world, and for destroying, variously, literature, society, Western civilization, the legacy of the Enlightenment, and human civilization itself. The New York Times, for instance, carried an appallingly ignorant article on September 22, 2001 which in a perverse and twisted way managed to blame postmodernism and postcolonialism for the 9/11 attacks. The Times' obituary of Derrida was also a masterpiece of ignorance, condemning Derrida for being 'abstruse', and provoking protests in response from numerous academics.
These arguments seem tiringly similar to arguments against the humanities and social sciences that I used to routinely encounter as an undergraduate studying literature in Bombay University the better part of some two decades ago. I was confronted countless times with inane questions about the value of the humanities: But what do you study in English literature? But how does one study it? What is there to study about books? What is this anthropology? I also had to hear, often as a member of a captive audience, tedious cliches about the limited value of an education in the humanities. Examples: Why bother with books? What about the book of life? Life is the best teacher, and so on.
And, therein lies the nub of it. The arguments we see today in the media about the difficulty of academic scholarship-- even when they might be posed by those with a background in literature or the humanities-- are not very different from these crude and unthinking accusations against literature, literary criticism, and the humanities that anyone doing an arts degree in India had to suffer 15-20 years ago. (I hope things are better now).
In this vein of thinking, literary criticism or social theory is something you do-- or should be able to do-- on the weekends, after your 'real' job, whatever that is. There is an implicit denigration here of academic scholarship and of the humanities and social sciences. In the Indian context, this is a sorry consequence of the post-independence obsession with science and technology at the cost of other areas of inquiry. It also has to do with the belief that scholarly work is something anyone can do. The complaints sometimes seem rooted in a kind of anger at being left out of some elitist insider club of academics (no such club exists, of course, except in the heads of those who imagine that it does).
A populist philistinism bred by the internet and web, which considers generalist dabblings and ruminations the highest form of intellectual reflection has led to an amplification of such sentiment in recent times. This ressentiment, like all forms of chronic hostility, lacks reflexivity, and is unable or unwilling to recognize the roots of its own malcontent.
There is another factor at work here too. I think that has to do with the fact that most academics in the humanities and social sciences do not actively market or promote themselves. They take pride, justly, in what they do. But they do not call themselves 'innovators' or 'original thinkers' or 'entrepreneurs' or 'visionaries' or 'thought-leaders' or 'cutting-edge' or 'dazzling intellects'. The convention in the academy generally is to do your work, to let your reputation develop based on your work, and to not worry about being a media personality with a PR machine. (There are exceptions to this, of course, but in over two decades of knowing, meeting, and knowing of many, many, many academics in numerous institutions across three continents, I would say that the vast majority of academics are primarily interested in their work rather than in burnishing their reputations or legacies.)
There are strange bedfellows in the confederacy of grousers, and they traverse national boundaries. Offhand, at least three non-mutual categories come to mind, covering both the Indian diaspora and other groups.
One segment consists of Hindu nationalists in India and the US, who think they are all experts on Indian history and can 'scientifically' disprove the work of fine historians like Romila Thapar. A glance at the large number of Hindu nationalist websites that spew absolute rubbish about Indian history will provide ample evidence of the existence of this lot.
Another segment consists of those who valiantly see themselves as the defenders of all that is glorious about literature against the assault from literary critics in the academy. Among this lot, the discussion of literature rests on vacuous assertions about the 'universality of human experience' and typically relies on misunderstandings of formalist criticism and close reading (One should note here that many of the critics accused of 'difficulty' or 'obscurity' are spectacular close readers).
A third group, regardless of political sympathies, seems to hold naive views about the value of the humanities or of a liberal arts education, often coupled with equally naive views about technological progress, social evolution, meritocracy, and the like.
I am not making a case here that literary criticism or knowledge in the social sciences or humanities are the preserve of a few people in the academy. But such knowledge can only be truly democratized if the effort, rigor, and care that goes into the best work--produced in the academy or elsewhere-- is recognized and appreciated. The solution does not lie in tepid generalizations about human existence or in blanket condemnations of scholars. I am not suggesting either that some scholars or paradigms should be above critique. Far from it. But any such critique should, at least, attempt to be fair, and to rise above the status of a snide two-line dismissal or a smug witticism.
A final thought about difficulty. Plato is difficult. And Wittgenstein. Sheldon Pollock's spectacular and wonderfully written book, The Language of Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Power, and Culture in Premodern India, is difficult. The Duino Elegies are difficult. Austin is difficult. So is Searle. So are Rawls and Nozick. Judth Butler is difficult. As is Montaigne. And Marx. Difficult and rewarding.
Gayatri Spivak has an interesting anecdote about 'difficulty' in an interview with Nermeen Shaikh in the book, The Present as History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power. A scholar visiting Columbia University stated, in a talk, that she did not make more than three attempts to read something. If she still found it difficult in third attempt, she abandoned it, not considering it worth her effort. Spivak and her colleague, the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, had the same reaction to the scholar's ultimatum about difficulty.
What about Kant?
Full post...
The work of such scholars is routinely criticized for being 'difficult' and 'inaccessible', for putting paid to the good old days when social theory or literary criticism *really* illuminated the world, and for destroying, variously, literature, society, Western civilization, the legacy of the Enlightenment, and human civilization itself. The New York Times, for instance, carried an appallingly ignorant article on September 22, 2001 which in a perverse and twisted way managed to blame postmodernism and postcolonialism for the 9/11 attacks. The Times' obituary of Derrida was also a masterpiece of ignorance, condemning Derrida for being 'abstruse', and provoking protests in response from numerous academics.
These arguments seem tiringly similar to arguments against the humanities and social sciences that I used to routinely encounter as an undergraduate studying literature in Bombay University the better part of some two decades ago. I was confronted countless times with inane questions about the value of the humanities: But what do you study in English literature? But how does one study it? What is there to study about books? What is this anthropology? I also had to hear, often as a member of a captive audience, tedious cliches about the limited value of an education in the humanities. Examples: Why bother with books? What about the book of life? Life is the best teacher, and so on.
And, therein lies the nub of it. The arguments we see today in the media about the difficulty of academic scholarship-- even when they might be posed by those with a background in literature or the humanities-- are not very different from these crude and unthinking accusations against literature, literary criticism, and the humanities that anyone doing an arts degree in India had to suffer 15-20 years ago. (I hope things are better now).
In this vein of thinking, literary criticism or social theory is something you do-- or should be able to do-- on the weekends, after your 'real' job, whatever that is. There is an implicit denigration here of academic scholarship and of the humanities and social sciences. In the Indian context, this is a sorry consequence of the post-independence obsession with science and technology at the cost of other areas of inquiry. It also has to do with the belief that scholarly work is something anyone can do. The complaints sometimes seem rooted in a kind of anger at being left out of some elitist insider club of academics (no such club exists, of course, except in the heads of those who imagine that it does).
A populist philistinism bred by the internet and web, which considers generalist dabblings and ruminations the highest form of intellectual reflection has led to an amplification of such sentiment in recent times. This ressentiment, like all forms of chronic hostility, lacks reflexivity, and is unable or unwilling to recognize the roots of its own malcontent.
There is another factor at work here too. I think that has to do with the fact that most academics in the humanities and social sciences do not actively market or promote themselves. They take pride, justly, in what they do. But they do not call themselves 'innovators' or 'original thinkers' or 'entrepreneurs' or 'visionaries' or 'thought-leaders' or 'cutting-edge' or 'dazzling intellects'. The convention in the academy generally is to do your work, to let your reputation develop based on your work, and to not worry about being a media personality with a PR machine. (There are exceptions to this, of course, but in over two decades of knowing, meeting, and knowing of many, many, many academics in numerous institutions across three continents, I would say that the vast majority of academics are primarily interested in their work rather than in burnishing their reputations or legacies.)
There are strange bedfellows in the confederacy of grousers, and they traverse national boundaries. Offhand, at least three non-mutual categories come to mind, covering both the Indian diaspora and other groups.
One segment consists of Hindu nationalists in India and the US, who think they are all experts on Indian history and can 'scientifically' disprove the work of fine historians like Romila Thapar. A glance at the large number of Hindu nationalist websites that spew absolute rubbish about Indian history will provide ample evidence of the existence of this lot.
Another segment consists of those who valiantly see themselves as the defenders of all that is glorious about literature against the assault from literary critics in the academy. Among this lot, the discussion of literature rests on vacuous assertions about the 'universality of human experience' and typically relies on misunderstandings of formalist criticism and close reading (One should note here that many of the critics accused of 'difficulty' or 'obscurity' are spectacular close readers).
A third group, regardless of political sympathies, seems to hold naive views about the value of the humanities or of a liberal arts education, often coupled with equally naive views about technological progress, social evolution, meritocracy, and the like.
I am not making a case here that literary criticism or knowledge in the social sciences or humanities are the preserve of a few people in the academy. But such knowledge can only be truly democratized if the effort, rigor, and care that goes into the best work--produced in the academy or elsewhere-- is recognized and appreciated. The solution does not lie in tepid generalizations about human existence or in blanket condemnations of scholars. I am not suggesting either that some scholars or paradigms should be above critique. Far from it. But any such critique should, at least, attempt to be fair, and to rise above the status of a snide two-line dismissal or a smug witticism.
A final thought about difficulty. Plato is difficult. And Wittgenstein. Sheldon Pollock's spectacular and wonderfully written book, The Language of Gods in the World of Men: Sanskrit, Power, and Culture in Premodern India, is difficult. The Duino Elegies are difficult. Austin is difficult. So is Searle. So are Rawls and Nozick. Judth Butler is difficult. As is Montaigne. And Marx. Difficult and rewarding.
Gayatri Spivak has an interesting anecdote about 'difficulty' in an interview with Nermeen Shaikh in the book, The Present as History: Critical Perspectives on Global Power. A scholar visiting Columbia University stated, in a talk, that she did not make more than three attempts to read something. If she still found it difficult in third attempt, she abandoned it, not considering it worth her effort. Spivak and her colleague, the philosopher Kwame Anthony Appiah, had the same reaction to the scholar's ultimatum about difficulty.
What about Kant?
Full post...
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Does illegal mean non-human? Labor and leisure
Hearing media commentators refer to illegal immigrants in the context of debates about immigration reform or healthcare, I am amazed at the fact that the category of "illegals" is treated almost as if it were another species, one that is less than human--- as if they don't have possess basic human rights, or that they make no contribution to society by doing the jobs that no one less will do in America. By proxy, even the children of illegal immigrants, who are US citizens, are also referred to, similarly, as a 'problem population.' The immigration and healthcare issues are complex, and one can take a range of positions on aspects of both issues: but it is perfectly possible to articulate any of these positions-- for or against amnesty, for example-- while respecting the basic human dignity of the people and populations in question.
A refusal to accept or recognize the basic human dignity of all people seems to me to define the attitude of right-wing rabble- rousing riff-raff in the media -- like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others of their breed--- toward anyone they deem outsiders or threats to American society. That there is an audience and constituency in America for reasoned conservative positions is a reflection of a healthy and vibrant civil society. That there is a market for the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly (in short Fox News) is itself surely a disturbing fact. Their views on a large number of categories of people-- including American citizens who are minorities--seem to me to be textbook examples of prejudice. And, yet, American society at large seems unwilling to accept this or call them out on it.
George Lopez has some interesting observations about such and related matters in his scathing and brilliant stand-up special, "Tall, Dark & Chicano". Aside from the immigration issue, Lopez makes a number of telling observations about the unequal distribution of privilege among different demographic groups in the US. He notes that you will almost never see a Hispanic person in the US jogging at 2 pm in the afternoon while listening to their IPod or enjoying a latte etc.
Lopez may exaggerate the point, in keeping with the idiom of satirical in-your-face stand-up comedy. But the larger point remains valid. Having lived for a while now in San Francisco, a city with a large Hispanic population, I can state that, in my experience, this is largely true. In the South Bay and San Francisco, one can find Whites, South Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians engaged in leisure activities any time in any day of the week. African-Americans are near invisible in these locations, though more visible in the East Bay. Hispanic communities are sizeable in number but are not proportionately visible in the theaters or leisure activity associated with affluence and privilege.
These are the questions media, policymakers, and academic disciplines seem reluctant to ask, perhaps because they disturb nationally held myths and beliefs, such as the idea of meritocracy so beloved of neoliberals,
Whose labor is it that creates leisure for others?
Hence, in this general sense at least, the continuing importance of Marx
Full post...
A refusal to accept or recognize the basic human dignity of all people seems to me to define the attitude of right-wing rabble- rousing riff-raff in the media -- like O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and others of their breed--- toward anyone they deem outsiders or threats to American society. That there is an audience and constituency in America for reasoned conservative positions is a reflection of a healthy and vibrant civil society. That there is a market for the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly (in short Fox News) is itself surely a disturbing fact. Their views on a large number of categories of people-- including American citizens who are minorities--seem to me to be textbook examples of prejudice. And, yet, American society at large seems unwilling to accept this or call them out on it.
George Lopez has some interesting observations about such and related matters in his scathing and brilliant stand-up special, "Tall, Dark & Chicano". Aside from the immigration issue, Lopez makes a number of telling observations about the unequal distribution of privilege among different demographic groups in the US. He notes that you will almost never see a Hispanic person in the US jogging at 2 pm in the afternoon while listening to their IPod or enjoying a latte etc.
Lopez may exaggerate the point, in keeping with the idiom of satirical in-your-face stand-up comedy. But the larger point remains valid. Having lived for a while now in San Francisco, a city with a large Hispanic population, I can state that, in my experience, this is largely true. In the South Bay and San Francisco, one can find Whites, South Asians, East Asians, and Southeast Asians engaged in leisure activities any time in any day of the week. African-Americans are near invisible in these locations, though more visible in the East Bay. Hispanic communities are sizeable in number but are not proportionately visible in the theaters or leisure activity associated with affluence and privilege.
These are the questions media, policymakers, and academic disciplines seem reluctant to ask, perhaps because they disturb nationally held myths and beliefs, such as the idea of meritocracy so beloved of neoliberals,
Whose labor is it that creates leisure for others?
Hence, in this general sense at least, the continuing importance of Marx
Full post...
Saturday, October 10, 2009
A mystery: Indian opposition to Obama, American liberals etc.
The reaction to Barack Obama's Nobel Prize among Indian bloggers confirms something peculiar about the strange relationship of Indians to American politics. The jokes about Obama's award circulating in the Indian blogosphere reflect an Indian tendency to deeply identify with American Republican perspectives-- these satirical pieces and jokes are picked up from many American conservative websites and blogs.
While living in India, or while conversing with Indians during visits or email lists, I also noticed a kind of rage-- and that is not too strong a word-- against American policies of affirmative action, initiatives for gay rights, pro-diversity policies, and the like. Ironically, many of these Indians also benefit from these very policies.
I suspect this has much to do with Indian middle class myths about 'meritocracy', and utopian expectations among the middle classes from free market ideologies. In part, it may be a project of the anger of the Indian middle classes about reservation policies in the Indian context.
It also has to do with a selective and skewed reading of Indian history, one which sees socialist, statist conspiracies stifling the magic of the market. Even a cursory examination of the decades preceding independence will make clear that there was a consensus across parties, industry, intellectuals, and others about the paradigm for development that India needed to adopt with independence.
I think this convergence or identification with the American Right points to the emergence of what may be understood as a Global Right, or a Right with a global consciousness.
Obama is not above critique, of course, but where was this critique when Kissinger was awarded the prize? What is Kissinger's contribution to world peace? War crimes?
Full post...
While living in India, or while conversing with Indians during visits or email lists, I also noticed a kind of rage-- and that is not too strong a word-- against American policies of affirmative action, initiatives for gay rights, pro-diversity policies, and the like. Ironically, many of these Indians also benefit from these very policies.
I suspect this has much to do with Indian middle class myths about 'meritocracy', and utopian expectations among the middle classes from free market ideologies. In part, it may be a project of the anger of the Indian middle classes about reservation policies in the Indian context.
It also has to do with a selective and skewed reading of Indian history, one which sees socialist, statist conspiracies stifling the magic of the market. Even a cursory examination of the decades preceding independence will make clear that there was a consensus across parties, industry, intellectuals, and others about the paradigm for development that India needed to adopt with independence.
I think this convergence or identification with the American Right points to the emergence of what may be understood as a Global Right, or a Right with a global consciousness.
Obama is not above critique, of course, but where was this critique when Kissinger was awarded the prize? What is Kissinger's contribution to world peace? War crimes?
Full post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
