Listened to a nicely weaved lecture today, by Prof. Sudipta Kaviraj, at the Presidency University, Kolkata . Hard to respond seriously to a lecture without going carefully through the transcript (the presence of the venerable Professor is a bit intimidating too), but I will share some observations that somehow are churning in my head since walking out of that room! But, I admit, its a bit unfair to make a critique without making available the original text in its entirety … SO! Here go the Points/Counter-points (CP): 1. It was suggested that we (apparently the poco scholars located in the non-Europe) must take up threads from the European grand texts, and yet, ‘make our own’ “bold” original moves in making arguments about “our own” societies. CP1 --- BUT, even if one makes that bold move through but away from the European text, how does one make sure that this new text is entirely non-European? Who diagnoses it, and how? What is more important, to intend a non-European argument about the non-Europe, or just to make an argument!? Can “we” by default write the non-European original,’ because “we” are located outside Europe (does disciplinary training even matter)? How long does one reside in the non-Europe to be able to qualify as the non-European scholar? Etc… 2. It was suggested that “after Edward Said,” one of the options available to the post-colonial scholar is to build her own theoretical structure following the pre-colonial indigenous culture, which is her ‘own (this option was however rejected). CP2 --- BUT, why are Hegel and Marx, and Foucault NOT OUR tradition? Why do we always give a certain sway to a kind of spatial thinking, compared to temporal thinking? I mean, why someone who lived in India but 1000 years ago, is my tradition, and not someone (take Derrida) who lived some miles away but in my own lifetime is from an OTHER tradition? Can this be seriously argued AFTER the colonial-pedagogical project, and post-modernity? 3. *The most disturbing point* : In answer to a question from the audience, it was suggested that Marx put too much faith on the “cognitive abilities” of the working class, even if this faith was ROMANTIC. And that this only shows Marx was limited to his historical situation. CP3 --- A. This is a known argument, even if it is open to some possible severe critique. For example, what about the philosophical-structural reading that the proletariat is a structural tendency (even ‘ethical necessity’) and not merely to be conflated with real human beings, or their differing intentions? Does Marx only lend to a historicist reading? ***MOST IMP***: B. calling Marx romantic without referring to any clear definition of the term romantic (which romanticism, what romanticism??) is rather sloppy. The term is open to multiple interpretations. If by ‘romantic’, one means a rather idealist faith on a futurity, a justice to be done in future, then how does it differ from an ethical thinking?? NOT to mention the nuances of the transactions and differences between such a romantic futurity and ethical positioning of the future anterior! Oh well, the lecture was simply not that ambitious...
Posted on: Mon, 21 Jul 2014 18:33:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015