SV: [Y-Indology] a fortunate exchange

[Guest guest]

Rajiv Malhotra [sMTP:rajiv.malhotra] skrev 3. mai 2001 14:44:

> Wujastyk wrote: "If this subject actually interests Malhotra, he should

> start a literary and sociological study to interview "Western

Indologists"

> (yes, all six of them :-) and actually find out what they think." Yes, I

> agree we should do this. But I use the term Indology more broadly as the

> study of India through a variety of disciplines including religious

studies,

> history, anthropology, philology, political thought, economics, etc. -

hence

> there are more than just six scholars in it.

 

Maybe we should have a look at definitions agains. What you describe is

broadly covered by the term "South Asian Studies". Indology is

traditionally the study of ancient India, particularly Sanskrit, but also

Prakrits and Pali. If you attack Indology, but mean South Asian Studies,

you should say so.

 

 

This

> belief is the notion that European civilization - "The West" - has had

some

> unique historical advantage, some special quality of race or culture or

> environment or mind or spirit, which gives this human community a

permanent

> superiority over all other communities, at all times in history and down

to

> the present. The belief is both historical and geographical. Europeans

are

> seen as the "makers of history"."

 

If this is Blaut's view, then he is seriously out of step with a number of

people. He may be right that this view was common a century ago, but it is

certainly not held by the majority of scholars today as far as I can see.

 

> Wujastyk considers my suggestion of Eurocentrism in scholarship as "pure

> fantasy". Here is how Blaut explains this disbelief amongst scholars. He

> lists 14 "European-centered propositions" that are accepted by the

majority

> of European historical scholars.

 

It would be nice to have the 14 propositions.

 

> His answer: "Scholarly beliefs are embedded in culture, and are shaped by

> culture.

 

This is a truism. But there is more to scholarly beliefs than that.

Scholarly and scientific beliefs in the modern sense are subject to

constant reevaluation and stringent methods of testing. Scientific results

in the natural sciences should be reproducible. Mere subjective culturalism

is not enough. I don't think you (or rather Blaut) can do away with

European (or other) scholarship merely by claiming that it is an expression

of the local culture.

 

Lars Martin Fosse

 

 

Dr. art. Lars Martin Fosse

Haugerudvn. 76, Leil. 114,

0674 Oslo

Norway

Phone: +47 22 32 12 19

Mobile phone: +47 90 91 91 45

Fax 1: +47 22 32 12 19

Fax 2: +47 85 02 12 50 (InFax)

Email: lmfosse

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, Lars Martin Fosse <lmfosse@o...> wrote:

 

> If this is Blaut's view, then he is seriously out of step with a

number of

> people. He may be right that this view was common a century ago, but

it is

> certainly not held by the majority of scholars today as far as I can

see.

 

In view also of what we read in the document at the URL which LM Fosse

gave us in a later post, the following question seems justified: is

this kind of thinking a mere variation on the kind of thinking we find

in E. Said's _Orientalism_? If so, then indeed it is seriously out of

step, and we need not concern ourselves with it any further. W.

Halbfass's words on the matter (which I referred to already once, on

the original Indology List) have sufficiently taken care of it.

 

> > Wujastyk considers my suggestion of Eurocentrism in scholarship as

"pure

> > fantasy". Here is how Blaut explains this disbelief amongst

scholars. He

> > lists 14 "European-centered propositions" that are accepted by

the

> majority

> > of European historical scholars.

>

> It would be nice to have the 14 propositions.

 

Indeed!

 

Robert Zydenbos

Universität München

[Guest guest]

1. LM Fosse: <If this is Blaut's view, then he is seriously out of step with a

number of people. He may be right that this view was common a century ago, but

it is certainly not held by the majority of scholars today as far as I can

see.>

 

Ironically, when <this view (in statement above) was common a century ago> very

few Hindus (if any) were even aware of it. Now, when Western scholars proclaim

loud and clear that such racist/hegemonic views are passe, an increasing number

of Hindu thinkers are convinced that this ain't quite so. No matter how

individual scholars may feel, the impression is not only wide-spread, but also

spreading more and more.

 

2. Zydenbos: <If so, then indeed it is seriously out of step, and we need not

concern ourselves with it any further.>

I am not sure if this benign neglect is either appropriate or even practical.

What is new in our age is the breaking down of the wall between ivory-tower

scholarship and the literate, even well-read, general public. Perhaps the vast

majority of Indologists are truly India/Hindu-respecting and

India/Hindu-loving: or else they wouldn't be devoting their lives to the study.

Nevertheless, there continues to be suspicion and even disrespect on the part

of many intelligent and well-informed Hindus. This is bound to have serious

repercussions on the field.

 

3. It seems to me that it is important for all Indologists and Indian

intellectuals to address and try to resolve these issues and impressions for

the benefit of all.

 

4. I am not arguing that this is the appropriate forum for this.

 

Best regards,

VVRaman

May 3, 2001

[Guest guest]

> > the present. The belief is both historical and geographical.

Europeans

> are

> > seen as the "makers of history"."

>

> If this is Blaut's view, then he is seriously out of step with a

number of

> people. He may be right that this view was common a century ago, but

it is

> certainly not held by the majority of scholars today as far as I can

see.

>

 

The question is, "common among whom?". I submit that,

 

1. Such views are indeed still very much common among the vast

majority of the Western population.

 

2. Such views may not be common among a select group of scholars.

 

3. If so, Western academia is currently out of step with popular

Western culture.

 

4. Many Indians are not convinced that point 1 above does not

affect at least some of the scholars referred to in 2 above. As

Prof. Raman points out, it is perhaps ironic, but such is the

case, and it needs to be addressed intelligently and patiently.

The onus is on academia, to clear away popular misconceptions.

This is by definition one of the goals of education, which is in

the hands of academia.

 

Finally,

 

5. This group may not want to discuss it, but if left to simmer,

it will adversely affect the very future of Indology as a field.

In the midst of digging into the past, there is much to be said

for caring a little about the future. Trends like Romanticism,

Orientalism, post-modernism, subalternism etc come and go. In

the meantime, the current level of support for academic pursuits

in solid Indology is already abysmal. Should it be allowed to

die out altogether?

 

Best regards,

Vidyasankar

[Guest guest]

Before jumping to conclusions, let us also consider what some specialists

have to say, for example the following:

 

Blaut has spent many years on this precise topic, and is emphatic that

Eurocentrism is alive and well today, albeit in different guises and using

different language than before.

 

Inden has made it his mission to contest the portrayal of India's history

that prevails TODAY, and would not be wasting his years if he felt that the

portrayal changed already a hundred years ago as claimed in a post here.

 

Edward Said is never tired of explaining how Orientalism persists.

 

Ranajit Guha, founder of the Subalternist movement, is a big name historian

who stunned everyone by stating what he did at the recent AAS - in effect, a

call to radically rethink India's history.

 

Enrique Dussel's 'Inventing the Americas' is a masterpiece on the origins

and persistence of Eurocentrism, with special reference to the Americas.

 

Robert Young's book, 'White Mythologies' uses the writings of Spivak, Said,

Bhabha, among others, and is part of what he calls the "larger project of

decolonialization of History and a deconstruction of 'the West' - very much

a live project and far from being complete.

 

Dipesh Chakrabarty's book, 'Provincializing Europe' is presenting a

provocative new paradigm - certainly it is not more of the same.

 

Udey Singh Mehta's book, 'Liberalism and Empire' (U of Chicago Press) is an

eye-opener in many ways as to the internal dynamics within Britain that

shaped the 'liberal' theory of empire.

 

Indrani Chatterjee, who recently joined Rutgers University's History dept,

wrote her recent book "Gender, Slavery and Law in Colonial India" (OUP).

Based on original archived materials, she reconstructs the elaborate slavery

system under the Mughals that the British perpetuated, but its history has

been suppressed - often by calling it in sophisticated ways - and how it

served their economic purposes.

 

For a good challenge in women's studies, Uma Narayan's book, 'Dislocating

Cultures' has things about Indian women that oppose their portrayals by the

western feminists. See in particular chapter 3.

 

This is just a sampler of what is coming out, and the trend is accelerating

especially as such scholars network with each other. Any evaluation of the

state of historiography of India would have to include such scholars in the

process. It is not political correctness or sensitivities that should drive,

but serious scholarship.

 

RM

[Guest guest]

>In the midst of digging into the past, there is much to be said for

>caring a little about the future. Trends like Romanticism,

>Orientalism, post-modernism, subalternism etc come and go. In the

>meantime, the current level of support for academic pursuits in solid

>Indology is already abysmal. Should it be allowed to die out

>altogether?

 

If what you say is true, it is more of a statement about popular

interest in ancient history (which can rarely be expected to be high

anywhere, particularly given how pervasive popular culture is -- over

the last half a century, the focus in history departments in the US

seems to me, based only admittedly on what I saw at Cornell, to have

shifted almost completely away from ancient history to very

specialised and political treatments of recent history).

 

The points you make about Indian convictions bear largely, I suggest,

on the failure of Indian academia in general (note, not Western

academia) to establish the same level of credibility with the general

populace in India that Western academia has there. The West has the

advantage of having had more time and more controversies (eg. the

long-running evolution-creation debate) to get used to the idea that

academics who make it their life's work to study phenomena that are

liable to objective analysis are more to be trusted on their subjects

than are other authorities who have not (religious and political

leaders).

 

-- Rohan

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajiv Malhotra,

 

Let me introduce myself. I am an Indo-Iranist. I study old books composed

in old languages that are dead and largely forgotten these days. I have no

special interest in you, your culture, your religion, etc., beyond the

respectul interest that I would have in any other person whatsoever. of any

sort whatsoever, anywhere.

 

I detest the vicious ethnocentrism that dominates popular political discourse

not only in the USA and Europe but also in India and elsewhere. Why?

Because of the fact that such discourses have done serious harm to countless

people, utterly innocent and usually defenseless people, everywhere.

Politically, I align myself with people of good will everywhere, against the

atrocious behavior of the dominant, largely immoral, politically influential

representatives of my own culture, your culture, all cultures.

 

It seems to me that you have already decided that I am a cultural racist, to

use the terms of this fellow Blaut of recent discussion. Well, that is, I

insist, not consistent woth what I know of myself. But actually I don't care

what you think of me, nor do I care what you think of Indology in general.

 

This is [or was] supposed to be a List for scholars interested in classical

Indology. You have admitted that you have no interest in such things. My

question to you is this:

 

Why are you discussing this here instead of on those other lists, where your

ideas are both appropriate and welcome?

 

There are in fact many places on the Internet where one can debate the

matters that matter to you. But I seek a List where I can discuss things

like the syntax of the Vedic quotative particle iti. Is it really

orientalist of me to be interested in such things, instead of your evasively

vague essentialist diatribes against people like me whom you clearly do not

know?

 

I think that you should go after your real enemies directly, and let

irrelevant scholars like me have a quiet little forum in which to debate such

trivial and politically unimportant matters like the phonology of

proto-Dravidian, or the notion of areal linguistics, or to let scholars like

J. Fitzgerald and G. von Simson debate about such esoterica as kArSNeya

upAkhyAna, etc

 

Am I asking too much here? Is scholarly Indological discourse nothing but

so-called white mythology?

 

Well, I am prepared to withdraw from this list for good. It is not what it

should be.

 

Best wishes,

 

George Thompson

[Guest guest]

Lars Martin Fosse wrote:

 

> You will probably find scholars in different fields with arrogant

attitudes

> towards non-Westerners, but I would be surprised if this is a common

> phenomenon

 

I came across a wonderful example of this recently quoted in a work on the

Western reception and understanding of Chinese culture. The quote came from

a book published by a "reputable" linguist in 1993 (I didn't take a note of

the details) who asserts that the Chinese language is so primitive that one

may suppose that it can have hardly developed much beyond a Neanderthal

level ! Absolutely mind boggling !

 

Again, I am writing some contributions to a forth-coming book on world

mythology by a prestigious academic publisher. Looking at the proposed

contents, it struck me as strange that it treats many beliefs of living

religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism (as well as ancient cultures) as

mythology but is entirely silent on the question of Christian mythology --

as though such a thing non-existent or perhaps taboo ! Talk about double

standards.

 

Best wishes,

Stephen Hodge

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Stephen Hodge" <s.hodge@p...> wrote:

> I came across a wonderful example of this recently quoted in a work

on the> Western reception and understanding of Chinese culture. The

quote came from> a book published by a "reputable" linguist in 1993 (I

didn't take a note of> the details) who asserts that the Chinese

language is so primitive that one> may suppose that it can have hardly

developed much beyond a Neanderthal> level ! Absolutely mind boggling

!

>

> Again, I am writing some contributions to a forth-coming book on

world> mythology by a prestigious academic publisher. Looking at the

proposed> contents, it struck me as strange that it treats many

beliefs of living> religions such as Hinduism or Buddhism (as well as

ancient cultures) as> mythology but is entirely silent on the question

of Christian mythology --> as though such a thing non-existent or

perhaps taboo ! Talk about double> standards.

 

Indeed. There is also something of a denigration in the use of the

term, 'mythology'.

 

I am citing Frank Morales in his article, 'Mythology as Weapon':

 

"The related terms "myth", "mythology", "mythological", etc., have had

an interesting history and a very pointed polemic use. That the terms

are rife with very negative connotations is doubted by very few. The

way the terms are used today both within academia, as well as by the

general public, is to denote something which is untrue, false,

"primitive" (i.e., not European), a lie. Just the other day during a

visit to the dentist's office, I saw a pamphlet on the table called

"The Myths About Sexually Transmitted Diseases". The ultimate question

that we, as committed Hindus, all need to ask ourselves is do we

really want such powerfully negative terms also associated with the

sacred stories, teachings and history of Sanatana Dharma?"

http://www.dharmacentral.com/articles/myth.htm

[Guest guest]

Fosse: "It would still be nice if you could give us a few short descriptions

of what these scholars mean when they talk about Eurocentrism. Some

practical examples! Just for pragmatic reasons: most of us don't have time

to read all these books right away, but are curious about this."

 

COMMENT: Yes, I have book summaries for many of these but they are several

pages each. Over the next few days, I shall try to get some of their main

points across. At Amazon, a search on 'Eurocentrism' produces 34 hits, on

'race theory' 252 hits, and on 'postcolonial' 254 hits. These are

inter-related and very hot fields today. People from many diverse

backgrounds are getting into them to deconstruct history and as literary

theory.

 

Fosse: "By the way: I notice that several of the authors mentioned are

Western academics. The Indian authors are also people published in the West

and at least partly members of American academia. That doesn't quite jibe

with the portrait of Western academia as uniformly Eurocentric... Could it

be that Westerners, just like Indians and everybody else, are a more

differentiated group that we are given to understand?"

 

COMMENT: This is all true. (1) As counter-examples to the stereotypes, there

are many racist Indians I know of. Also, there are many non Eurocentric

Europeans I know - in fact they often lead the attack on Eurocentrism.

Likewise, you will find that the vast majority of upper caste Hindus are NOT

fixated the way imagined, and nor are the majority of Dalits venomous as

sometimes imagined. Individuals have multiple identities and values that

they juxtapose to suit the personal needs in a given context. Any

broad-brush painting is stereotyping, of any category of person. Some

scholars wanting simplistic data to fit their theoretical models often use

political generalizations. Unfortunately, scholars often universalize the

particulars. (2) Bi-polarizing an issue is an unfortunate consequence of the

Marxist dialectic; as though there are only two possible and mutually

opposing stands and that these are not fluid. Hindutva has also assumed this

dialectic now. This has led to the mindset that says, 'if you're not saffron

you must be red', and conversely, 'if you're not red you must be saffron'.

(3) Indians at all levels do have agency and are individual free thinkers.

Yet it is often assumed that everyone must be driven by some packaged

political ideology and/or ancient 'essence'.

 

Fosse: "Another matter is that many Westerners, probably including

Indologists, are concerned with the idea of social justice, and in this

respect are critical of Hinduism, or perhaps rather the upper castes'

version of Hinduism or upper caste politics. That will attract some

unfavorable attention. In this respect, it is important to remember that "my

own social and economic interests" are not necessarily identical with the

"interests of my culture and my nation". Westerners who take sides in

India's social struggles are not necessarily inimical to Hinduism or

Indians, but may simply be critical of high caste claims and views. That is

not the same as rejecting India's values and historical glory outright."

 

COMMENT: This is true. But:

1. It is also true that a great many Indians (including upper caste Hindus)

also care about social justice with at least equal vigor. Yet often

westerners paint the notion that India lacks the agency to self criticize or

socially mobilize or reform itself. Notice that during the Gujarat

earthquake, ALL the charities listed by the NY Times and many major media

were Jewish and Christian (except for Red Cross). The attitude has been that

social activism does not happen from within the Indic society - the liberal

rationale for colonialization as the civilizing mission. Kids from Princeton

Day School recently returned from India spending much time at various

ashrams and social/community projects. Their most striking remark was that

they had never imagined how socially engaged Indians really are, from all

backgrounds and religions. In fact, the average Indian student was far more

socially aware than his American counterpart and far less obsessed with

sex - so they said!

2. The involvement of the concerned westerners has not in some cases gone

towards 'solving' problems, but rather (inadvertently) in creating divisions

and schisms. The whole issue of western sponsored scholarship in India's

NGOs is itself a hot topic that would take considerable time to investigate.

But it is a mixed picture, with the good, bad, and ugly.

3. Indians likewise want to and should be able to criticize western society.

Indians have felt that in many cases, western scholars accept criticism from

westerners but not so easily from Indians. "Its been researched;we know

this already" - these are some typical reactions to criticism if one is

lucky. If one is less lucky, the westerner might try to find something

'wrong' with the Indian - be it personal, political, or whatever, while

side-tracking the real issue. [Gandhi: "At first they ignore you. Then they

laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win."]

 

COMMENT FOR STEPHEN HODGE: I agree that an unconscious prejudice of many

westerners is to regard one's own beliefs as logos while others' beliefs are

relativized as mythos. Note that to study Plato, students are not asked to

dress in togas, eat Greek food, and experience other exotica, because Greek

thought is deemed universal. On the other hand, serious Indian thought is

often presented as ethnography, making it culturally 'contained' and not

universal, almost a part of some far away geography along with monsoon and

tigers. Secondly, many western scholars try to analyze others' myths to

discover/construct 'essences' that would explain their behavior both in

history and even today, as if they lacked agency. (This is a major issue

Inden has been tackling.) This leads to a common social-anthropology method

of gathering data about current Indian society and then looking for some

quotes in ancient texts to 'explain' it, as though the texts are driving

today's behavior to the exclusion of all other social processes. Given the

canonized nature of much of western civilization, could this be a

superimposition of the west's own mythos as methodology - the mythos of

hermeneutics?

 

Finally, my general comment on the sociology of this thread: Please note how

various persons failed to even ask for the criteria by which one could

evaluate 'Eurocentric influence on scholarship/textbooks', before concluding

that there was none. Neither did anyone ask for expert testimony - a

standard pramana (which I subsequently supplied as an initial list of

scholars and their works). Nor did anyone ask for empirical evidence of

Eurocentrism, prior to rushing to judgment either way. What does this tell

us about objective scholarship - the discipline to first define and develop

standards/metrics, look for authoritative works, and examine empirical

evidence?

 

The interlocutors presumed the issue as one having no 'substance', and

merely one of political correctness and appeasement. Someone even tried to

justify the topic simply to remove 'popular misconceptions' - by definition

that says that there is no case based on merit at all! Another person said

that we need not be concerned about this matter, giving some vague reference

to Halbfass on another list. He cites one essay by Blaut on an unrelated

topic to dismiss his entire work as irrelevant. But it was Blaut's BOOK I

referred to and not the essay at the web site on a different topic.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, GthomGT@c... wrote:

..

>

> This is [or was] supposed to be a List for scholars interested in

classical

> Indology. >

> Why are you discussing this here instead of on those other lists,

where your

> ideas are both appropriate and welcome?

.. But I seek a List where I can discuss things

> like the syntax of the Vedic quotative particle iti> scholars like

me have a quiet little forum in which to debate such

> trivial and politically unimportant matters like the phonology of

> proto-Dravidian, or the notion of areal linguistics, or to let

scholars like

> J. Fitzgerald and G. von Simson debate about such esoterica as

kArSNeya

> upAkhyAna, etc

>

> Am I asking too much here?

 

 

There are other lists for current affairs and the effect of studies

in ancient history on society today and so on. This list should stay

for scholarly discussions on " irrelevant" and " obscure " topics.

 

List members may well find that scholars will simply leave the list

or stop posting.

 

That loss will affect us all.

 

Regards

 

 

 

Ravi