Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Dear Rajiv, On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:18:06PM -0400, Rajiv Malhotra wrote: [huge snip] > In the absence of a credible view from other centrisms, > Eurocentrism assumes itself to be the God's eye view or > absolutist view. This is the particular scholar's own culturally > invested centrism disguised, using pedigrees and degrees to > defend the view as being 'objective', branding others who > complain from outside the framework. This also (ab)uses > logos/mythos as a hermeneutics of prejudice - seeing its own > beliefs as logos and universal standards, while seeing all > others' beliefs as their peculiar ethnographic mythos. [another huge snip] This particular subject has arisen may times and this particular discussion is showing all the signs of becoming interminable. Before it proceeds further I do think that the quality of the debate might be improved by a wee bit of preparation. Since the time of Friedrich Schleiermacher there has been a considerable amount of discussion of hermeneutics or theories of interpretation. In discussing this subject one simply has to take their work into account. Its not good enough merely to make vague generalisations of the sort I have excerpted above. For a good overview of the issues involved and the progress which has been made one might refer to: @Book{palmer69, author = {Palmer, R. E.}, title = {Hermeneutics\,: Interpretation Theory in Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heidegger, and Gadamer}, publisher = {Northwestern University Press}, year = 1969, key = {palmer:1969}, address = {Evanston}, ISBN = {0810100274}, series = {Northwestern University studies in phenomenology and existential philosophy} } If one is familiar with the work which has been done --- as are many of our so-called `Eurocentric Indologists' --- I am sure one would hesitate to write the above. For example, here is a much quoted passage from Gadamer which shows that the concerns about the influence of one's own perspective -- whether that be social, economic, political, cultural, educations et caetera --- were not entirely alien to him, European that he is : \begin{quotation} \noindent A person who is trying to understand a text is always performing an act of projecting. He projects before himself a meaning for the text as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges in the text. Again, the latter emerges only because he is reading the text with particular expectations in regard to a certain meaning. The working out of this fore-project, which is constantly revised in terms of what emerges as he penetrates into the meaning, is understanding what is there.[1] \end{quotation} Many regards, Richard Mahoney [1] @Book{gadamer75, author = {Gadamer, Hans-Georg}, title = {Truth and Method}, publisher = {Seabury Press}, year = 1975, address = {New York}, key = {gadamer:1975} } -- ------------------------ Richard Mahoney ------------------------- 78 Jeffreys Rd +64-3-351-5831 Christchurch New Zealand --------------- rbm49 ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Could someone please explain why members of the list write about Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) as though his ideas were still current? His views about Indian culture and learning are no doubt repugnant to present-day readers, but surely nobody *does* read them, outside extremely specialist circles. Certainly, in Britain, the only work of his that is still generally remembered is a poem about ancient Rome called "How Horatius kept the Bridge"! It all seems a bit like getting upset about the political views of (for example) the 1st Duke of Wellington. They were people of their time, with the education and background that that implies. A few people in an age can rise above their conditioning, but most cannot. Dr Valerie J Roebuck Manchester, UK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Valerie, A discussion on this subject is likely to be fruitless because the actual thinking of Thomas Macaulay is not really at issue. Mr. Malhotra, like many Indians who hold grudges about the way they think the country is run, use "Macaulayite" as a generic shorthand insult for English-speaking Indians whose politics they don't like. The logic that appears over and over again (including in Mr. Malhotra's oeuvre) runs as follows: Macaulay wrote a Minute in 1835 arguing for European education in India; hence anyone who disagrees with me is a Brown Englishman / Macaulayite; hence they are wrong / irrelevant. When you see the word "Macaulayite", run, don't walk to your delete button, because it is a sure sign that you are reading political polemics stuffed with fuzzy and lazy logic, not academic discourse. All this is, I believe, irrelevant to Indology. Just ignore it. -- Rohan. >Could someone please explain why members of the list write about Thomas >Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) as though his ideas were still current? His >views about Indian culture and learning are no doubt repugnant to >present-day readers, but surely nobody *does* read them, outside extremely >specialist circles. Certainly, in Britain, the only work of his that is >still generally remembered is a poem about ancient Rome called "How >Horatius kept the Bridge"! > >It all seems a bit like getting upset about the political views of (for >example) the 1st Duke of Wellington. They were people of their time, with >the education and background that that implies. A few people in an age can >rise above their conditioning, but most cannot. > >Dr Valerie J Roebuck >Manchester, UK > > > > >indology > > > >Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Dear all, Maculauy is not irrelevant to discussions as his opinions historically mattered and devalorised the Indian system of education, while both the systems should have been constructively combined, which is what the Ramakrishna mission and the arya samaj systems of education are all about..but the discussion on this on the indology list today I agree with Rohan is futile digging, as some things should lay dead and buried to enable us to think postively and proceed further in a constructive manner....although sometimes it is nice to air out as well and remember the mistakes... this is what the list is about also, not working in spelendid isolation.... all the best vibha --- ro11 wrote: > Valerie, > > A discussion on this subject is likely to be > fruitless because > the actual thinking of Thomas Macaulay is not really > at issue. > > Mr. Malhotra, like many Indians who hold grudges > about the way they > think the country is run, use "Macaulayite" as a > generic shorthand > insult for English-speaking Indians whose politics > they don't like. > > The logic that appears over and over again > (including in > Mr. Malhotra's oeuvre) runs as follows: Macaulay > wrote a Minute in > 1835 arguing for European education in India; hence > anyone who > disagrees with me is a Brown Englishman / > Macaulayite; hence they are > wrong / irrelevant. > > When you see the word "Macaulayite", run, don't walk > to your delete > button, because it is a sure sign that you are > reading political > polemics stuffed with fuzzy and lazy logic, not > academic discourse. > > All this is, I believe, irrelevant to Indology. > Just ignore it. > > -- Rohan. > > > > > > > > > > >Could someone please explain why members of the > list write about Thomas > >Babington Macaulay (1800-1859) as though his ideas > were still current? His > >views about Indian culture and learning are no > doubt repugnant to > >present-day readers, but surely nobody *does* read > them, outside extremely > >specialist circles. Certainly, in Britain, the > only work of his that is > >still generally remembered is a poem about ancient > Rome called "How > >Horatius kept the Bridge"! > > > >It all seems a bit like getting upset about the > political views of (for > >example) the 1st Duke of Wellington. They were > people of their time, with > >the education and background that that implies. A > few people in an age can > >rise above their conditioning, but most cannot. > > > >Dr Valerie J Roebuck > >Manchester, UK > > > > > > > > > >indology > > > > > > > >Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > indology > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > __________ Get your free @.co.uk address at http://mail..co.uk or your free @.ie address at http://mail..ie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Dear Richard, Thank you, the references are intersting and somewhat I have also used for discourse analysis and deconstruction, but you missed out Habermas, and you cannot fully understand Gadamer without Habermas! Add Ciollingwood's Idea of history, the works of Derrida and Lacan to the list.... all the best vibha --- Richard B Mahoney <rbm49 wrote: > Dear Rajiv, > > On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 08:18:06PM -0400, Rajiv > Malhotra wrote: > > [huge snip] > > > In the absence of a credible view from other > centrisms, > > Eurocentrism assumes itself to be the God's eye > view or > > absolutist view. This is the particular scholar's > own culturally > > invested centrism disguised, using pedigrees and > degrees to > > defend the view as being 'objective', branding > others who > > complain from outside the framework. This also > (ab)uses > > logos/mythos as a hermeneutics of prejudice - > seeing its own > > beliefs as logos and universal standards, while > seeing all > > others' beliefs as their peculiar ethnographic > mythos. > > [another huge snip] > > This particular subject has arisen may times and > this particular > discussion is showing all the signs of becoming > interminable. Before it proceeds further I do think > that the > quality of the debate might be improved by a wee bit > of > preparation. > > Since the time of Friedrich Schleiermacher there has > been a > considerable amount of discussion of hermeneutics or > theories of > interpretation. In discussing this subject one > simply has to > take their work into account. Its not good enough > merely to make > vague generalisations of the sort I have excerpted > above. > > For a good overview of the issues involved and the > progress which > has been made one might refer to: > > @Book{palmer69, > author = {Palmer, R. E.}, > title = {Hermeneutics\,: Interpretation Theory in > Schleiermacher, Dilthey, > Heidegger, and Gadamer}, > publisher = {Northwestern University Press}, > year = 1969, > key = {palmer:1969}, > address = {Evanston}, > ISBN = {0810100274}, > series = {Northwestern University studies in > phenomenology and > existential philosophy} > } > > If one is familiar with the work which has been done > --- as are > many of our so-called `Eurocentric Indologists' --- > I am sure one > would hesitate to write the above. For example, here > is a much > quoted passage from Gadamer which shows that the > concerns about > the influence of one's own perspective -- whether > that be social, > economic, political, cultural, educations et caetera > --- were not > entirely alien to him, European that he is : > > \begin{quotation} > \noindent > A person who is trying to understand a text is > always performing an > act of projecting. He projects before himself a > meaning for the text > as a whole as soon as some initial meaning emerges > in the text. > Again, the latter emerges only because he is > reading the text with > particular expectations in regard to a certain > meaning. The working > out of this fore-project, which is constantly > revised in terms of > what emerges as he penetrates into the meaning, is > understanding > what is there.[1] > \end{quotation} > > > Many regards, > > Richard Mahoney > > [1] @Book{gadamer75, > author = {Gadamer, Hans-Georg}, > title = {Truth and Method}, > publisher = {Seabury Press}, > year = 1975, > address = {New York}, > key = {gadamer:1975} > } > > > -- > ------------------------ Richard Mahoney > ------------------------- > 78 Jeffreys Rd > +64-3-351-5831 > Christchurch > New Zealand > --------------- rbm49 > ---------------- > > > indology > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > __________ Get your free @.co.uk address at http://mail..co.uk or your free @.ie address at http://mail..ie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Dr. Roebuck and others, Surprising such comments should come from 'apolitical' person like secularist Rohan Oberoi (try the URL's below again if some do not work) 1. Who is so secular that his article is quoted in the OFFICIAL website of the dictator military regime of Pakistan (along with that of Khalistanis like Aulakh). See http://www.pakdef.com/articles/ 2. His prejudiced views of Maharashtrians would have made some people proud in the 1940's. See http://www.rediff.com/news/dec/04varsha.htm 3. Indians in the USA still remember his public defense of the hijackers of of the Indian Airlines Flight (25 December 1999 to Kandahar). See http://www.snsm.org.my/library/media/media_2000/000109b.htm http://indianterrorism.homestead.com/IC814hijacking.html 4. His enlightening views on Israel are at http://www3.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/22/0,7056,82002-310613,00.html A search on the net will reveal much more. So Dr. Roebuck, you and other Indologists are certainly most welcome to agree with some apolotically views of those whose political views nevertheless encompass - writing apologias for murderous hijackers, whose articles are present on military dictatorship regines' websites or so on. Are Indology and Politics separable? See the answer straight from the horse's mouth at http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE? A2=ind9206&L=indology&P=R1204&m=194 Or maybe, you can adhere to the political views of respectable Indologists like Robert Zydenbos who states that Samar Abbas' views should not be banned but does not bat an eyelid when so many Indians were expelled from the Indology list http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE? A2=ind0008&L=indology&P=R15684 Or maybe, George Thompson on his enlightening views on the Aryan problem pg. 424 of International Journal of Hindu Studies; vol 1.2, august 1997: "On the other hand, it is clear that the problem of Aryan origins remains essentially intractable, for political reasons...<snip>......the conception of an Aryan invasion of the subcontinent at some unspecifiable time in prehistory remains a matter of continuing controversy...." [Comment: Controversy? I thought AIT was dead. Apparently for some, the matter was still open in 1997] And which respectable Indologist found nothing wrong with the comparative Historians's remarks on the state of science and technology. The answer is not surprising- http://listserv.liv.ac.uk/cgi-shl/WA.EXE? A2=ind0010&L=indology&D=1&O=A&P=37991 THIS is what we can call Eurocentrism. And politics. Not academics. I am glad I do not belong in the camp of RO. Maybe RO belongs to the camp of Indology though. And there does appear to be considerable overlap between these two camps. Regards VA INDOLOGY, ro11@c... wrote: > Valerie, > > When you see the word "Macaulayite", run, don't walk to your delete > button, because it is a sure sign that you are reading political > polemics stuffed with fuzzy and lazy logic, not academic discourse. > > All this is, I believe, irrelevant to Indology. Just ignore it. > > -- Rohan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Valerieji : "Macaulayite" is most likely an inappropriate term for Western Indologists today. In my judgment, they are on the periphery of the power structure, and after all, have chosen a professional career in a field that is obscure or at least not very fashionable in the West. In the Indian context, "Macaulayite", like "fascist" is over-used. But Macaulayite does have a specific meaning, and it relates to Indian education. To a Macaulayite, the classical Indian tradition -- the subject of Indology -- has nothing to offer the modern Indian curriculum. Such a person finds it incomprehensible that an ordinary Indian might want to study Sanskrit. Even study in the university is stifled by such folks. An concrete example would be the resistance in Jawaharlal Nehru University to setting up a faculty for Indology. That they recently agreed that Sanskrit ought to be taught is a compromise with the Honorable Minister M.M. Joshi, who was threatening to stuff jyotisha shastra down their throats. The charge of "Eurocentrism" too, I think is inappropriate to most Western Indologists, though it may be applicable to many Western scholars in other fields. Seeing things from the perspective provided by one's own culture is only natural. Any defects introduced by this can be removed if Indological studies flourish around the world. -Arun Gupta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 6, 2001 Report Share Posted May 6, 2001 Rajiv Malhotra's shadow side continues to lurk like a thief in the shadow of innuendo ["I NEVER named anyone as Eurocentric on this thread" -- so he protests], instead of stepping out into the light of explicit assertion. Meanwhile a toothless little pit bull is snarling at our list's pant leg once again. This is unmoderated Indology for you. If there is a failure of courage here, where exactly is it? GT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 1. The shadow side contains precisely those aspects of oneself that one wants to deny. Hence, when it is pointed out, it is natural to first ignore, then to mock at the suggestion, then to get angry, then to pretend that one already knows (as if that makes it irrelevant), and then to attack the person mentioning it. It is little wonder then, that Eurocentrism even as a topic is so threatening to those whose tone suggests that they self-identify with it. Just as Freud would be arrogant and self-contradictory if he denounced a psychoanalysis done about him, can Western culture treat the reverse anthropology of it by 'Others' with such disdain, especially if done using comparable methods to those already in use by the West? 2. Beyond attempts to ignore, mock at, divert, and get angry even personally, the basic elements of my proposed definition have been ignored: ALL centrisms are symmetrical in my view, none being more prejudiced than the others. By the same token, none should be entitled to any 'essential' superiority over all others (which is where the problem lies today). Not all members of a given race are centric based on it - there are Indians who are Eurocentric (a.k.a. Macaulayites) and conversely many Europeans are very Indo-centric, as examples. My proposal calls for dialog as equals replacing the hegemony of one privileged lens. Finally, Eurocentrism is NOT about a person but about an attitude that has a life of its own. So one could say that a certain curriculum is Eurocentric without any single person being responsible for it, for instance. Nobody has taken me up on my offer to present my proposed set of measurement criteria for detecting Eurocentrism. 3. To Richard Mahoney: I am familiar with Gadamer's quotes, which supports my position, and also from many others that are more recent. (We sponsored a report on interpretation of texts by a Prof at Princeton U. Philosophy Dept. two years back. It is being published. I would gladly supply you with a decent bibliography on cross-cultural hermeneutics off-list, if you were interested.) However, to dismiss a phenomenon as irrelevant or non-existent on the basis that some scholars wrote about it in the past would be comparable to saying that caste is irrelevant or non-existent today because much has been written on it. A test of any centrism today would be to measure it in the real world as opposed to whether Gadamer or others understood it. Also, please note the Gadamer diagnosed it, but did not have a prescription to eliminate it. Isn't your argument like saying that because we can test for HIV, that therefore it is a non-issue? 4. To Valerie J Roebuck: Likewise for Macaulay. We don't say that since the originators of caste lived centuries ago, that therefore it be assumed that the phenomenon is gone. The tests for Macaulayism must be contemporary: for example, last month, India's premier liberal arts university, JNU, decided to start a chair for Greek/Latin language and culture, but refuses to allow Sanskrit literature. If that is not Macaulayism, then what is? Should this list on Indology note that India's universities do not have Indology departments, or is that simply irrelevant because Macaulay did his deed so long ago? 5. "When you see the word "Macaulayite", run.....". This is a normal reaction from Macaulayites. It is the 'ouch' heard by a doctor from the patient, and it merely indicates that there lies some deeper condition beneath. The problem with the advice prescribed in this quote is that while you can run, you can never hide from yourself. 6. Luis Gonzalez-Reimann wrote: "Marxism does not hold the copyright to a "bi-polar" perspective, you can trace it back a long way. Hindu/Indian traditions are full of such bipolar classifications." You are right. But I never said Marxism was exclusive on this. In fact, ANYONE'S bipolar fixation is equally problematic in moving forward. Remember, I also wrote that the attitude 'if it is not saffron, in must be red' to be the same problem. Having agreed on this, what do you say about my proposed definition of the various centrisms? 7. I NEVER named anyone as Eurocentric on this thread. Yet, it is amusing that raising the topic evokes personal attacks on me. Some panicked 'scholars' have copied to this egroup posts from other - often misquoted, incomplete, or without the context - that are on entirely unrelated topics, while at the same time there is complaining that all this is irrelevant here. Why are the high priests so threatened? 8. If hypothetically, China were ruling the world at some time, then the study of China-centrism would assume special importance, even though many other cultures would continue to have their own unique centrisms. RM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 GthomGT wrote at Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:15 PM: "Rajiv Malhotra's shadow side continues to lurk like a thief in the shadow of innuendo ["I NEVER named anyone as Eurocentric on this thread" -- so he protests], instead of stepping out into the light of explicit assertion. Meanwhile a toothless little pit bull is snarling at our list's pant leg once again." COMMENT: As the saying goes, when you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. Some persons are getting really desperate it seems. Gandhi said: "First they will ignore you. Then they will laugh at you. Then they will fight you. Then you win." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 Folks, relax, please. He'd like nothing better than to be "thrown off" the Indology list. It would improve his credibility in some circles immensely, or so he thinks, if I may indulge in speculation. He is suspected of Eurocentricism by some of his cohorts, I think. Besides, he has a point and he merits a civil hearing. Someone should take him up on his offer, let him lay out his case, and evaluate his reasoning. Maybe an obligation of professional leadership in the nature of Jefferson's "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." The White Man's Burden, I suppose he might say. No, fairness and due process and respect for the many people who hold views similar to his. But the academic content of the list overall is greatly reduced. I could make some practical suggestions for resolving this, I think, but I am a nobody in the gallery. Last I knew, the future of this list was in limbo, in committee. Are there any plans to report out a bill? David > > GthomGT wrote at Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:15 PM: "Rajiv Malhotra's > shadow side continues to lurk like a thief in the shadow of innuendo ["I > NEVER named anyone as Eurocentric on this thread" -- so he protests], > instead of stepping out into the light of explicit assertion. Meanwhile a > toothless little pit bull is snarling at our list's pant leg once again." > > COMMENT: As the saying goes, when you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, > baffle them with bullshit. Some persons are getting really desperate it > seems. Gandhi said: "First they will ignore you. Then they will laugh at > you. Then they will fight you. Then you win." Sponsor > > > > > indology > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 David Salmon wrote on Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:55 PM: " He is suspected of Eurocentricism by some of his cohorts, I think." RESPONSE: My upbringing did include a Macaulayite influence, as many things Indic were ignored or denigrated. To some extent, it was Westerners who opened my eyes about the value of my tradition, both as writers and through personal friendships. So I would never conflate Eurocentrism with a particular race. (On the contrary, citing one counter-example, yoga has an estimated 20 million Americans as participants, and the number is rapidly growing. But in India, its revival has lagged behind the US, and the 'legitimization' by the US has helped a major renaissance within India.) Per the charge quoted above, I openly adopt different centrisms' stands on different issues, including the Eurocentrism one, and also switch perspectives on a given issue as and when I learn more. This multi-centrism with fluidity to shift around, and semi-permeable boundaries, is what I propose others to experiment with. It is more than just role reversal. Some day, I hope humanity achieves a transcendental perspective that is non centric - but for now, such claims of logos have often been disguised Eurocentrism. Meanwhile, let's be honest: (a) by making the unconscious prejudice into a conscious one, and (b) by making private prejudice into a public one. This would make space for other counter-balancing centrisms as equal interlocutors. People should not fear such a discussion, as it would merely provoke thought. We discuss caste, etc dispassionately, so why is Eurocentrism off the table? Is this attitude itself not an interesting data point in measuring Eurocentrism - namely, the selection and control over topics of discourse? Hindutva should be examined as a conflation of Hindu centrism with India centrism, in both directions: (a) First, it appropriates all Indic as being Hindu. This is to deny India's secular traditions - philosophy, science, technology, medicine, commerce, etc. - as having legitimacy outside religion. (b) Second, it proposes that this conflated Hindu centrism be the national ethos as India centrism. Ironically, Hindutva's opponents have facilitated the first conflation, while attacking the second. Dispassionate deconstructions would allow examination of both these conflations separately. What scares people from honest inquiry on such matters might be that they have let their thinking skills atrophy. What they call thinking is merely the party line of some ideology that they to as a crutch, and that now does their thinking for them unconsciously. When the person's self esteem gets constructed on such an improvised belief foundation, then the mere idea of questioning becomes cause for anger as we witnessed on this list. Yet it is precisely by expanding the space in between the bipolar extremes that there could be bridges built. Considerable numbers of persons on both sides are fed up with the rigidity of their 'side', but do not know how to get out. Many had no choice and simply got thrown into one box or the other, in the same manner as Risley, the man in charge of Britain's 1901 census of India, forced many villagers to choose their caste or assigned one to them. Politics is about creating and exacerbating boundaries and that's the culprit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 First, I sincerely apologize to Rajiv Malhotra, and to the list in general, for my nasty post. I should not have responded to the other poster, nor should I have associated Malhotra with him. For what it's worth: In spite of our disagreements I sense that Mr Malhotra's motives ultimately are good and decent. Second, Dominik, will you please me? Thanks for putting up with me for so long. George Thompson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2001 Report Share Posted May 7, 2001 INDOLOGY, "David Salmon" <dsalmon@s...> wrote: >> Besides, he has a point and he merits a civil hearing. Someone should take> him up on his offer, let him lay out his case, and evaluate his reasoning.> Maybe an obligation of professional leadership in the nature of Jefferson's> "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." The White Man's Burden, I> suppose he might say. No, fairness and due process and respect for the many> people who hold views similar to his. > > But the academic content of the list overall is greatly reduced. Here is some academic content; may be it ain't if 'academic' is defined as only related to questions of grammar: http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/gondalecture.html Protestants, Orientalists, and Bråhmanas: Reconstructing Indian Social History; 1994 Gonda Lecture, Gonda Foundation, Netherlands by Richard W. Lariviere Ralph B. Thomas Regents Professor of Asian Studies University of Texas at Austin Some excerpts related to three criticisms of Sanskrit philology: "..Orientalist criticism, I would say that the primary objection is that the history of ancient India is inadequate. That what we know about India is predicated on an almost willfully incomplete view of the record of Indian history. Sometimes this willfully incomplete record was produced to deliberately serve the interests of colonialism, and in other cases it was not intended to be so used, but it was nevertheless used for those purposes... "...the Essentialist criticism, is in some sense a refinement of the Orientalist criticism. According to this line of criticism, what we have done as Sanskritists is to take the evidence of Sanskrit texts atemporally and attempt to make a timeless, uniform system of thought that was immune from the normal vicissitudes of politics, personality, and human appetites. It became, according to this line of criticism, possible to describe "an" India, "an" Indian mind, etc., thus creating an essential India, which when understood and thus mastered, made it possible to "understand" each and every phenomenon of India according to these essentialist categories... "...Distortionist criticism, calls Sanskrit philology to task for taking Indian ideas out of context and using them in ways that they were never intended. The study of Sanskrit, we are told by these critics, has been said to be in some measure responsible for the dehumanization of Jews, gypsies and others in Nazi Germany. This was done by contributing significantly to the quest for an Aryan identity among Germans. In addition to this fairly extravagant claim, the Distortionist school of criticism claims that philologists have tended only to use western categories when studying things like literature..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.