'Eurocentrism' etc.

[Guest guest]

When I read R. Malhotra's message #5522 on the indictraditions list, I

could not help thinking of David Salmon's comments a few days ago -

 

<begin quote>

Message 5522

"Rajiv Malhotra" <rajiv.malhotra@a...>

 

There is a heated argument going on in another egroup called 'Indology', the

successor to a previous egroup in which many Indians got thrown out for

challenging what they considered as Eurocentric view (on Aryans, and various

matters, ..).

 

This present argument got triggered by my posting suggestions that we define

the meaning of Eurocentrism, establish criteria by which it could be

ascertained whether it is present or not, and then look at empirical data

objectively. This evoked first avoidance, then distractions, then mockery,

and now anger.

 

Below is my post defining Eurocentrism that is the latest round of debate.

You are free to comment on that list if you choose to join it.

<end quote>

 

Personally I do not like that provocative 'us versus them' in that "many

Indians got thrown out" (Mr Malhotra could have had a look at the

intellectual and scholarly level of those 'challenges' first).

 

Mr Malhotra: I would like to give you a bit of help here, because I

think that the discussion is potentially beneficial, even though there

are indications that you yourself could be better informed about the

state of affairs which you set out to criticise. If there has been any

mockery on this list, it seems to me that the reasons were (a) an

unfortunate history of polemic noise on the original list, (b) much more

importantly, that you are not yet making any clear or useful point (thus

bringing back memories of (a) of the encounters on the old list to old

readers).

 

For the time being it looks as if your main objection is a variation of

the old 'Orientalist' complaints of E. Said, which have already been

dealt with in different fora. The main flaw in much 'anti-Orientalist'

writing is that it presumes a kind of conspiracy with an object of

domination and control (cf. your own inappropriate parallel to

anti-trust laws and industry). But it is not clear from your writing who

controls, or what exactly is controlled, whether there really is any

such control, and if so: what the nature of that control is and what is

pernicious about it.

 

Fortunately you have become a bit more specific in your later post about

the teaching of philosophy, but there are still some problems -

 

(a) As a partly European person working in a European university in the

heart of Europe, I find it puzzling that you choose to illustrate

your criticism using examples from the USA. Or perhaps we should

understand your criticism of Eurocentrism as one directed against the

United States rather than against Europe (or Oceania: cf. R. Mahoney's

message)?

 

(b) You must realise that Europe and the United States both are very

large parts of the world with large numbers of people, and that you

cannot expect full uniformity in all matters concerning intellectual

interests, educational and research policies, etc. Even some important

cultural attitudes may be different. Just as I have always stressed that

India is a large segment of humanity with great cultural variety, you

must accept that although we can speak about 'Europe' or 'the West' on a

certain level of abstraction, there is always the risk that in our

generalisations we become inaccurate.

 

© Such generalisations become no longer inaccurate, but injust in the

case of earnest efforts to diversify research and teaching. One example

I can give from personal experience. When I was a student in the

University of Utrecht (in the Netherlands; indeed, the world is bigger

than the US), our professor of Indian philosophy was cross-appointed in

the faculty of philosophy. Not only that: a course in Indian philosophy,

given by this specialist (a scholar from Kerala holding degrees from a

few renowned universities in India and Europe) was made compulsory for

all beginning students of philosophy in the university.

 

Now comes the bitter part. What happened to Indian philosophy in

Utrecht? The same as happened to Indology in Utrecht in general: it no

longer exists. Four universities in the country had Indian studies in

the late 1970s, today only one has. Partly this is due to the general

decrease throughout the world in interest in humanist studies and in

support for research in the humanities, and partly because of the sense

of priorities in universities and ministries of education and sciences.

Again this is a complex matter, and we cannot point a finger at one

factor or the other as decisive. But one thing is clear: if a

humanities faculty in a university anywhere in the Western world faces

budgetary reductions and must make decisions between, e.g., preserving a

department of Indian studies and a department of Latin or of local

history (whatever that locality may be), then you can be rather sure

that Indian studies will be discontinued. And this is completely

understandable, even if I as an Indologist am not happy with it. (All

this has already been discussed more than once in the past years on the

old Indology List and can be found in its archives.)

 

Please take all the above matters into consideration before you pick up

one example of one teacher of philosophy who claims that there is no

philosophy in India and on that basis complain to this list about

something still rather vague which you call 'Eurocentrism'. Think of the

situation as it existed in Utrecht for a few years, realise the good

will in certain quarters and cultivate that. Vaguely alarmist complaints

with ethnic undertones, like the one I quoted above, are likely to be

counterproductive.

 

Finally, think of the membership of this list. L.M. Fosse has already

written a few words about this. All of us here would love to see vastly

increased resources made available for Indian studies. Give me two

million dollars, to be spent in my university at my discretion, and I

will get things done that nobody has seen before. Really. But right now

I have to see how much money we have here for buying a chair and a desk.

 

If you have a well-founded critique of the lack of attention given to

India and its culture in US educational institutions (such as in a

philosophy department somewhere, etc.) then you actually should tell

them about it, not us, because it is not our fault and we have nothing

to do with it. In the long run, such things will improve by themselves

if the general public image of India improves, and you can contribute to

this through solid information (not things from the Aryan bandwagon -

see the quote at the top) that creates respect and appreciation. Vague

complaints and anger get us nowhere and will not lead to an increased

interest in learning about India and its culture.

 

Prof. Dr. Robert J. Zydenbos

Institut für Indologie und Iranistik

Universität München

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "Rajiv Malhotra" <rajiv.malhotra@a...> wrote:

 

> In another book by Coward, [i think the name is] 'Jung and Asian

> Philosophy', he shows how Jung taught Patanjali, Tantras, ideas of

> kundalini, etc for a few years at Zurich with tremendous respect

>and awe. He found the ideas of sanskaras very fascinating. In stage

>two, Jung developed his 'collective unconscious' and 'archetype'

>formulations out of these. Then in stage three, he declared that

>yoga was world negating, dangerous to westerners because they were

>progressive people - all based on his (mis)

> interpretation that the Indic was essentially fatalistic.

 

Just bought Jung's lectures on Kundalini in an old bookstore.

 

If German "Aryans" (mis)appropriated Sanskrit tradition,

same charge could leveled upon Indians that happened around 3000

years ago. Zvelebil, prof. Zydenbos' dissertation adviser,

mentions three invasions upon India 1) Aryans 2) Muslims

and 3) Christians, in chronological order.

 

Regards,

N. Ganesan

[Guest guest]

That is precisely what Venerable Indologists say. Respected

Indologists think that the aboriginal Indians certainly 'appropriated'

Aryan features. To quote Prof Witzel [in Erodsy 1995:109]

 

START OF QUOTE

"Not only the language, but also the culture of the newly arrived

elite was appropriated, including the 'Vedic Tank' the horse drawn

chariot."

END OF QUOTE

 

So then, is Zvelebil an invasionist? Maybe RZ can let us know.

 

Regards,

 

Vishal

 

INDOLOGY, naga_ganesan@h... wrote:

 

> If German "Aryans" (mis)appropriated Sanskrit tradition,

> same charge could leveled upon Indians that happened around 3000

> years ago. Zvelebil, prof. Zydenbos' dissertation adviser,

> mentions three invasions upon India 1) Aryans 2) Muslims

> and 3) Christians, in chronological order.

>

> Regards,

> N. Ganesan