[Y-Indology] De-Essentializing the 'Eastern Wisdom'.

[Guest guest]

INDOLOGY, "S.Kalyanaraman" <kalyan97> wrote:

>INDOLOGY, dmitrinet wrote:>

>> I wonder if you, or other people trying to tell Western scholars

>> what they should or should not research/teach (futile task, by the

>> way), ever apllied the above Nietzsche quote to the stuff you'd

>> like to be tought in Western Universities?

>

>Rajiv Malhotra is certainly trying. It is good to know that he WILL

>fail; this will necessitate a redoubled effort. That is the central

>point of eurocentrism, a faith that the superior *E or *IE is the

>Uhreimat and everything -- all thought, everything cultural packaged

>in an elite kit -- flows from their wanderlust. This faith reflects

in

>the curricula of western universities (Europe and US included).

 

The most certain thing about "Western academia" is that it is

pragmatic. Therefore, the key to acceptance of whatever you'd like it

to accept is in the concept of "pragmatical",

which does not include "trying while knowing that you fail".

 

There is hardly anything in "Western thought" that didn't fail at one

time or another -- V axiom of Euclides, rationality of pi,

classical physics, etc. In fact, one of the great physicists --

P.Dirac one said that being a scientist means to be ready to

reject today whatever you believed to be true yesterday.

So, do expect a very sceptical attitude towards "I know such and such

attempt will fail".

 

Insisting on antiquity=validity

(this assumption is present in Indian tradition -- am I wrong here?)

reduces credibility of those insisting on it to nearly zero.

References to "wonderlust, elitisism", etc. -- do the same.

 

Regards,

Dmitri.

[Guest guest]

To S. Kalyanaraman:

 

Indology is the first profession I ever came across where some scholars

would rather keep it under-represented, for fear of losing political

control. When pointed out systematically that in mainstream philosophy their

favorite civilization is under-represented, it amazes me that rather than

wishing to change the situation, they would do everything to: (a) deny the

problem, (b) pretend it's a useless issue, and © fear that someone might

actually succeed in increasing the representation of IP. Strange love!

 

Also, it is the only field I know where the scholars and the persons whose

language-culture they study have such tensions: shouldn't it be of paramount

importance to build bridges instead? How else could scholars maintain their

credibility? Can they say that they love the language but hate the people?

 

On the other hand, I am happy to have discovered many western Indologists

who write to me privately, wishing success and offering help to upgrade the

priority being given to India in the overall academe. Hopefully, we are

working towards a situation where they will be able to 'come out'

fearlessly. I am convinced that those with a deep knowledge of the texts

have much to contribute if bridges can be built.

 

 

Rajiv Malhotra

The Infinity Foundation

53 White Oak Drive

Princeton, NJ 08540

www.infinityfoundation.com

[Guest guest]

While Kochhar criticises my approach as simplistic but without offering any

complex analysis of his own (and hence serves to 'deny'), Lars Martin Fosse

on Friday, May 11, 2001 5:51 AM, makes three excellent points comprising his

complex analysis:

 

A) PRAGMATIC FINANCIAL DRIVER: "The bottom line is: in many European

countries, including Norway, it is simply regarded as a waste of money to

invest in South Asian studies when other lines of study offer better

returns. ..... The West is a market, and it eats what it finds tasty."

 

B) INTELLECTUAL RELEVANCE: "IP has to prove its mettle. No amount of

politically correct demands for more globalisation of education can help you

make it popular in our philosophy departments. They prefer the latest

stuff....But if you want it to be taken seriously, you have to make it

interface with Western philosophy in such a manner that Western philosophers

come to see it as more than an intellectual antiquarian's interest."

 

C) RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: "Such works have already been published, as you have

shown yourself. Publish more of them, and stop complaining about

Eurocentrism. Complaining won't help you, proving IP's mettle will."

 

 

RESPONSE:

 

I agree with all three points. I provided the empirical data to show the

bias, and Fosse has given his analysis as to the reasons for bias. So long

as some denied the issue (Mahoney, Dmtri, Zydenbos, Kochhar...) this

diagnosis was repressed. On Fosse's 3 points:

 

A: Yes, funding determines what issues the west selects and how they are

framed. This explains why Middle Eastern and East Asian programs get more

emphasis than anything Indic, which has nothing to do with philosophical

relevance as demanded by his point B.

 

B: How does one explain the 'intellectual' success of Buddhist Studies in

academia, when at least as much philosophical value lies within the

non-Buddhist areas of IP? Could the answers partially be: (1) Buddhism was

never colonialized with the same intensity and duration, and hence its

scholarship was never so Eurocentric; (2) Buddhism is not as big a target

for Missionary wars today (China bans proselytizing), and hence there is

less 'market' sponsorship for negative portrayals (to use his A factor); and

(3) being non-theistic makes it less threatening, as it can be made to fit

alongside Christianity or appropriated as 'secular'. Hinduism having its own

theistic and secular dimensions is proving more resilient to digest and

eliminate.

 

C: Agreed. We have our work cut out. Fosse's analysis helps make the case

for what we intend to do.

 

QUESTION: Using Fosse's A & B criteria (which denies any political or

ideological basis for scholarship), on what basis does the western market

'eat' up the heavily funded scholarship on: sati, dowry deaths, caste, and

other 'essentializing' in academic vogue? Are these deemed relevant to

western society as per B (perhaps for Orientalist construction of western

self-image)? Or are these 'profitable' in market terms as per A - in which

case, who are the sponsors? Is this inquiry "simply too dumb" as charged, or

simply too threatening?

 

By the way, in my earlier post I should have given the URL to St. John's

College on their starting a program on the East:

<http://www.sjcsf.edu/academic/grads2.htm>

<http://www.sjcsf.edu/academic/article1.htm>

 

 

Rajiv Malhotra

The Infinity Foundation

53 White Oak Drive

Princeton, NJ 08540

www.infinityfoundation.com