For me, one of the most interesting aspect of this reading was the question raised by the cultural studies scholar Lawrence Grossberg of whether history itself is not endangered by consumerist practices of contemporary capitalism. He asks "how do you produce historical observation
and analysis when every event is potentially evidence, potentially determining, and at the same time, changing too quickly to allow the comfortable leisure of academic criticism". This in a way highlights how the popular notion of historians "uncovering the truth" is an overstatement (to say the least)- revisions in scholarship keep adding on or challenging the previously discovered "truth".
Chakrabarty raises important questions of the interaction of Western notions of modernity within the South Asian context. Its secular trajectory could not be copy-pasted in India. In his work, Guha had shown "that practices which called upon gods, spirits, and other spectral and divine beings were part of the network of power and prestige within which both the subaltern and elite operated in South Asia". The peasant portrayed this dichotomy: though he was illiterate (or pre-political) according to Western standards to be granted "self-government", as an Indian he had the 'right' to self-rule; however, at the same time his contribution to the national cause was only secondary to the urban nationalist parties.
Here Guha also points how modernity was misconstrued within India: in what seemed “traditional” in this modernity were “traditional only in so far as [their] roots could be traced back to pre-colonial times, but [they were] by no means archaic in the sense of being outmoded".
While comparing notions of the secular and unsecular vis-a-vis conceptions of modernity, Chakrabarty mentions Gandhi's saying: 'being human means discovering the possibility of calling upon God [or gods] without being under an obligation to first establish his [or their] reality". For me, this is one of the most profound statement, especially in relation to the subaltern which has to be understood on his own terms. His "belief" does not have to be substantiated by any post-Enlightenment scientific standard to be considered "real".
Chakrabarty mentions how for generations, philosophers and thinkers who shape the nature of social science have produced theories that supposedly embrace the entirety of humanity. And it is within such theories that I perceive the subalternity of knowledge to be produced- where western accounts of non-western society are privileged over self-evaluations of non-westerners.
Modern India by Sumit Sarkar opens with the following sentence:“The sixty years or so that lie between the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and the achievement of independence in August 1947 witnessed perhaps the greatest transition in our
country’s long history". Does this imply that just as some regions as more important than others-a Eurocentric view rendering South Asian studies (on their own terms) into subalternity- are some histories or historical periods (eg, 1885-1947 in this case) more important than others?
and analysis when every event is potentially evidence, potentially determining, and at the same time, changing too quickly to allow the comfortable leisure of academic criticism". This in a way highlights how the popular notion of historians "uncovering the truth" is an overstatement (to say the least)- revisions in scholarship keep adding on or challenging the previously discovered "truth".
Chakrabarty raises important questions of the interaction of Western notions of modernity within the South Asian context. Its secular trajectory could not be copy-pasted in India. In his work, Guha had shown "that practices which called upon gods, spirits, and other spectral and divine beings were part of the network of power and prestige within which both the subaltern and elite operated in South Asia". The peasant portrayed this dichotomy: though he was illiterate (or pre-political) according to Western standards to be granted "self-government", as an Indian he had the 'right' to self-rule; however, at the same time his contribution to the national cause was only secondary to the urban nationalist parties.
Here Guha also points how modernity was misconstrued within India: in what seemed “traditional” in this modernity were “traditional only in so far as [their] roots could be traced back to pre-colonial times, but [they were] by no means archaic in the sense of being outmoded".
While comparing notions of the secular and unsecular vis-a-vis conceptions of modernity, Chakrabarty mentions Gandhi's saying: 'being human means discovering the possibility of calling upon God [or gods] without being under an obligation to first establish his [or their] reality". For me, this is one of the most profound statement, especially in relation to the subaltern which has to be understood on his own terms. His "belief" does not have to be substantiated by any post-Enlightenment scientific standard to be considered "real".
Chakrabarty mentions how for generations, philosophers and thinkers who shape the nature of social science have produced theories that supposedly embrace the entirety of humanity. And it is within such theories that I perceive the subalternity of knowledge to be produced- where western accounts of non-western society are privileged over self-evaluations of non-westerners.
Modern India by Sumit Sarkar opens with the following sentence:“The sixty years or so that lie between the foundation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 and the achievement of independence in August 1947 witnessed perhaps the greatest transition in our
country’s long history". Does this imply that just as some regions as more important than others-a Eurocentric view rendering South Asian studies (on their own terms) into subalternity- are some histories or historical periods (eg, 1885-1947 in this case) more important than others?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.