The idea of India as a construct is highlighted by Gyan Prakash which is never really understood with all its contradictions. How systems of knowledge production perpetuate this "backward" view of India is highlighted- an India that is faltering on its march to modernity. Prakash mentions how attempts to dislodge "western tradition" from the colonial world would do great disservice to the "third world"-it really would be rendered inferior to the West and all attempts at contesting hegemonic structures and revealing new histories would come to an abrupt halt.
In response to Prakash, Rosalind O' Hanlon and Washbrook highlight that while Prakash mentions the dire need for "emancipation", he does not state what exactly we require emancipation from. According to them, Prakash himself engages in that which he tells other not to do: he warns them against writing history around the major themes of global transition but then writes about Indian historiographical development in precisely these terms, seeing the determinants of its progression passing from imperialism to nationalism to a liberal hegemony centered on the United States. Here, Hanlon and Washroom's argument is more appealing as they highlight the necessity of certain structures. They highlight how some sources and voices in history in and of themselves are just noise: "Other" histories uncovered do not speak of themselves any more than "facts" of history do. Here, once again the authors are highlighting the need to situate the "other" histories within the dominant framework of history- where micro history is constrained by the framework provided by macro-history. Another critique of Prakash that seems very valid is the authors' assertion of how even dominant hegemonic structures do not predetermine the outcomes as no hegemonic structure can pervade and exhaust all social experience, least of all oe which fails to meet so many human and social needs. Indeed, it is only within these structures that resistance, emancipation or difference can be meaningfully identified or measured at all.
In response to Prakash, Rosalind O' Hanlon and Washbrook highlight that while Prakash mentions the dire need for "emancipation", he does not state what exactly we require emancipation from. According to them, Prakash himself engages in that which he tells other not to do: he warns them against writing history around the major themes of global transition but then writes about Indian historiographical development in precisely these terms, seeing the determinants of its progression passing from imperialism to nationalism to a liberal hegemony centered on the United States. Here, Hanlon and Washroom's argument is more appealing as they highlight the necessity of certain structures. They highlight how some sources and voices in history in and of themselves are just noise: "Other" histories uncovered do not speak of themselves any more than "facts" of history do. Here, once again the authors are highlighting the need to situate the "other" histories within the dominant framework of history- where micro history is constrained by the framework provided by macro-history. Another critique of Prakash that seems very valid is the authors' assertion of how even dominant hegemonic structures do not predetermine the outcomes as no hegemonic structure can pervade and exhaust all social experience, least of all oe which fails to meet so many human and social needs. Indeed, it is only within these structures that resistance, emancipation or difference can be meaningfully identified or measured at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.