Week 9

Prakash's complete rejection of categories he identifies as 'totalizing' rightly come under attack from O'Hanlon and Washbrook. Though he seems to believe that these categories are useless, O'Hanlon and Washbrook make a good point that these categories are useful because these categories are used by the oppressor and thus need to be engaged with. Prakash uses the example of women and the many different experiences they have to deal with to counter the idea of one universal idea of 'womanhood', but he seems to be ignoring that even though their experiences may be different, the discrimination they have to face arises from the very fact that they are women. In short, since it is the category that the oppressor uses, the oppressed may also identify with such totalizing identities thus giving them credence. Even though he clarifies that specific contexts shape universal categories, there seems to be no engagement with the fact that women for example may use the universal category of women in their politics and expressions.
In O'Hanlon and Washbrook's essay, their is no appreciation of the power dynamics of history writing. They seem to consider archival sources 'noise' that the historian makes into a voice; not only this, it is a historian's responsibility is to give it a voice. Prakash raises a good point about the silencing in history that precludes some voices from coming through. Trouillot's very significant contribution of making these silences visible and not attempting to give them a voice while pointing out the power distributions that cause these silences to occur is something O'Hanlon and Washbrook do not engage with.