© Mukesh Williams 2010
Michel Foucault rejects the vast unities imagined by historians in historical periods and instead suggests “rupture” and “discontinuity.” He uses the notion of discontinuity as both the “instrument” and “object” of research. He objects to the themes of “cultural totalities” and “search for origins.” Instead he develops his own theory and procedure to explain the paradox of discontinuity.
1. Archaeology
Foucault identifies various discourses as they emerge in society and get transformed in the process of their implementation. Archeology is a unique method of investigating their emergence and transformation. Foucault does not unravel the hidden meaning of discourses or the deep structure of their rational content. He is not interested to access the larger impact of discourses on the collective unconscious or group psychology. Unlike Derrida he does not wish to investigate the traces or outside implications of discourses. Foucault uses this archaeological method to study the positive aspects of existence. He believes that the method of archeological investigation creates the requisite detachment necessary for a historian to evaluate and clearly explain an archive. The method of archeology involves the distance a historian must maintain while chronicling events. Therefore history can be defined as a system of difference. Archaeology describes the verifiable and positive aspects of a discourse, as if was describing an artifact or a monument.
2. Archive
An archive is understood to be a set of available texts in a given historical period. Foucault analyzes the conditions which give rise to an archive, the relations and institutions that allow statements in texts to become archived. An archive is neither a collection of artifacts nor a set of statements. It is a series of relationships—“the general system of the formation and transformation of statements.”
3. Oeuvre
Foucault interrogates the concept of oeuvres, commonly understood as a set of texts approved by an author in his lifetime. However there are various texts, manuscripts, oral recordings and materials of an author collected posthumously. The author takes various positions from which he makes statements. These positions are independent from the author’s approved position. Therefore the notion of the oeuvre is not a pure category of totalities but a fragmentariness of an author’s works ranging from thoughts, experience, and imagination to unconscious and historical determinants that influence him. An oeuvre is also the secret origin, something that cannot be “quite grasped.” Any person can write from any of the positions not approved by the author and the author himself can express his thoughts from multiple positions. An author’s book contract details and scribbling on a paper napkin do not occupy the same status as an approved manuscript of a book. Foucault therefore destabilizes the conventional meaning of an oeuvre.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Global Cultures and Civilizations
Archaeology of Cultures and Civilizations
The terms culture and civilization are the two most debated words in modern thought and practice and have been used by nations, communities and individuals as notions to create histories, identities and hegemonies. Are the terms culture and civilization residual essences, literary and philosophical discourses cultural anthropology or graspable artifacts? There is no clear agreement amongst scholars as to what these two terms imply and the battle which began in the Anglo-American world even before the 1940s, and heated up in the 1950s, still lumbers on (Geertz, 2000 12-19). Old stalwarts like Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski and Edward Sapir have given way to Arif Dirlik , Arjun Appadurai, James Clifford, Sidney Mintz, George Marcus, Eric Wolf and Michael Taussig, Philip Bourgois and Nancy Scheper-Hughes. But we cannot ignore the twin notions of culture and civilization nor can we jump out or over them. We need to interrogate these concepts as best as we can and once again in the light of new advances in critical theory and philosophy make some sense of both.
In recent times there has been an emphasis on “thick description” of culture and civilization which forces us to believe that cultures and civilizations are not essences floating in the air but directly rooted in geography and socially established codes. As such they encompass the political and religious conflicts of the times and are increasingly given to incommensurability relativism and perspectivism. But cultures, languages, civilizations and traditions are not self-contained entities but always interacting with each other, crisscrossing, extending beyond and overlapping. Languages too are not complete air-tight units but open and permeable. Since people speaking different languages interact amongst themselves, languages come in close proximity and tend to borrow from each other. The belief in sealed entities or “windowless monads” gives us a false picture of concepts that can hold us “captive” and prevent us from “get[ing] outside it” (Wittgenstein, 1953/2001 115). Karl Popper warns us that we must not fall a prey to “the myth of the framework” and become deluded (Popper, 1996).
Culture has been generally understood as progress in art and science that has helped mankind to develop their faculties and character. But with the rise of eugenics and later anthropology, culture became linked to the study of language, customs, beliefs, consciousness, ideas and practices of the non-European ‘Other’. Based on this assumption E. P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class redefined the concept of class as involving “human relationships” and not just economic and occupational indices (Thompson, 1963). He further argued in the “Preface” to the aforementioned book that,
By class I understand an historical phenomenon, unifying a number of disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of experience and consciousness. I emphasise that it is an historical phenomenon. I do not see class as a ‘structure’, not even as a ‘category’. But as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships (Thompson, 1963 9).
According to Thompson class is not only historical in nature but constitutes a web of human relationships over an extended period of time.
Some of the early anthropologists such as E B. Tylor believed in the power of scientific inquiry and cultural evolution to unravel the mystery of the development of civilizations. The Indian understanding of culture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was guided by Darwinism positive science methodologies. It was therefore largely influenced by Tylor who advocated the study of ethnography and anthropology in understanding human cultures. Tylor used the terms culture and civilization interchangeably and saw culture referring to beliefs, laws and customs of the people. He wrote in 1871 that,
Not merely as a matter of curious research, but as an important practical guide to the understanding of the present and the shaping of the future, the investigation of the early development of civilization must be pushed on zealously. Every possible avenue of knowledge must be explored, every door tried to see if it is open. No kind of evidence need be left untouched on the score of remoteness or complexity, of minuteness or triviality. The tendency of modern enquiry is more and more towards the conclusion that if law is anywhere, it is everywhere. To despair of what a conscientious collection and study of facts may lead to, and to declare any problem insoluble because difficult and far off, is distinctly to be on the wrong side in science; and he who will choose a hopeless task may set himself to discover the limits of discovery (Tylor 1924 24).
His passionate plea for scientific investigation and for collecting ‘facts’ reminds us of Charles Dickens’s opening schoolroom scene in Hard Times (1853) where Mr. Gradgrind tells his class “Now what I want is facts.” The Benthamite utilitarianism became an important part of the scientific investigation.
There has been an overwhelming dependence on science and logic to understand culture and the human psyche. Edward Hall laments the debilitating and chaotic power of Western logic to understand and examine the world. In Beyond Culture he argues that,
Two widely divergent but interrelated experiences, psychoanalysis and work as an anthropologist, have led me to the belief that in his strivings for order, Western man has created chaos by denying that part of his self that integrates while enshrining the parts that fragment experience. These examinations of man’s psyche have also convinced me that: the natural act of thinking is greatly modified by culture; Western man uses only a small fraction of his mental capabilities; there are many different and legitimate ways of thinking; we in the West value one of these ways above all others—the one we call ‘logic,’ a linear system that has been with us since Socrates. Western man sees his system of logic as synonymous with the truth (Hall, 1976 9).
Later in the 1930s and 1940s Malinowski also developed his scientific functional approach to understand culture based on human needs. He divided anthropology into two parts—physical anthropology dealing with physiological structure and cultural anthropology relating to heritage, artifacts and values (Malinowski, 1944; 1931 621-23). In the 1970s American anthropologist Clifford Geertz elaborated upon the symbolic aspect of culture arguing that culture interprets the web of cultural meaning rather than lays down scientific laws (Geertz, 1973 5). His understanding greatly influenced the construction of culture n subsequent decades. Recently Geertz has retracted some of his earlier statements. In his book Available Light admits that the fieldwork of an anthropologist lacks a scientific base and is no different from the craft of the novelist writing a bildungsroman (Geertz, 2000).
The Rhizome and the Tree Structure
In the late 1990s new perspectives in the archeology of knowledge further destabilized the scientific and functional understanding of culture. Western knowledge and categories have been constituted along a Hegelian hierarchy; a pattern symbolized by the tree structure with trunk and branches. Giles Deleuze introduced the concept of the rhizome such as a potato that “ceaselessly establish [es] connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances” and like a “tuber agglomerating very diverse acts” (Deleuze, 1993 30). If we sketch a rhizomic map of the world today it would highlight demographic concentrations of relationships controlled by a privileged few who imagine the rhizome as a hierarchical tree. It is not that a rhizome has replaced the tree but seemingly the tree controls the rhizome. However the rhizome also breaks free of such controls in its characteristic fashion as can be seen in cultural dissent and demand for political concession based on culture and ethnicity. The rhizomic view of a hyphenated world united by fast food culture may be good for business but it is not good for immigration. Developed countries seek to open borders for their French fries and electronics but do not welcome a reverse flow of migratory labor. The rhizome does not compete with the tree or is subsumed by it but fights with it for more economic and political space.
The terms culture and civilization are the two most debated words in modern thought and practice and have been used by nations, communities and individuals as notions to create histories, identities and hegemonies. Are the terms culture and civilization residual essences, literary and philosophical discourses cultural anthropology or graspable artifacts? There is no clear agreement amongst scholars as to what these two terms imply and the battle which began in the Anglo-American world even before the 1940s, and heated up in the 1950s, still lumbers on (Geertz, 2000 12-19). Old stalwarts like Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, Franz Boas, Bronislaw Malinowski and Edward Sapir have given way to Arif Dirlik , Arjun Appadurai, James Clifford, Sidney Mintz, George Marcus, Eric Wolf and Michael Taussig, Philip Bourgois and Nancy Scheper-Hughes. But we cannot ignore the twin notions of culture and civilization nor can we jump out or over them. We need to interrogate these concepts as best as we can and once again in the light of new advances in critical theory and philosophy make some sense of both.
In recent times there has been an emphasis on “thick description” of culture and civilization which forces us to believe that cultures and civilizations are not essences floating in the air but directly rooted in geography and socially established codes. As such they encompass the political and religious conflicts of the times and are increasingly given to incommensurability relativism and perspectivism. But cultures, languages, civilizations and traditions are not self-contained entities but always interacting with each other, crisscrossing, extending beyond and overlapping. Languages too are not complete air-tight units but open and permeable. Since people speaking different languages interact amongst themselves, languages come in close proximity and tend to borrow from each other. The belief in sealed entities or “windowless monads” gives us a false picture of concepts that can hold us “captive” and prevent us from “get[ing] outside it” (Wittgenstein, 1953/2001 115). Karl Popper warns us that we must not fall a prey to “the myth of the framework” and become deluded (Popper, 1996).
Culture has been generally understood as progress in art and science that has helped mankind to develop their faculties and character. But with the rise of eugenics and later anthropology, culture became linked to the study of language, customs, beliefs, consciousness, ideas and practices of the non-European ‘Other’. Based on this assumption E. P. Thompson in The Making of the English Working Class redefined the concept of class as involving “human relationships” and not just economic and occupational indices (Thompson, 1963). He further argued in the “Preface” to the aforementioned book that,
By class I understand an historical phenomenon, unifying a number of disparate and seemingly unconnected events, both in the raw material of experience and consciousness. I emphasise that it is an historical phenomenon. I do not see class as a ‘structure’, not even as a ‘category’. But as something which in fact happens (and can be shown to have happened) in human relationships (Thompson, 1963 9).
According to Thompson class is not only historical in nature but constitutes a web of human relationships over an extended period of time.
Some of the early anthropologists such as E B. Tylor believed in the power of scientific inquiry and cultural evolution to unravel the mystery of the development of civilizations. The Indian understanding of culture in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was guided by Darwinism positive science methodologies. It was therefore largely influenced by Tylor who advocated the study of ethnography and anthropology in understanding human cultures. Tylor used the terms culture and civilization interchangeably and saw culture referring to beliefs, laws and customs of the people. He wrote in 1871 that,
Not merely as a matter of curious research, but as an important practical guide to the understanding of the present and the shaping of the future, the investigation of the early development of civilization must be pushed on zealously. Every possible avenue of knowledge must be explored, every door tried to see if it is open. No kind of evidence need be left untouched on the score of remoteness or complexity, of minuteness or triviality. The tendency of modern enquiry is more and more towards the conclusion that if law is anywhere, it is everywhere. To despair of what a conscientious collection and study of facts may lead to, and to declare any problem insoluble because difficult and far off, is distinctly to be on the wrong side in science; and he who will choose a hopeless task may set himself to discover the limits of discovery (Tylor 1924 24).
His passionate plea for scientific investigation and for collecting ‘facts’ reminds us of Charles Dickens’s opening schoolroom scene in Hard Times (1853) where Mr. Gradgrind tells his class “Now what I want is facts.” The Benthamite utilitarianism became an important part of the scientific investigation.
There has been an overwhelming dependence on science and logic to understand culture and the human psyche. Edward Hall laments the debilitating and chaotic power of Western logic to understand and examine the world. In Beyond Culture he argues that,
Two widely divergent but interrelated experiences, psychoanalysis and work as an anthropologist, have led me to the belief that in his strivings for order, Western man has created chaos by denying that part of his self that integrates while enshrining the parts that fragment experience. These examinations of man’s psyche have also convinced me that: the natural act of thinking is greatly modified by culture; Western man uses only a small fraction of his mental capabilities; there are many different and legitimate ways of thinking; we in the West value one of these ways above all others—the one we call ‘logic,’ a linear system that has been with us since Socrates. Western man sees his system of logic as synonymous with the truth (Hall, 1976 9).
Later in the 1930s and 1940s Malinowski also developed his scientific functional approach to understand culture based on human needs. He divided anthropology into two parts—physical anthropology dealing with physiological structure and cultural anthropology relating to heritage, artifacts and values (Malinowski, 1944; 1931 621-23). In the 1970s American anthropologist Clifford Geertz elaborated upon the symbolic aspect of culture arguing that culture interprets the web of cultural meaning rather than lays down scientific laws (Geertz, 1973 5). His understanding greatly influenced the construction of culture n subsequent decades. Recently Geertz has retracted some of his earlier statements. In his book Available Light admits that the fieldwork of an anthropologist lacks a scientific base and is no different from the craft of the novelist writing a bildungsroman (Geertz, 2000).
The Rhizome and the Tree Structure
In the late 1990s new perspectives in the archeology of knowledge further destabilized the scientific and functional understanding of culture. Western knowledge and categories have been constituted along a Hegelian hierarchy; a pattern symbolized by the tree structure with trunk and branches. Giles Deleuze introduced the concept of the rhizome such as a potato that “ceaselessly establish [es] connections between semiotic chains, organizations of power, and circumstances” and like a “tuber agglomerating very diverse acts” (Deleuze, 1993 30). If we sketch a rhizomic map of the world today it would highlight demographic concentrations of relationships controlled by a privileged few who imagine the rhizome as a hierarchical tree. It is not that a rhizome has replaced the tree but seemingly the tree controls the rhizome. However the rhizome also breaks free of such controls in its characteristic fashion as can be seen in cultural dissent and demand for political concession based on culture and ethnicity. The rhizomic view of a hyphenated world united by fast food culture may be good for business but it is not good for immigration. Developed countries seek to open borders for their French fries and electronics but do not welcome a reverse flow of migratory labor. The rhizome does not compete with the tree or is subsumed by it but fights with it for more economic and political space.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
MELUS/MELOW CHANDIGARH FEB 2010
http://melusmelow.org/news.html
MELOW
(The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literatures of the World)
NEWSLETTER - SUMMER 2010
This year MELOW collaborated with Panjab University and the Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi to hold its 10th International Conference on “Literature and Culture Since 1980” from Feb 25 to 27, 2010. After holding a successful 2008 conference at the University of Vishwa Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal, the place associated with the Nobel Laureate, Rabindranath Tagore, members were back in the City Beautiful, Chandigarh, for another conference. Scholars from Nigeria, US, Japan, US and UK, and from almost every corner of India were present.
After all the rigorous screening, the rejections and corrections of the papers, the submissions were filtered down to match the international standard of the MELUS-MELOW Conference.
The three days of the conference were filled with friendly reunions, academic discussions, paper readings, lectures and presentations that went on simultaneously in four parallel sessions.
The conference began with a warm welcome by Prof. Gulshan Kataria. The Special Guest of the morning was Shri Pradip Mehra, Adviser to the UT Administrator. Apart from the welcome address and the Chief Guest’s remarks, the inaugural session included the announcement of the Isaac Sequeira Award and a Book launch (of selected papers of the last conference). This was followed by a keynote address by Prof. Harish Trivedi who, with his scholarly address on “India, America and World Literature,” held the audience spellbound.
In the parallel sessions, as many as four were held simultaneously. These were chaired by senior scholars including Tejnath Dhar, Sudhir Kumar, Gulshan Kataria, Mita Biswas, Anil Raina, K.B. Razdan, Sushila Singh, Lovelina Singh, Anu Celly, Mukul Sengupta, Vijay Sharma, Mina Surjit Singh, Sushi Dutta-Sandhu, Meera Malik, and Himadri Lahiri.
The second Keynote Address, ‘The American Gulliver and World System – Cooperation and Consensus,’ was delivered by Prof. Mukesh Williams from Soka University, Tokyo. Focusing on the issue of dominance, Prof. Williams spoke of the bipolarity that exists in the world today because of globalization on the one hand and religion on the other. “A cosmopolitan consciousness is in conflict with ideology today”, he said. Chairing the session was the eminent academic, Prof P.L. Mehra, former head of Panjab University’s History Department, who followed the lecture carefully and gave some valuable insights in his concluding remarks.
On 27th February, the first Isaac Sequeira Memorial Lecture was given by Prof. P.C. Kar on ‘Aesthetics of Modernism.’ Prof Kar, who knew the late Prof Sequeira personally, shared some of his thoughts with the audience, recalling the academic endeavors he and Isaac were together a part of. In a free-wheeling talk on literature, he focused on the continuity of literary traditions, emphasizing that all endings are in a way the origins of new thoughts and movements. Literature being a never-ending stream, records the flux of life to which we all, academics and scholars (like Isaac) contribute in our own ways. There is no finality, only an ever-ongoing process. Prof Kar’s talk, personal as well as scholarly, brought the conference to a fitting close, leaving delegates of MELOW in a mature, mellower frame of mind.
The conference presented an interesting mix of senior, middle and entry level scholars. There were young and upcoming researchers along with student volunteers. One of the research scholars, Navreet Sahi, made a film presentation on “The Virtual Life of Michael Jackson”. The legendary singer’s last performance that never took place, recorded in the documentary ’This is it’ was screened. The delegates also enjoyed watching a performance at the Open Air Theatre of the Panjab University where The Trojan Women in Hindustani was staged by the Dept of Indian Theatre, chaired by the well-known theatre personality Neelam ManSingh.
The MELOW General Body meeting was held to discuss future events and to elect office bearers for the coming term. There were changes in the executive board with Prof. Sushila Singh succeeding Prof. Gulshan Kataria as President of MELUS-MELOW and Somdatta Mandal being elected as Vice-President. In the Executive Group too there were some changes, all of which have been listed below.
A unique feature of this Conference was that it dove-tailed into the First Chandigarh Literature Festival which comprised Face-to-Face Sessions with eminent writers like Shashi Deshpande, Mamta Kalia, and Namita Gokhale in conversation with equally well reputed writers / critics, Manjula Padmanabhan, Malashri Lal, Pratibha Nagpal, Sudhir Kumar and Madhav Kaushik, In addition, there were story and poetry sessions in English, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi. The Hindi poetry session was chaired by Mamta Kalia and the English Session by Prof. Sushila Singh.
The Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu segments had award winning poets like T N Raaz, Yojana Rawat, Roshan Sharma, B D Kalia, Rupa Saba, Taaran Gujral, Santosh Dhiman and Atul Vir Arora share their thoughts on life and living. The English poetry session included Nirupama Dutt, Kailash Ahluwalia, Balpreet Kaur, Lalita Jagmohan, Aradhana Sharma, Saurabh Gupta and Debasish. Nature, relationships and pain formed the leitmotif of the verses shared by the authors with an appreciative audience, striking a responsive chord in many a heart.
The story sessions in different languages were also well received. Participating in these sessions, reading their stories, were some local writers like K.L. Zakir, Chander Trikha, V. Mehndiratta and Jaideep Chadha, along with some of the delegates from abroad attending the MELOW Conference.
Among the names that stand out in the LitFest segment is that of Shashi Despande, Padma Shri and Sahitya Akademi awardee for her novel, That Long Silence. Mamta Kalia, Director, Bhartiya Bhasha Parishad, is the author of the award winning 'Beghar'. Namita Gokhale is the brain behind the Jaipur Literature Festival which has become a literary landmark in the country. Manjula Padmanabhan, playwright, artist and cartoonist, also made her presence felt, contributing to the animated discussions with the panelists.
A Book Exhibition was held in the foyer and delegates were seen browsing around in their free moments.
DATES FOR THE NEXT CONFERENCE are still being finalized. Tentatively, the Conference will be held in Hyderabad (OUCIP) in the last week of September 2011. Information will be circulated as soon as we can confirm with our colleagues in Hyderabad. The conference theme will be circulated separately.
Office Bearers for MELUS-India, 2010 onward (for the next two conferences):
• President: Prof Sushila Singh, BHU, Varanasi.
• Vice-President: Prof Somdatta Mandal, Viswabharati, Santitniketan, WB.
• Secretary: Prof Manju Jaidka, PU, Chandigarh.
• Jt. Secy: Dr Manpreet Kaur, IPU, Delhi
• Treasurer: Prof Anil Raina (PU, Chandigarh)
Executive Members:
Prof MG Ramanan (U of Hyderabad)
• Prof Gulshan Kataria (Pbi U, Patiala)
• Prof Tutun Mukherjee (U of Hyderabad)
• Dr Mukul Sengupta (Calcutta)
• Dr Himadri Lahiri (Kolkata)
• Dr Vijay Sharma (Delhi)
• Dr RG Kulkarni (Sangli)
• Dr Nandini Bhadra (Mumbai)
• Dr Roshan Sharma (Solan, HP)
• Dr Meenu Gupta (Chandigarh)
Editorial Board:
• Prof Anil Raina and
• Dr. Debasish Lahiri
International Advisory Board:
• Prof Paul Giles, Oxford University
• Prof Mukesh Williams, Soka University, Japan
• Prof Sushi Dutta-Sandhu, University of Michigan, Kalamazoo
MELOW
(The Society for the Study of the Multi-Ethnic Literatures of the World)
NEWSLETTER - SUMMER 2010
This year MELOW collaborated with Panjab University and the Chandigarh Sahitya Akademi to hold its 10th International Conference on “Literature and Culture Since 1980” from Feb 25 to 27, 2010. After holding a successful 2008 conference at the University of Vishwa Bharati, Santiniketan, West Bengal, the place associated with the Nobel Laureate, Rabindranath Tagore, members were back in the City Beautiful, Chandigarh, for another conference. Scholars from Nigeria, US, Japan, US and UK, and from almost every corner of India were present.
After all the rigorous screening, the rejections and corrections of the papers, the submissions were filtered down to match the international standard of the MELUS-MELOW Conference.
The three days of the conference were filled with friendly reunions, academic discussions, paper readings, lectures and presentations that went on simultaneously in four parallel sessions.
The conference began with a warm welcome by Prof. Gulshan Kataria. The Special Guest of the morning was Shri Pradip Mehra, Adviser to the UT Administrator. Apart from the welcome address and the Chief Guest’s remarks, the inaugural session included the announcement of the Isaac Sequeira Award and a Book launch (of selected papers of the last conference). This was followed by a keynote address by Prof. Harish Trivedi who, with his scholarly address on “India, America and World Literature,” held the audience spellbound.
In the parallel sessions, as many as four were held simultaneously. These were chaired by senior scholars including Tejnath Dhar, Sudhir Kumar, Gulshan Kataria, Mita Biswas, Anil Raina, K.B. Razdan, Sushila Singh, Lovelina Singh, Anu Celly, Mukul Sengupta, Vijay Sharma, Mina Surjit Singh, Sushi Dutta-Sandhu, Meera Malik, and Himadri Lahiri.
The second Keynote Address, ‘The American Gulliver and World System – Cooperation and Consensus,’ was delivered by Prof. Mukesh Williams from Soka University, Tokyo. Focusing on the issue of dominance, Prof. Williams spoke of the bipolarity that exists in the world today because of globalization on the one hand and religion on the other. “A cosmopolitan consciousness is in conflict with ideology today”, he said. Chairing the session was the eminent academic, Prof P.L. Mehra, former head of Panjab University’s History Department, who followed the lecture carefully and gave some valuable insights in his concluding remarks.
On 27th February, the first Isaac Sequeira Memorial Lecture was given by Prof. P.C. Kar on ‘Aesthetics of Modernism.’ Prof Kar, who knew the late Prof Sequeira personally, shared some of his thoughts with the audience, recalling the academic endeavors he and Isaac were together a part of. In a free-wheeling talk on literature, he focused on the continuity of literary traditions, emphasizing that all endings are in a way the origins of new thoughts and movements. Literature being a never-ending stream, records the flux of life to which we all, academics and scholars (like Isaac) contribute in our own ways. There is no finality, only an ever-ongoing process. Prof Kar’s talk, personal as well as scholarly, brought the conference to a fitting close, leaving delegates of MELOW in a mature, mellower frame of mind.
The conference presented an interesting mix of senior, middle and entry level scholars. There were young and upcoming researchers along with student volunteers. One of the research scholars, Navreet Sahi, made a film presentation on “The Virtual Life of Michael Jackson”. The legendary singer’s last performance that never took place, recorded in the documentary ’This is it’ was screened. The delegates also enjoyed watching a performance at the Open Air Theatre of the Panjab University where The Trojan Women in Hindustani was staged by the Dept of Indian Theatre, chaired by the well-known theatre personality Neelam ManSingh.
The MELOW General Body meeting was held to discuss future events and to elect office bearers for the coming term. There were changes in the executive board with Prof. Sushila Singh succeeding Prof. Gulshan Kataria as President of MELUS-MELOW and Somdatta Mandal being elected as Vice-President. In the Executive Group too there were some changes, all of which have been listed below.
A unique feature of this Conference was that it dove-tailed into the First Chandigarh Literature Festival which comprised Face-to-Face Sessions with eminent writers like Shashi Deshpande, Mamta Kalia, and Namita Gokhale in conversation with equally well reputed writers / critics, Manjula Padmanabhan, Malashri Lal, Pratibha Nagpal, Sudhir Kumar and Madhav Kaushik, In addition, there were story and poetry sessions in English, Hindi, Urdu and Punjabi. The Hindi poetry session was chaired by Mamta Kalia and the English Session by Prof. Sushila Singh.
The Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu segments had award winning poets like T N Raaz, Yojana Rawat, Roshan Sharma, B D Kalia, Rupa Saba, Taaran Gujral, Santosh Dhiman and Atul Vir Arora share their thoughts on life and living. The English poetry session included Nirupama Dutt, Kailash Ahluwalia, Balpreet Kaur, Lalita Jagmohan, Aradhana Sharma, Saurabh Gupta and Debasish. Nature, relationships and pain formed the leitmotif of the verses shared by the authors with an appreciative audience, striking a responsive chord in many a heart.
The story sessions in different languages were also well received. Participating in these sessions, reading their stories, were some local writers like K.L. Zakir, Chander Trikha, V. Mehndiratta and Jaideep Chadha, along with some of the delegates from abroad attending the MELOW Conference.
Among the names that stand out in the LitFest segment is that of Shashi Despande, Padma Shri and Sahitya Akademi awardee for her novel, That Long Silence. Mamta Kalia, Director, Bhartiya Bhasha Parishad, is the author of the award winning 'Beghar'. Namita Gokhale is the brain behind the Jaipur Literature Festival which has become a literary landmark in the country. Manjula Padmanabhan, playwright, artist and cartoonist, also made her presence felt, contributing to the animated discussions with the panelists.
A Book Exhibition was held in the foyer and delegates were seen browsing around in their free moments.
DATES FOR THE NEXT CONFERENCE are still being finalized. Tentatively, the Conference will be held in Hyderabad (OUCIP) in the last week of September 2011. Information will be circulated as soon as we can confirm with our colleagues in Hyderabad. The conference theme will be circulated separately.
Office Bearers for MELUS-India, 2010 onward (for the next two conferences):
• President: Prof Sushila Singh, BHU, Varanasi.
• Vice-President: Prof Somdatta Mandal, Viswabharati, Santitniketan, WB.
• Secretary: Prof Manju Jaidka, PU, Chandigarh.
• Jt. Secy: Dr Manpreet Kaur, IPU, Delhi
• Treasurer: Prof Anil Raina (PU, Chandigarh)
Executive Members:
Prof MG Ramanan (U of Hyderabad)
• Prof Gulshan Kataria (Pbi U, Patiala)
• Prof Tutun Mukherjee (U of Hyderabad)
• Dr Mukul Sengupta (Calcutta)
• Dr Himadri Lahiri (Kolkata)
• Dr Vijay Sharma (Delhi)
• Dr RG Kulkarni (Sangli)
• Dr Nandini Bhadra (Mumbai)
• Dr Roshan Sharma (Solan, HP)
• Dr Meenu Gupta (Chandigarh)
Editorial Board:
• Prof Anil Raina and
• Dr. Debasish Lahiri
International Advisory Board:
• Prof Paul Giles, Oxford University
• Prof Mukesh Williams, Soka University, Japan
• Prof Sushi Dutta-Sandhu, University of Michigan, Kalamazoo
Monday, March 15, 2010
Keynote addresses by Professors Harish Trivedi and Mukesh Williams at the MELUS-India / MELOW International Conference, Feb 25, 26, 2010
Professors Harish Trivedi and Mukesh Williams delivered keynote addresses entitled First "India, America and World Literature"(MELOW)and “The American Gulliver and World Systems—Cooperation and Consensus” (MELUS) at the MELUS-India / MELOW International Conference on “Contemporary Issues: Literature and Culture Since 1980” held at Punjab University, Chandigarh, India from 25th to 27th February 2010
The MELOW keynote address was delivered by Prof. Harish Trivedi, Post-Colonial scholar and visiting Professor to many national and international universities. Focusing on ‘India, America and World Literature’, he spoke of the very meaning of the word “ethnic”, which comes into play “when you are not where you should be, when you are not where you belong”. But he also said that this was a definition that cannot be applied to literature, the buzzword in fact, being ‘World Literature’ and the need to be “ethically sensitive rather then ethnically sensitive”. “Today world is the circumference and the US is not the centre”, Prof. Trivedi said.
The MELUS keynote address was delivered by Prof Mukesh Williams.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
MELUS/MELOW Conference Chandigarh, February 26, 2010
Culture of Capitalism and Consumerism
The American Gulliver and World Systems—Cooperation and Consensus
We find ourselves at a historical moment that is both bewildering and critical. We want to make sense of what happens around us through information, analysis and knowledge but are invariably left confused. Every nation presents its own picture of the world. Within a nation there are multiple voices. Only the most powerful voices are heard around the world. And the voices in America are the most powerful. They can be heard around the world and they shape a large part of our reality. America has become the most “indispensable nation” in the world as Margaret Albright once put it. What does American mean for India. A lot of our business, technology and education are intrinsically connected to America. At the same time we also suffer from cross-border terrorism for which we partly blame America. We find it hard to dismiss terrorism in India as just regionalism, separatism or civil unrest. We are a beneficiary and a victim of US policies in the past. We still have to maintain a delicate balance between the US and the Soviet bloc as we have done decades ago.
As we confront the present crisis in world history it becomes obligatory for all disciplines including American Studies to seek “new avenues of inquiry” by “asking new questions.” We must ask questions about the relationship between knowledge and power, the conjunction between culture and conflict and the intricate workings of political empires and their self-interests. Edward Said once did this for us. Today America itself is asking these questions (Lipset 1997 31).
President Obama’s Nobel speech highlighted the role that America has played in the last 64 years as both “superpower” and “moral force” to bring peace to the world. He elaborated on some of the “most elemental questions” relating to “war and justice” that America needs to answer. It is better to negotiate a hard-nosed peace with the enemy, he said, than to fight an Armageddon. He rejected Martin Luther King’s concept of nonviolence in Niebuhrian terms. But he accepted King’s idea of Christian love as the major principle of American foreign policy. He underscored the fact that war cannot be eradicated by signing treaties. (Widmer 2009 9) Unlike Bush, Obama affirmed that America should always adhere to the rule of international bodies and at all times wage a just war. Today’s I will reflect upon some of the issues connected to cooperation and consensus that Obama raised. I will also see how these issues affect foreign policy, culture and our disciplines.
THE AMERICAN GULLIVER
In public discourses the US has been called the American Gulliver, American Oceania and Uber America because of its national strength, economic power and military involvement in different parts of the world. It has surpassed the might of the Roman Empire as an imperial republic (Aron 2009). Its might is felt both by Americans and by people around the world. No country can ignore America or fail to have some kind of relationship with it. American global power has far reaching consequences not only in the realm of foreign policy but also in all areas of human endeavor. America affects and defines political values, civil liberties, social sciences, economics and literary endeavors around the world. Sometimes this impact is positive and at others negative.
John Ikenberry explains why America acquired the power to direct the world order. He proposes that ‘rare historical junctures’ occur in international relations after major wars are fought, wars such as the Thirty Years War (1648), The French Revolution (1713), Napoleonic Wars (1815), The First World War (1919) and The Second World War (1945). Nations that emerge victorious after such upheavals, find themselves at a historical juncture where the old world order does not work. They acquire unprecedented power to reconstruct world politics. After World War II America acquired the legitimacy to design rules governing world order. These rules were based on stability and cooperation. It created global bodies like the League of Nations, NATO and Bretton Woods institutions (such as the IMF, World Bank, IBRD and GATT). During the Cold War era it used the power of these bodies to acquire legitimacy to direct the politics and economies of the world. Usually it tailored such rules to suit its own needs (Ikenberry 2001). It also strengthened its resolve to market American exceptionalism more aggressively. There was a belief that American history was not only different from other nations but also superior to them.
WHAT AMERICA CAN DO?
America can reform the world order by using the consensus model that could highlight both cooperation and mutual benefit through the production of public goods, creation of intellectual capital or the revitalization of the economy. What we call in Hindi anukulta aur sahyog or paraspar labh. It could convince other nations within international bodies to endorse its agenda by overcoming objections and promising benefits. There are examples in global diplomacy when a proposal lacked justification but was still accepted as it represented the interests of other nations. Harry Truman’s extension of American rights over the continental shelf near territorial waters (1845) and the recent Proliferation Security Initiative to destroy weapons of mass destruction on sea, land or air are examples. The aim of American diplomacy should not be to supplant the existing order but to carry it forward with minor changes.
America may no longer be a universally acceptable role model but it still occupies a preeminent position as it did when it initiated the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan to contain the march of communism. It once more stands at a critical juncture to use its egalitarian principles and enlightened leadership to shape the postmodern world order. It can be both communitarian and particularistic in its approach. It can develop a world economy without ignoring its own, it can create global markets where its own markets find an important place, it can initiate information sharing to counter threats, and it can engage other nations in dialogue and opinion making. We in India have always had our own ambivalent reactions to our association with America. Our nuclear deal with the US may be of some advantage to us, but the one with the Soviets is even better as it places no conditions. But the US deal is hyped in India. America has shown to the world through the Obama moment that it can override its internal prejudices and surprise the world.
The MELOW keynote address was delivered by Prof. Harish Trivedi, Post-Colonial scholar and visiting Professor to many national and international universities. Focusing on ‘India, America and World Literature’, he spoke of the very meaning of the word “ethnic”, which comes into play “when you are not where you should be, when you are not where you belong”. But he also said that this was a definition that cannot be applied to literature, the buzzword in fact, being ‘World Literature’ and the need to be “ethically sensitive rather then ethnically sensitive”. “Today world is the circumference and the US is not the centre”, Prof. Trivedi said.
The MELUS keynote address was delivered by Prof Mukesh Williams.
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
MELUS/MELOW Conference Chandigarh, February 26, 2010
Culture of Capitalism and Consumerism
The American Gulliver and World Systems—Cooperation and Consensus
We find ourselves at a historical moment that is both bewildering and critical. We want to make sense of what happens around us through information, analysis and knowledge but are invariably left confused. Every nation presents its own picture of the world. Within a nation there are multiple voices. Only the most powerful voices are heard around the world. And the voices in America are the most powerful. They can be heard around the world and they shape a large part of our reality. America has become the most “indispensable nation” in the world as Margaret Albright once put it. What does American mean for India. A lot of our business, technology and education are intrinsically connected to America. At the same time we also suffer from cross-border terrorism for which we partly blame America. We find it hard to dismiss terrorism in India as just regionalism, separatism or civil unrest. We are a beneficiary and a victim of US policies in the past. We still have to maintain a delicate balance between the US and the Soviet bloc as we have done decades ago.
As we confront the present crisis in world history it becomes obligatory for all disciplines including American Studies to seek “new avenues of inquiry” by “asking new questions.” We must ask questions about the relationship between knowledge and power, the conjunction between culture and conflict and the intricate workings of political empires and their self-interests. Edward Said once did this for us. Today America itself is asking these questions (Lipset 1997 31).
President Obama’s Nobel speech highlighted the role that America has played in the last 64 years as both “superpower” and “moral force” to bring peace to the world. He elaborated on some of the “most elemental questions” relating to “war and justice” that America needs to answer. It is better to negotiate a hard-nosed peace with the enemy, he said, than to fight an Armageddon. He rejected Martin Luther King’s concept of nonviolence in Niebuhrian terms. But he accepted King’s idea of Christian love as the major principle of American foreign policy. He underscored the fact that war cannot be eradicated by signing treaties. (Widmer 2009 9) Unlike Bush, Obama affirmed that America should always adhere to the rule of international bodies and at all times wage a just war. Today’s I will reflect upon some of the issues connected to cooperation and consensus that Obama raised. I will also see how these issues affect foreign policy, culture and our disciplines.
THE AMERICAN GULLIVER
In public discourses the US has been called the American Gulliver, American Oceania and Uber America because of its national strength, economic power and military involvement in different parts of the world. It has surpassed the might of the Roman Empire as an imperial republic (Aron 2009). Its might is felt both by Americans and by people around the world. No country can ignore America or fail to have some kind of relationship with it. American global power has far reaching consequences not only in the realm of foreign policy but also in all areas of human endeavor. America affects and defines political values, civil liberties, social sciences, economics and literary endeavors around the world. Sometimes this impact is positive and at others negative.
John Ikenberry explains why America acquired the power to direct the world order. He proposes that ‘rare historical junctures’ occur in international relations after major wars are fought, wars such as the Thirty Years War (1648), The French Revolution (1713), Napoleonic Wars (1815), The First World War (1919) and The Second World War (1945). Nations that emerge victorious after such upheavals, find themselves at a historical juncture where the old world order does not work. They acquire unprecedented power to reconstruct world politics. After World War II America acquired the legitimacy to design rules governing world order. These rules were based on stability and cooperation. It created global bodies like the League of Nations, NATO and Bretton Woods institutions (such as the IMF, World Bank, IBRD and GATT). During the Cold War era it used the power of these bodies to acquire legitimacy to direct the politics and economies of the world. Usually it tailored such rules to suit its own needs (Ikenberry 2001). It also strengthened its resolve to market American exceptionalism more aggressively. There was a belief that American history was not only different from other nations but also superior to them.
WHAT AMERICA CAN DO?
America can reform the world order by using the consensus model that could highlight both cooperation and mutual benefit through the production of public goods, creation of intellectual capital or the revitalization of the economy. What we call in Hindi anukulta aur sahyog or paraspar labh. It could convince other nations within international bodies to endorse its agenda by overcoming objections and promising benefits. There are examples in global diplomacy when a proposal lacked justification but was still accepted as it represented the interests of other nations. Harry Truman’s extension of American rights over the continental shelf near territorial waters (1845) and the recent Proliferation Security Initiative to destroy weapons of mass destruction on sea, land or air are examples. The aim of American diplomacy should not be to supplant the existing order but to carry it forward with minor changes.
America may no longer be a universally acceptable role model but it still occupies a preeminent position as it did when it initiated the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan to contain the march of communism. It once more stands at a critical juncture to use its egalitarian principles and enlightened leadership to shape the postmodern world order. It can be both communitarian and particularistic in its approach. It can develop a world economy without ignoring its own, it can create global markets where its own markets find an important place, it can initiate information sharing to counter threats, and it can engage other nations in dialogue and opinion making. We in India have always had our own ambivalent reactions to our association with America. Our nuclear deal with the US may be of some advantage to us, but the one with the Soviets is even better as it places no conditions. But the US deal is hyped in India. America has shown to the world through the Obama moment that it can override its internal prejudices and surprise the world.
Monday, March 8, 2010
MELUS Internatiional Conference Keynote Address by Mukesh Williams, March 26, 2010
Contemporary Issues: Literature and Culture since 1980
The poetry sessions were the highlight of the second day of the 10th International Conference on ‘Contemporary Issues: Literature and Culture since 1980’ and the first Chandigarh Lit Fest currently underway at Panjab University.The Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu segment had award winning poets like T N Raaz, Yojana Rawat , Roshan Sharma, B D Kalia, Rupa Saba, Taaran Gujral, Santosh Dhiman and Atul Vir Arora share their thoughts on life and living.The English poetry session included Nirupama Dutt, Kailash Ahluwalia, Balpreet Kaur, Lalita Jangwan, Aradhana Sharma, Saurabh Gupta and Devashsish. Nature, relationships and pain formed the leitmotif of the verses shared by the authors with an appreciative audience, striking a responsive chord in many a heart.The keynote address was delivered by Prof. Mukesh Williams, Soka University, Tokyo on the theme ‘The American Gulliver and World System - Cooperation and Consensus’. Focusing on the issue of dominance, Prof. Williams spoke of the bipolarity that exists in the world today because of globalization on the one hand and religion on the other. “A cosmopolitan consciousness is in conflict with ideology today”, he said. The multiple technical sessions were chaired by intellectuals from North Carolina Central University (USA), Soka University (Tokyo), University of Michigan (USA), Visvabharati Univesity, Shantiniketan, Jammu University, Lucknow University and Panjab University. Paper presentations ranged from critical perspectives of Dalit Literature to representation of contemporary reality in award winning novels. An interesting and topical presentation was on the depiction of homosexuality in the film Dostana. Another was on the presentation of terrorism in Indian visual media. Many papers took up the issues of identity and conflict in world literature and the negotiation of transition that is embodied in this conflict. Still others spoke of the culture of consumerism and the political dichotomies as reflected in a multiethnic literary landscape.The final day of the Conference will see some award winning novelists behind the lectern - Shashi Deshpande, Padma Shri and Sahitya Akademi awardee for her novel, The Long Silence; Mamta Kalia, Director, Bhartiya Bhasha Parishad and award winning author of 'Beghar' and over 25 other books; Namita Gokhale, writer, publisher and Founder Director of the Jaipur Literature Festival; Manjula Padmanabhan, playwright, journalist, comic strip writer and children's book author - just to name a few. Noted litterateurs like V. Mehndiratta and Indu Bali will also be participating in the proceedings.
http://bharatsandesh.com/bharat/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14015&Itemid=1
The poetry sessions were the highlight of the second day of the 10th International Conference on ‘Contemporary Issues: Literature and Culture since 1980’ and the first Chandigarh Lit Fest currently underway at Panjab University.The Hindi, Punjabi and Urdu segment had award winning poets like T N Raaz, Yojana Rawat , Roshan Sharma, B D Kalia, Rupa Saba, Taaran Gujral, Santosh Dhiman and Atul Vir Arora share their thoughts on life and living.The English poetry session included Nirupama Dutt, Kailash Ahluwalia, Balpreet Kaur, Lalita Jangwan, Aradhana Sharma, Saurabh Gupta and Devashsish. Nature, relationships and pain formed the leitmotif of the verses shared by the authors with an appreciative audience, striking a responsive chord in many a heart.The keynote address was delivered by Prof. Mukesh Williams, Soka University, Tokyo on the theme ‘The American Gulliver and World System - Cooperation and Consensus’. Focusing on the issue of dominance, Prof. Williams spoke of the bipolarity that exists in the world today because of globalization on the one hand and religion on the other. “A cosmopolitan consciousness is in conflict with ideology today”, he said. The multiple technical sessions were chaired by intellectuals from North Carolina Central University (USA), Soka University (Tokyo), University of Michigan (USA), Visvabharati Univesity, Shantiniketan, Jammu University, Lucknow University and Panjab University. Paper presentations ranged from critical perspectives of Dalit Literature to representation of contemporary reality in award winning novels. An interesting and topical presentation was on the depiction of homosexuality in the film Dostana. Another was on the presentation of terrorism in Indian visual media. Many papers took up the issues of identity and conflict in world literature and the negotiation of transition that is embodied in this conflict. Still others spoke of the culture of consumerism and the political dichotomies as reflected in a multiethnic literary landscape.The final day of the Conference will see some award winning novelists behind the lectern - Shashi Deshpande, Padma Shri and Sahitya Akademi awardee for her novel, The Long Silence; Mamta Kalia, Director, Bhartiya Bhasha Parishad and award winning author of 'Beghar' and over 25 other books; Namita Gokhale, writer, publisher and Founder Director of the Jaipur Literature Festival; Manjula Padmanabhan, playwright, journalist, comic strip writer and children's book author - just to name a few. Noted litterateurs like V. Mehndiratta and Indu Bali will also be participating in the proceedings.
http://bharatsandesh.com/bharat/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14015&Itemid=1
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)