Mohan J. Dutta: Critical Insights on Culture and Society

Eurocentric knowledge, which emphasizes objectivist logic and many dichotomies (science/ art) basically delegitimize other ways of knowing. Postmodern, Feminist scholars and more importantly Postcolonial and Subaltern studies scholars have criticized that very approach of knowledge production. Thus, scholars have questioned dominant methods of data collection, analysis and representation in research process. By doing so, they essentially emphasized the need for considering aesthetic rationally as a way of knowing. Storied, emotive and embodied experience of a subject may legitimate many points of view and may create alternate discursive possibilities. Based on human intuition, imagination (and often experience) an aesthetic expression may initiate and create the possibility of social transformation. Oftentimes the expressions are results/ reflection of suffering, oppressions, inequality of material reality; and at the same time that utter/ convey the hope/dream for changing the scenari

The reading this week seems to coincide with the discussion in my political sociology class about how political participation can be a way of showing allegiance to/reinforce legitimacy of the power structure. This connection of legitimacy and participation somewhat shapes my reading of Bennett (2008) about the two types of resistance, "pass" and "protest" concerning deferral policies against gay men in blood donation. They make me question the nature of resistance to the aforesaid deferral policies, and the external validity of such dual resistance in a different context.Bennett points out in the article, not without irony, that the patriarchal structure is reflected in the rhetoric of gay men interviewed, in the form of comparing "risk behaviors" of gay men and women. However, by attributing it to the gender composition of the blood center, Bennett seems to have overlooked the assumption underlying the comparison between gay men and female CSWers that ha

Jeffrey Bennett's QJS piece on the dialectical relationship between 'passing' (lying about sexual orientation at blood donation centers) and protesting (refusing to lie about one's sexual orientation, and hence, being deferred from donation) amongst queer men in the US gives us an interesting insight on resistance. Bennett believes that protesting at the site of donation makes the state question how effective it's policy really is, because it makes the state wonder just how many queer men lie about their sexual orientation and donate anyway(motivated either by their desire to make a political statement, or their desire to be 'counted' as citizens, or both). Further, 'passing', or lying about one's sexual orientation, and allowing 'tainted' blood into the system is what makes the protest more effective. Further, it also broadens our understanding of resistance, as not merely that which is an 'active expression'. Having established

A few thoughts on this week's readings: -Cloud's (2005) article was a highlight for me given the stinging nature in the way it attacked conventional communication literature for its shortcomings. The idea that we view labor movements and frictions with the corporate world through strictly a communication lens has major issues. I do conceded there is a certain value in using the discursive space afforded by alternate channels of communication and to find a "democratic" representation of labor in the communication process. But this should not be taken as interchangeable to an improved physical situation for those doing the work under harsh conditions. To assume that communication alone makes things hunky dory is nonsense. The root of this disease in my mind is partly the academic specialization. Assuming you are a communication scholar, it is logical that in many cases you will view things exclusively from a communication angle. In doing so, you run the risk of exaggera

Participation and participatory strategies are used in different spaces globally to involve communities and ensure their voices in the discursive space. The culture centered approach foregrounds active participation of community members in the construction of shared meanings and experience (Dutta, 2008). Basu and Dutta (2009) underline the importance of participation of community members in the enunciation of health problems as a step toward achieving meaningful change. My experience with participatory projects involving children and community members also bears testimony to the importance of participation in impacting society; effecting a sustainable social change. But at the same time, this question looms large in my reflexive spaces that "Is it all just a co-optive process as the structural issues have remain untouched?" Basu and Dutta (2009) discuss different approaches of participation, critique the top down participatory campaigns and provide an alternative theorizing o

First off, I apologize for the pun, but it is a disease I have carried from birth. What can I say? I am not very dignified. I attribute it to my excitability after reading Dana Cloud's pieces, because finally, I see the light; rather, I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel and it makes it all clear. After weeks of reading abstract seeming classical theories, this week's Dana Cloud readings have been complete light bulb moments. There I was tiptoeing cautiously along the yellow brick road of Marxist revolution thinking, "Is this really a good idea?", when I met Cloud and Cheney who said "Wake up a smell the Starbucks!" Cloud, in her piece on Fighting Words, presented us with a splendid chronology of the state of the Staley resistance. As Cheney notes, "she argued that although a great deal of work in critical organizational communication has addressed the inequalities inherent in the capitalist workplace, this research often stops short of at

I am a neoliberal subject brought up, educated and trained in the NL space and as one of its votaries. So, as I read this week's readings and as I reflect upon earlier thoughts and experience, some questions again reiterate their presence: 1. What is right, what is wrong? 2. What should I do? Neoliberalism is the world's reality today and the world is largely driven by TNCs who engineer coups, engineer elections, are in-charge regardless of who is in power. It is bad, decidedly bad as it increases inequality, inequities, human lives have no place in its policies and stratagem. Harvey, Zoller, Pal & Dutta, Brena etc., provide interesting analyses. John Pilger, documentary maker has some similar interesting analysis viz., http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8firb73r67g "The New rulers of the world". In a neo-liberal world, human rights have no meaning. All sorts of rights are there to be defined conveniently to suit the corporations and the government or the powers that

After reading Harvey’s, Vivian’s and Dutta & Pal’s readings, I cant help feeling awestruck at the capacity of Neo-liberalism to mould its facades to appropriate events/ entities that in their essence are antithetical to it. I am referring to a recurrent phenomenon where neoliberal projects re-brand events/ entities which in some way engender themes that are contrary to the hegemonic universalism of neoliberalism. The phenomenon is fittingly outlined in Vivian’s analysis of the 9/11/2002 epideictic. Contemporary popular culture is also replete with such rebranding of icons. For instance the popular versions (and thereby versions that belong to the civic memory) of the story of Indian freedom struggle rebrand one of the key figures Bhagat Singh to render futile his politics. Singh in being revered as shaheed-e-azam (the most glorious of martyrs) by the state apparatus is divorced, as an icon, from the fact that he was one of the first Marxists in India and his visions of revol

When reading through Harvey's book I kept thinking...wow, a lot of neoliberal goals seem to be mirror opposites as those we have been reading about thus far. Whereas we've spent this part of the semester reading and discussing an ideology whose goal is to end class division, we've stumbled upon an ideology which strives to mark the class lines as clearly as possible. "Neoliberalization was from the very beginning a project to achieve the restoration of class power" (p. 16). So interesting. It's so interesting that having the priviledge to read not only history, but about these theories and political ideologies from such an disconnected, unreachable places puts things into perspective. Sometimes when reading about some of these ideologies and efforts, one can predict in the early pages what's going to happen. However, if this is so, why are political rulings and ideologies so cyclical? Why do we always look for something so different, closing in on oppo

I think we have, through Harvey, and Pal & Dutta, established that neoliberalism is inexorably connected to transnational corporations, international agencies and think tanks. However, I think more needs to be written about sites within which neoliberal ideologies are implanted into young minds. As an economic school of thought, Neoliberalism has it's origin in Milton Friedman's economic philosophy at the University of Chicago. I think a politics of skepticism about neoliberal configurations must begin in the class, given that much of our blind faith in neoliberalism germinates from the class as well. I teach an advertising writing class, and I think my attempts to politicize the class reflect how difficult such politics can be. In a class where my students expect me to teach them skills that will help them achieve 'magic bullet' kind of effects, it is tough for me to inculcate an atmosphere of cynicism about advertising; and the politics that underlie such campaig

While explaining primitive communism, Marx and Engels described the pre-agrarian form of communism; which was based on the principles of egalitarianism in social relationships, collective right to basic resources, and absence of authoritarian rule and hierarchy. We can think of similar scenario among indigenous people in pre-Aryan India. But, in the last 3000 years; we have seen evidences and incidents of oppression and marginalization of tribal people that took place in India in various forms. We may call it ‘cast system’, ‘colonial rule’ or ‘neoliberal agenda’. In all the cases the ‘powerful’ adopt a contemporary, contextual and aggressive strategy to de-legitimize the ‘powerless’. And in all the cases, economic and material dialectics played crucial roles. Therefore, ‘neo’ of ‘neoliberalism’ is not fundamentally a ‘new’ approach/ model of dominance; but it is just an old wine in a new bottle. Fundamentally, the face remain the same, only new masks (in various forms) are adopted/ cul

In his post Saqib said that "Capitalism is connected with more competition, business free from state meddling and free trade while neoliberalism suggests protectionist trade policies, corporations in bed with government, monopolies, and bailouts for the biggest businesses. So there seems be much difference." Reading Harvey, these were definitely some of the thoughts that crossed my mind..especially the one about the difference between capitalism and neoliberalism, wherever that thin line is. However, as the reading progressed and Harvey demonstrated how certain changes in policy were brought about by neoliberalism and how they functioned in reality (which seemed quite different from what the theory of neoliberalism promised), it left me wondering if capitalism was in fact another rhetorical instrument being used to further the legitimation of the neoliberalist agenda? What further springs to mind are the words of Milton Friedman, the economist who noted that the whole point o

The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea

Based on the reading of Neoliberalism, I think it would be useful if we get a better grasp of what terminology and practical concepts we are using when we engage in discussions in class. Neoliberalism and neoconservatism seem to be the same functional state ideology with a few narrow differences. They both serve as economic models that seek to remove any regulations or restraints on corporations who wish to penetrate into the public sphere and international markets. The government acts as a convenient tool for the corporations to get the agenda passed via lobbying, PAC contributions, etc. This seems to be an increasingly popular view nowadays, that the current political establishment is a sham, with the two US parties functioning as two wings of one corporate party. This is not to say there are not differences, but the fundamentals of the economy and foreign policy remain the same. The idea of corporate dominance of the public sector (President Bush described it as the "ownership

"Disarmament rhetoric of theorists like Kautsky belies their inherent opportunism, according to Lenin. Cries for disarmament and a pacifist politics instantly excludes one from being a socialist, according to him." Lenin's vanguardist perspective is itself an opportunistic take on Marxism. Lenin and the Bolsheviks used violence to take control of the material means of production. But the cost of this violence was paid by the people of the fifteen nations that were subsumed under a proletarian dictatorship culminating in a society shackled by bureaucracy and supported by a specialized armed militia. Rosa Luxemburg had this to say about Lenin in Die Neue Zeit: “The establishment of centralization in the Social Democracy on the basis of blind obedience, to the very smallest detail, to a central authority, in all matters of party organization and activity; a central authority which does all the thinking, attends to everything and decides everything; a central authority isolat

In the introduction of Gateway edition of Das Kapital, Levistsky wrote “The workers themselves,…stand no longer helplessly facing the all-powerful capitalist. They established union of their own, just as Marx said they would, but these unions are powerful enough to impose the workers’ demand on the “capitalists” without having to resort to violent revolution” (p. xvii). In some sense, the statement appears naïve to me. Let me share an official statistics, which states that in 2007 there were 393 million (93% of total employment) workers in unorganized sector in India [National Sample Survey Organization (NSSO)]. That means these unorganized workers were not officially registered, they did not have any Insurance (health, disability) coverage, provident fund facility and they were not members of registered or recognized trade-unions. Therefore they are still helpless, and they are NOT ‘powerful enough to impose the workers’ demand on the “capitalists”.’ In unorganized sector the workers

Here are a couple of interesting videos I have been meaning to share for a while. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6061551977859737596# http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5bS0LLH4Y Hopefully some of you can get to them before the copyright vultures take em away. Sniff :(

In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into &

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin wrote What is to be done? (WITBD) near the end of 1901 and the beginning of 1902 as a political pamphlet. The title is borrowed from Nikolai Chernyshevsky's novel by the same name [ source ]. Chernyshevsky had good influence on the ideologies and works of Lenin, among other renown figures such as Emma Goldman and Serbian political writer and socialist Svetozar Marković. What is to be done calls for the creation of a revolutionary vanguardist party who's sole agenda would be to guide and direct the works and demands of the working class (the proletariat). Lenin's assumption was that if left to their own choices, the working class would remain content with a trade unionism activity. In order to move the working class forward, there is no alternative but to form a revolutionary party that would direct a scientific socialist revolution. "The history of all coun- tries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop

I found Lenin’s critique of imperialism quite interesting. In several sections, he criticized Kautsky’s argument for peaceful democracy as reactionary and simply another form of bourgeois reformism. He further states “Kautsky‘s theoretical critique of imperialism has nothing in common with Marxism and serves no other purpose than as a preamble to propaganda for peace and unity with the opportunists and the social-chauvinists, precisely for the reason that it evades and obscures the very profound and radical contradictions of imperialism: the contradictions between monopoly and free competition that exists side by side with it…”(p. 260). The constant opposition of free competition and monopoly is grounded in the idea that free competition decentralizes means of production, such that no one or group of capitalists have a concentrated amount of financial capital. The critique of imperialism challenges this general relationship by not only claiming this dichotomy as illusionary, but recipr

I was interested by the description of money as laid out in Das Kapital. Marx seems to agree that setting a gold standard to back paper currency. He describes this as a way to ensure a stable and manageable supply of paper currency commensurable with the supply of gold. Marx mentions that gold seems to have a true internal value, probably conditioned by society. Surprisingly, I find myself agreeing with Marx on much of his monetary policy. I would have liked him to further explain the problems on credit-based currency. This is the form of currency we currently have, and in my opinion, the cause of much the global economic problems. This is the result of the ending of the Bretton-Woods agreement in 1971, when the gold standard was abolished and the dollar was made the official default currency for the entire world. But the dollar doesn't have any internal value or use value of its own, its basically fiat paper currency created through loans that has been masked as a commodity. Make

Where you speak from is Ideology. Where I speak from is Ideology. That much is clear. There is nothing outside of ideology. Often, when we talk of violence, we ask questions of 'means' and 'ends'. Questions of the 'rationale' of activist protests often involve an analysis of whether violence is merely the means to an end or an end in itself. What we need to understand is that any value judgment about violence is not outside an ideological worldview. 'Humane-ness', 'pacificism', and even 'disarmament' are ideological in nature. Disarmament rhetoric of theorists like Kautsky belies their inherent opportunism, according to Lenin. Cries for disarmament and a pacifist politics instantly excludes one from being a socialist, according to him. I am doing some research on political caricature about China in the contemporary US press, and expectedly, most of the themes are on the violent aggression of China's growth, and the US skepticism of th

Let’s see how meanings of words changes in different (often conflicting) contexts: (Act: Use of Force) For Bourgeois- Administrative Control. In case of Proletariat- Violence. (Act: Questioning) For Bourgeois- Asking for clarification. In case of Proletariat- Protesting (at least intended to). (Act: Use of Arms) For Bourgeois- Peacekeeping. In case of Proletariat- Terrorism. Thus more than act, who is acting is also very important. When state is consistently and silently (slowly, surely and peacefully) operates its mission to accomplish its agenda; it is “valid.” Even if the subalterns die because of hunger, even if they are deprived of natural resources like water, land, air, even if they are killed (shot) by ‘state’ everyday; it is “justified.” What is “not justified” then? If they speak out, or if they demand for their right; it is “not justified” [they are supposed to keep silence at any point of time and in every situation]. And if they start protesting, if

It was very interesting to read the whole debate about Social-Democrat versus Communist. This, along with the long discussion about democracy sprung up some questions and thoughts, I'll try to keep them as organized as possible. Of course Engels was right in disapproving of the term social-democrat. Utilizing this term would do nothing for communism, it would actually be a step backward. Using not only the oppressors tools, but also the language is unacceptable. Interestingly enough, we are so brainwashed by the state and it's heavy indoctrination that it is hard to find ways to resist and revolt without using the state's tools and even perhaps ideologies? This leads me to ask where do we learn other ways of governing when all we've been fed is the idea of a state? I think in order to have shot at communism deconstruction of capitalism must take place. You take everything that makes capitalism what it is and start deconstructing in order to find out what it's

Lenin, in his articulation of how war can be used as a tool of the socialist agenda, he seems to echo language from the current era. He describes how in situation when the bourgeois use oppressive means in exercising power over the Proletariat, war can be waged "for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie." He justifies this under the reasoning that the bourgeois would naturally be inclined to attack states that have recently freed their labor classes from the elites, thus making such war defensive in nature. The result, it seems, is that the Marxist ideology is not one bound by nation state or homeland, but one meant for global dominion. "Only after we have overthrown, finally vanquished and expropriated the bourgeoisie of the whole world, and not merely in one country, will wars become impossible." Pacifism is dismissed offhand. From the Marxist perspective, I suppose the reasoning is that no matter how free the ideology is allowed to flow in differen

I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu

Going through this week's readings I had two issues which I found particularly engaging so here goes: In Das Kapital, Marx notes that merchants' capital "can only have its origin in the twofold advantage gained, over both the selling and the buying producers, by the merchant who parasitically shoves himself in between them" (p. 131). He further reiterates that the transformation of a merchants' money into capital, for his current purpose, can be explained as "the producers being simply cheated". This notion, though still very prevalent I am sure, may possibly be viewed through a different lens in the contemporary context. I am thinking in terms of the peasant who produces a certain crop in a certain quantity with a view to selling the surplus for profit. However, he lacks the necessary resources and consequent to transfer his goods to the marketplace? The not-so-altruitsic-transportation-owning merchant comes along and for a certain charge offers to sell