Mohan J. Dutta: Critical Insights on Culture and Society

The readings of this week deal with identity, rights, struggle and negotiation, in individual and collective spaces. Discrimination in its many forms still prevalent in this 21st century and there is no easy or quick escape from it (at least in the near/ immediate future). Therefore, it is crucial to continue our fight against any form of discrimination and marginalization (racial, cast-based, gender-based, sexual orientation –based, etc.). As a student of communication, I am noticing instances/applications different strategies of negotiation in addressing/ handling these crises. It is true that there is no “True”/ right/perfect/ ideal way of negotiation with these crises; but oftentimes, I think (at least in my limited personal domain) these various strategies leads to dichotomy (may or may not be contradictory). Some of them are: Revolution and Reform: e.g. - In the fight for Black right, we have seen non-violent movements led by Dr. King and the ‘extremist’ politics of Malcom X and

Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t

As I was reading the material this week, it struck me how airtight some of the categories for racism seemed. What I mean is, there seems to be an implication in most places that people of color (any color) are discriminated against by "the white man". However, one of the issues I am sure has been written about is the fact of racism even among people of color. There is a fascinating example of the people of the Cherokee nation, whose history is very non reflective of the fact that they too had African slaves. In fact, today there are quite a few examples of African Americana people who consider themselves part of the Cherokee nation because they have been a part of the Cherokee culture for generations. However, this right is denied to them by the Cherokee people based on the race distinction, due to which they are considered non-Indian. The question is, if people have belonged to a particular culture for generations would they be considered part of that culture? By current sta

Each reading from this week made me go back to the negotiation of my own identities in life. As a non-resident alien in US, as a oriya Brahmin in India, as a middle class family, as a researcher with subaltern groups and so on. We all as Andalzua writes, live in borderlands, straddle them, look across the borders. We also form our own 'imagined communities' (Anderson) in those spaces. Our history, our ancestors lives, they define us, our paths whether we are conscious of it or not. This is so revealing when one reads the accounts of the Black folks and the successive movements that have brought this population, this country to where it is. (if John really comes home!!). The identity of being a Black in this country has a lot of history behind it which continues to shape and reshape the present and reflects on the social conditions with grievous results. Nonetheless, the framings and representations continue, as in Mississippi Burning or in Black auto-ethnographies or in music v

I am not sure if I would've liked to read La Frontera before my trip to la frontera or afterwards. Nevertheless, this is an irreplaceable piece of work that I would recommend to anyone and everyone. Anzaldua's courage to voice and publish her struggles is enlightening and comforting. Her rich language and sentences reach out to me and caress a younger me. As a native Spanish speaker, I can understand why she did not translate so much of the text in her book. She has quite a talent for incorporating her Spanish without it seeming forced, as I opine some authors can do. Having come from the border recently with my mouth wide open and my heart heavy, it adds to my frustration to read lines such as "caught between being treated as criminals and being able to eat" (p. 34). This is what I heard at the border myself. If there is anything to be said about truths or Truths, this is it, unquestionably the situation that, 20 years later, continues to haunt and drive our brothe

Malcolm X's speeches and the emphasis on speech in the events leading up to the Black Power movement were good examples of the role of rhetoric and it's connection to activist-driven social movements. For instance, in Malcolm X's phrase 'Ballot or Bullet', we see how publics are motivated towards collective consciousness. The phrase used is brief, is parsimonious, but more importantly, forces the audience to think about the inevitability of revolution. Similarly, Malcolm X at holds the Democratic Party responsible for the continued subjugation of the Black population. Once again, we see the power of rhetoric in this context, when he calls the Democrats 'Dixiecrats'. The term Dixiecrat is used to describe members of the States' Rights Democratic Party of the Southern US. This party was a segregationist party that emerged out of the Democratic Party, and gained control of the Southern factions of the Democratic Party. For sure, the reason for the Black Pow

Something struck me about Gloria Anzaldua's book. I was leafing through the initial parts of it Friday night, and the next thing I know, it was 3 AM, and I could not get enough of it. I am still not sure about what it is was exactly that had me so enraptured in her writing. Inspired by the legacy of Brenda Allen, I am going to do a 'self-interview' about my own reactions to the book. Reflexivity and spontaneity are the goals here, but if nothing else, this way promises to be a way out of a severe writer's block. So here goes. What was it about the writing that struck you? Was it the constant mixing of codes, from Spanish to English, to Spanish again? I speak no Spanish, and was only sort of second-guessing when she went back and forth. It frustrated me, at times; there was an unsaid richness to the Spanish parts of the text that even to my incomprehensible eyes, was decidedly observable. For those amongst us who have grown up constantly switching between two, three or e

I know its been weeks since we’ve read the Dana Cloud piece about the workers that went on strike in Decatur, IL, but I seem to have this reoccurring question that focuses on the definitions of critical theory and critical theoretical work. What is considered resistance and what resistance is more substantial than others? What are the goals of critical scholarship? How do you differentiate critical theory from its close cousin, interpretive work? I understand the tensions between the material and the symbolic and that both are necessary for structural change; however, I am still finding it hard to accept the line that is being drawn between the types of resistance that are considered most appropriate and acceptable when seeking structural change. I remember our discussion of “feet dragging” and how it should not be considered substantial resistance when compared to more materially based threats to the structure. I see the merit in this statement, but can’t help but wonder, are we s

I wish to call attention to the dismissal of the postmodern line of inquiry that has surfaced in the prescribed readings and our class discussions. We seem to have adapted a line of thought that dismisses everything that is postmodern or that (over)emphasizes the role of discourses in constitution of realities. While I agree to the proposed centrality of Class, it should not come at the cost of omitting other dimensions from our analysis. Attention to the material should not be devoted at the cost of investigating the discursive. I totally agree with Cloud (2001), when she regrets the turn in Cultural Studies that has taken attention away from politics of material resources to other ‘discursive’ aspects, I also do not doubt the objective existence of class. Having said that, however, I do fail to understand what makes class more ‘objective’ than other forms of discrimination (race, gender and ethnicity for instance). Class is certainly a fundamental ground for inequity in contempor

Indira Krishnamurthy Nooyi (from Tamil Nadu, India) is the chairman and chief executive officer of PepsiCo, the world`s fourth-largest food and beverage company.  According to Forbes magazine`s 2007 poll, Ms. Nooyi is the fifth most powerful woman in the world. She has been named the #1 Most Powerful Woman in Business in 2006 & 2007 by Fortune magazine [ source ]. Nooyi was born in Southern India, and went on to obtain degrees in chemistry, physics and math and master`s degrees from Calcutta`s Indian Institute of Management and Yale University. She came to the U.S. from India in 1978. Prior to joining PepsiCo in 1994, Nooyi did stints at the Boston Consulting Group and Motorola. "Being a woman, being foreign-born, you`ve got to be smarter than anyone else," she has said [ source ]. This week's reading portrayed a picture of women, primarily in the organization structure and analyzed the reasons why women feel [they are] oppressed. From a feminist lens we

In the contemporary scenario of global-recession it is important to study the life and struggle of workers of semi-organized and unorganized sectors of developing countries. In my personal opinion, one concept (i.e.-to consider class as one of the main basis of study organizational and societal process) and two approaches (i.e. - a bottom-up 'agentic' process of organizing and performing resistance; and application of subaltern studies framework to understand/organize the marginalized people) may be useful in this regard. These concept and approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather they may be applied in combined (partially or fully) form [as and when necessary]. Some of the social scientists have argued that, in this phase of New Economy and in the era of Information age, the traditional class based approach of understanding organizational processes is no longer relevant. On the contrary, scholars like Cloud (2001) emphasized on the importance of the role of power, structur

In an influential article published in the Management Communication Quarterly in 1994, Patrice Buzzanell showed how multiple feminist theories can be integrated to provide insight into the consequences of gender interactions in everyday organizing processes. Buzzanell brought to the fore the powerful potential in feminist theory synthesis to shift the agenda and conduct of organizational communication research. She called for researchers to move beyond traditional organizational themes of competitive individualism, cause-effect linear thinking, and separation or autonomy toward feminist values of cooperative and collaborative community, connectedness and integrative thinking. Feminist theory encourages researchers and policymakers to examine how they themselves frame gendered notions of organizational processes and practices in their work. This action raises two fundamental questions about the meaning and purpose of work for researchers. First, is it feasible to decouple the conditions

This week's readings were fascinating and specially Dennis Mumby's "Power and politics" as he laid down the relationships between power, communication and organization and traced the different perspectives on communication and organizational power. Applying to a health communication scenario there are many areas where it raises questions - a doctor-patient scenario, a health care organization (say a HMO), power relationship in a family where the mother-in-law or father-in-law or husband takes a health decision for the woman, power in the vulnerable populations searching for a better health, in typically "powerless" populations like migrant workers, foreign students, mestiza; people who live in borders, who defy classification and any classification would be an exercise in power. A critical question to engage with here is whether power inheres in the institutions, situations or in the individuals that manage the institutions (Foucalt) and if power can possibl

The idea of the power elite brings to my mind a pyramid structure of society with small number of individuals (the power elite) at the top making political and economic decisions through a middle level composed of lawmakers, lobbyists, and politicians that impact the entire nation including the masses who occupy the bottom portion of the pyramid. What is interesting is that the power elite are themselves a subset of the higher classes who exercise tremendous influence and control over the operation of major political, economic, civic, cultural, scientific, and legal institutions. The power elite thus operate as a caste within the upper classes and make decisions that affect the entire pyramid. The power elite are themselves not a homogeneous group but are in fact composed of individuals from different backgrounds and creeds. However, these individuals share certain attitudes and beliefs, and occupy similar positions at the top of major political, economic, military, industrial, and soc

The Power Elite was an extremely interesting book for several reasons. I had to keep checking the date is was published throughout my readings. It offered a good history of power and its capacity for violence, but at the same time it served as a foreshadow to what we have today. Throughout the book, I kept thinking about power and what and who it erases. Women, for example were a very uncommon topic in this book. When mentioned, they were the socialites who were uneducated and looking to marry a rich man so that they could vacation in the Hamptons. This made me think of the number of educated women today, not only educated but members of the power elite, as Mills talks about. What are Mills' arguments about the power elite and gender? How different are things now? Where do people like Condoleezza Rice and Hilary Clinton fit into this equation? Where would they be situated in the power elite of Mills' book and where are they going? What does their rise to power say abo

Reading Mills triggers in my mind the congruencies and contrasts with respect to some aspects of the two prominent democracies of the world – the US and India. The common denominators undercutting the power elite in the US are markers of property, heredity, fame, and status in the official machinery (echelons of political, military or corporate order). While none of these are entirely absent in the Indian context another very interesting variable undercuts most, if not all, elite that of Caste. Mohanty, (2004) states about caste, “Despite a degree of mobility and assimilation, the hierarchy and social oppression of confining people to social boundaries to perform defined roles and enjoy prescribed status in society persists throughout Indian history.” In many ways the caste situation in India is different from the elite hierarchies of the US. While the hierarchies of the US can profess a ‘secular’ character, the Caste based hierarchy of India – that continues to have privileges, b

After more than five decades, the arguments of C W Mills still hold good to understand and analyze the present societal mechanisms. In the last half of twentieth century we have seen two major global trends- formation of a more uni-polar world and developments in Information technology and media. Mills discussed three main processes that influenced masses, namely roles of leadership/ politician, mass-media and structural trend of society. Though we have seen some changing faces of democracy and leadership; but the basic elements/ intensions remain the same (e.g. - the ancestors of Nehru family are still ruling India). With the change of time politicians have modulated and modified their leadership strategy; but the true voices of people still remain mostly unrepresented. On the other hand, mass media and other interactive media (e.g.- internet, mobile devices) influenced the whole society significantly. They practically dictate the information exposure/ awareness level, computational a

Reading Mills' work, it becomes apparent that the abuse of power seems to come from two primary problems with the structure in place today: the concentration of power and the level of power afforded to those in charge. Regarding power concentration, the founders of the US certainly had a different system in mind when the Republic was started, with multiple checks and balances and the dissolution of power away from the hands of the few. Gradually, this system was corrupted. The essential dilemma now is that the wealth and size of the state has increased to the point where it is almost impossible to expect that those in the military industrial complex and Big Business are going to respect the separation of powers. I am wondering if a state/empire with this degree of wealth and might can ever be expected to remain corruption-free. In other words, a country of smaller size with less state power has a better chance for the people of the country to exercise democratic rights and pressure

I just finished watching this video by Noam Chomsky and thought it is worth sharing with my colleagues in this class room.

This weekend I went an ethnography conference with several other scholars and was very interested in the topics covered through out the talks. Throughout the day, it became apparently clear that I had and am becoming more and more entrenched in the driving ideologies of critical theory, with reference to the symbolic vs the material. To further explicate my frustrations with some of the presentations I encountered, I thought this blog could serve as a possible outlet. Besides, the over arching ideas that were propagated at many of the presentations reflect broader ideas discussed in this weeks reading. For the sake of space (lol space), I will only provide one example that engendered major internal conflicts in me with reference to the material and the institutional control the shape the power structures in academia. So in the keynote address, there was a major professor from DePaul University who discussed alternative ethnographic methods that use radio diaries and sound recordings of

It is very frustrating when you look through your notes on a academic, hi-liter marked "something written by a smart person" paper and you find the word "Really?!!" scrawled next to something. For some reason, the first half of Mumby's piece annoyed me no end. It didn't seem to go anywhere - seemed like a glorified summary. I concede that he may have partly had that in mind when he set out to prove that organizational processes are fundamentally mediated by power, but "Really??!!!" In addition, it didn't help that he mentioned the penchant of org. comm. scholarship for believing (even if it was in the past) that "organizational behavior is viewed as explicable through mathematical, economic models of decision making, hence making power irrelevant as an explanatory construct". It is fascinating to me that in a world where people need no proof for any Messiah or Swami's message of the Lord, they still act like they need proof for in

The overarching theme for this week's reading dealt with power, and in my understanding control and hegemony as well. One super power now prevails over the rest of the world - the USA, or even more precisely, the US military and the neoliberal dimensions/agendas. I read Mumby's essay where he talks about a multitude of topics, with organizational power and structure as the compass for all discussions. I cannot say I enjoyed or engaged with all of it, but those that I did for some reason seemed very rhetorical to me. Reflexively, I guess part of this dismissive attitude I developed towards Mumby came from what I have heard about him and his scholarship. I could relate to and engage more with the Amsden (2008) essay where he uses the examples of shopping malls around the country, and questions the production, reproduction, and transformation of power, control, and perhaps co-optation. Before reading this essay, I knew about the neoliberal agendas and how power is used implici

This week's readings have been going around in my head over and over and I'm trying to think what to write about. A couple of things: some of these are comments, others are questions. 1) Stemming from Sam's class, I'm still wondering if anything we do as scholars is ever representing and if we use that word too lightly. Should we not be presenting what we are witnessing instead of representing a culture or a group of people? I feel uncomfortable with the narrow target and concept of representing and more comfortable with presenting. 2)Participation and resistance fascinate me. Does resistance work without participation? I keep thinking about the article by Bennett here. Simply participation was a form of resistance for these me. This made me think of Cloud. She says "Of course texts do things, but changes produced only through symbolic action tend to be symbolic rather than material changes" (2005, p. 516). However, the gay men's changes were both symbo