Skip to main content

Consciousness rising or shedding of blood

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 Black Panthers co-existed in the same historical era.

Consciousness rising and shedding of blood: The end goal of these two may or may not be mutually exclusive; the question is- how should one negotiate with the two ‘seeming opposite’ ideology- one of them is ‘apparently peaceful’ and other one is ‘apparently terrorist-like’ approach.

Everyday death and actual death (in many case- murders): In many situations we encounter the feeling of day-to-day death/ silencing of our identity; and at the same time some of us are taking risk (of life sometimes) to disrupt the dominance.

I am very much struggling to understand these ‘apparent’ dichotomies/ contradictions with respect to my own privilege (social, political, economic, ideological etc.) and my own stance. Hopefully, this journey/ learning will help me to negotiate with the most obvious question “Who am I?”.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

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 ...

Whose means justifies their end?

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...

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

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...