In this 21st century, when we are aspiring for Generation-Next lifestyle and more economic/ technological advancement/ sophistication; many people especially those from the third-world countries [though World Bank chief Robert Zoellick commented on 14th April, 2010 that, 'Third World' concepts no longer relevant'] are facing more and more challenges to earn their bread and butter. In most of the developing countries (if not all), economic inequality and injustice is increasing gradually. Yesterday (i.e. - on 17th April, 2010), Govt. of India finally released the BPL document (after prolonged bureaucratic procedure), according to which the percentage of people living below poverty level (BPL) is 37.2% [as per interim report of 2007 it was 27.5 %]. I believe, in many third-world countries the situation is even worse.
Historically, we have noticed that, reaction/ struggle of people against inequality and oppression took both violent and non-violent forms. Few years back we have seen EZLN movement in Mexico, and now in India (especially in her eastern part) we are witnessing Naxalite movements; these depict the violent forms of resistance against state-sponsored oppressions and structural barriers. On the other hand, Scott (1985) showed that Malaysian peasants practiced non-violent everyday forms of resistance for disrupting the dominant discourse on a long-term basis. Again, scholars like Schaff (1973) noted that, peaceful (non-armed-conflict) resistance have the potential to bring socio-economic transformation.
Basu & Dutta (2009) showed that both symbolic and material are the important aspects of a resistive act. They argued that, when symbolic has strong material ties then resistance become more powerful, and they further noted that, in order to ensure social transformation material and symbolic should go hand in hand. Similarly, from the critical perspective, Mumby (2005) discussed about discourse oriented resistance and showed that a dialectical relationship between resistance and control is the basis of discursive froms of resistance. Pal & Dutta (In Press) showed that in contemporary organizational and subaltern contexts various forms of resistance such as humor and joking (Ezzamel et al., 2001), “bitching” and gossip (Sotirin & Gottfried, 1999), slogan, songs, ridicule (Stewart et al., 2006), street theater, and resistance dance (Pal & Dutta, 2008) etc. are practiced/ applied by the people in their everyday lives.
Dutta (2010) noted that, resistance/ resistive acts played crucial roles for legitimizing issues related to power inequality, structural barriers and cultural marginalization (both in individual and/ or collective sense) in the contexts of subalterns. Spivak (1988b) commented that a ‘true’ re-presentation of subaltern voice is difficult (if not impossible), because for the representer / scholar it is almost unavoidable to nullify their own privileges and subjectivities. In this matter, Dutta (2010) emphasized on a process of engagement with subalterns through a reflexive dialogic approach (of research) by tuning the lens to ourselves (i.e. the researches) and thereby legitimizing the subaltern issues in the metropolis. Therefore, academic scholars have important roles to play in creating emancipatory possibilities and in developing alternate discursive spaces for the subaltern people across the globe.
Historically, we have noticed that, reaction/ struggle of people against inequality and oppression took both violent and non-violent forms. Few years back we have seen EZLN movement in Mexico, and now in India (especially in her eastern part) we are witnessing Naxalite movements; these depict the violent forms of resistance against state-sponsored oppressions and structural barriers. On the other hand, Scott (1985) showed that Malaysian peasants practiced non-violent everyday forms of resistance for disrupting the dominant discourse on a long-term basis. Again, scholars like Schaff (1973) noted that, peaceful (non-armed-conflict) resistance have the potential to bring socio-economic transformation.
Basu & Dutta (2009) showed that both symbolic and material are the important aspects of a resistive act. They argued that, when symbolic has strong material ties then resistance become more powerful, and they further noted that, in order to ensure social transformation material and symbolic should go hand in hand. Similarly, from the critical perspective, Mumby (2005) discussed about discourse oriented resistance and showed that a dialectical relationship between resistance and control is the basis of discursive froms of resistance. Pal & Dutta (In Press) showed that in contemporary organizational and subaltern contexts various forms of resistance such as humor and joking (Ezzamel et al., 2001), “bitching” and gossip (Sotirin & Gottfried, 1999), slogan, songs, ridicule (Stewart et al., 2006), street theater, and resistance dance (Pal & Dutta, 2008) etc. are practiced/ applied by the people in their everyday lives.
Dutta (2010) noted that, resistance/ resistive acts played crucial roles for legitimizing issues related to power inequality, structural barriers and cultural marginalization (both in individual and/ or collective sense) in the contexts of subalterns. Spivak (1988b) commented that a ‘true’ re-presentation of subaltern voice is difficult (if not impossible), because for the representer / scholar it is almost unavoidable to nullify their own privileges and subjectivities. In this matter, Dutta (2010) emphasized on a process of engagement with subalterns through a reflexive dialogic approach (of research) by tuning the lens to ourselves (i.e. the researches) and thereby legitimizing the subaltern issues in the metropolis. Therefore, academic scholars have important roles to play in creating emancipatory possibilities and in developing alternate discursive spaces for the subaltern people across the globe.
Comments