Critical Thoughts

Mediocrity and privilege

2011-08-03T15:35:00.000-07:00

Mediocrity, you know it when you see it (or is it really so easy to detect?), couched in privilege and in the desire to not have this privilege ever be questioned by alternative values and viewpoints from elsewhere. Mediocrity is about keeping on doing what you have been doing for years, to keep repeating the already invented cycle, sitting amidst the comforts that come with privilege. Mediocrity is the mantra of the mainstream power structures in society that want to invent a wide variety of languages to justify their medicority, for not having to work for the things that one "should" naturally be entitled to. Knowledge structures and the games within these structures are essential to the logic of mediocrity; if you are mediocre, you don't raise any alarm bells and so you are "safe."

Within my own discipline of Communication and within the social sciences, I see this mediocrity in the everyday practices of academics and in what they consider to be their entitlements to comfort: comfortable arguments, comfortable constructs, comfortable methodologies that all work together to maintain the status quo within comfortable spaces. The ability to be mediocre is incredibly important as it keeps you "safe." So to the extent you keep parrotting the messages and the tools that are palatable to the disciplinary power structures and to the multicultural logics of these structures, you are "safe." To the extent that you don't really question the fundamental values underlying the concepts and the methods of getting at them, you are "safe." You can develop safe designs for testing existing theories within safe boundaries, then go ahead and recruit undergraduate students from the "safety" of your classrooms in exchange for extra credits, and then go on to make "safe" pronouncements that reify the existing structures. Or for that matter, you can sit in front of the TV screen, watch some shows, and write up a "safe" piece that too reifies the power structures, albeit couched in a different set of language games. This is the story of the game of mediocrity in academe; a game that continues to further the knowledge structures that reify exisiting social, cultural, and political equations.

Critical Thoughts: A postcolonial reading of the casteism in everyday India

2011-07-28T19:33:00.000-07:00

Critical Thoughts: A postcolonial reading of the casteism in everyday India

A postcolonial reading of casteism in everyday India

2011-07-28T19:31:00.000-07:00

This post was prompted by my recent visit to India as well as my reflections on the continuous conversations with Indians (I use the broad framework of India to refer to a space that is rendered meaningful in my interactions with it, narrated through my memories and through experiences that I negotiate in my everyday interactions). So coming to the topic of my post today, the subject of casteism in India, I want to share a viewpoint that is mired in paradoxes. On one hand, a postcolonial reading of the portrayal of India within a frame of the caste system depicts the ways in which the framing of the case politics in India gets situated within the colonial gaze. On the other hand, a materialist reading of the case politics points squarely to the continuing problem of the caste system and the ways in which the system impacts the fate of those at the margins. Of particular importance here is the ways in which the narrative of casteism has been taken up by neoliberal India, adopted within the dreams of development and modernization, situated amidst the materially rich markers of progress.

My recent experiences suggest that the caste politics is not simply a relic of the primtive hinterlands of the country, as the Indian narrators of the story of development and modernization would like to point out. Rather, the caste system and its remnants continue to be ever-present in the everyday politics and day-to-day lives of so-called educated Indians, often amidst the very ways in which they live their lives, the choices they make, and the ways in which they continually exclude the "other." The remnants of the system play out in everpresent segregation practices in cultural customs (such as rituals of sacredness, marking off spaces of sacredness etc.), casteist jokes and references to the lower castes, as well as continual oppression of the lower castes within mainstream structures.

The caste system continues to play out within the feudal logics of contemporary India that have reinvented themselves amidst the promises of neoliberal development. So you have a new breed of Indians who shop at malls, drive designer cars, wear branded clothes, speak in "perfect" English (the so-called markers of modernity) and continue to carry the symbolic relics of casteism in their everyday practices and rituals without questioning them. It is in this context as one listens to the talks about the lower castes and marginalizing practices directed toward the lower castes that spaces of resistance need to be articulated. It is not enough I believe for a postcolonial critique to stop at pointing out the imperial gaze in the depiction of casteism; rather, one has to go much much further in recognizing and resisting the deep-rooted problem of casteism in India.

Where do we go with our criticality?

2010-04-26T14:07:00.001-07:00

It is interesting that Dawson talks about the shift in University funding from liberal arts disciplines toward biotech, “where professors also tend to be CEOs of start up firms flush with venture capital” (p. 78). I am not sure who or what the target of such criticism is. Is it the professor who seeks corporate funding for his research program, or is it the research program itself which needs such funding. Sure, corporate funding is the major source of funding outside of government agencies, and corporates would definitely have profit-based motives in mind when they fund research. But does that automatically negate the value of such research? Is the value of my friend’s research on aging and hearing diminished by the possibility that the fruits of his labor may be co-opted in the future by a corporate? It is perhaps feasible for graduate students and professors in the social sciences to conduct research that is untainted by grants but I am certain that is not the case in the physical sciences, life sciences, and engineering. The research conducted by our colleagues in the so called hard sciences requires massive investment. We can as critical scholars stop right here and question the need for and the objectives of research that is so hungry for capital. Or, we could move forward and ask what a researcher in the “hard sciences” who does not explicitly identify with a particular politics or ideology can do to negotiate his/her way through the morass of grant funding and conducting productive research. It does not serve the purposes of the critical project to brand all those who conduct such research as stooges of the neoliberal monolith because many of these researchers have opinions about the ethics and politics of doing research that converge with thinking on the left. Consider for instance, the recent controversy over global warming wherein errors in reported statistics led to concern over the claim that increases in the global mean air temperature were attributable to human actions. While there certainly were errors in the reports generated by the IPCC, these errors in no way dilute the argument that human beings are indeed the primary contributors to global warming today. The basis for this claim is the consensus among scientists who study climate change for a living. Modeling climate change on a global scale is an extremely complex process with multiple models, and methods offering insight on the phenomenon of interest, viz., climate change. The consensus that emerges among researchers studying climate change is a sure reflection of the social construction of science. Having said that, climate change is as true a phenomenon as inequality. In fact a cursory look at the list of nations opposing and supporting the Kyoto Protocol gives one a very clear idea of where the North and the South lie with respect to the climate change debate. Under the circumstances, a communication researcher who is invested in the critical project is in a great position to critically examine the claims made by opponents of climate change and join hands with climatologists who are being derided in the mainstream media for the irregularities in their scientific practices. A communication researcher can demonstrate how the scientific process is also a social process. More importantly, a communication scholar can prove how the fact that science is inherently social can be used as a tool in the hands of different ideologies to make different claims, even when the process of science (social as it might be) throws light on what and where the answers are. As the world moves to an era of climate futures where prediction markets bet on the climate change, the time of its occurrence, and its effects, we need to join hands with colleagues across disciplines to challenge structures that manipulate research for perpetuating prevailing inequalities.

Activism, Communication and Social Change

2010-04-26T09:41:00.000-07:00

Now days I am trying to engage myself with various issues related to indigenous communities. As a part of academia it is a constant quest for all of us, how can we engage ourselves to make the world a better place to live. All the reading of this week addressed the aspects of reflexivity and engagement; and, one of them is an article by Zoller (2005) that discussed many aspects of activism, communication and social change. Though in his article he focused mainly on the health and related issues; I think we can use this framework (along with other frameworks like CCA) in other broad contexts, such as the context of indigenous lives, indigenous knowledge, science, technology, art, craft, and other infrastructural issues.

Zoller (2005) perceived activism as a means for social change by challenging existing power relation. He mentioned different approaches of participation and emphasized on the aspects of community group mobilization for collective actions. In this context he discussed various ways of engagement with activism, such as advocacy- challenging the dominant paradigm and urging for democratic participation in knowledge production, social movement- through networking promoting solidarity to facilitate collective actions such as protesting and performing resistive acts to address larger social, political, economic and cultural issues, community organizing- adopting a bottom-up approach of designing and implementing policies and programs by community members and thereby empower individuals (community members).

He also argued that, both the hidden and the apparent conflicts should be addressed by activists. Though, the goal and political orientation may vary from one case to another. He conceptualized various forms of political orientation through two sets of binaries- in terms of context/ space: individual vs. societal level, and in terms of final goal/ aspiration: partial vs. radical social change. In this process, he came up with four different political orientations- alternative (individual, partial social change), reformative (social, partial social change), redemptive (individual, radical social change), and transformative (social, radical social change).

Along with various approaches and political orientation of activism, he emphasized to conceptualize activism in broader interdisciplinary frameworks. In this context he showed that activism can be understood (a) multisectorally – by connecting activism with larger economic and social roots and by addressing issues of social inequality related to race, class and gender etc., (b) in relation to globalization and policy issues by facilitating a bottom-up approach and thereby resisting neoliberal moves, (c) by connecting with larger material and symbolic political arguments.

Thus the framework of Zoller (2005) addressed many key issues that are relevant health and other contexts of our lives. Context of indigenous people is one of those. I believe, frameworks such as this can be very helpful for activist works in indigenous and other underserved/ subaltern contexts.

Acchan and Amma (Father and Mother)

2010-04-26T07:17:00.000-07:00

As I was reading this week's pieces about the academy and its position as a site of resistance I was reminded of a saying in Malayalam, my native language, which essentially says "A greedy child wants to sit in his father's lap, and simultaneously wants to breastfeed off his mother". Now before we go arguing the logistics of it :) I would like to point out the its significance in terms of the academy for me as a scholar.
I had some of the same thoughts as Saqib about Boyd's reading, particularly when I read the line "Is critical teaching [and scholarship] anything more than an intellectual game in such circumstances?" Admittedly that is a very powerful question which forces us to be reflexive and "turn the lens inwards" in Mohan's words. As I look deeper I expect to see a hypocrite and hide shamefacedly from the truth of the academic jargon being just that. However, throughout the course of the semester, as I have played tug-of-war with this notion of hypocrisy and activism, a semi-comfortable place has emerged for me as a scholar and as a person (and this is purely personal without any insinuations against scholars who fancy the academy as a panacea). Now I see the academy, and the doctoral program not as the be all and end all of my life's work - it is but a step in a very long but satisfying process. It may lead me to an activist path away from all the ink or it may lead me deeper in the maze of R & R's and academic politics. The point is that I have decided to be ok with this uncertainty and realized the truth of the academy for myself - that it is after all a place of learning. What we do with the learning is based upon personal and professional preferences.
I may come into the classroom and learn that to have a good academic life I have to be greedy and like the proverbial greedy child want the mother and the father's company all at once. I may figure out a way to do that and reconcile my activist proclivities with sending out carefully worded responses to reviewers and professors I don't really like. If I do, I'm sure it will be a proud moment. If I don't, it may be just as well that I did not play the "intellectual game" and chose to spend my time as a scholar working for people that I enjoy working for, even if it is in an Indian village. At best, the academic experience will bestow me with credibility at conferences with academic bigwigs; at worst, when I go home, my neighbors will consider my Ph.D. as a sign of expertise and say "America-return hai!"

Co-opting ‘their’ language:

2010-04-26T04:25:00.000-07:00

The readings sent a chill down my spine. Never did I expect the academe to be this biased and ruthless. The articles were revelationary, inspiring, infuriating and shocking at different times. All, Churchill, Prashad, Schueller and Dawson were revelationary, incisive and undeniably appealing. I however came to have a different line of thought than most of us have expressed at this forum. I think of solutions/ alternatives beyond the crossing of t’s and dotting of I’s. I also think of how impossible the sentiment of ‘co-opting their language’ looks to me now. If this is the language and grammar of the mainstream can we ever co-opt it for our own ends – I don’t think so. This very move would create lacunae that would be enough to negate any credibility on our part.

The most heartening parts of all articles were referrals to solidarities that existed across student and faculty bodies. This perhaps is the resource that we can rely on. I think Critical Scholarship should take clear stances and assert itself in solidarities—not attempt to talk in ‘their’ language.

@ Neoliberalism:

2010-04-26T04:24:00.000-07:00

With hopes that I would be forgiven for resuming a slightly out of vein topic, I would like to draw attention to a topic that was touched upon in the last class. I talk here of Neoliberalism and its structure/ operationalization. While often times we seem to criticize the neoliberal project with confidence as castigate it for most of the evils that the planet is witnessing – in so doing this we cast the neoliberal project as a singular, monolithic, overarching influence that has its impact in practically every sphere of international activities. This being said, I want to refer specifically, to the taking of a similar stance in the American neoliberal interventions in the middle –east. While castigating the new empire we take for granted its absolute power and the control it exerts thereby in the region. I however happened to listen to talks by Tariq Ali and Arundhati Roy (both names were mentioned in the Schueller piece) where both maintained a line of thought that translated into saying that the US does not have any idea of what it is doing in the region and how to control it, both stressed the latter point. This leads me to reiterate the doubt that u had in mind in the last class. Is it safe/ right on our part to attribute the authority that we attribute to the US forces that we do? If the forces are not in total control of the geopolitical scape, how are they expected to enforce single point neoliberal agendas? By no means do I doubt the validity of the preceding claim; my concern is with the understanding and theorizing of the neoliberal enterprise. I raise doubts to buttress our understanding of neoliberalism so that we do not fail to capture any aspect of the vicious force.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFDcGnupj8E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Vhs8ulNZQ

Ruthless calculus in academia

2010-04-25T21:15:00.000-07:00

The final readings for this semester brought our discussion full circle as we return to our initial question of what is critical theory and what does a critical theorist do? Though not explicitly stated in the readings, questions of our place a critical scholars, as academicians, and as activist working with the structures that constantly oppress groups, were revisited in a large part. Churchill (2007) discussed the myths of academic freedom as he was targeted for “elimination” within an academically “free” department. Prashad (2007) reviews the ways in which the academy restrains students free thinking as well as their access to education simply by limiting the amount of available spaces to its incoming undergraduates. If these scenarios do not sound like that which takes place in corporate America, than I do not know what does.

Reading such work has become a major eye opening experience as I once strongly believed in lofty ideas of free thinking and academic freedom. A majority of us in this class are going to be on the academic market (commodifying our knowledge and begging to join the proletariat rat race) relatively soon and need to learn to engage with these tensions. It truly saddens me to have to think this way, but that is our material reality. So where do we go from here? Its simple really as I stated much earlier in the semester, we must began to and continue to question our values and view the problem as an erosion of morals. What do we hold near and dear? What is of the utmost importance when it comes to our choices? I believe that Dawson (2007) and others have clearly pointed us in the right direction stating “the only way to reassert the university’s public role is to challenge what French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called the doxa or commonsense of neoliberalism: that every sphere of social life should be subjected to the ruthless calculus of market-based efficiency” (p. 81)

Get your claws off my future!

2010-04-25T16:53:00.000-07:00

I keep reading Horowitz's name. How is it possible that our entire pedagogical system is affected by one man (and several other with the same Right ideologies) and his power over society? How have we allowed this to happen? How can we break this cycle? The influence of politics and money has taken a direct hit on freedom of speech and academic freedom. We always talk about how deep the neoliberal project runs but, it is hard to think about its creepy claws inside my mind and surrounding my Beering Hall. What can we do? I think that this is a violence that has been ignored for long enough. This is something we must challenge. We cannot leave other scholars who strive to make changes and resist the conservative dominant ideology which has its grip on our knowledge and knowledge producing practices alone to fight the battle that silences scholars who speak out against this epistemic violence.

We read in class about how to fight fire with fire. We read that in order to have a dialogue with violence you have to come prepared with violence. Malcolm X taught us this. Although Churchill discusses instances in which Right scholars have been cited with academic misconduct and have not suffered nearly the consequences that scholars on the Left have, he does not provide us with a call to action. I wonder if Left scholars focused as much time on these efforts if it would be effective in either ending the bombardment of false accusations or at least get some of those neoliberal talking heads away from pedagogical positions? How does one fight an ideology that is everywhere?

On another note, Schueller (2007) quotes Pipes "Fears of a Muslim influx have more substance than the worry about jihad. West European societies are unprepared for the massive immigration of brown-skinned people cooking strange foods and not exactly maintaining Germanic standards of hygiene" (p. 56). Does this sound familiar to anyone? How about taking a look at the AZ bill 1070 which allows police officers in Arizona to ask anyone who looks suspicion (read: brown, Mexican) for their papers. This has gone too far. What resistive strategies do scholars, new scholars, have to fight these sort of blatantly racist and fascist actions taken against people, hidden under the name of national security?

Crumbling towers of Ivory: Aphorisms

2010-04-25T15:27:00.000-07:00

Transmogrification: Having read Churchill's and Dawson's articles, as well as Prashad's 'Teaching by candlelight', which is also on Blackboard, I am feeling distinctly uncomfortable and rather despondent about being so far away from home, and hurtling headlong into a space that is undergoing an ugly transmogrification.

Academic vs. Real Worlds: In the light of these articles, I think the oft-repeated refrain that 'academics overstate their importance' or notions that 'practical' concerns are different from academic self-importance can now be safely thrown out of the window. Academics are not physically separated from the 'practical' real world, the ivory tower is not a seclusion for allowing the inhabitants of the towers to play irrelevant language games; the ivory tower, in fact it is meant to be protection from a potential backlash from the 'practical' world. The academy, and for those of us within it, is at the fulcrum of shaping social forces OUTSIDE itself, and that is why the tower is built.

Mercantilism: Unfortunately, the increasing neo-liberalization of the University in the last two decades has seen a greater pressure on the humanities and social science departments to mercantilise. Grant culture forces academics to pursue limited range of research programs, especially when such grants become criteria for promotion and tenure. But even more insidiously, the University is a raced space. Churchill's and Dawson's cases have shown how ethnic identity becomes a central cog of neoliberal witch-hunts of Universities.

Labor: From Dawson's article we also learn the correlation between neo-liberalization and lack of graduate student empowerment in the University. Collective bargaining goes against the grain of neoliberal ideology, as we all know, and recent examples from our own campus, where wage cuts have affected almost all Purdue staff except the Board of directors, shows once again the looming threat of such politics in the University. From a personal political standpoint, it has just come to my knowledge that the State of Indiana refuses to accept student unions as legitimate entities. It is illegal for students to unionize in this state! How far have I drifted from the familiar, from the known?

To the marketplace, in chains, we go!: As academics who can only hope to make a dent large enough to be mud-slinged, like Edward Said, Churchill, Finkelstein, let's ensure we cross our Ts and dot our Is, and be prepared for the fact that the first sign of discomfort we have caused to the structure is when someone questions the credibility of your scholarship, or accuses you of plagiarism. Faiz Ahmed Faiz, often imprisoned for his fiery pen, once said,

Aaj bazaar main pa bajolan chalo
Dast afshan chalo, mast-o-raqsan chalo
Khak bar sar chalo, khoon badaman chalo
Rah takta hai sub shehr-e-janaan chalo

(To the marketplace, in chains, we go...
With palms exposed, with a song and dance,
With dirt in our hair, with blood on our chest,
Let us go while the entire city of lovers watches.)

While not meaning to romanticize the outing of scholars and the marketization of the University, this is the world that we know, a space that we need to look hard at, and even at the risk of things like premature dismissals, say unpopular things.

Multicultural-ed student

2010-04-25T15:11:00.000-07:00

Allow me to be a devil's advocate and speak for students who come form the "other"-ed cultural background, who were, and perhaps still are embracing multicultural imperialism in area studies, or in "inter-cultural communication" in this case. My point is, so long as the site of knowledge, and knowledge creation is West-centered, students from non-western backgrounds will face the difficult choice between co-optation and exclusion.

As an international student, you are expected to "bring something different to the table", and the "table" can be a frustrating place: at best it will be in the form where the non-western culture that you represent is "seen as a rich storehouse of timeless wisdom from which the present had degenerated", at worst it will be a cultural freak show. I was shocked and deeply disturbed one time when a Chinese scholar invited to give a lecture on "culture" spent 15 minutes talking about "Chinese" table manners. (I will let you imagine what was talked about.) I was disturbed not by the content--I've seen such presentations so often that I should have been bored of it--it was the deliberate selection of materials that highlights the difference, with clear indication of West as a reference point, the presentation of the deviance rather than the commonplace, the eager to entertain and not discomfort the audience... In short, the sort of things that I do on daily basis as a student from the peripheral of knowledge in the center of knowledge creation.

The more skillful of us, perhaps, will develop a language that is more subtle in terms of the cultural inferiority complex. We talk about social progress (what is progress?), identity and socialization (in what form are identity and society observed and analyzed?), sensibility and experience (who are we?). Just as we are talking about "us" we are putting ourselves in the position to be observed, studied, examined and questioned. The fact is, that is the only way that seems to make sense to our situation, as someone who is almost destined to be co-opted: just as we strive to critically examine the Colonialist vestige in our intellectual heritage, we are trying to locate ourselves in the West, and locate ourselves (in a different manner) in the home country as someone who is situated in the west. What do I talk about (and why in the West) about the non-western culture?

The Left often choose to stay at home(country), trying to shout the voice across. I don't know which one is more difficult, to be heard as a left in the West or non-west. When I was in China, my profession warned me against being "too radical to the point you lose credibility as a sensible person". In another way to put it, this is a hard-earned chance to have the potential to have a voice, don't make yourself look like a freak. It is a luxury to be a radical, because you have to be close to the center of knowledge to be a radical--Finkelstein can be a radical as a Jew. As one of his friends in a documentary commented, "I doubt if he will have the same credibility had he not been a Jew".

Confessions of a Intellectual

2010-04-24T21:39:00.000-07:00

I find Boyd's account of his struggles within the university sphere both revelatory and sobering in many ways. In the article, he quotes Knoblauch's critical question, "Is critical teaching [and scholarship] anything more than an intellectual game in such circumstances?" Perhaps we all feel a certain tinge of dissatisfaction with the hypocrisy of enjoying the material benefits of a system that we wholly disagree with. Not to sound too critical of the article though, at a certain point it does read like a page of 'dear diary', but maybe that's just me. Perhaps this is symptom of overinflating the idea of the classroom as a site of resistance. Not that it can't be, but it has its limits. I feel that some academics may romanticize the classroom in the way certain conservatives romanticize the free market as a place where magic happens. Once you realize these limits, you may feel a sense of disenchantment that he echoes in his piece. As critical theorists, one shouldn't make this mistake. Helping to get students to question the system they are in and publishing papers critiquing it are important, no doubt, but if you really believe the system should be changed, your actions shouldn't end at the classroom and the journal. Do what you can within your sphere of influence, and don't let the system tell you that you need to only stick to certain circles and your responsibility is fulfilled.

Why are you critical thoerists? My argument is that this is a moral question, a question of conscience. And I feel this week's readings have brought the topic full circle.

of violence..

2010-04-20T21:08:00.000-07:00

she dies of bullets, of rape, of hunger

she dies...and left alone

I search for the violence

Violence, Resistance and Revolution

2010-04-20T09:22:00.001-07:00

We spoke a little bit about violence and resistance in class yesterday, and questioned the necessity of violence in revolution. We read Schaff who believes that the words revolution and violence are often put together in reductive Marxist readings. I was listening to this poem by Piyush Mishra, the Hindi poet and lyricist, which I thought frames the idea of violence really well. This poem of his features in the film 'Gulaal' for those of you who've seen it; and quite ironically to our scenario, features in the film in the backdrop of college elections. I am putting up the Hindi version here. My apologies to those who cannot read Hindi (I'll translate it for you over a drink someday); my apologies also to those who CAN read Hindi, for I'm sure my Grammar is pretty bad. (Postcolonial ennui? No matter!).

Read on!
Shaunak

आरम्भ
- पियुष मिश्र

आरम्भ हैं प्रचंड, बोल मस्तकों के झुण्ड आज जंग की घडी की तुम गुहार दो,
आन बान शान या कि जान का हो दान आज एक धनुष के बाण पे उतार दो

मन करे सो प्राण दे जो मन करे सो प्राण ले वही तो एक सर्वशक्तिमान हैं
मिश्र की पुकार हैं, ये भगवत का सार हैं कि युद्ध ही तो वीर का प्रमाण हैं,
कौरवों की भीड़ हो, या पांडवों का नीड़ हो, जो लड़ सका हैं वह ही तो महान हैं.

जीत कि हवस नहीं, किसी पे कोई वश नहीं, क्या ज़िन्दगी हैं ठोकरों पे मार दो,
मौत अंत हैं नहीं, तो मौत से भी क्यों डरें, यह जा के आस्मान में दहाड़ दो
आरम्भ हैं प्रचंड, बोल मस्तकों के झुण्ड आज जंग की घडी की तुम गुहार दो,
आन बान शान या कि जान का हो दान आज एक धनुष के बाण पे उतार दो

वो दया का भाव, या कि शौर्य का चुनाव, या कि हार का वो घाव तुम यह सोच लो,
या कि पूरे भाल पर जला रहे विजय का लाल-लाल ये गुलाल तुम ये सोच लो,
रंग केसरी हो, या मृदंग केसरी हो, या कि केसरी हो ताल तुम ये सोच लो!

जिस कवि की कल्पना में ज़िन्दगी हो प्रेम गीत उस कवि को आज तुम नकार दो
भीगती मसों में आज, फूलती रगों में आज आग की लपट का तुम बघार दो.
आरम्भ हैं प्रचंड, बोल मस्तकों के झुण्ड आज जंग की घडी की तुम गुहार दो,
आन बान शान या कि जान का हो दान आज एक धनुष के बाण पे उतार दो.
-
पियुष मिश्र

Resistance: Everyday and Subaltern contexts

2010-04-18T22:56:00.000-07:00

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.

Resistance

2010-04-18T18:28:00.000-07:00

The white man called you Bhagat Singh that day,
The black man calls you Naxalite today.
But everyone will call you the morning star tomorrow. (‘Final Journey: First Victory’ by Sri Sri.)

I have still not completed all the fascinating readings for this week but with the ones I deemed important and have read, I am sharing some strands of thought.

Dutta and Pal (in press) wrote that the subaltern sectors of the globe who are historically silenced and disconnected from mainstream public spheres, constitute rich markets and sources of intellectual property for TNCs. This is very true and is constantly reinforced as we examine the patent applications and the various resistances mounted by activist groups against patenting indigenous knowledge. Further, the subaltern population also occupies some of land with the richest resources in the southern countries; their land has rare medicinal plants, rare varieties of rice/ wheat, Bauxite, minerals, teak wood, Agar wood, African black wood etc...As a result, there is now the constant effort of TNCs (MNCs is an outdated term!!), to appropriate those resources and remove the subaltern population from their ancestral and other homes. One just has to look at documented forest depletion from Indonesia, African countries, Amazon rain forests, Myanmar etc.., the increasing patents on natural products derivatives, the plight of the diamond fields of Sierra Leone, the continuing situation in Bastar tribal belt of India and Orissa to take a few examples. Dutta and Pal further write that the subalterns are controlled through "the deployment of dialogic tools that increasingly use terms such as listening, empowerment, participation and development to perpetuate the economic exploitation of the subaltern classes in the global South." There is one more addition to this, the subalterns are also controlled by brute force, by violence.

The violent state mechanisms and violence perpetrated by the state security forces which is legitimized by the tropes circulated in mainstream media. The subalterns resist; they resist with violence, an act of resistance. And now the violent incidents are on the rise; both instances of subaltern resistance and also state reprisals. Satre in his preface to "The wretched of the Earth" writes that this irrepressible violence is neither sound and fury, nor the resurrection of savage instincts, nor even the effect of resentment: it is man re-creating himself. This is a very important statement. I question to myself that is it that the Indian subaltern tribal having been exploited across generations by imperialists, colonialists, the feudal society, the government and the upper class is now tasting freedom. Is it the same for the subaltern resisting elsewhere in the world. Have they rediscovered themselves? Satre goes on to say that no gentleness can efface the marks of violence; only violence itself can destroy them. "The native cures himself of colonial neurosis by thrusting out the settler through force of arms " (Fanon). We see similar sentiments echoed in Ho Chi Minh (1947) and Chairman Mao's (1939) statements reproduced on the "Marxist dot org " website. But the thing that strikes me is that most of the articulations are against the colonial, imperialist outsiders who occupied and enslaved the countries. The colonialists have been physically ousted. Now the oppression is within the countries from the feudal structure, the class structure, the caste structure, the mainstream on the margins and woven within it the neo-colonial, neo-liberal forces which enforce a new form of exploitation and slavery; the material realities of oppression remaining the same; the oppression meted out from your own countrymen (is the word "countrymen"/ "fellow citizen" a trope?). But the important point is we cannot proceed with the same resistive strategy with which we ousted the colonizers. This form of colonization is more pervasive, more embedded into the social structure and is clever in its manipulation. The degree of co-optation is much more greater here and there is no physical outsider which threatens the material existence of the majority of the southern society now. It is only the margins which are threatened and within them also the degree of co-optation is high as they too are unable to visualize the threat till it wipes them out.

As Dutta and Pal write that through the processes of participation, dialogue, development discourses and solidarity the subaltern voices and agency is co-opted and controlled; eventually silenced from the public sphere. But again that is the nature of the beast, the public sphere and the inherent politics. The knowledge system there works to silence and control and co-opt. Dutta & Pal further say that the subaltern studies project provides an entry point for creating a dialogic space but again I contend that it is also a political space, an alternative articulation and it also marginalizes, silences and mis-represents. At most, it offers the subaltern scholars and us researchers the limitless possibilities to carve our identities and indulge in the resultant politics. It helps us challenge the existing hegemonic knowledge systems and create our own.

However, I am filled with hope; inspite of this reflexive cynicism.

This BLOG posting is getting long and I would be raising Prof. Dutta's hackles further, so am ending with my favorite quote from Marquez which I believe in:-

"In spite of this, to oppression, plundering and abandonment, we respond with life. Neither floods nor plagues, famines nor cataclysms, nor even the eternal wars of century upon century, have been able to subdue the persistent advantage of life over death. An advantage that grows and quickens: every year, there are seventy-four million more births than deaths, a sufficient number of new lives to multiply, each year, the population of New York sevenfold. Most of these births occur in the countries of least resources - including, of course, those of Latin America. Conversely, the most prosperous countries have succeeded in accumulating powers of destruction such as to annihilate, a hundred times over, not only all the human beings that have existed to this day, but also the totality of all living beings that have ever drawn breath on this planet of misfortune. Faced with this awesome reality that must have seemed a mere utopia through all of human time, we, the inventors of tales, who will believe anything, feel entitled to believe that it is not yet too late to engage in the creation of the opposite utopia. A new and sweeping utopia of life, where no one will be able to decide for others how they die, where love will prove true and happiness be possible, and where the races condemned to one hundred years of solitude will have, at last and forever, a second opportunity on earth.

Poets and inventors of tales believe in anything anyway...

Dialogue that is anything but

2010-04-18T10:18:00.000-07:00

Zoller's piece on the TABD again slices through the notion of dialogue as a form of civic participation and legitimate tool for public progress. What can we expect from state and TNC operators, a body that eases the flow of capital between countries or that actually seeks to involve consumers and work for the public good? Dialogue as a term simply props up the oligarchs' status quo and anesthetizes any real resistive potential in the masses. There is a dialogue going on, but its not the dialogue that the public is interested in or dialogue that has any substance. As Zoller puts it, "TABD draws on this theory of dialogue to argue for a credible competition among civil society groups and business organization. The TABD invokes the concept of a pluralistic, democratic dialogue to justify its relationship to government."

The TABD however in my opinion is not a mere front group with a placard of 'dialogue' but a facilitator for big business and governing elites. In reality, they are interested in pluralism, just not pluralism for interests that don't possess the capital to join the conversation. In the dialogue, it's only money that speaks.

This is just one case study, but does it do enough to remove all legitimacy of dialogue in the current system? I do think dialogue has a role to play, a position that may draw some scorn from my classmates. But that dialogue only works on a more level playing field. The challenge is to reach the point where powerful stakeholders have no choice but to react to concerns. Dialogue as a tool should not be scrapped altogether but used concurrently with other methods to combat the larger interests. If you are against dialogue for the sake of dialogue, I am with you there. Talking heads produce a lot of hot air.

To resist or not to resist

2010-04-18T07:41:00.000-07:00

I wanted to write something similar and on similar thoughts. So I felt it would be better to write it here not only as a follow up and comment wise on Prashant's post.

I am certainly confused with this introduction of new concepts in my life. I read about the proletarians and the bourgeois class. And just when I thought I was getting some idea of what all this is about I read more into them and got myself even more confused I think.

Industrial revolution. Key to all the foundation of Marxism. Is it not? My impression is that industrial revolution is blamed to a high extent for many of the problems in today's world. But was there an alternative to the industrial revolution? Similar to what HalfLife wrote above, is (was) innovation or competition unavoidable?

For the need of the people, innovation was necessary. it may have come in terms of more productive looms for individuals, or industry defining looms for the world. Steam engines made way for the world we stand in today. I find it hard to imagine a world where we do not have fast trains, or airlines, or a computer or mobile phones. Did they not all stem from the industrial revolution directly or indirectly?

Then the next confusion came about the ownership of land. I may not have gotten it at all. Is land symbolic of all the modes of production? Or is land only land? Even the Marx Archive says it is not possible to go to a point where all land will have public ownership. A revolution will be necessary to achieve that. And even then, it may be hard to accomplish.

But even if that happens, wouldn't it be necessary to have a selected group(s) to organize and manage them? Are we not creating a similar system as we have today with private ownership? In my opinion this would again eventually become the cash relationship situation theorists are trying to abolish.

Then the next clarification I seek is in terms of intellectual skills. The way big organizations treat employees (even if it is for their intellectual/academic skills) is nothing short of how a proletarian is treated and demanded. I felt if we substitute (or even imagine) the term 'physical labor' with 'intellectual labor/skills' it may work in a very similar way. But the reading seems to imply that intellectual labor is a 'higher' commodity.

So yes, I am confused to a good extent. It would be nice to get to listen to you all, and clarify and strengthen my grasp of the content matter that I have just dipped my toe into.

As I wrote in my first posting in this blog, let the fun begin!

Revolution at work

2010-04-10T17:36:00.000-07:00

Reading Mazumdar, I was struck by the risk of revolution being used as simply a placard without a substantial thought and method behind it. Mazumdar puts a distinction between revolution and revisionism. He describes revisionism as being, "wholly dependent upon the big leaders and, as a result, they end whenever those leaders belonging to the intelligentsia choose to withdraw them." I recall discussing this in class, about the possibility of a revolution occuring without leadership and at the time it seemed improbable to me. Since then, however, we have seen somewhat of a revolution occurring before our very eyes in Kyrgyzstan, a leaderless one at that, so this viewpoint has changed.
Mazumdar seems to be pretty direct in saying that propagandizing should be the way to go to convince the masses to start a revolution from the bottom up. I am not sure how easy that would be in reality. Propaganda from what I know is usually a strategy employed by states with resources. In different situations I guess this propaganda can take the form of education and organizing.

The global recession as Lenin's Imperialism redux!

2010-04-05T13:32:00.000-07:00

Reading through Lenin's chapter on Imperialism I cannot help but note the uncanny similarities between the economic situation he describes in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and the economic situation of 2010. Today, nations at different levels of development with respect to the means of production aspire to export capital. The location of production seems to override the demands of local labor and location is in fact determined by large corporations that justify particular locations in the name of increased efficiency. The pattern of economic boom periods followed by crises can be found in the early 1900s and the 2000s. The establishment of monopolies across different fields of enterprise in the name of vertical integration and improved management of the supply chains mirrors Lenin's description of the consolidation of power in the hands of cartels. From lysine to oil and petroleum products to pharmaceuticals - price fixing and manipulation of production rates and levels is endemic to capitalistic society. Most striking though is Lenin's chilling description of the expansion of the role and powers of banks to intervene in production. From mere intermediaries to owners of vast amounts of financial capital employed by capitalists in the procurement of industrial and human capital, banks have witnessed a massive consolidation in the industry that has been hastened by the financial crisis of 2007. ( see this for a quick understanding of the extent of consolidation in the banking industry the post-war era). The apparent democratization of stock ownership has led to a situation where a small amount of financial capital can be leveraged to exercise control over large amounts of industrial capital and production. Without doubt the direction of export of capital leans heavily from the "haves" to the "have-nots". What is interesting is the observation by scholars that labor generally flows in the direction opposite to the direction of flow of capital (for e.g. Bauder and Sassen). How can one then explain immigration using Lenin's definition of imperialism?

It is a moral quandary

2010-04-04T18:18:00.001-07:00

Gosh, I have no idea where to start. I’m well aware that most of what we’ve read this week will resonate more strongly with some people than with others simply through personal experiences of racism and such. At this point I’m truly speechless. Fanon and Cesaire leave me feeling so sad, so disheartened, so…incapable. Not simply as a victim of colonialism as part of a group colonized, because as Cesaire explains, we have all fallen victim to its venomous injection of a not-so-bright future, but more importantly how every single one of us is stuck with the current problems left by our predecessors. And even still we support, even when we do not intend to, the very same structures that continue to oppress other human beings.

After reading these works I feel it is important to revisit our earlier class discussion where Saqib and Christine introduced the dichotomous tensions between selfishness and selflessness. I’m beginning to think there is more substance to this concept than the class might have wanted to consider. At one point Cesaire states, “I have talked a good deal about Hitler. Because he deserves it: he makes it possible to see things on a large scale and to grasp the fact that capitalist society, at its present stage, is incapable of establishing a concept of the rights of all men, just as it has proved incapable of establishing a system of individual ethics.” I see this statement as clearly the central dilemma that allowed colonialism to thrive and its structures to continue to this day. To establish certain rights of all men would require a moral establishment of selflessness. Why was it that many classmates denied or rejected this idea earlier in the semester. I wonder if those who opposed approaching the oppression of the proletariat as a moral quandary would still venture to say that is it not…

Colonialism's Poison X 2

2010-04-04T08:48:00.000-07:00

I love reading Fanon; he makes no excuses and he says what he thinks with no holding back. He blames those who should be blamed and does it with no fear. I love it. In reading Fanon, however, I always feel beyond sad. His words move me because they are genuine and heavy. The story exists and continues to do so.

The idea of racial or ethnic betrayal has been swimming in my head for weeks. This is mostly due to the fact that when I was in Mexico, many of the migrants told me that when they get to the U.S., they are treated the worst by Mexicans who are already there or are second generation, documented Mexicans. These thoughts were brought to the forefront while reading "Black Skin, White Masks". This whole idea is brought back by the stories of black women who will only marry white men because they see black men as severely inferior.

I begin to think of the poisons of colonialism. To being, you have an enemy who you will forever hate. However, colonialism poison is strong enough to turn that hatred inward and make you not only hate who you are but your fellow brother and sister. It is a hatred toward your own kind, your own color, your own suffering and struggle. Not only does colonialism come in and take everything and change it but they make the fight back much harder when you learn to believe those who tell you that you are inferior and so is everyone else like you.

Just a few thoughts...

Consciousness rising or shedding of blood

2010-03-29T11:18:00.000-07:00

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?”.

Echoing Malcom

2010-03-29T10:23:00.000-07:00

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 to revolution is systemic failure and collapse?

Black on Non-white

2010-03-29T07:29:00.000-07:00

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 standards for American citizenship I'm guessing yes - like the people of numerous races who have settled in America for generations. I wonder then, if in an argument for inclusion in the Cherokee nation, should the people of African descent be included in the fold of this Native American group?

The politics of identity.

2010-03-28T20:03:00.000-07:00

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 videos and their analyses. The question is which argument is privileged and by whom. Malcom X for all his rhetoric never really practices what he preached or comes out of Elijah Muhammad's shadow on his own. It was also interesting to see the strong association and leadership role of the Nation of Islam (current vestiges alive in Louis Farrakhan etc..) and Black struggle in the US and the continuous call of Malcom X to identify with non white populations and also Muslims globally. I could not help but thinking that how would this be reflecting on the current strategy documents of the US government regarding the Black population after 9/11 and the war against terror in Islamic countries like Iraq, Pakistan, Afganistan.
In my recent trip with BCC to Chicago I saw an exhibition on the Black panther party and the courage of the educated, creative and brave members against a repressive police and security force. I wonder if those events are forgotten or they do make an impression on the psyche of the black population today.
Inequality is a reality which people deal with everyday for living their lives globally; this is the story of Blacks, browns, other shades of color, hispanics, mestiza, queer, chicano/a, indigenous people, tribals, Dalits, the list keeps lengthening. A key commonality is money and access to resources. That many a times becomes a definer of how unequal you are (notwithstanding today's knowledge economy!!). I feel, in the end, its the politics of identity and representation. And this politics is highly connected and at the same time removed from the material inequalities, material realities.

Susto Callado

2010-03-28T15:58:00.001-07:00

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 brothers and sisters trying to return to a land once rightfully theirs. People are screaming, but they are not screaming loud enough because they don't have their other half. Before we concentrate on screaming to policymakers, we have to come together, as we once were and take on the issue. Racism continues to rule the hearts of people on both sides, only few have been able to break this barrier and hold hands and fight as brothers/sisters. Reform, our present goal, will not be reached until we hold hands across the border and fight together. How can we stand by as our brother/sister is dying of hunger and shame as he/she tries to come home? Anzaldua talks about susto and explains it very nicely as "the soul frightened out of the body" (p.70). Part of my daily vernacular, I never thought about the deep meaning of susto. This is what I experience when I think of the faces of the migrants I dined with and read the policies our government produces in attempt to keep our brother/sister out.

Anzaldua brought the people I met in Mexico back to my face. I thank her for that. But more importantly, she brought me back to my face. How to bring that out of my mouth is the next journey.

"'Knowing' is painful because after 'it' happens I can't stay in the same place and be comfortable. I am no longer the same person as I was before" (p. 70).

Rhetoric and Revolution

2010-03-28T11:51:00.000-07:00

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 Power advocates and Malcolm X to be regarded as a threat was the threat of disruption and violence that they always promised. However, once again, we see the role of the symbolic in communicating the material threat. The rhetorical simplicity of 'Ballot or Bullet' underlies the simplicity of the argument of the oppressed. A right to self-governance or violence.

While listening to the clips, I was reminded of the phrases used during the early years of the Cultural Revolution. What is interesting is that during a period of crisis, what is defined as beautiful, or poetic also changes. For instance, the phrase, 红色恐怖万岁 (roughly translated as "Long live the Red Terror") was used to galvanize a generation. The translation does not capture the poesis of the phrase here. In this context, the 'terror' was what was exalted, made to be the object of desire. In Malcolm X's phrase, the beauty lies in the fact that both the options: bullet or ballot, are equally accessible. Of course, beautification of violence makes a lot of people uncomfortable; but in the face of decades of economic exploitation and segregation, the possibility of rebalancing oppressive social forces can pull a lot of weight.

La Frontera

2010-03-28T10:41:00.000-07:00

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 even more codes, this move was at once recognizable, and yet alien. It was familiar in the fact that the most poignant moments were left to the native tongue, letting the foreign tongue lay all the groundwork. And yet, having no Spanish, it sometimes felt like I was reading half the text. At one point, I started reading the Spanish verses aloud, and merely enjoyed their cadence.

What role does the 'poetic' play in establishing an argument?
As far as a Verstehen moment goes, the poetic allows you to capture your audience. But more than rhetorical strategy, mere 'hudibrastic tricks', as Vikram Seth calls them, the poetic IS the political; as we've recently read. I think one reason I like Anzaldua so much is the fact that the poetic in her case in an expression of decades of exploitation, cultural and material-this is key- that Mexican, Mexican-American and Chicana people have been subject to. Unlike so much postcolonial writing that seems to be little more than middle-class meditations on alienation, Anzaldua writes of poverty, of the imperialism of the maquiladoras. The link to the material makes the symbolic so much stronger.

So Postcolonial writing needs to be constantly undergirded by the economic?

If it aspires to enact any politics of transformation, yes. Not all postcolonial writing aspires to. Postcolonial fiction has a different problem. As communication scholars, our adoption of postcolonial theories must envisage a politics of change. Without that, the enterprise becomes pointless. Anzaldua really manages to make the two worlds meet. I love how she places her sexuality as the fulcrum on which her ambivalence towards her own culture lies. She talks about how traditional Mexican culture situates the woman in a particular economic context and places on her responsibilities of the domestic economy. How many times have we seen a situation similar to what she lays out, where mothers-in-law berate their sons for not keeping their wives 'in check'. The woman is a hegemonic subject; and this is unbearable for Anzaldua. She distances herself from her culture at that point, she openly despises this patriarchy. (Like all good postcolonial theorists though, she worries about criticizing them too loudly -lest the white man hear her, and use her work to once again primitivize her culture.) Anzaldua moves the fulcrum by 'choosing to be queer', as she explicitly states. This is not merely identity politics. I think there's a qualitative difference her. In choosing to be queer, and in doing so, engaging in constant logger-heading with the dominant male position in Chicana culture; and is aware of her privileged position in doing so.

In what way?

By the fact that she has the option to be queer. This is a privilege. And she's acutely aware of that, is my sense. I guess what we need to know is how Chicana lesbian feminists today understand her resistive stance. Do they see it as revolutionary? Did she want other women to think of this as a resistive act? In one sense, we might never know, given her recent death; but through her writing, and the legacy it inspires, maybe we will. There's already a Society for the Study of Gloria Anzaldua. That's a start.

Stuck on defining resistance

2010-03-22T07:59:00.000-07:00

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 so wrapped up in defining what is and what is not critical theory, that we began to build our own structure within the social structure, that marginalizes those who try to resist, but may not live up to our “standards.” Looking at this week’s readings, especially the piece on crisis communication, it seemed that one of the main tenets for subaltern studies is to “acknowledge the existence of the subaltern and of the context in which they coexist with diverse agents” (p. 149). It would seem to me that if a person is a part of a marginalized group or the subaltern, their access to resources and their ability to resist structures is much more limiting than what we as scholars sometimes consider. If a person’s individual livelihood is completely dependent on the very structures that oppress them, then maybe posing a material threat to those that oppress marginalized population is more of a risk than their willing to take. I don’t know, I just fee like our sensitivity to those situations are haughtily placed against our own standards of social change and of resistance, further marginalizing those who do the “feet dragging” because it is all they may be able to access at the time. I’m still thinking it though, still figuring out my response to such claims.

(dis)Missing the Discursive

2010-03-21T16:10:00.000-07:00

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 contemporary society; and though this calls for due attention for class related disparities, the attention in my opinion should not come at the cost of neglecting other sites of inequity and domination. Furthermore, inquiry into the material should not relegate discourse to a secondary spot.

Regarding class disparities as more objective seems to lend an overarching effect to Class. It seems to argue that all disparities can ultimately be narrowed down to and investigated in terms of class. I say this on the basis of what has been said on the topic in our class discussions and in response to claims by scholars like Cloud who argue not to regard class as one of the many variables impacting one’s reality. True, Class can be a ground for establishing solidarities, however attention devoted solely to Class cannot account for variables such as race and gender. I thus hold that in establishing the importance of Class we should guard ourselves against a reductionism that makes us neglect other dimensions of existence and domination.

If it is not for explanations that focus on discourses, one cannot investigate the operations of hegemony, ideology etc. The Dutta and Basu (2009) paper is an interesting example in this regard, the domination of the sex workers and their subalternity is not brought about entirely through class related suppression, rather it is brought about by substantial discursive imaginings that legitimates exploitation and counters resistance. It is in the communicative disruption of these imaginings that spaces for material changes are charted out. Discourse thus should not be relegated to the periphery in our preoccupation with the material if our scholarship is to be comprehensive.

Of Feminism, Conception, and Some Reality

2010-03-21T15:29:00.000-07:00

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 see why women are neglected, subordinated, marginalized, and abused in the work place. With many relevant examples we see the working conditions, ways of abuse, language as tools of oppression and maintaining dominance. Most of us probably know about the situation in western companies during the middle of the last century, where women employees were expected to provide sexual favors to their bosses as "after lunch quickies." But domination continues, and in more and more different and 'creative forms nowadays. And yet we read about female CEOs from other parts of the world. One example is that of Indira K. Nooyi above. But there is more.

Indian women may not have proportionate representation in companies, but they are better off than women elsewhere. Eleven percent of 240 large companies - Indian-owned as well as multinational, private as well as state-owned - have women CEOs, according to a study carried out by executive search firm EMA Partners. In comparison, only three percent of the Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs [source].

Are these CEOs in their positions without hard work? Have they not been subjected to work place issues as mentioned and propagated by feminist theorists? Why are there more CEOs in eastern countries than western one? Do these questions force more questions about what is there difference (if any) in the practices of organizations in those two geographical locations?

Let us talk more about this.

Organizing possibilities

2010-03-21T10:12:00.000-07:00

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, structure and class in the present organizational context. She further stressed on the traditional approach/ understanding of class in order to establish ‘control over political and economic institutions’ by the workers. Therefore, instead of surface level make-up/ polishing approach we may adopt more fundamental approach (based on class) of structural transformation to ensure long-term change in favor of working communities.

Many organizational communication literatures advocate workplace civility, work culture (along with idea of democracy and CSR) within an organization; which essentially legitimize a top-down approach. But, scholars like Machiavelly and Clegg recognized and stressed on the transformative and resistive potential of the agencies. Both in case of day-to-day practice of micro-resistance (including collective bargaining) and for collective (material) revolution, the bottom-up organization process (engagement of agency) is useful. Thus a constant interaction with power and structure is essential for an agency to legitimize (and organize in favor of) the issues in order to achieve the demands.

Again, in contrast to managerial (organization level) or administrative (state or policy level) point of view, a subaltern studies approach gives us the opportunity to understand issues/problems from a perspective of marginalized population (or person). Legitimization (and reflexive representation) of subaltern voices (through academia, media or other means) is crucial because it creates alternate discursive spaces (socio-cultural, political and economical) (Kim and Dutta, 2009). Apart from the discursive opportunity within organization, the legitimization process is helpful for creating awareness, and thereby it opens up the possibility of alternate and broader organizing and solidarity.

Therefore, realization of importance of the roles of class and potentials of agency, and application of a bottom-up and/or subaltern studies approach may create alternate spaces and opportunities of revolution and resistance (in favor of workers) in the contemporary neoliberal world.

Feminist liberate thyself

2010-03-21T07:44:00.000-07:00

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 of conducting a professional career in academe from the dominant trends in organizations? So long as researchers remain concerned with analyses of organizations while remaining situated in organizational contexts where traditional gendered notions about the meaning and purpose of work and division of labor dominate, they are not going to be able to go beyond documenting efforts that are being undertaken to change a status quo that is manufactured to favor men over women. For example, how do feminist researchers reconcile with the fact that the remuneration offered to tenured and non-tenured faculty remains skewed in favor of male professors?

Second, organizations have their reputations as providers of equal opportunity to protect when they call for gender equality/equity in the organization. It is ironic that many of these organizations are dominated by White males who constitute the majority of the middle and upper levels of management and in many cases comprise the bulk of the shareholders. Asking White men to alter their perceptions of others in a specified setting without examining their conditions of privilege in other contexts is at best a sign of short-sightedness and at worst just plain insincere.

While disengagement provides theorists a way of creating alternative structures or ideologies based on a critique of the system, doing so also increases the risk of marginalization. Also, Buzzanell points out that attempts at reaching out to a larger population run the risk of diluting the feminist message and subsequent cooptation of feminist demands by opportunistic interests. Another question that arises in my mind is whether achieving equal or equitable representation of women is an end in itself. Numerical goals for achieving equity of representation are necessary yet insufficient conditions for progress toward equality. The underrepresentation that occurs is not just in numbers of females in the workforce but also refers to the marginalization of feminist values that promote a multifaceted life designed to accommodate work-family and work-life balance. The value of our contributions as theorists lies not just in our ability to identify with a particular ideology but in the enactment of our ideological principles. It might be naïve to suggest at this juncture that feminist theory succeeds when and where it is practiced, but it would certainly help newcomers to the feminist project if more experienced scholars outline and specify how feminism can be exercised in praxis.

Does power flow from the barrel of a gun?

2010-03-08T13:05:00.000-08:00

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 possibly inhere in the oppressed, in the punished, in the population under surveillance.

Take the case of a tribal woman in either Lalgarh or Dantewada or Narayanpatna who has lost her husband to police bullets, school going son in jail; what is her understanding of power? Her reaction to the "faces" of power, the police, the government, the judiciary. Can she be ever empowered (if there exists such a term)? If she defies these "power", should that be called a resistive act and so resistance?

Some terms/ concepts stand out for me in these articles and Mills "The Power Elite", the most important being "Hegemony", "Reification", "context" and "agency". These are intimately related to power and its conceptualization, discussions.

As basic Marxism informs us that the vulnerable are oppressed because their oppression leads to the benefits of the oppressor class/ the elites. They are oppressed not because they do not have a consciousness but because they live under the false consciousness brought about by the machinations of the hegemony, reified institutions supported by force/ power. And this power, as Chairman Mao said flows from the barrel of a gun. I am inclined to believe this today looking at the field scenario worldwide, the current repressions and oppressions and studying the alternative histories of indigenous people. So, do we accept it as a inevitable conclusion or entertain the critical question that, does power inhere in oppressed individuals (Foucalt)? And if yes, does that power manifest when they take the gun and become revolutionaries?

Hegemony and the power elite

2010-03-08T12:50:00.000-08:00

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 social organizations. Shared beliefs and attitudes may be summarized in terms of a strong support for a capitalist society that visualizes the governmental intervention in so far as it protects the interests of business. Earlier members of the power elite derived their common belief systems from the time they were born (into rich families) through the schooling they received (in elite institutions such as Harvard or Yale) and the various networks that one gained membership of by virtue of affinity toward or membership of particular religious, racial, and economic denominations. While this sort of initiation through birth, education, and work is true and occurs to this day, what of the several efforts over the past 50 years to redress the imbalance in representation of the population? From a government run by party loyalists, we have come to a government run by the products of schools of public policy. We have supposedly installed a meritocratic system that favors intelligence and hard work. However, the fact remains that local structure of society in different parts of this country continues to reflect the organization of society at the national level. For example, the board of trustees at Purdue University is composed almost entirely of the entrepreneurs, presidents and CEOs of corporations. The two exceptions are the owner of Hardin farms and the Purdue student representative. It would seem that involvement in capitalistic enterprise is a requirement for membership of the board of trustees. Again, the motive here is not to misrepresent the convictions of the members of the board of trustees. As Mills put it the members of the power elite may be honorable and operate peacefully within the bounds of the constitution. However, it is the same group of people that decides when the constitution can and should be amended and when it should not. In fact the founding fathers of the US who wrote the American constitution were by no means representative of the people of the US at the time. The schools of public policy, the board of trustees of universities may try hard to provide equity of representation by invoking affirmative action. However, the fact remains that each new member of the power elite will have been indoctrinated into that particular belief system by the time they achieve membership. How then will representatives of the underrepresented manage to change the status quo when reaching a point where the status quo is discussed and debated involves accepting it? Then again, when did we ever really represent the population or its interests anyway? This point may be a critique of Mills in that his essay seems to assume that democracy was representative at an earlier point in time. The university was never meant to be of the people but rather a means to distinguish between the educated and the uneducated. Becoming educated involves exposure to the belief and value system espoused by the ruling elite. Analyzing the power elite helps us understand who is making the important decisions that impact the nation, and what the nature of such decisions is. However, one immediately wonders as to what Mills perspective on political and social reconstruction would have been given the pessimistic nature of his analysis.

The Power Elite and Gender

2010-03-08T09:58:00.000-08:00

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 about the power elite? How does gender play a role in the power elite?

Caste-fying the elite

2010-03-08T01:32:00.000-08:00

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, both material and symbolic-- bases itself on the foundations of religion and divinity. The neoliberal democratic development of the Indian polity has done a lot to let the correlation between socially elite and high castes prevail. With respect to such a situation I wonder how can one apply the format of analysis that Mills takes up, to a context that is very different from what it was meant for? What modifications/ suggestions would you suggest for studying caste elitism in the Indian society?

The powerless mass…

2010-03-07T21:22:00.001-08:00

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 ability level, and availability of options for decision making for individual/ society. Lastly, in the new structural trend, the societies became more individualistic and individuals became less aware about real-environments. It makes individuals more vulnerable and controllable, and thereby strengthens the power-elites. E.g. - In neoliberal setup, the control and bargaining power of labor force is reducing.

The unipolarity of power in contemporary world accelerates the neoliberal operations, and implementations initiatives of capitalist agenda. Fundamentally the process operates very methodically; that includes structural control, strong institutional hierarchy, and continuous coordination between economical, political and military powers/domains. To elaborate, I want to mention one aspect of it- the aspect of ‘fit’ corporate executive: which means, a ‘fit’ corporate executive ‘must meet the expectation of his superiors and peers; that in personal manner and political view, in social ways and business style…’ (p.141). Moreover, this process is highly coordinated; it ensures unity by interchangeability of roles of the representatives of the big three domains. In this manner, this united (& often invisible) and centralized ‘unhealthy’ mechanism established more and more control over the social processes and thereby increased the inequality in society.

As a member of Academia, we need to take initiatives to integrate/ organize and to raise consciousness among the affected population of the society. That may be one small step towards building a better, healthy and humane world.

Power Elitism

2010-03-07T16:30:00.000-08:00

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 those in charge whereas an empire is a beast that simply has outgrown the demands of the people. Any nation it seems with such an outpouring of capital centered around a government structure is almost inevitably going to fall prey to the intoxication of its own strength. Hence, you develop what Mills call a power elite. Is there then some credibility to the claim of those on the right in the US who say that small government with less interference is better?

Noam Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival

2010-03-07T14:38:00.000-08:00

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

I'm just a middle man

2010-03-07T10:24:00.000-08:00

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 neighborhoods as a way to access and give access to marginalized populations. The beginning of his presentation began light-heartedly as he reviewed one audio recording of a women walking through a city, providing a voice over of the actual spaces she was occupying in Paris. In these examples, he was simply explaining how audio could be used as a tool to mapping geographic areas rather than the often used visual map of streets and cities. His presentation soon began to slowly morph as it took up a specific subject position of power using means of production to represent the symbolic, which devoided the discussion of the material realities essential to his talk.

The most provocative radio diary he used to sensationalize his participants was one by two young African American boys living in underprivileged neighborhoods. The boys talked about their daily struggles and provided metaphoric examples of living in poverty that represented living through Vietnam. The most moving statement being similar to “Living here is like living in Vietnam. Most of the people who leave Vietnam end up crazy. Now how to do expect us (the two young African American boys) to be when we have to live here. Soldiers come home crazy after just visiting Vietnam and its our home. ” Though this summary can not do the quote justice to the realness brought out through the young boys words, it captures a glimpse of the radio diary provided to the academic audience at the ethnography conference. Many people were moved. I was too. However, I was not moved simply by the words of the child in the audio file, which the keynote speaker titled Ghetto 101 (I don’t even want to get into my problems with this title ).
My tensions and anger stemmed from my disgust of blatant exploitation of those young boys and their situation for the gains of this specific researcher. I could not help but think about Mill’s discussion of the power elite and the hierarchical placement of the middle-man in positions that leaves him/her struggling for “power” so much so that they are preoccupied with keeping power, prestige, and political standing. Going back to the example, my tensions and uncomfortableness seemed to emanate not from only this disgust, but more from my own hesitance to vocally voice my outrage. As I feverously sat writing my thoughts on the tiny 4x6 notepad that the conference had provided me, I felt almost relieved when another audience member asked “how can such radio diaries be used for social change and if the keynote speaker had ever used this method for such uses“. The keynote speaker strategically avoided answering this questioning a round-about way, explaining that the goal of his research is to give voice to these marginalized populations. All I heard was “I‘m not interested in taking risks or actually see material change for these people because it threatens my social standing and the little bit of power I hold within this position.”

So why this situation? How does this situation differ from the many situations we encounter as scholars? Well, of course it had specific relevance to me. While writing this, I’m feeling tension telling me don’t write this on the blog for many of reasons, one of which is that it can be used as possible incriminating evidence in the future. I was conflicted and uncomfortable with the ethnographic approach because the scholar had no intentions of seeing material change and wanted to “raise awareness.” Moreover, because I was aware that after graduating, I want to consider Depaul University for a place for professorship and because the keynote speaker was a professor of this very communication department, I unable to to muster the courage to response. I was playing the very same power and prestige game discussed through Mill’s Power Elite. Though parsed out here, these tensions flew through my head. Among others, I also felt dissonance to not offend my professor who was sitting directly next to me and who also admired the keynote speaker, as well as the rest of the academic scholars who sat in the room nodding their heads in acceptance or agreement with the speakers approaches and goals. So in the end, what did I do? I decided that I may have not been ready to openly and vocally disagree with the illustrations of oppressive practices preoccupied with keeping statuses of prestige allotted to them/us as academicians. However, I am ready to call attention to it on this blog, as it does in a much more microscopic way relate to the readings we reviewed thus far in the class. Contrary to Mill’s explanation of the masses under the power elite, I hope not to “slugglishly relax into uncomfortable mediocrity” (p. 14), even though I am fully aware that I did not have the balls to vocally point out the oppressive nature of the keynotes speakers work. I guess this is a start.

How can smart people be so stupid?

2010-03-07T07:37:00.000-08:00

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 interactions and processes which seem so obvious to the non-academe.

p.s: This is why I intensely dislike the "scientific" label. I am not saying it does not work, it just does not work for me. Only a "scientist" would ever be self absorbed enough to hypothesize about whether something as ritual and simplistic as power relations exist in any human interaction.

------------------------

On another note, I was watching a piece on the situation in Tibet and the progression of the history of this strategic location in Asia, when the words of the Power Elite were brought to life. They were reflected in the actions of the CIA which funded guerrilla warfare in the region (against the PRC) and conveniently withdrew their support when China emerged as an economic superpower and threatened to terminate trade relations with America if it did not stem its support for the Tibetan cause. Slowly, but surely, I could see the insidious nature of this triangle of power, with the economic, military and the political seeping into and saturating policy action. No matter how loudly or emphatically Michael Stipe sings about Tibet in D.C., we end up dancing to the tunes of the truly powerful.

Of Power, Control, and Hegemony

2010-03-07T07:02:00.000-08:00

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 implicitly to co-opt people/groups in order to propagate the capitalist agendas. But after reading this essay I could not help but feel surprised at the microlevel of power enforcement and the hegemonistic ways of forced inclusion of certain groups into the dominant groups.

I wonder if things are similar in other parts of the world or not, especially in the shopping mall scenarios, where there is an attempted shift from the "private" to the "public" behaviors and control. I look forward to seeing more discussions on this in the class room.

Random & Too Much

2010-03-01T11:28:00.000-08:00

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 symbolic and material. They were symbolic because they were resisting and they were material because they change was actually happening, their blood was given to others in order to save their lives. The structural change did not happen, is this what she means by change?

3) I worked hard to take the personal out of my papers I submitted to NCA. (This is response to the aesthetic chapter). However, should I? Should there not be room for this type of discourse in academic writing? Of course, it could lead to being rejected, but there's always risk involved in resistance right? That's what we learned from Cloud and Basu & Dutta.

4) Can we talk about resistance being co-opted by the neoliberal project? Does it still count as resistance? Does it still have room to change?

Aesthetic expressions...

2010-02-28T14:10:00.000-08:00

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 scenario or breaking the barriers.
Poetry, story, auto-ethnography, etc. are mainly considered as examples of aesthetic expressions. But it is also needed to consider other non-textual forms of expressions like sketching, dancing, theater, etc. By taking multiple genres into consideration, we may enlarge the domain and may enhance the quality of communication research. This very process fundamentally talks about reflexivity as authors noted, “Aesthetic experiences invite us to stretch our imagination to grasp events befalling another individual and craft previously unimagined possibilities”. Further, Dutta (in press) showed that multiple truths (or points of views) help us to understand different “worldviews that have historically been erased and/or treated as subjects of inquiry to be written over and about”.
Importantly, as the aesthetic expressions are the insights from lived experiences, they are not apolitical. They reflexively address the politico-economical parameters that shape the reality and/ or needs to be changed. Therefore the artists/ authors (of the expression) remain answerable to the community and society as a whole.
While explaining Culture Centered Approach, Dutta, 2008 discussed the role of agency; he mentioned that, “agency… refers to individual and group actions, meanings made of such actions, and how such actions work with and challenge existing structures”. Thus an aesthetic expression made by an agency is essentially an act that challenges present structures and envisions social transformation. Now days in class we are discussing various options of praxis and importance thereof. In my opinion, that is an effective symbolic way to express our thoughts, challenges and visions about contemporary capitalist world and its problems/ crisis.

Participation and Legitimacy

2010-02-28T13:49:00.000-08:00

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 has given legitimacy to the claim of relationship between "risk behavior" and susceptibility. By pointing out that there are people with "more risky behavior", legitimacy is given to the act of sanction against a group of people defined as of high risk, and the act of monitoring and surveillance built into the blood donation process.

Insofar as routine participation is encouraged in the power structure as an articulation of "good citizenship", as Anthony M. Orum and John G. Dale (2009) point out in Political Sociolgy, generosity and altruism is only part (and a small part) of the motive for participation. Thus it is important to put the whole discussion about deferral policy in the backdrop of Blood Drive as a structured, controlled and monitored activity while examine the resistive nature of acts of "pass" or "protest".

I think Shaunak is right in saying that the gay male population is far from being a typical "disadvantaged" group, and want to highlight the difference between the personal risks that they take in resisting (psychological, periodical, imaginary, low withdrawal cost) is in no way comparable to the ones taken by CSWers in Kolkata (physical, prolonged, real and irrevocable) (Basu & Dutta, 2009).

Failing Passing

2010-02-28T09:48:00.000-08:00

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 Bennett's thesis, I now want to consider Bennett's definition of 'passing'. He calls it the ability of a member of a disenfranchised group to render invisible those traits used to oppress them culturally and institutionally. Further, he says, "Having eluded aspects of gender, race, class or sexual orientation, people can paradoxically live their lives more openly." This point, this unassuming little slip is where I feel Bennett's assessment falls short of a (Capital-C) Critical piece. I am going to offer two hypothesis here that I believe disrupt Bennett's argument.

1. Eluding aspects of gender, race and class, or even sexual orientation is fundamentally premised on a particular conception of public space. Outside this particular conception, this is not always possible. Tropes of 'citizenship' are what Bennett hinges on, the blood ban disallows the queer body to construct itself as a 'citizen'. Citizenship, as it is offered in this piece, is a construct that is firmly located within the American model of democracy. Regarding protest as something that makes you MORE of a civilian subject is an unquestioned assumption here. It is only within this narrow, circumscribed scenario that this argument works. Further, and this is what is MOST PROBLEMATIC for me, it is only within such a notion of the 'public sphere', (a Habermasean conception), where one can use one's 'fragmented' identity towards AND against the body politic. I believe that it is only within a techno-modern public sphere mediated by networks of electronic communication and transportation that such 'passing' can take place.

What do I mean? The 'queer' male identity is one that is not defined by any physical identity markers. The marginalization of queerness based on being 'marked out' cannot be equated to racial, class, or gender traits. Situations where one can render one's gender, race, and class invisible ONLY occur within a 'postmodern', post-industrial context wherein one can rely on other 'traits' (for a queer man donating, this can be his 'masculinity', his 'American-ness', and historically, his 'whiteness') to be included. Using the same example of blood donation, let's take another example. What does a Chinese gay immigrant do to 'pass' the system? How does he pass inscriptions of identity on his body? Even in a 'heterosexual' scenario, what do I do when I am told that I cannot donate blood on our campus, because I am from a country in which malaria still exists? Could I claim to be 'American'?

There are bodies that the states oppresses more brutally than the others. Devices differ for different bodies. Amitava Kumar, in his book 'Passport Photos', talks about how every book is a passport, and every PASSPORT is a BOOK'. It is political knowledge; a knowledge that helps to contain; a knowledge that allows for violence on the [immigrant] body.

2. My second hypothesis attacks the question of 'discursive violence', that Bennett claims is done to queer male bodies. In the case of HIV/AIDS, I'm afraid that discursive violence cannot be equated to the MATERIAL violence that is operated on docile bodies. The queer male identity is one of MATERIAL privilege; and this is a fact that we are too often apt to forget. In Basu & Dutta, in Dutta's (2008, 2006) other work, and in the work of others like Paul Farmer, we see that the violence of identity politics and HIV is not at all discursive; it's material. It is related to poverty, access to basic medical facilities, access to the bare essentials of life. These ritual paeans of the 'discursive' violence obscures the material violence of identity. That is something that any theory of emancipation cannot ignore.

Bennett writes eloquently, and makes for great reading and reflection. However, this is not what the critical project is about. This piece, inasmuch as it reveals the disciplining nature of knowledge and the dialectic nature of active and subversive resistance, also obscures the more fundamental questions of material violence.

Too Much Communication

2010-02-28T08:52:00.000-08:00

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 exaggerating the effects of engaging in more democratic forms of communication. A less-than rudimentary knowledge of economic policy also adds to this. More ivory-tower syndrome.

-I was wondering of the response of you guys to the point made in Cheney and Cloud's (2006) work on different forms of capitalism. (page 522) Cheney suggests that you have to take into account the "variety of relations among the state, capital, labor and the citizenry" before applying some Marxist-one-size-fit-all theories. As he points out, some of these models operate against TNC interests and take social costs into account. Shouldn't these models pe preserved, or does it boil down to capitalism=bad?

-Again, Cheney suggests on page 529 that we take the modern consumerist economic model into account before setting a Marxist critique. Under this thought, should we view consumer rights as a viable form of capitalist resistance, though it buys into the notion that consumption is the driving force of society? I would say that as long as it does create a net benefit effect to the consumer (most of society), we should not dismiss it, even if it falls short of chosen ideals for class freedom.

Is participation just a rhetoric?

2010-02-28T07:20:00.000-08:00

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 of participation in marginalized spaces. The question here is that margins being margins, how much participation can we really construct here? How do we theorize/ reach the subaltern spaces that foster subalternity? (Basu and Dutta, 2009). Reaching those spaces might need a structural change.
From a theoretical purist point of view, we can probably build a clean space but it gets murkier and embedded in contradictions once we move to praxis. At the same time, the structure never changes but realigns itself so that the exploitative practices remain the same. As Cheney and Cloud (2006) note that the different managerial strategies of expanded voice and participation by workers in the productivity of the firm may obscure the exploitative practices and fundamental inequalities. So, as much as we construct participation of the workers and ensure their voices in the discursive space, it does not really impact the larger exploitative practices. The worker, the health participant still lives in the margins with a symbolic satisfaction of having access to the "discursive space".

This takes me to our research and my upcoming dissertation, what is the end product of this process? Foregrounding the voice of the cultural participant in the discursive space, co-creating meanings from their participation....so?..does this impact the structure? the exploitative/ marginalizing practices? the neo-liberal argument which guides it now?
As Cloud(2005) enunciates in her second article for this week, the "limits of symbolic agency in the labor movement and the overemphasis on discursive power in organizational communication and social movement research in the field". I want to draw a parallel to health communication here...after our critical reading of texts, campaigns, critical analysis of dominant approaches of health communication, we emphasize on dialogue, listening, community participation as a start to get at the meanings, foregrounding voices, access to discursive spaces, enabling agency etc. Here, we fall in the same trap as Cloud (2005) portrays in terms of critical organizational studies. i.e., "we need more than a voice". The material context has not changed nor does it change with our suggested recommendations and actions. We must come to terms with the dialectical relationships between discourses, acts of participation and the material contexts of power and agency (Cloud, 2005; Dutta, 2008). So, I must understand that all my research and actions as a scholar are subject to the critical reflections that my work, my interpretation and my agency is located in the exploitative practices of the present structure and as long as the structural issues remain not-addressed, "participation" could be a rhetoric.

On Cloud 9

2010-02-28T06:38:00.000-08:00

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 attending to the economic dimensions of exploitation and of recognizing the real and necessary antagonism between employers and workers." In the Doing Democracy piece Cheney does defend the field of communication scholarship bringing to our attention work which is sharply critical of the growing economic inequalities and calling for democratic micro practices which do not depend on the "complete structural transformation of the economy".
It was here that my constant issues with revolution as opposed to reformation were laid to rest (until the next provocateur comes along). I see how a system which is "base exploitative" would need a major overhaul, to even initiate some form of material change. Like I said earlier, with systems like many of the current capitalist ones, I can see how there would no real light at the end of the exploitative tunnel. In the Fighting Words piece we were painted a picture where it became evident in Cloud's words that "The capitalist workplace is a paradigmatic case of coercive power relations because workers depend upon the employers for survival and because employers depend upon labor to produce goods for the company's profit." In the Staley case, it became evident that the persuasive rhetoric of words lacked any real transformative potential (in this particular case) and Cloud suggests that the "deployment of other, materially coercive (though not necessarily violent) action might have been more effective" [ In her notes she gives the example of a non violent strike as being a coercive and effective action].
Further, in Doing Democracy, Cheney and Cloud warn us that "we should not overestimate the degree to which workers action can be achieved purely in discourse, even though persuasive campaigns can sometimes take hold within spheres beyond the organization, which in turn shape public policy and then regulate corporate behavior". It was reading this, in conjunction with a study of the material reality of Staley that reinforced the belief of revolutionary transformation. Also, as the readings progress I am very cautiously able to extricate myself from my own traditional heuristic of violence. Just as this reading aided immensely the understanding of revolutionary necessity in a contemporary context, I would love to read something that at least grapples with the concept of revolutionary violence in a very material sense. Till then, it is very comforting to achieve some sort of neatly packaged concept for once - especially for the wannabe critical scholar whose desirable goal is discomfort.

Being a neoliberal subject.

2010-02-22T11:28:00.000-08:00

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 be at that moment in time. It is easy to get co-opted in the neo-liberal space as we are its subjects. More and more governments and its policymakers are now on a ride to the gravy train where the erstwhile importance of social welfare, welfare of its people takes a backseat. The affluent citizenry too (like all of us in this class) is blind to the excesses. It is amazing to note the degree of planning involved in these cases. Its like re-reading Forsyth and the "Dogs of War". There is a range of hills called Niyamgiri in Orissa - my home state. They are rich with Bauxite and home to the indigenous tribal - "Dongriya Kondh" who have been there since ages. Now Vedanta ( a influential TNC headquartered in UK) has started mining operations there and is facing heavy resistance from local tribals. Years before Vedanta actively applied for the license, IFAD (ostensibly works for people' s development) funded roads to those inaccessible areas. People were happy they have spanking new roads. NGOs were funded in the area. UNICEF operated with child nutrition, mother nutrition programs. Then slowly the same 'welfare' inroads were utilized by Vedanta and the government to sign the MOU. We have development, but at what cost? And what is this development? a handout of the neoliberal agenda? The entire Africa since the retirement of its colonial masters has seamlessly transitioned into the hands of neo-liberal masters, the TNCs...its as if colonialism did not end, it just changed its colors. Neoliberalism brings affluence, money but only to a few. It seriously destroys the social fabric and structure by redistributing wealth - the rich get richer and the poor..they die.

What to do? Well...argue against each other till we are blue in faces ;)

No..we should reflect and think how we can raise more consciousness and how we can ensure that the welfare of the human society, human rights are privileged rather than profits. We cannot stop the juggernaut now not reject it and retreat to radical spaces but rather within the rejection of the project/ within the exploitative neoliberal spaces, resist and privilege the rights of the vulnerable or the wretched of our unluckier brethren. One step at a time.

(re)Appropriation , Neo Liberalism and Critical Modernism

2010-02-22T01:15:00.000-08:00

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 revolution, politics and freedom were those of the Left. In using the trope of shaheed-e-azam and singing paeans to the glory of Singh, popular versions carefully excite responses of reverence and inspiration and at the same time sever from his iconic status, the radical nature of his politics. In being called a shaheed(martyr) Singh is put in the ilk of venerated founding figures of Indian Independence and by extension shown to be a part of the non-left homogeneous pantheon. Most interestingly, Singh is credited for coining the single slogan that characterizes Indian independence: “Inqelab Zindabad” (Long live revolution!), however the next clause of the slogan is mysteriously excluded—no surprises that this clause is to be translated as: “Down with Imperialism!” As I read it, Critical Modernism can provide us a useful lens to look at phenomena like this.

When “power and structure are located within the constitutive spaces of discourse” (Pal and Dutta, p.174) one can profitably capture the dynamics of neoliberal (re)appropriation by recognizing the constitutive nature of the discursive space while at the same time subjecting its particular constellations to interrogations of power, control and hegemony. In so doing Critical Modernism potentially stands as a mode of inquiry that can be applied to areas in addition to Public Relations practice.

First mirror, then what?

2010-02-21T19:21:00.000-08:00

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 opposite, only to realize it's gone too far again? When do we, in our class standing, stop reading the books and the histories and put our two cents in to veer the cycle in a different direction? If neoliberalism's goal is antithetical to communisms, what comes next?

Neoliberalism in the classroom

2010-02-21T14:44:00.000-08:00

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 campaigns. I'm sure all of us have had students who are enthralled with the 'awesome' advertising of large TNCs. How does one introduce to such an audience the fact that TNCs are inexorably connected with the disenfranchisement of large sections of the world? I ask this question sincerely; I seem to be grappling for answers.

Pal and Dutta make a good point when they bring out how 'certainty' of results is used a leverage by the laboratory whores of Exxon to caste aspersions about the effects of companies like Exxon on global warming . Our class itself has used this rhetoric of certainty to question fundamental Marxist principles. If we go back to Popper, we see that this argument (How can we be sure global warming is a man-made thing? How can believe in Marxism when we don't can't see a good example of it in practice? ) can be completely trashed. A quest for certainty defies the temperament of science itself. However, this question is not an academic one; and citing Popper in situations like these (or in class) sometimes goes over like a lead balloon.

There is something to be said about how difficult our students find it to deal with ambiguity; either theoretical or practical. I think that neoliberal agenda has something very instrinsically to do with a bipolarization, a right-vs-wrong, a schematizing view of the world. We train our students to constantly reduce ambiguity in their work and their lives. We have a way to organize their data, we have a way to present speeches, a way to hold your notecards, a way to look at your audience. It's either right or wrong. You're either bang on or off the mark. With us, or against us. It is this constant battle in my pedagogy to make them stay in the discomfort; the uncomfortable zone.

I think a wide-eyed belief in God-words like 'freedom' (Harvey's so awesome in his deconstruction of this term), 'democracy', 'development' are a result of having such polarized education. There is no room for alternatives; for alternate possibilities. Neoliberal ideology seeps in through a refusal to wallow in the murkiness; it thrives on students eager to get to either bank. What school leaves unfulfilled, God and family finish. A serious commitment to neoliberalism needs to get to the school, the organized religion and the family as sites of change.

‘Neo’-ness of ‘Neoliberalism’

2010-02-21T12:11:00.000-08:00

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/ cultivated/ generated to serve the purpose; some of the masks are Corporate Social Responsibility, Special Economic Zones, Transatlantic and other Business Talks.
In Indian society an indigenous people have several (simultaneous) identities: Shudra or Untouchable (courtesy Brahminical rule), Scheduled tribe or primitive (courtesy Colonial rule), Underdeveloped or underserved (neoliberal lingo). After accomplishing socio-religious (Brahminical rule), politico-economic (Colonial rule) marginalization they are now planning and implementing geo-demographical displacement (if not extinction) of tribal people.
Therefore it is not surprising when scholars claimed approximately 90% language (mostly indigenous)will be lost in the next 40 years i.e. by the year 2050 (Graddol D., 2004). Last month, we have experienced loss of one such language- 65,000 years old ‘Bo’ language extinct with the death of Boa Sr, a resident of Andaman island of India.
Are these issues really relevant/important? Really? Oh…come on. Don’t forget the words of Darwin- Survival of the fittest! Indigenous people are underdeveloped and primitive; therefore they are not ‘FIT’. And as they are not 'fit', how they can have the right/ claim to survive in this progressive world of 21st century? After all it is exiting and enjoyable to watch extinct aboriginal tribes in museums along with fossilized creatures of pre-historic age!
Long live neoliberalism!

In Response (or in addition?) to Saqib's post

2010-02-21T09:31:00.000-08:00

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 of analysis was to confuse. I wonder if that is what the difference between the theory of neoliberalism and the practice of capitalism is about.

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

2010-02-21T08:47:00.000-08:00

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 already dominated segments. This is the biggest criticism of neoliberalism that only certain elites stand to gain from neoliberal ideas (Harvey, 2005).

What I am thinking is whether neoliberal ideologies and implications are a necessary evil in the short run or not. Coming from a developing country that struggles with tonnes of problems (literacy, corruption, population, productivity, just to name a few), I have seen first hand the lack of efficiency and slow productivity, especially in the public sectors. Let me give an example to clarify this a little.

I walk into a public bank to get a money order. It is about 11am in the morning. I talk to someone about how to get this done. The person tells me who can actually help me. So I go his desk. The new person tells me what needs to be done after keeping me waiting for some time. Then he sends me off to make some photocopies as I am not allowed to use the one the bank has. When I return, it is about 12pm. So he keeps me waiting so he can finish lunch. Then he takes my paperwork, looks at it, puts some rubber stamp seals on it, signs it, and I am off to a new desk. By the time I get out of the bank, it is almost 2:30pm. That was 1997.

Now I walk into a public bank, it takes me about 15 minutes or so to get a money order done. It is 2009.

What has changed? Even to a novice eye like mine, the reason seems obvious. More and more private banks are not operating in my country. They have a one stop service for most transactions (as opposed to use one line for deposits, one for paying bills, another for withdrawals, etc) and government banks are forced to follow suit just to survive. So has this not been a positive effect of letting privatized firms operate more in the country? There are numerous examples like this.

I understand and agree that such policies are serving the dominant structures more. But int he short run, if we can get public ventures to get into the mindset of competitive service, than perhaps later on removing some neoliberal options may not be too deterrent.

What's In a Name?

2010-02-20T21:57:00.000-08:00

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 society") is masked under the banner of capitalism and free enterprise. However, I feel it is important for us in the class to understand that in reality neoliberalism has many differences with capitalism. In fact, neoliberalism is more of a political ideology that can be interchanged with corporatism or crony capitalism as its called. In case, a few of my fellow students seem to disregard communism under Stalin and Lenin as not reflective of true communist ideology, but by that token neoliberalism is not truly reflective of capitalism as has been understood by Americans for much of the nations history. 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.

Thoughts on Zhuo's post and thoughts on civility and violence

2010-02-14T22:36:00.000-08:00

"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 isolating the centre of the party from the surrounding revolutionary milieu-as demanded by Lenin-appears to us as an attempt to transfer mechanically the organizational principles of Blanquist conspiratory workmen’s circles to the Social Democratic mass movement. (p.488, 489.)

“Lenin’s ideas are calculated principally to promote control of party activity and not its development, to foster the limitation rather than the growth, the strangulation rather than the solidarity and expansion of the movement.” (p.492.)

This was how Lenin was characterized at the beginning of his career in which he went on to become a dictator par excellence.

Understanding Marx's conception in a relevant manner involves relating world events to the theory we read in class, not just imbibing a particular interpretation of Marx as performed by Lenin, Trotsky, or any single individual or ideology. Thus, recognizing the fact that the US imposes its military power across the world in the same of spreading peace should not prevent one from recognizing the uniformity with which individual and oligarchic dictatorships replace revolutions of the right and the left.

Yes, this is my ideological grounding speaking. I don't like dictatorship at all, and I much prefer the dictatorship of organizations and structures to the dictatorship of individuals. The apparently diffuse leadership of the corporations serves to assuage my revolutionary tendencies even as I look beyond castigating entire nations and religions (as if I were referring to a single individual). The appeal for civility is not so much an attempt to bashfully cover the unpardonable sins that are committed by the dominant classes as much as it is a request that we try not to leave one set of reified beliefs and for another. In the market of ideologies we must be careful customers and hear the appeals of all vendors not to make the appropriate purchase but, to copy what we see is good in their designs and replicate them in our own versions of ideologies. That is at least somewhat original and involves more thinking than learning the stated principles of the learned saints of any -ism by rote and taking such principles to heart without filtering them through our mind.

Human society is not equal nor free, but there are degrees of freedom perceived by individuals and groups based on their ideologies and the ideologies that dominate their environments. Reading Marx's conception well cannot only mean that one aligns with the point of view that the proletariat can emancipate themselves only through violent revolution. I do not see the point to employing physically violent means to secure independence of any sort because:

(a) I am a member of the petty bourgeois and find myself unable and unwilling to do much more than discuss the desire to do something about the inequality that exists around me while I eat pizzas and drink Coke. I do not see the point to engaging in violent revolution when I in fact benefit under the status quo. Under the circumstances, my chances at enacting change are higher if I work at change within the system, rather than pointing at holes in the state's rhetoric or trying to kill people. Of course pointing holes in state rhetoric remains an effective way to garner experience and expertise that might eventually catapult the researcher into the realm of policy making and is a valid way of remaining in the system, drinking Coke, and venting against the capitalists. But that is not violent revolution. It may still help the proletariat some day in some way, or at least that remains my fervent hope.

(b) Perhaps even more importantly, I ought to be in the fields fighting the war with the farmers and other oppressed if fighting a war makes sense to me. I can understand well why people take to arms. Understanding their reasons makes me want to attack the causes of their troubles. If it is disease, then I should provide medicine, if shelter is the question then I should build homes, if my people are dying of hunger then I should strive to feed them. I can understand how and why the starving, the impoverished, and the needy use violence to express and to take what they need and/or want. But I see no point in participating in such violence when there is so much constructive work to be done.

We can deconstruct the dominant narratives till kingdom come and split hairs over the legitimacy of violence in revolution but it matters not a whit till our efforts serve to help the lives that are lost everyday. We stand on the shoulders of Marx and Lenin and try to see a non-utopian reality they envisioned for the earth while ignoring the futility of the legitimate violence perpetrated by states and sundry revolutionaries in a world that is pleading for construction. The reality, the ideologies, and the different ideological constructions of reality abound around us. I think I speak for all when I say that we are interested in removing the inequalities that are common across these constructed realities. Not just deconstruction, and certainly not destruction.

Unorganized Labor Sector: Relevance of Critical theory

2010-02-14T13:45:00.000-08:00

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 remain oppressed in many ways. Most of the industrial security acts, labor laws and leave rules (not even maternity leave rule) are not applicable for the workers of the unorganized labors. As their job is highly unsecured, they have to work more than eight hour. Oftentimes, they also have to work in inhuman work/ site conditions without any extra wage. Moreover, a recent official data shows that in India essential food prices rose 17.9 percent in the 12 months. But their wage remains more or less same as compared to last year. Therefore, to earn extra money women and children of a family also have to work.

With the help of Marx’s analysis in Das Kapital, we can discuss the causes of the above mentioned scenario. He discussed several methods adopted by the capitalist to maximize the profit. He showed that, when a laborer work more than eight hours, he may (or may not) get any extra payment for that work, but it essentially lowers the production cost (thereby increases profit) because the owner don’t have to pay the variable cost (and not the constant cost; e.g.-capital on machinery, building etc.). Moreover, as Marx wrote, the unorganized workers never get any part /advantage of the surplus-value. Accumulated surplus-vales, increased automation and price hike of essential commodity is making the life of unorganized workers miserable. Also, as they keep working throughout the day, they hardly get any opportunity to enhance/ diversify their knowledge and skills; that limits their opportunity of getting other/ better jobs for themselves. Here, let me mention a statement of Marx, “The…bourgeois which praises division of labor in the workshop, lifelong annexation of the laborer to a partial operation, and his complete subjection to capital, as being an organization of labor that increases productiveness- that same bourgeois mind denounces with equal vigor every conscious attempt to socially control and regulate the process of production as an inroad upon such sacred things as the rights of property, freedom, and unrestricted play for the bent of individual capitalist” (p.187).

Lenin showed that, ‘capitalism constantly diminishes the proportion of the population engaged in agriculture’, and this statement is particularly important for Indian scenario as in 2007 there were 237 million agricultural works in the country (NSSO, 2007). Govt. of India is proposing a social security bill that may ensure facilities like: (a) life and disability cover; (b) health benefits; (c) old age protection, among other benefits for unorganized workers. Theoretically and ideally this is a good initiative form the Indian Government. But at the same time appropriate collective initiatives takes by unorganized workers may also help them to improve/ change the situation.

‘Capitalism increases among the population the need for union, for association…’ (p. 49)- V.I.Lenin.
We recently have seen some initiatives, resistances, voices and actions of unorganised workers (especially agricultural labourers) against dominant structure and capitalist forces in Nandigram, Singur and some other parts of India.

Ethnic makeup :)

2010-02-14T09:22:00.000-08:00

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 :(

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

2010-02-14T09:19:00.000-08:00

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 "strategic" straitjackets. This is not to say that any kind of strategic maneuver is to be discounted as Bernsteinism, but it raises issues of how to reconcile this position as the academic/intellectual with Lenin's proposal of a "professional revolutionary". How then do we create a hybrid of the academic, intellectual, professional revolutionary?

Further, it is ironic that Lenin's summation of the misleading of the "workers who were carried away by the arguments that a kopek added to a ruble was worth more than socialism and politics, and that they must "fight, knowing that they are fighting not for some future generation, but for themselves and their children", seems to apply today to the position we are in today as academic workers ourselves. How many Rabocheye Dyelo's are we guilty of contributing and pandering to?

Linguistic hegemony: When 'konspiratsiia' does not mean ‘conspiracy’

2010-02-14T04:56:00.000-08:00

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 only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.14 The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals" (p. 17-18).

However, it seems from the works of some scholars that the translated version of Lenin's WITBD may not have expressed what Lenin actually wrote in the Russian language. In his book Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be done? in context author Lars T. Lih argues thatWITBD has been misinterpreted gravely, with the primary reason being mistranslation of major terms used by Lenin. Lih says that some of these mistranslations happened because the meanings of the Russian words did not have close translations. But, many of the mistranslations were done on purpose to lead readers to viewpoints that perhaps completely contrasts with what Lenin wanted to convey.

Pages and pages of Lih's book therefore are devoted to explaining why and how the word stikhiinyi, when translated as spontaneity, distorts his views; how konspiratsiia does not mean ‘conspiracy’; tred-iunionizm does not mean ‘trade unionism’ and revoliutsioner po professii should not be translated as ‘professional revolutionary’ [source]. The thoughts that crossed my mind after reading this: Would this not be considered by critical scholars as modes of co-opting the others into the dominant structure? Is language not playing a hegemonistic role here? Can a language rally be translated? Ever?

Free competition and Monopolies

2010-02-13T23:42:00.000-08:00

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 reciprocal in nature. Lenin states that free competition strengthens the centralization of capital in the hands of the bourgeois/capitalist. I agree with this critique in that we have seen this form of imperialism time and time again historically as the US government as well as large transnational corporations call for market deregulation across boarders. Such calls for ‘free flow of information’ draw on principles of democracy, freedom of expression etc, all of which serve the specific economic and political agendas under the guise of free trade. It is during these moments that the positive relationship between free competition and monopoly rears its ugly head, while further exposing true political agendas. I have not formulated an opinion about this yet, but it sure is disturbing. Now I truly understand the Parker Brother's board game, "Monopoly." More surprisingly, I understand why it takes so long for someone to win ever win. Maybe I should go play it a few times and see how I feel afterwards. I'm sure an answer to the this conundrum is bound to surfaces eventually.

Go For The Gold

2010-02-13T14:21:00.001-08:00

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 no mistake, the world seems to be due for a massive monetary crisis, as Marx himself foreshadowed.

The gold standard itself is not problem-free also. As Marx mentions, the hoarding of actual gold supplies leads can lead to imbalance in the market and wealth disparity. I'm not to sure of his solution though, having access to global trade may not necessarily stop the hoarding of gold if the gold dealers now work internationally rather than locally. The dollar is an international currency, so the gold hoarding problem still remains in my opinion.

Violence, Opportunism and Ideology

2010-02-07T11:03:00.000-08:00

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 the Chinese missile strength. The same politics that allows US to hoard, stock and sell nuclear arsenals, cries for 'civilian' uses of nuclear technology from the rest of the world. US-laid sanctions related to nuclear weapons uses much the same kind of 'disarmament' jargon; that only a specialized armed militia's violence is justified.

Opportunism is a system that the proletarian revolution must target itself at, as Lenin says; any revolution that aims at the destruction of imperialism without targeting the opportunism of the social-chauvinists is doomed to fail. That is because the petty-bourgeois social opportunists are transitory players who seemingly have a stake in the welfare of the proletariat; but when the bourgeois moves to crush resistance from the working class, it attaches itself firmly to the bourgeois, by using terms like 'disarmament.'

In our discussions of communism in this class, we have had reservations about the theory because of our inability to see what the future of a communist society looks like. We prattle on about being 'wary' about such iron-fisted regimes where people will be mere economic slaves, without reading Marx's conception well. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx clearly highlights WHAT a communist society would look like, in as much as he can predict it. The theory of dialectic materialism does not allow him to build utopias. That is not the point of the theory. An understanding of the fact that we live in ideology may help us from making such sweeping statements without really getting down to understanding what Marx is saying.

Is it the act or the actor?

2010-02-07T09:57:00.000-08:00

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 they become violent (not even with arms); it is “intolerable.” Finally, if they take arms or if they start challenging state apparatus; then obviously it is an act of “terrorism.”[Therefore in order to bring peace and justice ‘we’ (Bourgeois) have the ‘right’ to kill THEM (Proletariat), eradicate them along with their ideology].

The concerns and the suggested theoretical frameworks of Marx, Engels and Lenin are still valid even in this 21^st Century. Material inequality, power inequality, and structural inequality (including access of them) is still valid in present scenario. Issues of poverty, hunger, oppression, marginalization are yet to become subjects of a Museum (“We'll create a poverty museum in 2030” so that our grandchildren will go there to see poverty in that Museum - Muhammad Yunus, 2006 Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

Lenin wrote “A bourgeoisie armed against the proletariat is one of the biggest fundamental and cardinal facts of modern capitalist society”. Trotsky suggested that, a solution/ structural change will come when proletariat will seize the State power and will abolish private property as means of production. In such context Lenin stated that, “to achieve its emancipation, the proletariat must overthrow the bourgeoisie, win political power and establish its revolutionary dictatorship” and thereby "abolishes the state as state"(Engels).

Though revolution was inevitable to change the societal structure; an ontological debate was there among the theorists: What is the right path- armed revolution or unarmed/ other kind of revolution? Scholars like Lenin and Tortsky proposed a violent (armed) revolution, a life and death struggle instead of any dialogic agreement or parliamentary process of resolving issues. In Lenin’s word ““Disarmament” means simply running away from unpleasant reality, not fighting it.”

I feel the ontological debate is still valid today. Unlike a member of the colonial world we are now a resident of culturally imperialized world; where the rulers have invented many strategies and techniques of oppression and domination other than just application of physical force. Therefore, I believe, an ‘armed’ revolution is not a single option now days; one can perhaps think of other ‘creative’ and ‘strategic’ ways of organizing and operating revolution to accomplish social change.

Alternatives to Oppressor's Tools?

2010-02-07T07:33:00.000-08:00

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 made of and not do that. Find the roots and don't start there again. Find alternatives. Is this possible or do we always have to use the oppressors own tools against him/her in order to have a shot at being free from his/her grasp? Does this de-legitmize or co-opt the revolution or movement? Or is it being clever to use the own oppressors tools against them? If we use their tools, are we making any progress or simply reinforcing their hold?

The Wheels of War Go Round and Round

2010-02-06T22:41:00.000-08:00

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 different states, the bourgeois will crush its actual implementation.

Much as I disagree with the assumptions Lenin has made on how to achieve this final objective, I can understand how he may view the end goal as global rather than local. Nation states, from his perspective, are arbitrary products of historical and cultural conditions. The Proletariat are viewed as a single class of humanity unbound by ethnic and geographical considerations. The dominance of the bourgeois is similarly seen as an endemic problem perpetuated by the capitalist model foisted on the labor class.

My issue all along with the agenda is that the Proletriat is viewed as a monolith, a single mass completely in tune with the Marxist message. Lenin seems to refuse to admit that there may be genuine threats to his project that may come from the very target group he intends to liberate.

Whose means justifies their end?

2010-02-06T20:19:00.000-08:00

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 continue to talk, I’m going to take your work away and give you an F for the assignment.” Instead I simply turning to do his work, he replies, “Sandor (another student) was talking to me, I was only responding to him. Also, he has candy in his pocket and I saw him eating it to.” Normally, my response to this is to turn to Sandor and ask him to show me what’s in his pocket or simply focus on Crandon by say “I am not concerned with Sandor right now, I‘m telling you to do your work and stop talking.” In this situation, Crandon is using deflection as a method for arguing for his actions and to try to divert my attention, so I won’t know what he was doing or his intentions were while talking. He could have had a number of intentions including genuinely wanting Sandor to stop talking or worse. He could have been asking for some candy or asking for an answer for the math assignment, or considering a bribe from Sandor, who may have been offering candy for answers on the quiz. In the end his method of building his argument is a form of deflection, simply because the true intentions are hidden and covered with constant finger pointing between the two children, resulting in “he did this or she did that.”

Now, I don’t want to be slammed for making sweeping statements, because what I’m trying to do here is construct an argument that parses out the similarities between how the children I manage shape their arguments and that which pushes for revolution in favor of the proletariat through communism. In Marx and Engel’s discussion, I noticed that much of their arguments focuses on what capitalism is doing, specifically forming opinions about how the proletariat are oppressed and crushed. They also focus largely on the anticipated end of capitalism (profit), which is not justified by its means (oppression and exploitation of lower classes). All of their discussions of the weakness that plague capitalism resonate with my experiences as part of the hourly/wage earning class. However, getting back to my previous notion of deflection, even in the midst of building this argument Marx and Engel only graze over the true intentions of communism. Yes, I understand that the perceived intentions are to redistribute resources in way that abolishes inequities, one in which can never be achieved through capitalism, but here is my moment of contention.

If Marx and Engel were here today I would like to simply ask, “Without reverting your answer back to discussions of capitalism, what are you goals and the means for achieve them and which are more important?” Only once did I read part of this answer and it surfaced when Lenin states “The exploiting classes need political rule to maintain exploitation, i.e., in the selfish interests of an insignificant minority against the vast majority of all people. The exploited classes need political rule in order to completely abolish all exploitation, i.e., in the interests of the vast majority of the people, and against the insignificant minority consisting of the modern slave-owners — the landowners and capitalists.” In short, this points to one of the strongest arguments against communism, one in which again, the end does not justify the means. How can such a concept be accepted wholeheartedly when terms like “insignificant minority” are still used as evidence and support for controlling or oppressing others. Branching from this, acts of violence become acceptable because they are means to an end. RK’s post states, “Let's stop pretending to be shocked by violence; all of us participate in it structural violence everyday…” Given that there is material truth in this statement, my response is, but does two wrongs make a right? In my eyes it doesn’t. If the goals of communism were rooted in respect for human life, then I would be on board. In reality, it is not. It is one that is occupied with deflection and hiding the atrocities that come along with the means to that end. I can never condone death and violence towards others as a mean for a end that has similar flaws that plague the current system (i.e. insignificant minority). I believe that if the intentions were more focused on respect and love as the core value, violence would not be a possible mean. Under capitalism the proletariat are insignificant and under communism landowners and capitalist are insignificant. How about we focus on goals that do not deem anyone insignificant. Okay this is getting entirely too long, got to go.

Labor-power and the concepts of Constant and Variable Capital

2010-02-06T18:20:00.000-08:00

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 the farmer's goods in the marketplace. In this scenario, I know that the merchant's actions don't count as value addition in the Marxist framework, but my question is, shouldn't it? (I KNOW I KNOW - UNLESS HE HAS PUT IN ANY LABOR POWER IN THE MANUFACTURING/GROWING IN THIS CASE, HIS EFFORT WILL NOT BE COUNTED AS VALUE ADDING LABOR). However, if in fact, a commodity which had certain use value and was created by Man for the purpose of securing some other commodity in exchange for it (either through a barter system or in the form of money which could be used to buy the other commodity he needs), is not transported and sold in the marketplace, would it not be a waste of the value (and subsequently) the labor power of the peasant? [I am overlooking the issue of the crops being commodified here for discussion purposes- I can almost see Mohan saying "The inherent value of the crop…etc." I guess what I am asking is whether any of the neomarxists have anything to say about what constitutes labor-power in contemporary society?

My second issue of discussion is the concept of constant capital and variable capital. These I thought were some interesting concepts explicated by Marx, but let me get this straight (insertion of cursory oversimplification and reductionist disclaimer) -

Man is a creation of Nature. Hence, no one has paid for the creation of Man, as a means of labor. (Unlike the use value of a machine which has been paid for by the capitalist) However, man does get paid for the labor (by the capitalist) that he is/will put in for the production of a commodity. The distinction lies in the fact that a machine can only produce goods/commodities until its use-value is exhausted; so it almost acts a means of transference of the labor that went into its (the machine's) creation. For eg., a more expensive machine may last longer than a cheaper machine. Hence, a machine will predictably last only to the extent of money that has been spent on it, providing a more or less constant form of capital. (I really hope I'm getting this right)

However, since there is no exact measure of how much Man must be paid for his inherent labor-power,

a) The capitalist sometimes presumably pays him as little as possible while extracting as much labor power as possible and

b) Since the capitalist did not have to pay to get man "manufactured" like a machine, any kind of labor-power that man brings to the table adds surplus value to the commodity being produced, instead of a commodity being produced by a machine, wherein the machine loses (rather transfers) some of its use value each time it produces a new commodity.

Thus, Man (or his labor power) provides a more variable form of capital.
I am just putting this simplified version out there so it can be up for discussion the coming week, since I would love an explication (or correction) of the idea that I have garnered about constant and variable capital.

Reasoning with violence, revolution..

2010-02-06T15:43:00.000-08:00

Like Shaunak, last class's discussion resonated with me for a long time. On one hand, to me much of it was naivety, maybe we are too fond of our own voices and ideas. But at the same time, I privilege the voices as we have to negotiate this thought of violence as the means to an end. Trostky writes, "but the revolution does require of the revolutionary class that it should attain its end by all methods at its disposal – if necessary, by an armed rising: if required, by terrorism." We must keep this thought in hand when entering into this area of whether violence is an integral part of revolution. Of whether in decrying violence, we are behaving as pacifists, Menshevik, Kautskyites, hypocrites who talk of democracy and disarmament in answer to the imperialist violence unleashed by the bourgeois.

In Lenin's account of the proletariat revolution, the ultimate aim is demolishing and abolishing the capitalist state structure and in its place establishing a proletariat state. A proletariat state would then unleash the same violence, the same repression that was meted earlier to them by the capitalists; and they would unleash it on the capitalists. Trotsky and Lenin explain that ultimately, we should understand that the majority of the proletariat are ruling and repressing the minority portion of the society called capitalists..(.for the greater good?). This account of revolution needs violence. In course of time, the proletariat state withers away and there is no state...and then? The experience of Paris commune is analyzed and referred to by the authors.. but what is the Paris commune all about? Does it not end in failure and then execution of most communards? A bold uprising, establishment of a commune albeit with some Kautskyan approaches ( a la central bank takeover..) and limited within the Parisan quarters which was overrun in some time. So, what position should I take?...not a Kautskyite, not an armed revolutionary, not a meek oppressed proletariat, not a pacifist wanting democracy from an unequal society......My preferred position then would be to join the bourgeois reveling in the structural and other violence and oppression of the proletariat and justify it to myself within my own ambit. So, if I can support the bourgeois violence (whether silently or vocally or through "real" and "feigned" ignorance), why can I not wholeheartedly support the proletariat violence.

I managed to read Ward Churchill's article which Mohan mentioned in last class. Link here: http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/s11/churchill.html. It does raise many pertinent questions which we cannot ignore but at the same time the article makes me uncomfortable. I cannot blithely accept that violence is a necessity. It is easy to reason why US should be attacked by certain elements of the Islamic world but not so easy to condone it. At the same time, its also not easy to condone the imperialist violence which is claiming hundreds, thousands, millions of lives worldwide even as we sit here arguing our asses off on elements of Marxism and revolution. How many of us in this room have seen/ indulged in physical violence? How many of us have inflicted physical violence on others? On a larger note, if we do adopt the Marxist approach, is it really possible to "cleanse the human society of all the infamies and abominations of capitalist exploitation"? We, who do not object to a simple act of violence or exploitation happening before our eyes and are content to cogitate/ argue till blue in face within four walls, how can we reason with revolution or revolutionary tactics of Marxism.

On Withering

2010-02-06T15:05:00.001-08:00

Last week in class we had an intense, cathartic and pointedly distorted critique of the Communist project as being a system that snatches power from one entity and gives it to another. I think this is in line with what Lenin is saying about the Menshevik and German Socialist 'interpretation' of Marx and Engels. We had the discussion on the role of the state in revolution; and somebody asked about how the checks and balances could be maintained within a Communist system.

I think Lenin addresses this in the first chapter of The State and Revolution where he breaks down Engels' complex statement about the withering of the state. Lenin believes that the state that is withering away is not the state that currently exists, i.e. not the bourgeois state that has historically arisen as a method of checking the irreconcilable antagonisms between various classes. The current bourgeois state can only be abolished; destroyed by revolution; overthrown. As he says, "A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell, it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it."

However, the state that will wither away is the proletarian, or the semi-state that will come to function once the revolution has succeeded. Harking back to what we've read over the past two weeks, you'll remember both Marx & Engels talk about the interim state that will be formed in the first stage of communism (Socialism). For Lenin, it is this state, whose function is only to take Communism from it's first state to the second (or full communism), that will wither away. It is an entity that is meant to destroy itself once it's goal is achieved.

What this points to is how deep our prejudgments about Communism are. This comical perception that we all cite about Communism, an army of mindless drones only concerned about economism and ruled by an iron fist, etc,, falls completely on it's face when we think of the undistorted conception of a Communist state as envisioned by Lenin and Marx. Let's stop pretending to be shocked by violence; all of us participate in it structural violence everyday; be it in our enactments of gender roles, our class assumptions, our political and religious preferences. As Lenin says, "The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this view of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. The betrayal of their theory by the now prevailing social-chauvinist and Kautskyite trends expresses itself strikingly in both these trends ignoring such propaganda and agitation. The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of the state in general, is impossible except through the process of “withering away".
Violence is not valorized in Marxism; but it is regarded as means to an end. That's just how it is.

The uniqueness of labor as a commodity

2010-02-04T23:56:00.001-08:00

Use value is the inherent value in a thing as apparent to society in general. I argue that a product or a thing may hold use-value for an individual but I gather Marx would rather identify use-value with things that have social value, that is, things that hold value to others. Value embodies the average time spent by the average worker working with average means of production to produce a commodity. Thus, value is social in its definition because the average time would have to be socially determined. Exchange value refers to the qualitative (which are the commodities that can be considered equivalent and thus, exchanged) and quantitative (what are the amounts in which the commodities can be exchanged) relationship that is established between products. The social context in which use-value, value, and exchange value are defined allows Marx to use these three terms as the characteristics of a commodity. When one considers labor with regard to the three terms used by Marx to describe a commodity it becomes apparent that labor is a commodity in so far as it is a social activity. For a trader the importance of a commodity lies in being able to exchange it for a commodity that serves as the money-form or simply for another commodity that possesses greater exchange value at the time of exchange. Buying labor becomes an attractive proposition only when it has the potential to add value that is greater than the cost of acquisition. Yet, once bought labor becomes a parameter whose presence or absence determines the value of the commodity that it is engaged in the production of (e.g. a strike by workers can cause a rise in prices) as well as the value of the means of production (the factory loses monetary value in the event of a lock out). Thus, it would seem that labor as a commodity consistently adds to subtracts value to commodities and capital in a manner that cannot be easily observed in the behavior of other commodities. The other example I could think of was that of oil. The presence of absence of crude oil makes a difference to the price of other commodities and also to the assets of corporations and individuals that rely on energy. Even here, the cost of buying oil is entirely realized in the transaction whereas buying labor is a continual transaction. I am arguing that buying labor may be necessary for conserving the value associated with assets rather than for adding value. In this case, hiring labor cannot be looked at as productive by simply a necessary artifact of the capitalist economy. Thus, capitalism requires the continual hiring of labor even when it does not serve to produce surplus value, so long as the capitalist is interested in conserving the value associated with the assets he owns.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Quotes

2010-02-01T14:53:00.000-08:00

"One man with a gun can control 100 without one.”

“Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations?"

“Freedom in capitalist society . . .: Freedom for slave owners.”

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”

Production, centralization, and the relevance of 19th century labels to 21st century society

2010-02-01T03:09:00.000-08:00

Changing ownership of the means of production and ensuring that the representatives of the people do not suffer a bourgeois bureaucratic hangover regarding their pre-eminence does not do away with the fundamental quality of the production that is performed by individuals and small groups. I argue that we need to question the relevance of continual production. We need to question the need to produce enough. For there will never be enough. Production that aims at satisfying the needs of a population will only contribute to the growth of the population and its needs and wants. Emphasizing continual production leads us to aggregate disparate groups and individuals and our fuels need to serve/fight these aggregations. Our daily routine does not comprise mainly of acts that help us (or others) identify ourselves with such large organizational structures. In other words, the macrodiscourses of suppression, change, revolution do not directly engage with the lived experiences of individuals engaged in production. Marx visualized a national centralization of the people’s efforts from the bottom-up, something I find very difficult to relate to. Not in the least because it is not possible but because any attempts to aggregate the struggles of men, women, and children must acknowledge the individualized context of such action. To cut a long story short, I am a federalist and have a problem with the notion of a centralization that occurs from below because such centralization is induced through persuasion that seems inorganic. An induced process of social change assumes a hierarchy of knowledge in society.

Who constitutes the proletariat today? Given that the proletariat and the peasant classes are called to join hands in revolution, one would expect some similarity between these classes with respect to their conditions, lifestyles and suchlike. To what extent are the proletariat and the peasantry similar (or, dissimilar) today? Imagine a circumstance wherein all members of society actually become a part of the bourgeoisie and come to possess private capital. Is such a circumstance possible? If it is possible then is it probable? What role will/does technology play in the absorption of the proletariat into the bourgeois classes?

Questions about violence and Marxism

2010-02-01T03:07:00.000-08:00

The supersession of the bourgeois state by the proletarian state is impossible without a violent revolution. The abolition of the proletarian state, i.e., of the state in general, is impossible except through the process of “withering away".

How does Marx expect the proletarian state to simply wither away? Can those who has never tasted power, come into possession and then relinquish power voluntarily? Having once imposed proletarian order after smashing state machinery, how is the new state expected to represent and not reproduce the structures that it has chosen to destroy through violence? I argue that the proletarian state will require and rely on extant state machinery to indoctrinate the citizens. After all the proletarian revolution does away with the bourgeois state but not with the bourgeoisie themselves. Or are the proletarians to conduct a vindictive reprisal and systematically persecute people identified as bourgeoisie?

I can identify with (as a member of the petty bourgeois) the proletariat and the peasantry in so far as derision for the “bureaucratic-military state machine” is concerned. Perhaps my bourgeois background is reflected most in my disavowal of violence as the means to an end. I have read of social transformations that occurred without the violence prescribed by Marx and Co. I ask - was the freedom struggle in India a revolution? If it was, then was it just a bourgeois revolution?

Prediction v/s Determinism

2010-01-31T23:48:00.001-08:00

In the previous class we briefly touched upon the topics of the explicative and predictive powers of Marxist theory in general and materialism in particular. In reference to materialist standpoint and Artz (2006) article, I find myself struggling with the three concepts of Explanation/ Prediction and Determinism. While Lee as well as materialism clearly posits that material forces have a critical role to play in almost any conspicuous social change they also maintain that the historical circumstances do not alone determine the course various phenomena eventually take (it is here that Artz (2006) leaves the scope for individual action). The explanation offered by materialism of historical phenomenon is understandably in retrospect. Given these tenets I find myself unable to understand how and where does Marxist theory derive its predictive aspect. In connection to this, but somewhat at a tangent, I also (may be naïvely/ incorrectly) find the notions of predictability and non-determinism incompatible when extrapolated logically. I therefore struggle with this conceptual triad and would welcome insights from all to clarify the same.

Dialectic Materialism--thoughts about freedom and propaganda

2010-01-31T17:38:00.000-08:00

At an atypical note in a forum like this, I want to talk a little bit about my thoughts on freedom, hegemony and communication. It is a logical topic for the week, as we read about state and revolution, side by side with the bifurcated view of communication--it is at the same time the site and process of oppression and resistance, in other words. This topic is more salient to me now because I was reading, for another course, Gramsci, which gave me nightmare vision of the author comparing hegemony to the freedom of prisoners within the surrounding walls, the freedom that he 'enjoyed' for the last eight years of his life. From the plethora of random ideas, I somehow delineated several strands of thoughts that I want to share with my classmates, and hopefully can generate some discussions from you.

1. About freedom, which is not one, but several. There's the reading of "freedom" in the sense of "free press" as expressed in John Milton's Areopagitica. The reading of "freedom" in the "worldwide press freedom index" generated by Reporter Sans Frontier is a different interpretation in many senses.

The difference here is almost as big as the difference between a "free market" and getting something "for free" in a market. Because communication is the product and tool of social interaction, so is the idea "freedom" construed and used in the power dynamics from its birth. In this sense, the word "freedom" is an oxymoron unless expressed and understood in the form of "whose freedom from whom of what". I remember having a discussion with an ex-colleague with a TV news channel about press freedom in China. The TV news reporter complained that government intervention prevents him from putting in stories that would "really be what the audience wanted". When I asked him what those articles were about, he said "NBA". The point I want to make here is that "freedom" as a communicative idea is created for the purpose and during the process of circumventing freedom.

2. Hegemony is a mechanism through which oppression is enacted through the production and application of language and communication. But the function of hegemonic oppression is carried out not through the act of creating language, but through language itself, void of the circumstances in which it is created. In his later works, even after gaining power in 1949, Mao repeatedly mentioned the importance of creating a new culture and new language for his plan of social change. Some of the terms he created, "paper tiger", "people's revolution", etc. were later branded as "propaganda". Which leads me to my second point. In the field of PR, "propaganda" belongs to the hideous, awkward past. Propaganda is the process of creating a terminology to define/identify (read: oppress) an entity (a class, for instance), but is rendered ineffective when this identification (read oppression) process gets identified itself by another oppressing agent. Thus, propaganda cannot exist by itself, but has to be in a dialectic relationship--a lexicon is not propaganda unless another competing lexicon identifies it as one. Having no ideology is the biggest ideology of all.

Spontaneous Responses

2010-01-31T17:36:00.000-08:00

Dana Cloud seems to be making an important point when she talks about the schism between Luxemburg and Lenin in their respective conceptions of 'freedom' as it played out amongst the Bolsheviks and in the German Socialist party. I find myself aligned to Lenin quite a bit; and I think we need to question this unproblematic term, 'freedom' which we seem to be in a rush to define, defend, illustrate and protect.

Too often is Marxist theory condemned and castigated for the excesses of Stalinism. That argument, as Deepa Kumar so eloquently puts it, is inadequate, shoddy and fundamentally reflects a refusal or an inability to engage with Marx & Engels. It's like saying that Buddhism as a philosophy is opposed to peace because Sri Lanka and Burma are in the throws of civilian struggle.

While Lenin and the democratic centralists believed that the party had a central role in mobilizing a class consciousness -something that Lukacs, a committed Leninist took to it's philosophical culmination when he spoke about the party as the vanguard-Luxemburg believed that class identity preempted the political moment. In essence, Lenin (and Lukacs) firmly believed in the fact that the proletariat was a dormant volcano which had to be catalyzed, Luxemburg believed that the continued oppression of the proletariat was enough to (eventually) lead to a revolution.

While these are two divergent views on historical materialism, I believe it is the Bolshevik perspective that has led so many of us to parrot on about our 'freedoms' because of the possibilities of state control that it engenders. Lenin believed that the proletariat-the ordinary worker was not always aware of the situation that she was in, wasn't aware of the most appropriate way to get rid of her fetters. My reading of Zizek is that his cautious defense of the Leninist dichotomy of 'formal' and 'actual' freedom is justified, and for no audience more than the group that contributes to this blog. What are our freedoms? The freedom to say 'No...'What can we say 'No' to, when we come to think of it? Is it even possible to avoid being interpellated?

For Luxemburg, this idea of a spontaneous revolution held promise, but from reading Lukacs we see that the vanguardists believe in moulding the population towards their collective emancipation (which in it's worst avatar becomes the Stalinist representative politics). Given the neoliberal bourgeois environment that we live in and create, I cannot but agree with Zizek in a desperate need to revive Lenin's conception of kinds of freedoms.

Let's look at ourselves as academic subjects as well. I've been toying with the idea of having a panel on Critical Pedagogies for NCA, and this might be a good topic to handle. What bourgeois freedoms are we granting to our students? What is this bullshit about Copyright Laws that we so mindlessly begin our COM 114 classes with? What sort of psychological subjects are we talking to? I've talked to colleagues who are proud of the fact that their students had the 'freedom' to give a speech on the legalization of marijuana (because they had the freedom to do so). Do we need to butt in here and talk about disenfranchisement and trafficking here? Does anybody else seethe as much as I do when they talk about going on 'mission trips' during their Impromptu speeches? Let's toy with secularizing these God-words (pun intended) like 'freedom'. And then let the fun begin.

Bourgeoisie Resistance

2010-01-31T13:33:00.001-08:00

This may be because I'm new to all this literature, but I have a burning question. I understand the journey to communism as a circular one, one in which power is the main driving force. So, the proletariat revolution "smashes" the bourgeois state and takes control under a proletariat dictatorship. They need to have the control of the state in order to ward off and shatter the resistance of those formerly in power (the state). My question is when is it time for the dictatorship to dissolve? I know they talk about the whithering away. But, how is this to happen? Organically? Will those in power decide to give up their power? Power corrupts, are they capable of giving up this power? How do they know when to give up the power? How long must they wait for the bourgeoisie to give up their resistance in order to have a pure communist state? Centuries?Is this where countries such as Cuba are? Awaiting the resistance to die down?

I found it very interesting to think about resistance from the point of view of the bourgeoisie. Will they be as persistent as the masses? We don't expect the masses to give up when they are being oppressed, why should we expect those who have already tasted power to give up trying to get back on top?

Neo-liberalism and Learning environment

2010-01-31T12:16:00.000-08:00

Market economics and deterministic authoritarian values (and approaches) are the two important driving forces of neoliberal ideology. This reductionist consumerist epistemology consistently tries to portray existing social relationships and values in terms of ‘supplier and consumer’. Therefore, now days the globe is under intense influence of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG); which essentially threatens the philosophy like public services and investments (e.g.- in health and education), and welfare society. Apart from that, the notion of uncertainty and culture of fear (especially in the individual domain), that are associated with it shape/ affect our mental orientation and thought process of everyday life.

The existence and influence of neo-liberalism can be felt in learning environment too (schools, colleges, universities, vocational institutes everywhere). It seems the basic motto (based on social Darwinism) is “survival of the fittest”: Here ‘survival’ is used not in collective sense, but is strictly individualistic. It justifies any and every ill-competition in all sphere of our life (macro and micro) in order to prove ourselves as the “fittest”. Neo-liberalists oppose and oppress every viable notion of critical education and promotes market (job market too) logics and propagandistic pedagogy. Sometimes it narrows down the scope of critical education (perhaps it attempts to define Marxist thought strictly in economical terms) and tries to equate it to skill improvement and vocational training as a means for education (as it helps in getting jobs). But that’s not the ultimate goal of critical education; it necessarily questions power, structure, values, and inequalities, rejects the status-quo, and tries to create a new social-order. Historically, the neo-liberalist tries to marginalize and strategically silence the protest and voices against them. Media plays an important role to de-legitimize and distort any attempts which challenges capitalist efforts/ philosophies.

It is also important examine the educational scenario from the angle of dialectics. The dialectic philosophy of Hegel recognized the role of contradiction and change; but the basis of his thought was idealism and ‘Geist’ (the absolute is mind); therefore according to him power of thought has the potential to change reality. Marx opposed Hegelian dialectics by saying his concept of dialectics “is its (Hegelian) direct opposite”; where he emphasized the role of material reality and consciousness (unlike the ‘mystification’ of Hegel). Marx showed that organized and practical human activities and material conditions are the preconditions for bringing change; moreover he stressed on the importance of understanding of historical conditions and contradictions. Therefore the consistent oppression of neo-liberals on critical education can be explained by Marxist dialectics as a contradiction between experience (material exploitation and psychological oppression) and ideology (critical thoughts and questions).

Communist philosophy suggests three step to bring change (here in the educational sector): 1. Identification of contradiction and exploitation, Marxist dialectics is an essential means to understand this scenario and the causes; 2. Understanding one’s position in existing social hierarchy and power distribution; and identifying ourselves as a part of a social class and thereby initiating a unification process of class members. Scholars like Bourdieu (though he was not Marxist) emphasized the importance collective resistance of intellectuals; which has the potential to facilitate the process of building a social network and thereby organizing social movement. And, 3. Initiating the class struggle. Referring Marxist scholar Douglass, Cloud wrote “without contradiction, there is no struggle; without struggle, there is no progress”. Therefore, by understating the dialectics, by organizing a strong social network and through consistent and organized struggle, the learning environment can be reformed and critical education can be provided to the future student communities.

Freedom

2010-01-31T08:30:00.000-08:00

As a forerunner to this posting - I am responding to week 2 readings.

It is interesting that this week's readings discuss freedom, a topic we briefly (though loudly) discussed in class. Freedom is such a loaded word, and my personal experience with this word has created a connotation that does not match that of the readings or many of my peers in class. Is it freedom to have your choice of whether you want to work? Is it freedom to have the right to say "No"? An even more important question to ask is, when your freedom infringes on the freedom of others, where do we draw the line?

To answer some of these questions, it is important first to define what 'freedom' even means. Websters dictionary defines freedom as "exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc." I am not sure if this type of freedom actually exists. We are all influenced and controlled by external forces. Whether these forces be the opinion of others or a gun to our head, our choices are never solely our own. We are always a reflection of the world we live in. Does this mean that we are not free? An even harder question (for me) to ask is, is freedom really as important as I believe it is? Zizek points out that the word freedom can be used to manipulate - to force people to accept oppression as freedom. (For example, he shows how having to "change jobs every year [and] relying on short-term contracts instead of a long-term stable appointment" can be couched as "the liberation from the constraints of a fixed job, as the chance to reinvent yourself again and again, to become aware of and realize hidden potentials of your personality.") Furthermore, Zizek points out that there are many types of freedom, namely actual and formal freedom. He defines this distinction as, “Formal freedom is the freedom of choice within the coordinates of the existing power relations, while actual freedom designates the site of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates.” Sydney contests this concept, saying, "We are all victims of circumstances and at the same time have the potential to free ourselves (individually and collectively) from these circumstances, but only if the imagination allows it, and that’s where the possibilities become endless." Is freedom, then, the cultivation of imagination? If we a million people what freedom is, we would get a million different answers.

I look forward to discussing the concept of freedom in class. It is important for us to remember that we are all dealing with different connotations of this word. We all have rich, different experiences, and it is in sharing our experiences that we can find understanding. How do you define freedom? Is it important to you, or just another word that the administration uses to manipulate the people? Is it tangible? Though this concept is contentious and very subjective, I believe that it will shape the way we view government, revolution, and even scholarship.

The Dollar or the Coca - It is all about "Going Green"

2010-01-31T08:07:00.000-08:00

The Preface to the German Edition of the Communist Manifesto of 1872 states that "The practical application of these principles (the principles of the Communist Manifesto) will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II." - This line, I believe, is loosely representative of the forms of socialism that seem to be gaining ground today.

Especially relevant in this context, is the exercise of the principles of socialism by Evo Morales, the current President of Bolivia. Though Movimiento al Socialismo, his political party, is clearly a socialist enterprise looking to nationalize industry and promote an equitable distribution of national resources, it has nonetheless been brought into power through a constitutional and 'democratic' process. [It is however, not to be forgotten that he had previously been 'removed from Congress'. This fact in mentioned to establish that the 'democratic process' is not all unicorns and rainbows].

This contemporary example would probably not stand the test of Trotsky's 1920 thoughts on revolution and democracy who says, "This fetishism of the parliamentary majority represents a brutal repudiation, not only of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but of Marxism and of the revolution altogether. If, in principle, we are to subordinate Socialist policy to the parliamentary mystery of majority and minority, it follows that, in countries where formal democracy prevails, there is no place at all for the revolutionary struggle." These thoughts of Communist fervor seem apt within the then prevailing hybrid of the global environment, where a post WW I, 1920's America had made comfortable bedfellows of capitalism and democracy.

However, Morales, the first indigenous leader of Bolivia since the Spanish took over (who at least up till now) has shown a genuine dedication to the cause of nationalization and equitable distribution of resources and is a self proclaimed socialist, seems to be balancing the fashionability of 'democracy' well with the ideology of socialism. For as Sydney earlier stated, the question of choice, is indeed within the accepted or existing paradigms in society at a particular point in time. It is also not to be forgotten that the Manifesto itself is to be applied within contemporary conditions. (It is a relief to think that issues of sustainability were not abandoned by the wayside in the frenzy of ideology)

As has become evident contemporary conditions dictate that we operate within the hybrid structure of history, ideology and social acceptance. These aspects of the hybrid wax and wane in reaction to the prevalent political and economic atmosphere. It is only a reflection of the evolution of any philosophy that it adapts to contemporary conditions.

Does socialism within a democratic structure make it more palatable to the international community? Of course it does. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I say that in a global environment where a sheep has to be dressed in wolf's clothing to be taken seriously by the other wolves, bring on the ideology Prius'.

p.s: Toyota is not the official sponsor of this blog ;)

To Freedom or Not to Freedom

2010-01-31T08:03:00.000-08:00

A good portion of this week's readings dealt with the idea of freedom.

What did Lenin say about freedom? What did others say to that? What is their own definition and all. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) core concept in life was the notion of freedom. Understanding humanity, its history, political life, and self-consciousness all revolved around this, in Hegel's work and philosophy (source). Eighteenth century philosophy of freedom dealt with the individual citizen, a strand of belief that Hegel did not subscribe to. Hegel believed that such individualistic freedom is tyrannical, and is abstract and purely formal. He said that true freedom is only possible in a political state where millions of differences in wills can be reconciled through reason.

However, as Lenin famously retorted, “Freedom yes, but for whom? To do what?” Does the ability to express one's own opinions and choices constitute freedom? One very small example can look at the scenario where parents encourage children to express their wants and listen to them (a very Western concept for me). But is that freedom? Does that child know what it entails? From here, it can be a logical deduction that freedom requires a certain degree of consciousness.

Consciousness for whom? Another example may include a group of people who are born and raised in the bourgeois class. Do they even know the plights of the proletariat? In such cases, does freedom not become a mere word to play with linguistically?

Finally, freedom that truly does not bring peace to a nation or group, cannot be a freedom to look for and crave. Freedom to not know, and fall into the hands of the cunning capitalistic and hegemonic propaganda cannot be freedom. Inability to question the status quo because of any fear of consequences cannot be freedom, even though the setting is in a free world.

So what is freedom? Do we actually have a choice?

Violence, Social Movements, War?

2010-01-31T06:36:00.000-08:00

I really appreciated reading Lenin’s “The State and Revolution”. As someone that does not have a lot of experience with Marxism, it’s nice to hear from Lenin and his accessible language. He did a great job of explaining the major concepts that comprise Marxism in a manner which was easily understood. Also, it was very refreshing to read his corrections of all the common societal misconceptions of Marxism; in a way, it puts it in a frame and context that allows the reader to understand the main goals more clearly. It takes care of the misconceptions or mistakes that are commonly associated with Marx and deals with it head on and right away.
One concept I would really enjoy discussing is the violence needed in a revolution. “It is clear that the liberation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which was created by the ruling class and which is the embodiment of this ‘alienation’”. Of course, my first reaction to this is the question of why violence has to be involved. When discussing revolution, violence is involved. I know people will probably think that it is too idealistic to think that perhaps revolution is possible without violence. But then again, from my readings of Marx he seemed to be an idealist. Is revolution possible without violence? Can anything be accomplished in non-violent revolution? Would it be considered a revolution? Would non-violence just draw it out longer? As you read on, it's reiterated over and over that it is not possible to have revolution without violence (and thinking it makes me a "sham socialist"). So, the question is, what is the difference between revolution and war? Here, I think of Guatemala. I think of the link between the state and the army. "Two institutions mos characteristic of this state machine are the bureaucracy and the standing army." Take the case of Guatemala, for example. The 36 year civil war of the indigenous versus the state AND the ladinos (those of Spanish and Maya descent, the "white people"). Is this a revolution? What constitutes a revolution? Are all wars revolution?

This leads me to an observation. I keep thinking that all of this sounds like a social movement, an organized social movement. It would be interesting to talk about Marxism as a large scale social movement. They organized, the share common ground, and they fight the oppressors (the people they don’t agree with), they are looking for change and justice. I’m wondering what other aspects of Marxism are similar to those of social movements. How is Marxism similar to organized social movements? If non-violent social movements have the capability of succeeding, does communism?

Inescapable Imagination

2010-01-30T22:48:00.000-08:00

So this week I’d like to focus predominantly on Zizek’s discussion of “actual “ and “formal” freedom. To recap, Zizek defines the difference between the two by explaining “formal freedom is the freedom of choice WITHIN the coordinates of the existing power relations, while actual freedom designates the site of an intervention which undermines these very coordinates.” I find these definitions not only narrow-minded, but also a bit naïve given the fundamentals of human existence. My major contention is that in discussing the Leninist freedom of choice, both scholars make a fundamental assumption that stems from the belief that there is true (as we say with a capital T) choice. We already discussed the difference between choices within structures and choice between structures, but again all such conclusions are still based on the presupposed notion of choice. The question I pose is, is there really ever choice without structure? To expound this idea a bit, think in general abstract terms. All things recognized as “things” (animate or inanimate) and all “things” created into material existence come from the human psyche. Regardless of if we discuss communism, socialism, and/or liberalism, they are all constructs derived from our imagination. Granted we may not have been able to image the consequences of such structures, but none the less, these structures are manifestations of the human psyche.
So with that said, I return to my previous question of whether there is a such thing as “fundamental choice”. If our choices, be it of structures or within structures, are limited by our imaginations or that which can be formulated in the human psyche, is there fundamental choice? I think not. I think we are limited by our imaginations, and the possibilities are not “endless”. The same “existing power relations” that Zizek attempted to use as a separation of actual choice and formal choice, ironically plagues all existence according to group agreed recognition. We are all victims of circumstances and at the same time have the potential to free ourselves (individually and collectively) from these circumstances, but only if the imagination allows it, and that’s where the possibilities become endless. I believe this is also what Ziezek was explaining as the basic characteristic of today’s “postmodern” subject. Where do we go from here, I can only imagine...wait, no I can't!

Highlight of My Reading

2010-01-25T11:41:00.000-08:00

"To expect science to be impartial in a wage-slave society is as foolishly naïve as to expect impartiality from manufacturers on the question of whether workers’ wages ought not to be increased by decreasing the profits of capital." -

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin [source]

Reflections!!

2010-01-24T09:55:00.000-08:00

The term proletariat assumed a new meaning in Engels’ document on communism. The miserable working conditions which inspired him to write, …“But there have not always been workers and poor people living under conditions as they are today; in other words, there have not always been proletarians…”; those miserable working conditions have deteriorated even more. As per the definitions advanced, a classic proletariat would be someone who lives only by his/her salary and “whose life and death, therefore, depend on the alternation of times of good and bad business; in a word, on the fluctuations of competition” (Engels, 1847). So, one could say, in today’s world, a factory worker, a bus driver, a pizza-delivery man, a professor , a multinational executive all could qualify to the sobriquet as long as they do not invest and live on its profit. No…the meanings have become more complex. Engel’s conceptualization was in a certain frame of reference and as situations change, so the interpretation. The writings are a political argument seeking to formulate certain principles which add up to an ideology under which people can mobilize against oppression, suffering and improving human conditions. And whether the writings have currency today, well yes, the conditions are more oppressive now and people need to mobilize (as they continue to do in many parts of world) for better living conditions.

Interestingly, these writings originated in the same imperialist spaces which were carrying out colonial conquests in other parts of the world since longand who with their oppression, abuses and selfish conquests had destroyed the development/ progress in their colonies reducing them to feeders for their own growth. Engels, one presumes would have little knowledge about the life of an Indian worker in the Opium factory being run in Bihar by the East India Company or in the indigo plantations. “Communism” is a product of the same imperialist, dominant knowledge creators system but has more appeal as its talk of classless society, addressing inequities and social change is far more direct and romantic in many ways.

Some of us in this blog have said to the effect that the talk of a classless society, a society “where an abundance of goods will be able to satisfy the needs of all its members”, a society with no private property is decidedly utopian and does raise many uncomfortable questions. But it certainly is an ideology to work towards as only by addressing injustices, exploitation, discrimination based on wealth creation, can we address the issues of social justice. This is where I see the intersections between Marx and Engels, the doctrine of Marxism and the political movement called communism. Marxist economic theory essentially says that the unpaid wage/ labor are the surplus-value or profit and that is what supports capitalists: “the source of wealth of the capitalist class”. This is a very elegant explanation of profits but what is essential here is to debate is whether this “materialism” would not be evident in a system where there is no private property. Also worth debating here is the notion of "value" as discussed in Marx's "Critique of political economy". The social constructions of "use-value" and "exchange value'' and as it manifests in different communities.

A society might not advance in the areas of social justice by adopting either a capitalist ideology or a communist or a socialist ideology. History has repeatedly shown that demise of one form of feudal society leads to another form though the new order is more sophisticated in its oppression and exploitation. The quest for human dignity and social justice is endless.

A word about land ownership and common property. In Koraput where I am doing research with the indigenous populations, previously land was owned collectively by the village elders. During those times they did not have these concepts like land deeds, settlement, land parcels, government land etc.., it was an understanding that these are village lands and we are the village. Now when the government wanted to institute land reforms, the original village with its 5-6 elders and 10 families had grown to a 250 – 300 strong population with different claims to ownership developed across the years; so how does the government distribute the land parcels? Further, as the government found minerals under the “lands”, the value of the common land changed and so the claims. This created and is creating injustices and exploitative circumstances which are leading to internecine conflicts and resistance. To what end? Will following a communist, or Marxist or socialist or Maoist or capitalist ideology bring relief?

J on a lighter tone, I prefer to be a Rastafarian.

Few Questions

2010-01-24T09:05:00.000-08:00

I am coming from a state/ region of India which is under communist rule for last 35 years. Starting from implementing land-reform to emphasizing small scale industries many pioneering initiatives were taken by communist parties. And, from own experience, like all other student of my state, I also got free education up to high school (10+2) level.
Though I have participated in a few informal discussions earlier, for me this is the formal academic introduction to Marxist theory; which I am sure will help me to understand/ analyze many initiatives/ decisions of communist governments/ institutions and the future possibilities of application of this theory.
It is interesting to notice that, more than 150 years after conceptualization; Marxist theory remained relevant and still considered as one of the core concepts in present day’s economy. The theory was written in the 2nd half of nineteenth century in the context of post-industrial revolution scenario of Europe; therefore as a non-European student of 21st century it is not an easy task for me to judge reasons and validity certain texts written by them. The theory may be repositioned and re-approached form perspective and crisis of post-WWII and globalized context of postcolonial world. Here, in order to know the Marxist theory better, I want to mention some of the questions came to my mind so far, while reading the theory.
According to Engels, bourgeoisie are the class of ‘big capitalist’. In today’s scenario, we have seen that intellectuals are often categorized as bourgeoisie. How so? Is it because they posses or sale intellectual property/patent? (Not every intellectual earn profit/ surplus profit form patent). Is an intellectual property is always a private property? Why and why not? What is dividing line between mental-laborer and intellectual bourgeoisie? Historically, we have seen many intellectuals left communist countries, are they pro-capitalist? / are they wrong?
Engels mentioned that a proletariat can be freed by abolishing competition. It seems competition here perceived in a negative connotation. What are the positive and negative consequences of abolishing competition (both physical and intellectual) from a society? If one argues that this move may create mediocre and help in establishing ‘the rule of mediocre’, is he /she wrong?
To discuss question 10 (the Principles of Communism) Engels created distinction between proletarian and communist movement; in his word- “proletarian movement, i.e., the more or less communist movement”. The word ‘more or less’ is used here. How a proletarian movement is different from a communist movement? What are the similarities and dissimilarities?
In present scenario, communist parties are taking part in democratic process. Should the voice of ‘majority’ be a basis of decision of a communist government (as it happened in mainstream democracy)? In the present globalized scenario, how a communist economy (often isolated like Cuba) may negotiate with mainstream capitalist economy? How communist parties should play their role when they participate in (multi-party multi-ideology set up) democratic process? (I am not mentioning the case of Cuba and China here).
Also we have noticed that, classic Marxist epistemology engaged itself in predicting social phenomena. And, the prediction was mainly based on economical factor and (unidirectional?) collective consciousness. In such context, how it is different from the earlier utopian socialism in respect of ‘dream of destruction of capitalist society’?
Engels emphasized on establishing ‘new social order’ through revolution and by development of Industry. Is it the only option? Can economy solely explain and justify all the social order/ phenomenon? What is the role of culture and ideology in transforming society? How can we evaluate ‘language movement’ of Bangladesh with this framework?
According to the recommended courses of revolution, one of the steps was “Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people”. Who will set criteria for identifying a rebel? Are these steps risk-free (in respect of justice and equality)? How far this ‘wealthy = rebel’ model is applicable in contemporary world (especially in case of China)?
While explaining the attitude of communism Engels used the word ‘mingle with each other’ in case of people of different nationality; and on the other hand used the word ‘disappearance’ in case of existing religion. Both of them, i.e. nation and religion are forms of institutions and often related to each other. Many countries are still represented in the name of some religion (e.g. Nepal is a Hindu country; Morocco is a Muslim country). How should we perceive disappearance of religion from a country maintaining geographical and other demographical feature unaffected?
Finally, I am interested to study indigenous people of India (and of other developing countries, if possible). These societies are mostly non-industrial and mostly agrarian. They are also marginalized and silenced owing to the prevailing ‘cast system’ of India. Therefore, I am interested to read how Marxist theory can be applicable in those contexts. Look forward to the next readings!

Ideology Vs Experience

2010-01-24T08:52:00.000-08:00

A few weeks ago I witnessed a battle. One between ideology and experience. The debate was about communism (or maybe socialism?). Two friends came to the table with what seems an innocuous discussion about what "lived" communism was about. It was interesting because both parties had a different conception of what communism is. One, whose family had labored under a corrupt communist regime and another whose family for generations had believed enough in the ideology to give up their privileges for common good.
This instance, in retrospect provided me with an interesting lens on what the dialectic within the communist culture would be like. It seems almost akin to the debate within religion that between ideology and experience; between the goodness of all things spiritual and the perversity of human nature. It seems to me that socialism and communism are parallel to the concept of philanthropy in religion and religious fundamentalism.

Active Minds, Lazy Activism

2010-01-23T14:02:00.000-08:00

Steve Macek's piece on the Marxist framing of intellectuals hit many of the right notes. The first noteworthy point made was how despite the filtration of Marxist concepts into much of mainstream rhetoric literature and communication circles, we haven't experienced such a transition of intellectuals in the political process. Early Marxist figures would employ much of a hands-on approach to ensuring that ideas translate into reality through political organizing and involvement in social movements. The frequent interaction of the intellectual with 'the common man,' as Macek asserts, revitalizes the movement towards social and economics justice.

The paucity today of politically active intellectuals, both in the communication and broader academic circles, has less to do with the deficiencies in the critical communications theories than it does with the restructured system of academia. Institutions housing intellectual opinion are more often publicly subsidized, creating a natural hesitancy to totally deconstruct state policy. Writings that tend to be more critical are designed for mere academic consumption, and its efficacy in shifting public opinion is therefore reduced. Rhetorically, there seems to be a major disconnect between the well-intentioned intellectual and the public, with the former choosing language that can be considered prosaic, stale, and anodyne.

What I feel is the result nowadays is the creation of a class of pseudo-intellectual lightweights. Instead of deconstructing public policy, they're task is to merely repackage the government strategy with some minor tactical reservations. Rhetorically, they would often employ fear-provoking hyperbole or oversimplified metaphors. Beyond their smooth-talking veneer are political leanings that inevitably remain within the status quo.

Bourgeois socialist thoughts on competition

2010-01-17T16:00:00.000-08:00

Competition is also an evolutionary trait that all species share. From the sperms seeking to fertilize ova to the day we die, the process of life and death reflects competition in biological, social, economic, and cultural contexts. What then does it mean then to abolish competition? What are we really doing away with when we do away with competition? What are the social and economic consequences of abolishing competition whether by struggle, decree, or legislation?

I frequently find myself hearing and using the words competition and innovation together and in context. Innovation refers to doing something new or introducing newness to something or the doing of something with the implicit assumption being that the new will lead to something better. For an industry, innovation usually refers to the process of converting ideas into services and products that generate value for the consumer and thus help the organization become profitable (amass capital). It seems evident that not everyone can engage in innovation. If everyone spent their time and effort innovating who would worry with the mundane and the routine that is not new? Yet, we value innovation as a prize that can do more than generate capital for the innovators. The US government wants to transform the economy of this country to one based on innovation. The more skilled workers, the greater the chances for innovation and all the better for the economy. Competition is said to be the juice that drives innovation. As we compete with others we innovate harder, stronger, faster or so the argument goes. What are the consequences of an unbridled thirst for innovation that defines innovation as a desirable phenomenon, that views innovation as necessarily making our lives better? Does competition always lead to betterment of the conditions of our existence? Is better always good? When we say something is better is it a qualitative or a quantitative appraisal? What does it mean to make things better?

I look forward to hearing your views on these questions at our next meeting. I know Vicky will have some thoughts to share :)

Who has the microphone?

2010-01-17T08:56:00.001-08:00

Taking a step back away from the discussion of communism and capitalism, I couldn’t help but question why Engel’s argument dichotomizes the two concepts as if no other forms of social order can exist in societies. Granted it would take extensive thinking, planning, trial and error, I suggest that it is not an either or selection. When has anything that involves a large group of people ever been simply black and white? Many of the points that have already been discussed in the blog thus far point to the shortcomings of Engel’s argument. If communism will use all instruments of production and distribute all products “according to the common agreement”, I also question how such a “common agreement” will be reached? Even if every person is allowed an equal voice, only one voice can be acted upon for the public and that can only go over well if everyone agrees to whatever it is that voice calls for. In communism the social order will have to be hierarchical in some nature because their will also be those whose voices and choices are acted upon and those who receive less attention. Again we return to the same question that we have discussed plenty of times, “Who has the microphone?” and what would those without the microphone say if they did have it?

Switching my focus a little, I also want to briefly discuss a concept that Engels merely grazed over in his discussion of the distribution of products in a communist society. He states, “Society will take all forces of production and means of commerce, as well as the exchange and distribution of products, out of the hands of private capitalists and will manage them in accordance with a plan based on the availability of resources and the needs of the whole society.” He further affirms, “This development of industry will make available to society a sufficient mass of production to satisfy the needs of everyone” Hm…are you sure about this? Sure in doing so society would fill all the needs of the world, but does that really remove one of the core elements of the human condition which is to want and desire things? Also, I’d like to clarify that when I say “things” I am not simply talking about material/tangible products, but also those intangibles such as fame, admiration, popularity, recognition….power. Even in providing everyone the things they NEED, it does not cleanse the world of greed, violence, and other debilitating mannerisms that foster a capitalist society and thrive in the grouping of human beings. All of which many times are the byproducts of human desires for something we believe we do not possess regardless of if it is private property, consumer products, or what ever the case may be. Engels discussion deals with morals and values just as much as it does with economics. If in a communist society everyone is provided with life’s necessities, what rubric is used to determine what is necessary and what is not? After years of building a consumer driven society (specifically in the US) haven’t the lines of needs and wants been blurred? I definitely need that new Gucci Mane CD and I cannot live without that new Lamborgini Coupe, or can I? I know plenty of people in the world have this mentality and a change of economic distribution will not cure it…it is an ideological disease.

Why I think Marx's Communism will fail

2010-01-17T08:55:00.000-08:00

I'm making the claim that Marx's Communism will not work in today's world, for its heavy undertone of techno-determinism. If the impetus of social political improvement is based on the rise of productivity brought by technological advancement, then it follows that technological advancement will necessarily increase the productivity in that sense. As Marx put it, the new technology would lead to new productivity and subsequently new needs among the masses.

It might be true before and at his time, when technological inventions were made at the grassroots production level to reduce the intensity of manual work and increase output. Technology means completely different things now. It is controlled by big corporations, and instead of working in the direction to increase productivity, it is almost entirely focusing on the increase of need and desire. Thus, technology advancement will no longer be able to achieve what Marx believed it could achieve to bring along Communism: a production level that can satisfy the need of all people.

The Communist Plan Unpacked

2010-01-17T07:21:00.001-08:00

In theory, the concept of communal property sounds like a good plan, but when examined in detail, I question whether it is a viable option. For example, Engels outlines the steps he believes should be taken to lead towards a communist society. Engels calls for "Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.)," and "Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people." Who will control the expenditure and use of this capital? What will be done with this money? How will the emigrants and rebels support themselves and live if all of their possessions have been confiscated? If we are relying on the government to use this capital to create an "expansion of production," history (and our national debt) has shown us that this is an unlikely outcome.

Engels also calls for "Education of all children, from the moment they can leave their mother’s care, in national establishments at national cost." Education from the age of 5 to the age of 18 is provided by the state and federal governments, yet this system continues to fail in its educational goals every year. Indeed, the public school system offers an often dangerous and inadequate education for all.

Most importantly, Engels' plan relies on the government to confiscate, monitor, and appropriately utilize our society's capital. Unfortunately, the government is run by the bourgeoisie, and therefore can not be given the means to create or impede a progression towards a communist state.

Obituary: Jyoti Basu

2010-01-17T07:21:00.000-08:00

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8151230.stm

Wondering if any of my Indian friends have any thoughts on him. "He made Communism look respectable"...

Competition & Progressive?

2010-01-17T07:09:00.000-08:00

I couldn't make it past "The Principles of Communism" without several questions that may or may not appear obvious to others, but as for me, I need to know before moving along and taking the rest in. For example, competition, appeared to be one of the devils of society, one that communism must crush in order to be successful. Competition according to Engels was partially at fault for classism. This made me wonder how we conceptualize competition in our society today. Is this a cultural phenomenon. I remember as a child competition showed its face every day, from getting a star in the elementary school classroom to fighting to be a the top of the class in high school or winning the swim meet. How does a society function without competition? What are the detriments of competition? Is all competition evil?

Secondly, a lot of aspects of communism seemed to be very modern and progressive. For example, the idea of globalization was already mentioned: "In this way, big industry has brought all the people of the Earth into contact with each other..." Also, the idea that the Earth did not belong to anyone and the need for absolution of private property seemed to be progressive as well. "Equal inheritance rights for children born in and out of wedlock" is another progressive idea. Finally, the idea of the family in communism seems to me to be very modern. However, what I don't understand is the role of the woman. I don't understand the "community of women". What role does the woman play in a communist society? Is she valued and respected? How is this different from a democratic society? Is the difference significant?

One last note....when reading about the proletariat, I keep thinking about people who lived paycheck to paycheck today....any ideas?