Mohan J. Dutta: Critical Insights on Culture and Society

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 sta...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...