Dear colleagues,
I do not normally participate in debates that require domain knowledge but having read the mail of Dr Cristiana Bastos and the reply of Dr John de Figueiredo, I feel I must do so not on the data issues being discussed but on the tone and tenor of the statements made. Dr Bastos's mail was fair and reasonable. Dr Figueiredo's mail was immodest and provocative. There are five issues on which I wish to take issue with him.
The first is with respect to his opening sentence, 'You obviously do not know the Goan culture well'. This raises a series of questions: Who is qualified to know Goan culture well? One who has studied it as part of professional training? One who carries a passport identifying him/her as Goan? One who has lived in Goa for some time? (How long, and at what stage of their cognitive development?) Or one who is Goan by birth? To any scholar on the epistemology of the social sciences, it is likely to be the first. So Dr Figueirado's 'obviously' is hence not so obvious. As one who has stated that Dr Bastos does not know 'Goan culture well', he has given himself the position of a superior understanding of Goa culture. This is purely a linguistic conclusion. He needs to offer a basis for this superior understanding.
The second is the implication in the first sentence that there is a position, to be achieved, when one can say one understand's a culture well. Culture, as we know, is a dynamic thing, evolving with new meanings, infused with new interpretations, and imbued with multiple locations from which to comment. It is therefore relevant from which caste, class, community, geography one, therefore, speaks. Who can speak for Goan culture is thus an interesting question but one difficult to answer.
The third is his statement that he debates only with people he respects. I would be grateful for the list for then I would know if he would reply to this response.
The fourth is his dismissal of training in the protocols of social science research. This cannot be allowed to pass unless he is making the fundamental point, made by Edward Said among others, that such protocols are embedded in a Western episteme and hence not relevant to understanding a non-western society. Complex discussions on 'validity claims' take place in the philosophy of the social sciences and training programmes on research methods are a core part of study for a research degree. So it is unacceptable for Dr Figueiredo to dismiss training in the protocols of social science research as being irrelevant to the debate on validity claims. That is why we do not consider shamans as equivalent to trained psychiatrists.
The fifth is his statement that he 'believes in data'. He would know that data does not exist by itself. It is framed by theory, and theory is constructed. So data is theory infected (to use a medical terminology) and must be recognised as such. Bastos has a theory of Empire. What is his?
I hope this allows us to return to scholarly exchanges sans offence.
Best,
Peter.r
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Goa-Research-Net" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
.
