they are theoretical propositions with a life time of action, thought and research behind them..
i agree. but these theoretical propositions were polemically argued in public as well and what do you think, when someone raises the issue of 'invisibility of dalits ' or 'visibilty' of hegemony s/he is doing it without any theoretical understanding? these r polemically argued in some forums, of course. and in doing so, it opens up the debate to the so called un-accessible terrains. it d be rememberd that debates are not only meant for FOucalt or Derrida. Common people also need a stake in it. S/he may not able to indulge in a debate if it is fought only at the theoretical/analytical level (i m not disclosing the possibilities of theoretical debates. let academicians do it) ..as a person belonging to the flock of common people i find it important to address it as well. I may also try my inexperienced hands in theoretical debates as a neo-literate. your dalithahujan assertion can be a masculinized one ur critique of my arguments lends more space for furthering the possibilty of assertion. and when a dalit woman critique both of us(u and me) it will give more indepth to the argument. I am not an end in myself. and i dont disclose creation of hegemonies by countering existing hegemony. in fact, it is to establish our hegemony that we counter one hegemony. u counter my hegemony to establish urs. some one else will come to counter ur hegemony as well. it did not happen at the personal level, but in ideological grounds. and ths is how societies transform. and this masculine dalit hegemony has already been addressed by dalit feminsm, as u r ware. it's not just in binaries, the complexities of which needs to be addressed. i agree. at the same time, it is equally important to address these binaries upon which the system being run hegemonically. otherwise, we will fall into the "PURE"post-modern trap. Laxman posing of question is equally important and perhaps his future postings, once a BC/Minority feminist come up with another framework. i would also appreciate how a dalit feminist questions both these approches and how Laxman comes up with another post. see, wht i m trying to illustrate is the need for such debates. as i said in my previous mails, polemic is strategically used. its effect is to "initiate" a larger public to a longer project. it fails when such a project become limited to polemic alone. that;s why "environmentalsm" comes into our own debate later. many responded well. this is how certain things r initiated by carefully taking risks. it may fail, but the attempt iteslf is important. what would have happened if subaltern women had gained leadeship to subaltern movements???? this has been addressed by dalit feminism see the movements wher WOMEN have gained leadership. look at NBA and Medha Patkar. do u think that her "feminine" debating is perfectly "gentlewomanly" and address the issues of the people of Narmada valley "compassionately". read gail omvedt and other dalit critique of Medha patkar. This is not to counter u or making my position safe. but to show that the kind of "discomfort" felt by many including you, did not show of in your "SILENCES" where one can "COMFORTABLY" sit and "PEACEFULLY" indulge in theoretical discourse alone. it needs to take a great personal risk, to indulge in public action, even at the virtual space. having said that, i admit that i m equally partner to this whole conundrum. it is better to participate in a debate and express even using polemics than sitting idly waiting for the perfect question to engage with debates, especially of the sort in greenyouth. i respect ur arguments, just as i respect anivar's, dilip's etc etc i never denied them the opprtunity to express, but i counter it as well that's the whts and hows of debate and debating it is better not to create rules for that i reiterate again: i never opposed sugatakumaris right to participate, but opposed her ideological tactics using polemics thnks On 30/09/2007, jenny chithra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > dear ranjith, i don't think those quotes from ambedkar is what > i would call polemics... > they are theoretical propositions with a life time of action, thought > and research behind them.. > anyway i am not getting into a discussion on polemics or ambedkar.. > however, check out this link if interested... > http://foucault.info/foucault/interview.html > (let me tell you in advance that i am not at all a foucault-devotee, > and that i find this useful only as a work that i would read > alongside what kancha iliaha has to say about polemics..) > > now about the other things you were saying... > i thought you were feelign pushed to a corner and that is why > you were using this mode... > however now you are claiming that this mode, > which i expressed discomfort with, > is comign from a dalit counterhegemonic perspective.. > (the article u were quoting by a mentor, is also saying the same, is it > not???) > and you are calling it the 'new language of assertion'... > > actually, i think you both are seeing hegemony and counterhegemony as > simple binaries. .. > as black feminist thought has shown, one is always caught in > overlapping structures of power, so even when you are working out a > counterhegemonic strategy, you might at the same time also be asserting some > other kind of hegemony in some other way.. in other words, your dalithahujan > assertion can be a masculinized one...and i think it is...and i also feel > that one of the major problems with the identity politics of caste is that > it often gets framed in masculinized terms... > > about the anandi lakshman debate. do you see that in this debate, only an > uppercaste vellala woman and a dalit man has spoken? has any dalit obc or > minority feminist expressed her views on this debate??? don't you think if > they do they would have something different to say than laxman ? in fact, > i know of an unpublished paper, which goes forward from where laxman stops > and takes the debate further into the realm of dalit bahujan feminism.. > > about the question of alliance and identity politics, which dileep > and ranjith is talking about. > i think both are ways of being political, with its own possibilites and > problems. > (i personally/politically belong more to the identity political group, > inspite of problems, as christy puts it, but would not shy away from > postmodern interrogations...) > > however, let me repeat what i initially said....when there is all this > debate about alliance versus identity politics i cannot help see a lot of > similarity between dileep and ranjith... ranjith wants everyone to be > subsumed into dalit male politics, and dileep wants everyone to be part of > alliance politics...each one feels he is right, and that all "others" are > fascistic/savarna... this kind of attitude - marks a lot of discussions in > kerala. > > is this the only way in which people can debate? do we have to adopt a > masculine pose of fierceness, fighting, putting down, competing. > disparaging, so as to engage in causes??? what would have happened if > subaltern women had gained leadeship to subaltern movements???? would they > also have gone the same way??? > > these are some of the things (among others) that this discussion here > made me think about.. so these discussions are not as negative as i myself > am makign it out to be... :) > > however, all this is taking up too much of my limited time and energy and > so i withdraw from this debating and from now on i will continue to remain > > a silent member as before.. > > love and peace, > jenny rowena > > > > -- > > (All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, But Some of Us Are > > Brave) > > > -- Ranjit --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth?hl=en-GB -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
