>From the period of stoics and aristotle to our age
thinkers and activists for whom
these are important questions.
In working class politics ,this problem tries to solve
through the vanguard role.after all,it gives a new
strata of elites.
The newest social movements(by immanuel walerstein)a
higly articulated middle class professional and
scholastic elites fill this gap.we know that this
ultimate result.
recently,Kenan malik has just pointed out this
question in other way--,following kenan malik,i like
to ask-Is it better to be represented/spoken by
someone whom you may share a common experience of
discrimination or by someone who has never experienced
such a discrimination but who shares your political
vision and agrees with you to fight out against this
discrimination.
--- Anil Tharayath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear Friends
>
>
> I had always this question in mind
>
> 1) Who has the right to theorise?
>
> The moral right to theorise is by taking the notion
> of lived
> experience (word borrowed from Gopal Guru's talks).
> But what is lived
> experience? What are the elements that constitute
> lived experience?
> And most important is to look at what is the
> relation between lived
> experience and theories about this experience?
>
> 2) Every time when one becomes instrumental in
> coming out with a work
> (it can be anything for sg: getting a fellowship)
> the person who
> actually gets it becomes irrelevant but the person
> being instumental
> becomes valourised. How will one deal with this is
> another anxiety.
> Where no qualities/ merits of the "subject" is taken
> into
> consideration and this has happened throughout the
> histoey of
> progressives.
>
>
> On Oct 13, 10:18 am, "Dileep Raj" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > "But dileep, u didn't mention the harsh criticsms
> that ur paper
> > recieved in Hyderabad
> > that apart.. seems to be a quite intersting piece"
> >
> > That is an incorrect report Ranjith!! My "paper" [
> unfortunately]
> > recieved no criticism!!
> > There were two comments. You might be referring to
> the second one by
> > Arun, a research scholar. Well, my 'transcript' of
> the comment and
> > response goes like this.
> > He asked me 'For whom do you translate violence?"
> I sought
> > clarification whether he raised this in connection
> with C.Ayyappan's
> > stories
> > He said,' no about both the texts.'
> > " I don't share your assumption that it is
> violence that is being
> > translated. In Nalini's text, she is playful,
> conscious of her several
> > identities though her painful experiences are also
> woven into the
> > text"
> > Then Arun vociferously shouted " You are a
> broker.. You are
> > translating it for OBCs. You are an OBC. You are a
> SHUDRA "
> > " Ok, now I got you! I don't take it as an abuse.
> Broker, pimp etc are
> > marginal positions which we should reclaim.I take
> it as a compliment."
> > "What is your political subjectivity?"
> > " You seem to be interested in fixing my identity.
> In connection with
> > these two authors I was transcriber to Nalini and
> instrumental in
> > bringing out Ayyappan's shortstory collection as
> editor"
> >
> > Ranjith, taking the body language and volume of
> speaking, it could
> > qualify for being 'harsh' but not 'harsh criticism
> ' on my paper!
> > I know Arun personally, and am sure that he is
> capable of
> > substatciating his position further. Am waiting
> for him to do it.
> >
> > Were you present there?
> > [ Hope they would have recorded the
> proceedings..]Do you share Arun's views?
> >
> > After the presentation, I got a valuable comment
> from Suresh, a student who
> > told me that he being blind, always have to live
> under constant
> > suspicion. People thought it was not he, but the
> transcriber who was
> > responsible for his success in examinations.
> > The question of authentic authorship was
> re--presented to me by him in
> > an insightful manner.
> >
> > Anyway, thanks for commenting on the abridged
> version..
> >
> > On 10/13/07, ranju radha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "You die because you Think" seems the logic
> > > wht more one can expect from a state where the
> major disocurse is on "How to
> > > patronise voices"
> >
> > > Nalini Jameela's agency could be acceptable now
> to DC, thnks to the
> > > neo-liberal acumen of Publishers, which the
> "pre"-liberal world could not
> > > offer to NAlini (our avowed leftist who do
> don-quixotian exercise against
> > > globalisation may not agree.. yea i do agree
> that don-quixote is too
> > > complicated a character to freeze inot a
> ideological time zone)
> >
> > > But dileep, u didn't mention the harsh criticsms
> that ur paper recieved in
> > > Hyderabad
> > > that apart.. seems to be a quite intersting
> piece
> > > so,
> > > best wishes
> >
> > > On 10/12/07, Dileep Raj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Sukumar Azheekkode alleged that it was
> Sudheesh and other friends who
> > > > were
> > > > responsible for the last press meet and death
> of M. N. Vijayan.
> > > > A peculiar Kerala logic that is. Even a
> 'respectable' man like MNVijayan
> >
> > > > is denied of his agency in what he did .
> > > > That reminded me of the way in which Kerala
> 'public'
> > > > generally behaved to Nalini Jameela. Also, the
> way in which agency was
> > > > denied to Rajeena,
> > > > victim in Vithura case ...
> > > > Below I am pasting a small descriptive
> portion of a paper presented at
> > > > Hyderabad Central university
> > > > on October 4th [ in a seminar on 'Translation
> and Transformation"] this
> > > > month by me.
> > > > The paper was titled " Who is a writer? On
> Writings of Nalini Jameela and
> > > > C. ayyappan".
> >
> > > > Nalini Jameela came to the public
> attention in Kerala when her
> > > > autobiography became a best seller.There was
> an uproar as DCBooks , the
> > > > major mainstream publishing house in malayalam
> published it. Incidentally
> > > ,
> > > > I was working as editor in DCBooks then
> though not directly involved in
> > > > that project.Nalin was a friend much before I
> joined DCBooks.
> > > > Everybody, [ rightists and feminists
> alike ] thought that her
> > > > story was fiction and the real 'author' was
> the person who transcribed it.
> > > > Surprisingly, Nalini hereself came to my home
> one day and complained that
> > > > she was completely upset to see the published
> version.She wanted to revise
> > > > it thouroughly.
> > > > Both of us went and spoke with Ravi
> DC [ incidentally that was
> > > > her 'first' encounter with the publisher!!] .
> The actual situation was
> > > more
> > > > complicated than we expected it to
> be.According to the agreement signed,
> > > > the rights of her autobiography was with the
> person who transcribed it!
> > > > Ravi DC agreed to bring out the revised
> version and Nalini got the rights
> > > > back after paying 25,000 rupees out of her
> royalty to I. Gopinath, the
> > > > transcriber. One wonders whether any other
> 'author' will be treated in a
> > > > similar manner.In public's view, she can't
> have any political or
> > > > heoretical dilemmas.
>
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________________________________________
Tonight's top picks. What will you watch tonight? Preview the hottest shows on
Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
