I wonder how Venugopal's take appeared in greenyouth. [I also wonder how the paper by Jenny and Christy appeared here]. Both authors didn't expect/ welcome any 'serious' discussion from this forum. So, just like my previous response, this addresses only group members .
K.M. Venugopal's criticism on no account touches my observations. I am making couple of clarifications only. 1.There is no need to be outrageous on studying a text disregarding authorial intentions. If you go through the 'theoretical' autobiography of the research(ers) with patience, you will understand that their training lies exactly in it. So, don't raise it as a moral question to me, but address the clan of researchers who revel in textual studies. We could at least stay away from rehearsing the worn out methodological disputes for yet another time . Even Venugopal disregarded the hypothetical nature of my statement [ i.e. some future researchers may…] [Moreover, I am not among those who assume that 'serious' people should always lack humor sense!!] 2. I was responding to the text in front of me. Why should I go by certificates given by others that it is 'seriously done research paper", "evaluated by competent people keeping adherence to the academic standards"? OK, let the "qualified" speak, but don't try to silence all others through overt and covert ploys. This exactly is what I meant by 'privileges' in academics. Caste and gender are not the only axes of power on which our life world is predicated. Researcher/ researched, subject/ object ,heterosexual/ homosexual etc could equally be significant. Being reflexive of privileges calls for more nuanced frameworks than the one we encounter in the present paper.[ Or are you expecting me to share your belief in acedemic caste system with preset 'standards' and 'qualifications' ? Why should yu be so patronising? I never heard of academics who are afraid of critical responses] 3.Venugopal misses my point completely when he reduces it to the problematic of foreign/ native dichotomy. [ A successful strategy in polemics , i.e: connect something to an existing debate and try to bring the interlocutor to that discussion, where you have plenty of 'tested' missiles in store!!] .As mentioned above, I am pointing to the relation between field researchers and respondents/ agents. No, they are not keeping a 'calculated distance' from everybody. For instance, K.M.Venugopal [ May be he knows Chinese!!] It is quite natural that Venugopal tries to correct the representation of him in my description. This is possible because I am making it available and he has access to the forum. This exactly was the point when I said that we all are political agents. No, I have no quarrel with anybody for being leftist or turning critical of it. The 'researchers' were drawing a causal link between castiest remarks/ attitude of some people and their leftist tradition. [ I hope Venugopal will go through the whole text by Jenny and Christy ( one and only qualification I consider as mandatory for 'seriously'commenting on it.) 'Leftist' is a tag put forward by them in a pejorative sense.] I am not being dismissive, but merely expressing my disappointment. I do have more observations on certain points, but don't feel like sharing it with people always keeping a "calculated distance" !! Let us hope for better situations and exchanges in future On 2/14/08, Anivar Aravind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 09:01:51 +0530 > Subject: Fwd: Chithralekha Paper-your response in "Green Youth"mail > list forwarded to me by a friend > To: Ramki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Venugopalan K M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Feb 14, 2008 1:31 AM > Subject: Chithralekha Paper-your response in "Green Youth"mail list > forwarded to me by a friend > To: Dileepraj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Dear Dileep, > This message is only an attempt to make known my response to your post; > not intended to be posted to the Green Youth List, though I have no problem > in case you like to share this with others who you choose . > ".( > i.e, disregarding the conscious claims and intentions of the authors)" > > > I'm really unable to understand why you ,in the first instance, *disregard > the conscious claims and intentions of the authors;* I also wonder by virtue > of which elements of democratic practice you have a right to do so*. *This, > in my opinion, is simply not fair while you engage with a seriously done > research paper, evaluated by competent people keeping adherence to the > academic standards. The arrogant trashing of the content even touches a > paranoiac level, when you do it without offering any reason. Having been > condemned to be totally worthless, it comes out of your hands with several > tags attached on it based on pure fantasy of yours. > There is a point of course there , when you are reminded of Chinese and > European travelers.You may recall that many foreigners like Al-Baruni, > Francis Buchanen, Barbosa had indeed stunned at the gross insensitivity > shown by both the ordinary and the elite caste hindus to their fellow > Indians of supposedly lower birth; I believe that in a similar situation, > some one who by conscious choice wants to be outside this schema of > unwritten rules of caste and gender, might experience being seen like > pucca foreigners. I don't know if Jenny and Christy would agree...though (in > my opinion) they've succeeded at least in their writing to invoke a feeling > of foriegn..as someone keeping a calculated distance from this kind of > celebration of* naattachaarams *of gender and caste. > Perhaps there lies the strength of this paper, shortcomings like factual > errors in giving names of places correctly etc, and other things apart.. > Again, you may also recall (please), that many a "Malayali" only took more > pride in their *mahakavi* defending the honour of the great nation against a > foreign woman scandalising it, by talking ill of caste and gender...in > fact,they became more proud of Vallathol Narayana Menon's poem > ",Bharathasthreekalthan Bhavasuddhi"irrespective of the fact that it was a > response to Katherine Mayo's(A Brit Woman) "Slaves of Gods" documenting the > inhuman attitudes Gandhian volunteers and the caste-hindu people displayed > toward widows and women of lower castes on various occasions.In fact, many > of these (Malayalee) nationalists didn't even care to know what kind of > content in writing actually prompted this awsome *desabhakti. > *Dileep has invented certain things in the text as some residual stuff that > might be useful for future researchers: (a) to (g) -[ privileges..to > self-righteousness to prejudices..!!.]But these are nevertheless, only > fringe benefits of the research ,the worth of which people like Dileep can > understand and help guiding future researchers! > What to say of such dismissive attitudes to research, esp against those in > utterly bad taste to the desi habits, done by "foreign people" or people > behaving that way? > For the question directed at me by you in the GY post, I can say that I've > been part of the left all through.The *socialist paatha* of 90s had > consistently tried to bring to focus the question of caste and gender as > part of the discourses taking place in the left circles here. I consider > calling one a leftist not anything other than a compliment. The fact that > myself and the other person(Subrahmanyan) who had worked with me in > Socialist Paatha ,after openly expressing differences of opinion and being > not able to get along together in an action front, which in turn > simultaneously involved the sensitive issues of gender, caste and > conventional left politics, speaks more than which you might be willing to > understand. > Why couldn't myself and a few others prevail upon the colleagues in the > earlier committee(Pynur), what prompted us to convene another at Kannur at a > much later stage etc.might not have been topics worthy of elaborate > documentation for Jenny and Christy, but there is ample material in the > paper suggesting the several turns and twists, ups and downs that the main > agenda of Chithralekha's defence as a whole, had ultimately suffered. Any > one who may be willing to pursue the study without yielding to skepticism > ,unbiased and in a nonpartisan way (despite avoidable factual errors galore > in it, on certain points that might be inconsequential to the conclusion of > the paper )might see that all there!. > Warmest regards, > Venu.K.M > > -- > Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com > > > > -- Dileep R I thuravoor --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
