Thank you so much for the nice comment. There are more interviews that have already been recorded and will be published soon. Would appreciate your support by introducing the channels to like-minded fellows.
It is by far the best interview with Chibber I have ever seen. It never occurred to me that Chibber had a sense of humor. I especially enjoyed the part where he talks about Spivak critiques and why postcolonial theory has been "a disaster"!! 🤣 Thanks, Morteza!🙏
I think Professor Vivek was absolutely spot on in his claims that postcolonial theory cannot even distinguish particulars properly, but rather exoticizes and essentially reifies them (i.e. its racist) since they have no theory of the general or no notion of common humanity. If you lose the relation between the general and particular you cannot really think humanity in its totality. Post-colonialists also push for a divide between East and West rather than a seeking of the universal dimension of humanity (the degree to which this ideology has infested the Western mind in the way it thinks the East is absurd). I would be extremely interested to hear to what extent Vivek thinks that the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of Hegelianism are also key to rethinking global politics and economics. Naturally Marxism emerged from Hegelianism. In Hegel there is a dialectical relation between the universal/general and the particular which opens the key to the concrete singular. I think that what is lost in all this postcolonial mess is analyzing the concrete singular without racist and essentializing presuppositions. The final point about "docility and group think" being promoted in the "moral sciences" is absolutely critical. We have lost touch with real philosophy, what a disaster. Final thoughts: there is no where left for the Left to go, other than back to Marxism/socialist tradition.
Spot on. I really loved his comment about Marxism having to go back to the street, not university, where it actually started. I am having another interview with him soon about his new book The Class Matrix.
@@LitArtCulture I am sharing your interview in all my circles, and look forward to diving more into your channel. Thanks for this interview very much. I did my Masters in an anthropology department that was heavily invested in post-colonial theory (what anthropology department is not at this point?!). There is all these problems of self-relating paradoxes (i.e. being "radically" against neoliberalism while being professionally a slave to neoliberalism etc.). I will also definitely make sure to catch your next interview with Professor Vivek. Thank you for your work kind sir!
colonialism is ongoing in many places. its settler colonialism. western states created the structures of racism. it still exists. acting like it doesnt helps to continue it. the racists are the colonialists, not those who are indigenous. if they want seperation its because of the harmfulness that westerners have done and continue to do. talk about marxism and looking at universal connections. thats a global perspective that only the western cultures dont share. marxism was expressing himself from his europeon perspective, natives have their own traditions that were doing well before the europeon wanted to commit jenocide for the resources. its nothing to brush off, especially when its legacy is ongoing and still affects people.
@@episdosas9949 I generally agree with you, but I don't think postcolonial theory has been able to mobilise people against colonisation, but Marxism has. And most anticolonial liberatory movements had already achieved their goals or were already underway way before even postcolonial theory entered academia. I am an academic and I cannot easily access the writings of Homibaba or Spivak. Then, how do we expect ordinary people to understand and engage with them?
I just love this guy ( Chibber). I guess post-colonial theory at the end of the day creates pimps - academic pimps whose line of argument or 'self-branding' is that - "you, as the other, can't understand my culture unless through me".
Thank you for this interview. Spivak part made me lol. Also, i see similarities in Chibber's identity politics critique with Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture.
When considering the shortfall of post colonial criticism to come to grips with todays emancipatory necessities it’s helpful to remember what Zizek said about capitalism… “Don’t underestimate the ability of the hegemonic ruling (capitalist) system to incorporate a certain very limited mode of openness toward other races, women, (LGBTQ+) and so on to maintain its power.” Slavoj Jijek. We could add to this the importance of noting the new power of capitalism to use the internet and social media to commodify the products of the cultures it encounters and coexists with and then sell them back at a profit for the ruling capitalist oligarchy to the original creators of the cultural products in the first place. So, far from suppressing or transforming cultural practices, in todays neoliberal post-industrial finance capitalist world, a Marxist critique would add that capitalism is perfectly suited to establishing a ruling elite above and among any new culture while simultaneously commodifying the culture and leaving most of its institutions and practices intact. Except for the economic ones of course which will be ruthlessly transformed to conform to the neoliberal capitalist necessities.
Hello! can you mention which part of Timothy Brennan's biography of Said you found his criticism of Postcolonial theorist who as you said "disliked" concepts like modernity.
Hi. Thanks for listening carefully. It is on page 299 (last para) and 300 (first para). The direct quote is "...a general loathing for a western concept vaguely dubbed modernity"
@@LitArtCulture Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I have gained so much from this interview, it was so well researched, lucid, direct and comprehensible (unlike many counterparts in PoCo theory). More power to you boss!
Is it ironic that Chibber criticizes academia, stating that "ideas develop depending on the context in which they are being promoted," while sitting in what is likely his office at NYU? Are his ideas immune from the corruption of academia, while simultaneously coming from an academic? I think there is a deconstructive moment here. This is why I appreciate Derrida, who acknowledges the situatedness of thought within a structure while also allowing for freeplay.
I do agree with you in principle, but at least Vivek is among the very few who has been criticizing this trend and he seeks any opportunity to engage with the public via different media.
You’re overlooking a fundamental difference, which Chibber alludes to. Post colonial theory has little or no tradition of engaging with criticism of itself. Anyone who’s come across it in the academy could tell you this. In many areas of the academy these ideas are either accepted simply as dogma or just treated like the air that breathed, beyond critique. You see it in Spivak’s bizarre assertion about not critiquing primary texts. Do you think Chibber hasn’t regularly or happily engaged in debate, discussion or directly addressed criticism from those who reject Marxism? Rawls & Nozick had offices down to hall from each other, taught classes with each. Both probably routinely had healthy debate with Marxists despite off fundamentally rejecting the first principles. These idea have come to operate within the academy in a completely different way, which is what Chibber is alluding to and he’s right.
@@daffyduck4674 Maybe the university I study at is in the minority, but postcolonial theory is by no means hegemonic. Also, I don't think Spivak thinks any text or movement is above criticism. Here is a quote from her reply to Chibber, "Writing as a member of the Subaltern Studies collective, I should say that we could no doubt profit from a robust constructive criticism of Chibber’s sort." All of this elides my earlier point, however, which is that Chibber literally states: "ideas develop depending on the context in which they are being promoted." My question is, what is Chibber's context? One could argue that Chibber's stance is evidence that postcolonial theory is not as hegemonic as he believes and that he has gained notoriety amongst those who object to postcolonial theory within the academy as the 'rebel' who has bucked the dominant trend. His existence entails that there is a significant minority of non-postcolonial theorists, which disrupts his narrative of the postcolonial totalization of academic discourse.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 ‘One could argue’ anything if you’re willing to play with words enough. Unless you’re suggesting that post colonial theory can only be said to be dominant in sections of the academy if there’s no critique with the academy AT ALL I’m not sure what your point is. Chibber’s ideas and his critique stands on its own merits and is simply part of a long tradition Marxist tradition. Also it’s a bit hard to claim that these theorists really do engage with critique of their idea by those that don’t share them, whilst the theorists themselves argue that ideas of rational inquiry, normativity, universality are all merely just expresses of West power. Does Spivak’s response take on the critique in good faith? If it did it would be a first. If these theorists had actually engaged with liberals, Marxists, libertarians, conservatives in good faith the way most of those from those traditions have for decades if not centuries then something of really value may have emerged from theories. What of value has emerged has come as part of rejecting the theory by acknowledging some insights that do stand up to real scrutiny, not from Spivak’s or Bhaba’s gobbledygook. As it stands I think the ideas have either been an irrelevance or disaster for the people they purport to help.
@@daffyduck4674 I am stating that the fact that Chibber has found a good measure of success in his academic career suggests that the academic landscape is not as homogenous as he would suggest. This postcolonial mafia-esque stranglehold on the academy seems a bit overblown to me. To your second point, it doesn’t logically follow that postcolonial theorists can’t engage with critique because they argue that the history of western philosophical and political rationality has been shaped by patriarchal, racial, and hyper-rationalist biases (note the difference between rationality and rationalist/ism). One can still hold those beliefs and adapt to critique. I am more interested in postmodernism than postcolonialism so I cannot speak as much to the latter tradition, but I know that Spivak introduced the term ‘strategic essentialism’ to address Marxist critiques, and Derrida (postmodern not postcolonial) wrote Specters of Marx to address how his work has inherited (a certain spirit of) Marxism. To your third point, if your reading is not at least somewhat charitable, you’re not really reading. To your fourth point, by no means have liberals, libertarians, and conservatives have engaged 'in good faith' with Marxists. Countless Marxist academics have been rejected by or removed from the academy by liberals and conservatives in throughout the 1900s. If Marxism is subject to a marginal space in academia, it is not on account of postcolonialists, but because of liberals and conservatives.
Marxism can extend the understanding of postcolonialism through capitalism and globalization because of the motif of colonialists but politics and power aspects as the instinctual practices of western nations cannot be neglected. An interesting analysis.
I would recommend genuine Marxists to read Ramon Guillermo's attempt at criticism of Vivek Chibber's notion of universals, when Chakrabarty doesn't even have one. If you look at the Radical Anthropology Group of Chris Knight, it runs into similar problems by regularly advocating cultural idealism e.g. in his series on the "Grammar of World Mythology." Of course, Knight isn't anti-materialist, but it's odd to see the resurgence of Platonism (think, Saussure's signs and symbols) in cultural anthropology. These works need stringent critique. I'm not yet capable of doing so, in my current level of education, and I have no idea where to even publish that would welcome receiving such critical articles.
Depends on your interests. His critique of postcolonial theory and subaltern studies is in "Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital." His critique of Edward Said is in an article called "The Dual Legacy of Edward Said", but his most recent book is a good start if you want to know about his views on Marxism. It is called "The Class Matrix: Social Theory After the Cultural Turn."
This guy is nice when talking about general/particular (without actually analyzing anything here). Problem is that he sounds like advocating imperialism v2.0 when he states at 23:52 "Postcolonial theory divided the world into tribes". The critique on Said is also of low quality. Yet, I like the last part and his position about brown/black people exposing the elites, I dont like that they just expose other brown/black elites. Still, exposing the elites sounds like a limited goal and its already done. Btw, at 12:20 you write Spival in the description, correct it. -1 for the name typo.
Thank you for watching and your comments. Vivek’s book is mainly focused on Subaltern studies in India and he does not engage deeply with Said there. However, he has written a couple of articles on Said which you can easily find. He is more forgiving in his articles as he wrote them a couple of years ago, but he has become a bit harsher more recently. Still, his articles are cogent and the argument pretty solid. His most recent book is called “Class Matrix: Cultural Turn in Social Theory” in which he puts forth his argument for a return to a material critique of capitalism rather than a cultural critique. He still acknowledges the contributions of cultural theory. I am soon interviewing him on the book and will post a part of it here. Thanks again for watching.
Chibber's appraisal of Spivak's critique is not accurate. Here is the passage in Spivak's response where Chibber claims that subaltern studies are primary texts, and are therefore above criticism: "And so Chibber carries on, merrily mistaking a primary text [one of Guha's books] for a secondary text as he proceeds to ‘correct’ Ranajit Guha because he is ‘wrong’ about the British and French revolutions. Guha’s ‘understanding of the European experience is fatally flawed’ (101)." There are two things to note: 1) Spivak never states the unquestionable status of primary texts, and 2) she is talking explicitly about Chibber's analysis of one of Guha's texts, not the entire discipline of postcolonial theory. If we are to read Spivak in good faith, we have to believe that she is speaking honestly when she says, "Writing as a member of the Subaltern Studies collective, I should say that we could no doubt profit from a robust constructive criticism of Chibber’s sort."
Thanks for watching and for your comment. I have always admired postcolonial texts, but I also have a critical view of them. I read Spivak some years ago and I should perhaps revisit it. Nevertheless, I still read this part as a defense of a text simply because it is a primary text.
Chibber book is probably the best Marxists book in decades in terms of clarity and depth of analysis in my opinion it is basically Cohen's analytical Marxism, but it is applied to real world cases which makes a huge difference. Cohen books are conceptually powerful but abstract and very hard to read.
Yes Marxism was distorted by the subaltern .. whereby the mode and relations of production are no longer center stage, , but this western obsession of sticking to Marx is its obsession with sticking to messsiahs. You are pithy and correct in your analysis , in being aware of a matrix, beyond economic relations.” Surplus labor” still rules. The problem is that none of this going back to Marx solves the “ problem” of capitalism.the quantum leap into socialism is not within any necessity of inductive reasoning. By accentuating some ethereal “ socialism” . You have ignored the quest for “ being qua being” pursed by the phenomenologists . It is not East vs west , as Islam is itself not an Eastern theology it is more western than Christianity . Chibber, the problem with Marx is not necessarily the cultural differences between east and west but more so that Aristotle was adapted by the theoretical Popes of the west, the popes meaning theoretical doyens of the west.You are also correct in analyzing Chomsky The rejection of Parmenides in the west and to a degree of rejection of advice in the east. Of course Vivek, you have assumed that this monism is not worth your time. Spinoza Hegel and then Marx are eulogized but none of this monism of theirs has ontological reduction , despite the attempted try by Heidegger and Husserl. Veridicality happens only through the subject, as quantum physics knows well that Kantian antinomies are an issue only because if the necessity of the subject and the object. Russia failed because it is Judeo Christian looking for solutions in Marx, Lenin or Bukharin .The Chinese being les theocratic decided to debunk socialism and sent capitalist . This happens because of a cultural difference . Purva paksha is theme unknown in the west. Materialism was the wrong term used by Marx in his zeal to defy theocracy .oppression seen from the point of the subject is not restricted to economic stress. You have not offered one reason as to how socialism can come , and of the incentive to bring it about. Marx deviated , he did not go into the ontological reduction of alienation .
I like prof chibber's elaboration of identity politics. I agree with him. But i don't agree with you calling Jordan Peterson a "pseudo intellectual". You're being disingenuous.
Thank you for listening and your comment. But I still stand by what I said about JP. I understand he millions of followers and fans, but his comments about history, critical theory, Marxism, and postmodernism are simply wrong and only shows his lack of either interest or understanding of these concepts. This, of course, does not apply to his comments about psychiatry. I had another interview with Peter Salmon who wrote biography of Jacque Derrida, and he also specifies JP's mistakes about Derrida and postmodernism.
@@LitArtCulture I disagree with you. Here is one quote from Chibber and one from Peterson: "[For the postmodernists], It was no longer specifically about economics, it was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. That's actually why they are so dangerous because if you're engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to themselves." "[Postmodernism is] a tradition that says, 'reason, rationality, evidence, and argument are western concepts, and therefore imperialist concepts. So what do you have left if you can't use reason, rationality, and evidence? All you have left is power, and you settle debates by beating people up." At least in their stances towards postmodernism, Peterson and Chibber are closer together than one would think.
@@LitArtCulture Hahaha man yekami farsi baladam. I used to be an editor at a publishing company that published books about Iran. I was happy to find this video last night while I was looking for the audiobook of "Orientalism" that I'd been listening to a few weeks ago. (Your video came up high in the search results, you should be glad to know.) I really like Chibber, so I watched your video instead. I look forward to your next video with him.
You are correct sampj18. In fact, my comment was deleted by the administrator of this channel pointing to the ignorance and the childish-ness of Chibber's 'critique'.
Here is one quote from Chibber and one from Jordan Peterson. I want you to tell the difference: "[For the postmodernists], It was no longer specifically about economics, it was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. That's actually why they are so dangerous because if you're engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to themselves." "[Postmodernism is] a tradition that says, 'reason, rationality, evidence, and argument are western concepts, and therefore imperialist concepts. So what do you have left if you can't use reason, rationality, and evidence? All you have left is power, and you settle debates by beating people up."
Well I am not really following. Postmodernism's obsession has never been power, but language, reality, and representation. So JP is completely wrong. And Vivek's quote is about postcolonial discourse, NOT postmodernism.
@@LitArtCulture On page 3 of Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, Chibber states that because postcolonial theory developed from “poststructuralist theory and its anti-foundationalism,” they “eschewed developing the kind of clearly constructed prepositions that would normally accompany a research agenda,” as this would “perhaps, be considered too vulgar a display of truthmongering.” On page 7 he describes the “transition [within postcolonial discourse] from a cultural Marxism to a more decidedly poststructuralist agenda,” turning to “Foucault and Derrida for inspiration…” For Chibber, postcolonialism cannot be considered without postmodern epistemology and the cultural turn. While he might not collapse the two, postmodernism and postcolonialism (PM/PC) bleed into each other. He therefore aligns with Peterson, in that both believe that PM/PC have rejected rational argumentation and are only left with power and the will to use it to their benefit. Chibber and Peterson both believe that PM/PC have totalized philosophical and political discourse within the academy, the only difference being that Peterson lumps Marxism in with PM/PC, whereas Chibber states that Marxism has been rejected by PM/PC. I am not saying that Chibber and Peterson are identical. But I think Chibber’s conception of postmodernism is marked by a Petersonian superficiality.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 Ok, now I see what you mean. It is much clearer now. I see what you mean. Chibber is a hardcore Marxist. I do agree with you that his critique of postmodernism is not theoretically solid in this book. It might be that his focus was postcolonialism. But again, postcolonialism, and Edward Said, were influenced by postmodernism as you have pointed out. So, while equating postcolonialism with postmodernism might be superficial, it might not be completely wrong either. But again, yes Vivek should have been more nuanced in his critique. He recently wrote a book called Class Matrix: Social Theory after Culture Turn which is where, I guess, he expands on his critique of culture theory, not so much postcolonialism. Again, I am not really comfortable comparing JP with Chibber. I think we both agree that JP has not read many of the texts he always blames. But yes, Vivek needs to be clearer with his critique of postmodernism. I am keen to know your thoughts on his Class Matrix if you have had a chance to read it.
@@LitArtCulture Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, I agree with a lot of what Chibber says. I lament the inaccessibility of theory (as one who researches Derrida, I am routinely frustrated with his complexity), the distance between the academy and the realities of most people, and I agree that a hyper-fixation on difference can stifle meaningful change. I also think that the version of Marxism that is criticized by postmodernists is often a strawman. If Spivak thinks that postcolonial discourse is above all criticism, then I agree with Chibber on that front as well. My main frustration with Chibber is his polemics. I think he loses nuance on account of his polemical stance. It is frustrating to see otherwise interesting ideas tainted by lazy scholarship, especially when it is a battle that he doesn't have to fight.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 Yes. I hear you. I have read half of the book I mentioned to you and I have already found an article that critiques the book and does mention some of the points you brought up. It is called "The Red Pill: Breaking out of the Class Matrix" by William Clare Roberts.
Thank you so much for posting this. It’s helped me think back on my own flawed statements on colonialism as well as when I wanted to win arguments fast, I grabbed concepts I never new were from this post colonialist thought because i thought I could win debates fast with these harsher/hardline positions about the west. But I was wrong. this all helped me make those connections with where I went wrong. 👌🏻
This was fascinating. I've been trying to put my critique of post colonialism into words but I don't think I have to anymore after finding this video.
Thanks for watching the interview.
The fact that you don't have more subscribers and views is fucking criminal. You have been pumping quality video after video! All the best!
Thank you so much for the nice comment. There are more interviews that have already been recorded and will be published soon. Would appreciate your support by introducing the channels to like-minded fellows.
@@LitArtCulture Consider it done sir!
We absolutely need to bring professor Chibber to Brasil!!!
It is by far the best interview with Chibber I have ever seen. It never occurred to me that Chibber had a sense of humor. I especially enjoyed the part where he talks about Spivak critiques and why postcolonial theory has been "a disaster"!! 🤣 Thanks, Morteza!🙏
Thanks for watching this Kaveh jan
This was a riveting interview. I really enjoyed it and look forward to reading Dr. Vivek's work. Thank you for this fantastic interview, Morteza.
Thanks
Vivek is always thought provoking.
I think Professor Vivek was absolutely spot on in his claims that postcolonial theory cannot even distinguish particulars properly, but rather exoticizes and essentially reifies them (i.e. its racist) since they have no theory of the general or no notion of common humanity. If you lose the relation between the general and particular you cannot really think humanity in its totality. Post-colonialists also push for a divide between East and West rather than a seeking of the universal dimension of humanity (the degree to which this ideology has infested the Western mind in the way it thinks the East is absurd).
I would be extremely interested to hear to what extent Vivek thinks that the underlying metaphysical presuppositions of Hegelianism are also key to rethinking global politics and economics. Naturally Marxism emerged from Hegelianism. In Hegel there is a dialectical relation between the universal/general and the particular which opens the key to the concrete singular. I think that what is lost in all this postcolonial mess is analyzing the concrete singular without racist and essentializing presuppositions.
The final point about "docility and group think" being promoted in the "moral sciences" is absolutely critical. We have lost touch with real philosophy, what a disaster.
Final thoughts: there is no where left for the Left to go, other than back to Marxism/socialist tradition.
Spot on. I really loved his comment about Marxism having to go back to the street, not university, where it actually started. I am having another interview with him soon about his new book The Class Matrix.
@@LitArtCulture I am sharing your interview in all my circles, and look forward to diving more into your channel. Thanks for this interview very much. I did my Masters in an anthropology department that was heavily invested in post-colonial theory (what anthropology department is not at this point?!). There is all these problems of self-relating paradoxes (i.e. being "radically" against neoliberalism while being professionally a slave to neoliberalism etc.).
I will also definitely make sure to catch your next interview with Professor Vivek. Thank you for your work kind sir!
@@PhilosophyPortal Thanks a lot.
colonialism is ongoing in many places. its settler colonialism. western states created the structures of racism. it still exists. acting like it doesnt helps to continue it. the racists are the colonialists, not those who are indigenous. if they want seperation its because of the harmfulness that westerners have done and continue to do. talk about marxism and looking at universal connections. thats a global perspective that only the western cultures dont share. marxism was expressing himself from his europeon perspective, natives have their own traditions that were doing well before the europeon wanted to commit jenocide for the resources. its nothing to brush off, especially when its legacy is ongoing and still affects people.
@@episdosas9949 I generally agree with you, but I don't think postcolonial theory has been able to mobilise people against colonisation, but Marxism has. And most anticolonial liberatory movements had already achieved their goals or were already underway way before even postcolonial theory entered academia. I am an academic and I cannot easily access the writings of Homibaba or Spivak. Then, how do we expect ordinary people to understand and engage with them?
I just love this guy ( Chibber).
I guess post-colonial theory at the end of the day creates pimps - academic pimps whose line of argument or 'self-branding' is that - "you, as the other, can't understand my culture unless through me".
read Adolph Reed Jr "What are the Drums saying" same ole same ole
Deeply appreciate your work. It is one thing to ask questions, and another to actually engage with a scholar like vivek. Thanks.
So nice of you
Chibber nailed it! Thanks for the interview!
Thanks for watching.
I am glad that professor Chibber included world-systems analysis as a branch of marxism instead of within post-colonial theory.
Thank you for this interview. Spivak part made me lol. Also, i see similarities in Chibber's identity politics critique with Olufemi Taiwo's Elite Capture.
its better and more rigorous I think tbh
YESSSSSS i loved class matrix vivek!
My thoughts exactly
When considering the shortfall of post colonial criticism to come to grips with todays emancipatory necessities it’s helpful to remember what Zizek said about capitalism…
“Don’t underestimate the ability of the hegemonic ruling (capitalist) system to incorporate a certain very limited mode of openness toward other races, women, (LGBTQ+) and so on to maintain its power.”
Slavoj Jijek.
We could add to this the importance of noting the new power of capitalism to use the internet and social media to commodify the products of the cultures it encounters and coexists with and then sell them back at a profit for the ruling capitalist oligarchy to the original creators of the cultural products in the first place. So, far from suppressing or transforming cultural practices, in todays neoliberal post-industrial finance capitalist world, a Marxist critique would add that capitalism is perfectly suited to establishing a ruling elite above and among any new culture while simultaneously commodifying the culture and leaving most of its institutions and practices intact. Except for the economic ones of course which will be ruthlessly transformed to conform to the neoliberal capitalist necessities.
I mean people have been saying that exact quote from Zizek decades before him, from Stuart Hall to Gramsci. This is hegemony 101.
He's got an ENORMOUS EGO and it gets in the way of my appreciating his scholarship.
Great video and discussion
Fascinating discussion.
Hello! can you mention which part of Timothy Brennan's biography of Said you found his criticism of Postcolonial theorist who as you said "disliked" concepts like modernity.
Hi. Thanks for listening carefully. It is on page 299 (last para) and 300 (first para). The direct quote is "...a general loathing for a western concept vaguely dubbed modernity"
@@LitArtCulture Thank you so much for your prompt reply. I have gained so much from this interview, it was so well researched, lucid, direct and comprehensible (unlike many counterparts in PoCo theory). More power to you boss!
Thank you so much for this.
You are so welcome!
Is it ironic that Chibber criticizes academia, stating that "ideas develop depending on the context in which they are being promoted," while sitting in what is likely his office at NYU? Are his ideas immune from the corruption of academia, while simultaneously coming from an academic? I think there is a deconstructive moment here.
This is why I appreciate Derrida, who acknowledges the situatedness of thought within a structure while also allowing for freeplay.
I do agree with you in principle, but at least Vivek is among the very few who has been criticizing this trend and he seeks any opportunity to engage with the public via different media.
You’re overlooking a fundamental difference, which Chibber alludes to. Post colonial theory has little or no tradition of engaging with criticism of itself.
Anyone who’s come across it in the academy could tell you this. In many areas of the academy these ideas are either accepted simply as dogma or just treated like the air that breathed, beyond critique.
You see it in Spivak’s bizarre assertion about not critiquing primary texts.
Do you think Chibber hasn’t regularly or happily engaged in debate, discussion or directly addressed criticism from those who reject Marxism?
Rawls & Nozick had offices down to hall from each other, taught classes with each. Both probably routinely had healthy debate with Marxists despite off fundamentally rejecting the first principles.
These idea have come to operate within the academy in a completely different way, which is what Chibber is alluding to and he’s right.
@@daffyduck4674 Maybe the university I study at is in the minority, but postcolonial theory is by no means hegemonic.
Also, I don't think Spivak thinks any text or movement is above criticism. Here is a quote from her reply to Chibber, "Writing as a member of the Subaltern Studies collective, I should say that we could no doubt profit from a robust constructive criticism of Chibber’s sort."
All of this elides my earlier point, however, which is that Chibber literally states: "ideas develop depending on the context in which they are being promoted." My question is, what is Chibber's context? One could argue that Chibber's stance is evidence that postcolonial theory is not as hegemonic as he believes and that he has gained notoriety amongst those who object to postcolonial theory within the academy as the 'rebel' who has bucked the dominant trend. His existence entails that there is a significant minority of non-postcolonial theorists, which disrupts his narrative of the postcolonial totalization of academic discourse.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 ‘One could argue’ anything if you’re willing to play with words enough. Unless you’re suggesting that post colonial theory can only be said to be dominant in sections of the academy if there’s no critique with the academy AT ALL I’m not sure what your point is.
Chibber’s ideas and his critique stands on its own merits and is simply part of a long tradition Marxist tradition.
Also it’s a bit hard to claim that these theorists really do engage with critique of their idea by those that don’t share them, whilst the theorists themselves argue that ideas of rational inquiry, normativity, universality are all merely just expresses of West power.
Does Spivak’s response take on the critique in good faith? If it did it would be a first.
If these theorists had actually engaged with liberals, Marxists, libertarians, conservatives in good faith the way most of those from those traditions have for decades if not centuries then something of really value may have emerged from theories. What of value has emerged has come as part of rejecting the theory by acknowledging some insights that do stand up to real scrutiny, not from Spivak’s or Bhaba’s gobbledygook.
As it stands I think the ideas have either been an irrelevance or disaster for the people they purport to help.
@@daffyduck4674 I am stating that the fact that Chibber has found a good measure of success in his academic career suggests that the academic landscape is not as homogenous as he would suggest. This postcolonial mafia-esque stranglehold on the academy seems a bit overblown to me.
To your second point, it doesn’t logically follow that postcolonial theorists can’t engage with critique because they argue that the history of western philosophical and political rationality has been shaped by patriarchal, racial, and hyper-rationalist biases (note the difference between rationality and rationalist/ism). One can still hold those beliefs and adapt to critique. I am more interested in postmodernism than postcolonialism so I cannot speak as much to the latter tradition, but I know that Spivak introduced the term ‘strategic essentialism’ to address Marxist critiques, and Derrida (postmodern not postcolonial) wrote Specters of Marx to address how his work has inherited (a certain spirit of) Marxism.
To your third point, if your reading is not at least somewhat charitable, you’re not really reading.
To your fourth point, by no means have liberals, libertarians, and conservatives have engaged 'in good faith' with Marxists. Countless Marxist academics have been rejected by or removed from the academy by liberals and conservatives in throughout the 1900s. If Marxism is subject to a marginal space in academia, it is not on account of postcolonialists, but because of liberals and conservatives.
Marxism can extend the understanding of postcolonialism through capitalism and globalization because of the motif of colonialists but politics and power aspects as the instinctual practices of western nations cannot be neglected. An interesting analysis.
Cmon man why did u stop there, i wanna hear what spivak is loool 🤣 Brahmin "postcolonialism" runs deep
I would recommend genuine Marxists to read Ramon Guillermo's attempt at criticism of Vivek Chibber's notion of universals, when Chakrabarty doesn't even have one. If you look at the Radical Anthropology Group of Chris Knight, it runs into similar problems by regularly advocating cultural idealism e.g. in his series on the "Grammar of World Mythology." Of course, Knight isn't anti-materialist, but it's odd to see the resurgence of Platonism (think, Saussure's signs and symbols) in cultural anthropology. These works need stringent critique. I'm not yet capable of doing so, in my current level of education, and I have no idea where to even publish that would welcome receiving such critical articles.
Thank you very much for your insightful comment. I will definitely check out Ramon Guillermo.
Can you please write which Ramon Guillermo's article/book you are referring to?
Really interesting- cheers
Thanks for watching
Praxis is firstly making pamphlets before its trying to decipher a new tautology of space or whatever
What does chibber think about Fanon?
I have another Podcast interview with him soon. Will try to sneak in the question.
@@LitArtCulture nice! I think Fanon occupies an interesting space in this convo, as Marxist and big inspiration to postcolonial theory
Never heard of Chibber before, what books of his should I buy and read first?
Depends on your interests. His critique of postcolonial theory and subaltern studies is in "Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital." His critique of Edward Said is in an article called "The Dual Legacy of Edward Said", but his most recent book is a good start if you want to know about his views on Marxism. It is called "The Class Matrix: Social Theory After the Cultural Turn."
Apple is a prime example of capitalism, class and its globalisation if not the universalisation.
Amen.
thousands of careers that are staked on this nonsensical theory....so true!!
This guy is nice when talking about general/particular (without actually analyzing anything here). Problem is that he sounds like advocating imperialism v2.0 when he states at 23:52 "Postcolonial theory divided the world into tribes". The critique on Said is also of low quality. Yet, I like the last part and his position about brown/black people exposing the elites, I dont like that they just expose other brown/black elites. Still, exposing the elites sounds like a limited goal and its already done.
Btw, at 12:20 you write Spival in the description, correct it. -1 for the name typo.
Thank you for watching and your comments. Vivek’s book is mainly focused on Subaltern studies in India and he does not engage deeply with Said there. However, he has written a couple of articles on Said which you can easily find. He is more forgiving in his articles as he wrote them a couple of years ago, but he has become a bit harsher more recently. Still, his articles are cogent and the argument pretty solid. His most recent book is called “Class Matrix: Cultural Turn in Social Theory” in which he puts forth his argument for a return to a material critique of capitalism rather than a cultural critique. He still acknowledges the contributions of cultural theory. I am soon interviewing him on the book and will post a part of it here. Thanks again for watching.
Chibber's appraisal of Spivak's critique is not accurate. Here is the passage in Spivak's response where Chibber claims that subaltern studies are primary texts, and are therefore above criticism:
"And so Chibber carries on, merrily mistaking a primary text [one of Guha's books] for a secondary text as he proceeds to ‘correct’ Ranajit Guha because he is ‘wrong’ about the British and French revolutions. Guha’s ‘understanding of the European experience is fatally flawed’ (101)."
There are two things to note: 1) Spivak never states the unquestionable status of primary texts, and 2) she is talking explicitly about Chibber's analysis of one of Guha's texts, not the entire discipline of postcolonial theory.
If we are to read Spivak in good faith, we have to believe that she is speaking honestly when she says, "Writing as a member of the Subaltern Studies collective, I should say that we could no doubt profit from a robust constructive criticism of Chibber’s sort."
Thanks for watching and for your comment. I have always admired postcolonial texts, but I also have a critical view of them. I read Spivak some years ago and I should perhaps revisit it. Nevertheless, I still read this part as a defense of a text simply because it is a primary text.
Chibber book is probably the best Marxists book in decades in terms of clarity and depth of analysis in my opinion it is basically Cohen's analytical Marxism, but it is applied to real world cases which makes a huge difference. Cohen books are conceptually powerful but abstract and very hard to read.
I am interviewing Chibber again next week about his new book "Confronting Capitalisms" from Verso.
@@LitArtCulture nice, I just read it. Good book, if anyone likes Chiber way of thinking there is great reading list in the end if this book
Subjectivity
Activities
Reproduction or Transformation
Relationships
Means
Clive Burgess
Yes Marxism was distorted by the subaltern .. whereby the mode and relations of production are no longer center stage, , but this western obsession of sticking to Marx is its obsession with sticking to messsiahs. You are pithy and correct in your analysis , in being aware of a matrix, beyond economic relations.” Surplus labor” still rules. The problem is that none of this going back to Marx solves the “ problem” of capitalism.the quantum leap into socialism is not within any necessity of inductive reasoning. By accentuating some ethereal “ socialism” . You have ignored the quest for “ being qua being” pursed by the phenomenologists . It is not East vs west , as Islam is itself not an Eastern theology it is more western than Christianity . Chibber, the problem with Marx is not necessarily the cultural differences between east and west but more so that Aristotle was adapted by the theoretical Popes of the west, the popes meaning theoretical doyens of the west.You are also correct in analyzing Chomsky The rejection of Parmenides in the west and to a degree of rejection of advice in the east. Of course Vivek, you have assumed that this monism is not worth your time.
Spinoza Hegel and then Marx are eulogized but none of this monism of theirs has ontological reduction , despite the attempted try by Heidegger and Husserl.
Veridicality happens only through the subject, as quantum physics knows well that Kantian antinomies are an issue only because if the necessity of the subject and the object.
Russia failed because it is Judeo Christian looking for solutions in Marx, Lenin or Bukharin .The Chinese being les theocratic decided to debunk socialism and sent capitalist . This happens because of a cultural difference . Purva paksha is theme unknown in the west. Materialism was the wrong term used by Marx in his zeal to defy theocracy .oppression seen from the point of the subject is not restricted to economic stress. You have not offered one reason as to how socialism can come , and of the incentive to bring it about. Marx deviated , he did not go into the ontological reduction of alienation .
have a critique of Chibber on my channel, "defence of spivak"
I like prof chibber's elaboration of identity politics. I agree with him.
But i don't agree with you calling Jordan Peterson a "pseudo intellectual". You're being disingenuous.
Thank you for listening and your comment. But I still stand by what I said about JP. I understand he millions of followers and fans, but his comments about history, critical theory, Marxism, and postmodernism are simply wrong and only shows his lack of either interest or understanding of these concepts. This, of course, does not apply to his comments about psychiatry. I had another interview with Peter Salmon who wrote biography of Jacque Derrida, and he also specifies JP's mistakes about Derrida and postmodernism.
@@LitArtCulture I disagree with you. Here is one quote from Chibber and one from Peterson:
"[For the postmodernists], It was no longer specifically about economics, it was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. That's actually why they are so dangerous because if you're engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to themselves."
"[Postmodernism is] a tradition that says, 'reason, rationality, evidence, and argument are western concepts, and therefore imperialist concepts. So what do you have left if you can't use reason, rationality, and evidence? All you have left is power, and you settle debates by beating people up."
At least in their stances towards postmodernism, Peterson and Chibber are closer together than one would think.
Morteza-jan.
Haha. How did you know the Jan thing Hugh?
@@LitArtCulture Hahaha man yekami farsi baladam.
I used to be an editor at a publishing company that published books about Iran.
I was happy to find this video last night while I was looking for the audiobook of "Orientalism" that I'd been listening to a few weeks ago. (Your video came up high in the search results, you should be glad to know.) I really like Chibber, so I watched your video instead. I look forward to your next video with him.
@@hughmac13 Thanks Hugh
Uncle needs him some cutting edge
Chibber is petty, and cannot arriculate his dissent without resorting to fishwife insults.
this your best critique?
@@tonguemybumb Ah - we must write critical essays - here - ...for the Claude the Mighty.
Just to be clear, Vivek has written a book plus numerous articles on this topic. He does mention a number of them in this interview.
You are correct sampj18. In fact, my comment was deleted by the administrator of this channel pointing to the ignorance and the childish-ness of Chibber's 'critique'.
There has to be a more rigorous critique of post-colonial theory than this.
Here is one quote from Chibber and one from Jordan Peterson. I want you to tell the difference:
"[For the postmodernists], It was no longer specifically about economics, it was about power. And everything to the postmodernists is about power. That's actually why they are so dangerous because if you're engaged in a discussion with someone who believes in nothing but power all they are motivated to do is to accrue all the power to themselves."
"[Postmodernism is] a tradition that says, 'reason, rationality, evidence, and argument are western concepts, and therefore imperialist concepts. So what do you have left if you can't use reason, rationality, and evidence? All you have left is power, and you settle debates by beating people up."
Well I am not really following. Postmodernism's obsession has never been power, but language, reality, and representation. So JP is completely wrong. And Vivek's quote is about postcolonial discourse, NOT postmodernism.
@@LitArtCulture On page 3 of Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital, Chibber states that because postcolonial theory developed from “poststructuralist theory and its anti-foundationalism,” they “eschewed developing the kind of clearly constructed prepositions that would normally accompany a research agenda,” as this would “perhaps, be considered too vulgar a display of truthmongering.” On page 7 he describes the “transition [within postcolonial discourse] from a cultural Marxism to a more decidedly poststructuralist agenda,” turning to “Foucault and Derrida for inspiration…”
For Chibber, postcolonialism cannot be considered without postmodern epistemology and the cultural turn. While he might not collapse the two, postmodernism and postcolonialism (PM/PC) bleed into each other. He therefore aligns with Peterson, in that both believe that PM/PC have rejected rational argumentation and are only left with power and the will to use it to their benefit. Chibber and Peterson both believe that PM/PC have totalized philosophical and political discourse within the academy, the only difference being that Peterson lumps Marxism in with PM/PC, whereas Chibber states that Marxism has been rejected by PM/PC.
I am not saying that Chibber and Peterson are identical. But I think Chibber’s conception of postmodernism is marked by a Petersonian superficiality.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 Ok, now I see what you mean. It is much clearer now. I see what you mean.
Chibber is a hardcore Marxist. I do agree with you that his critique of postmodernism is not theoretically solid in this book. It might be that his focus was postcolonialism. But again, postcolonialism, and Edward Said, were influenced by postmodernism as you have pointed out. So, while equating postcolonialism with postmodernism might be superficial, it might not be completely wrong either. But again, yes Vivek should have been more nuanced in his critique. He recently wrote a book called Class Matrix: Social Theory after Culture Turn which is where, I guess, he expands on his critique of culture theory, not so much postcolonialism.
Again, I am not really comfortable comparing JP with Chibber. I think we both agree that JP has not read many of the texts he always blames. But yes, Vivek needs to be clearer with his critique of postmodernism. I am keen to know your thoughts on his Class Matrix if you have had a chance to read it.
@@LitArtCulture Thanks for your reply. Just to be clear, I agree with a lot of what Chibber says. I lament the inaccessibility of theory (as one who researches Derrida, I am routinely frustrated with his complexity), the distance between the academy and the realities of most people, and I agree that a hyper-fixation on difference can stifle meaningful change. I also think that the version of Marxism that is criticized by postmodernists is often a strawman. If Spivak thinks that postcolonial discourse is above all criticism, then I agree with Chibber on that front as well.
My main frustration with Chibber is his polemics. I think he loses nuance on account of his polemical stance. It is frustrating to see otherwise interesting ideas tainted by lazy scholarship, especially when it is a battle that he doesn't have to fight.
@@BeingAndRhyme744 Yes. I hear you. I have read half of the book I mentioned to you and I have already found an article that critiques the book and does mention some of the points you brought up. It is called "The Red Pill: Breaking out of the Class Matrix" by William Clare Roberts.
?Ř????ϻ
Thank you so much for posting this.
It’s helped me think back on my own flawed statements on colonialism as well as when I wanted to win arguments fast, I grabbed concepts I never new were from this post colonialist thought because i thought I could win debates fast with these harsher/hardline positions about the west. But I was wrong. this all helped me make those connections with where I went wrong. 👌🏻