postcolonial theory proponents often complain about being misinterpreted and misunderstood yet insist on obscurantist presentation & unclear irony, its almost more a form of academic poetry reading than a discipline.
The irony usually seems pretty clear if you're on the same page. But the poetry vs. discipline comment isn't too off the mark since I would describe subaltern studies as more concerned with description vs. prescription like you seem to run into with too much orthodox marxism. Personally, I think there are aspects of each school of thought can be combined to produce more flexible and individually representative social philosophy.
The person I already agreed with won this debate. There I saved people the effort of commenting. I would say though that anyone coming to this with little knowledge of either argument would at least leave thinking they had a clue as to what Chibber was arguing.
Why there isn´t spanish subtitles? It will be ok if many people of diferent languages, can listen and learn from this conference. Thanks from argentina.
After this debate, its worth actually visiting E San Juan Jr.'s book in critique of Post-Colonial studies which was written years ago. Chibber really demonstrated here nothing more than a liberal apologism and rather naive reading of Marx for which he even states he has no interest in having a one that takes Marx for his own terms. I really do not even understand the point of talking about the Universalism of Marxism, then to merely say a reading of Marx does not matter.
It seems that Chatterjee got the better of Chibber in this encounter. Even Chibber' response in Verso Books is advertised as guaranteed to re ginite the debate. That's an acknowledgement that Vivek got, in a sense, shut down here.
Chatterjee’s response to Chibber is so detailed, thorough, and rigorous that it did to Chibber what Chibber was hoping to do to Subaltern Studies. Chatterjee sounds scholarly even when he goes for the jugular (as in his remarks @58:25 about Chibber’s conception of capitalism being “so capacious as to bring a blush even to the pale cheeks of Adam Smith”). I was particularly impressed by a few of Chatterjee’s points. He says out that Chibber must assume that 20th century India shared the same time-space as 17th century England and 18th century France, otherwise he couldn’t engage in the kind of comparison he does. But that is an extremely reductive historiography. Chatterjee also challenges Chibber’s implicit claim to represent “the” Marxist position. Chatterjee references Marx himself against Chibber’s conception of capital. He also notes how Chibber fails to notice references made by Subaltern Studies scholars to Marx’s own works (for example, “On the Jewish Question.” @44:40). Rather than claim to be a Marxist for political clout, Chatterjee uses Marx’s own analysis to *show* why Chibber has not accomplished his goal. @54:52 Chatterjee nails Chibber on his “biopolitical” approach (“or is it zoo-politics since animals are also known to pursue and defend their need for physical well-being?”). Chatterjee notes that this conception of needs is independent of even mode of production, and leads to certain liberal doctrines, such as social contract theory. In her commentary, Barbara Weinstein says that she finds Vivek’s critiques largely “persuasive,” but then also notes that the orientalism charge Chibber makes is probably overwrought. Subaltern Studies is not part of the “discourse of colonial domination” that Said was talking about re: Orientalism. Chatterjee buries the charge in his final commentary, noting that it is not about people “without” history, but about people with “different histories.” Weinstein also points out how Chibber’s approach might have benefitted from more attention to gender and gender relations “as not irrelevant to discussions of class.” I do not think Weinstein meant it this way, but Chibber would probably find such a suggestion bordering on offensive. His ideology holds class as a fundamentally different kind of relation from gender, race, and other “identity” categories. Chibber sounds a bit arrogant in his opening statement, and then a bit resentful in his response to Chatterjee. He does not really have a response to much of what Chatterjee says, simply repeating, “you’ll have to read the book yourself and decide.” That’s basically throwing in the flag. It culminates in his endorsement of the biopolitical/zoological accusation that Chatterjee makes, as well as an endorsement of the social contract theory. But how does that square with drawing on the Marxist tradition? Social contract theory says society is best conceived as a kind of implicit contract among the individuals who constitute it. Marxism says that society is best conceived as a conflict among the classes who constitute it. Those are not the same theory. So Chibber begins by positioning himself as representing the Marxist position and ends with him proudly endorsing non-Marxist doctrines.
@@tusharsingh4543 But Vivek's criticisms are hollow. Take, for instance, he charge of orientalism Vivek offers against Chatterjee. As Chatterjee points out, Orientalism is not merely an emphasis on difference. Orientalism denies the historical character of non-Western cultures by claiming they are static, mystical, and do not progress. They therefore are not "historical." If subaltern studies emphasizes *different* historical conditions than the one's Vivek uses Marxism to project onto all of humanity, that is not Orientalism. Subaltern studies does not deny the historical character of non-Western cultures. It just says they have a different character from those of the West. So Vivek's charge of Orientalism is off the mark. Chatterjee is right when he accuses Vivek of "materialist universalism run amok."
@@daffyduck4674 Chatterjee is talking about what Marx said as to why Vivek is wrong which is so far from the actual point of his critique. Debating for debate's sake isn't the point. He should address the clearly shaky foundations of postcolonial theory but refuses to do so.
@@TheRandomBiscuit That's the weakest silliest reply they had to him, that he uses Weberian concepts and Rawls' social contract theory and so on. Vivek's argument isn't: that he's a pure Marxist and pure unvarnished Marxism is what's good and therefore subaltern studies is bad. It's that subaltern, postcolonial theory is specifically rotten in itself. It's rotten in its assumptions about the unique incompatibility of Eastern cultures with the materialist theory, historically disproven by the equivalent if not greater purchase Marxism has had in the 'global south', demonstrably false in considering the societies of their purview to possess dynamics unseen in e.g. European societies (like religious resistance, or survival of parts of culture despite the capitalist grey goo, or, uh, the wake of primitive accumulation OBVIOUSLY), and, far from the supposed intention of avoiding the "violence" "imposed" by the Marxist analytical lens, itself relies on crude, essentializing assumptions about "the way people are over there". universalism is good. We're Asians bro, not aliens. Our religions, our lifeways. don't prevent us from applying a materialist lens here in the material realm. And that materialist lens, "imposed" for tactical practical reasons, is the only thing that has any chance at all of saving our religion and lifeways and culture and particularities. The alternative is drowning in blah blah blah with no way forward
@@wngbjngwwgk look, Im assuming you think im implicitly an Orientalist who thinks Indian or Asian are special and different. But I've read Guha, Chakrabarty, Chatterjee, and Spivak (not all their work, but i'm working my way through), it is obvious to me that they don't think this. I've read Chibber, and his reading of their works (or really only two works, one of Guha and one of Chakrabarty) is mistaken. I will try to briefly illustrate the incorrectness of the point on Chakrabarty by responding to your (and my) specific points and then adding a small summation on the complications of calling something Orientalist: "he uses Weberian concepts and Rawls' social contract theory and so on" - I didn't mention Weber because I have not read, and thus cannot comment on, Weber. I specifically mentioned social contract theory because Chibber's analysis uses social contract theory (and rational choice theory/marxism). This is a poor framework for understanding the dynamics of capitalism. The reason that Marx's analysis has "so much purchase" is because Marx uses dialectics. This enables Marx to describes the deadlocks/antagonisms that produce what we call capitalism and what keeps it moving. Dialectics are also essential in understanding Chakrabarty's point because he argues that capital’s universalising tendency is necessarily (structurally) limited. But these limits are internal to its expansion: capitalism is constantly positing and overcoming barriers. And this has important humanistic examples, such as unwaged labour, reproductive labour, etc. BUT it includes categories internal to capitalism (by Marx): money, commodities, and abstract labour. Therefore: when Chakrabarty divides History 1 and History 2, he is talking about the dialectics involved in taking real, concrete labour and abstracting it, a process which is necessary for the expansion of capital and sustained dialectically. When Chibber says Chakrabarty is using History 2 to refer to the East (particular, different, etc.) and History 1 to the West (universal); this is just patently wrong. As David Blaney and Naeem Inayatullah say this about Chakrabarty's History 1 v 2 distinction: "[it] allows two historical stories: one comprising elements that are the logical/historical preconditions of capital (History 1) and another with elements that are not logical/historical preconditions but which capital nevertheless incorporates, internalizes, and transforms (History 2)." This particular distinction has nothing to do with West v. East. It is pointing out how capitalism works internally and in its expansion. Finally, these dynamics are missed operating with an analytic framework like rational choice theory, but this is a point which extends far beyond this conversation and considers the tradition in which one is trained (like Chatterjee was trained in a RCT framework, but is a good reader of Marx and a good social scientist in his own right). "the wake of primitive accumulation OBVIOUSLY" - idk what you mean. are you saying that postcolonial theorists should see that, since primitive accumulation occurred in South Asia and in Europe that they are the same/similar? Quickly, primitive accumulation: a process whereby a part of the population loses access to their means of production and their labour becomes alienable as a result. Chatterjee's point is that, due to a combination of neocolonial influences and the Indian inheritance of a liberal constitution post-independence (i.e. at the impetus of capital's expansion on the subcontinent), South Asia (and perhaps other nations, although the analysis is for largely for South Asia, particularly India) seems to have maintained a large rural subaltern which does NOT seem to be proletarianized. The expansion of the market (which Chibber seems to suggest is the mark of capitalism; it's not) has not enough to proletarianize these subaltern. The concern then is whether it just a matter of time until they will be proletarianized. In order to find out, there has been a lot of anthropological, sociological, and historiological work. This work, in acknowledging the particularities of history, is NOT Orientalist simply because it is understanding difference. Orientalism is complex. Said notes the unavoidable predicament of orientalism that happens when you produce any knowledge about a group of people, especially when they lack subject-formation (as laid out by Spivak). However, as i have tried to lay out, the two books Chibber talks about do NOT claiming that India is uniquely unsusceptible to capitalism, but that the contradictions endemic to capitalism are structurally necessary and it is showing how this manifests in its very particularity. Finally, it is unclear what this means: "far from the supposed intention of avoiding the "violence" "imposed" by the Marxist analytical lens, itself relies on crude, essentializing assumptions about "the way people are over there". Who are these thinkers that think Marx's analysis/framework is too violent to use? Marx and Marxism has been extensively discussed, alongside the social scientific work this group has done. Chibber, as you have said, makes no claims to be a Marxist. This makes sense because he often makes mistakes reading Marx (just one example shown before, misunderstanding Chakrabarty's distinction based on abstract labour to be a historical one about East v. West). i didn't make points about Guha because Chatterjee already does that in the video. Out of curiosity, since I'm not sure how familiar you are with the work of Subaltern studies: did you know anything about it BEFORE reading Chibber's book(s)?
In balance I think the leaves fall on subaltern side on the debate. Does Partha Chatterjee's provincialisation of Europe tip into Orientalism? I think the defense that subaltern notions against European-derived universalism and calling the people of "east" as having a different character is a weak argument. We should take the bull by the horns. Going further is it always orientalist to say for eg., that Indians do not have a sense of history, chronologically defined? I want to argue that is not always so. One of the salient features of Orientalism is essentialisation. It is one thing to argue that Indians do not have a sense of chronological history because of climate or temperament and another to say that it is a result of complex cultural and historical forces, that Indian conception of history is a "fill-in-the-blank" and suits it's own internal logic. Is it not a statement of fact that by and large Indian society has not in its wisdom found it useful to remember history chronologically? Worse still, there is a perverse Eurocentrism in saying that one cannot call the sense of history of a culture anything but chronological because otherwise it is to imply essentialisation; why, because that is the European critique of it's own prior scholarship, and thus all scholarship must be judged against this known critique. Similarly, I do understand why the point that liberal intelligentsia in India gained dominance without hegemony is so contentious. When said in 1950s, it would have implied that Indian peasants do not fit into a Whig notion of progress because of their essential character. But today is not 1950s and there is truth in the above statement. [Bourgeoisie] Liberalism never gained consent, in language or idiom of the Indian masses. This is only an accusation, if seen from a 'universal', i.e Eurocentric view. Historical processes, such as the incomplete digestion of communal relations, by "forces of capital" can explain this equally well. Subaltern studies is not burdened by any colonial guilt, and need make no apologies to its universalisms
Im sorry if you come to the same conclusions 19th century victorian racialists have reached it doesnt matter if you got there via a trip to mars you're still responsible for promiting said victorian essentialisms. Even if you've convinced yourself your ideology has got nothing to do with victorian essentialism doesnt make it not so. How can you be convinced the creeping orientalism in sabultern studies isnt the legacy of victorianism?
your writing is so inappropriate for youtube comments. i’m an academic who works w marxism and am familiar w postcolonial thought and your linguistic flourishes, whil stylistically quite enjoyable, seem to nestle and soften what is fundamentally a reinscription of an orientalist gap. the only difference here as opposed to a colonial ideology is that the logic of capital and the moral humanistic values of liberalism have extended so far and become so widely accepted that they facilitate the space to argue in favor of fundamental differences in the west and east without the concern of a dangerous othering because diversity is held as fundamentally good. let’s grab the bull by the horns.
@@GayTier1Operator i’m an academic who works w marxism and am familiar w postcolonial thought and your linguistic flourishes. > This is embarrassing to say the least; whatever logic you were aiming for, is ultimately shattered by this bald-faced, condescending argument from authority. This is a RUclips comment section, nobody cares about your academic background; and neither does it guarantee a theoretical framework that is immune to ideological moorings.
@@litcrit6704 the person i was replying to was using heavy academic language and making an argument based from a thoroughly academic position ie subaltern studies. they also made reference to the legitimacy of scholarship several times, hence my reply. i agree with you it’s stupid to brandish credentials in general, esp in youtube comments, but they did it first in other comments as a way to question the legitimacy of other replies. so, respectfully, either respond to the substance of my reply or kindly shut the fuck up. i do not care what a random youtuber thinks of my presentation.
It's very difficult to settle some of the issues raised in the debate, without reading a lot of material, but I have very little patience with the claim the author was engaging and irony. Irony has no place in academic writing, and it's embarrassing to see the "it was a joke" defense, being used at an academic conference. For my part, whenever I've had to read articles from postcolonial studies, I've found much of the writing to be profoundly unclear and controversial, especially with respect to knowledge attributions.
Only leftists do this kind of discussion.. nobody understands except who already studied something.. 🤣 I'm recently read Ranajit Guha, so nuance.. but simple language.. i think today's thinkers need to have better examples and simple language.. ❤
postcolonial theory proponents often complain about being misinterpreted and misunderstood yet insist on obscurantist presentation & unclear irony, its almost more a form of academic poetry reading than a discipline.
The irony usually seems pretty clear if you're on the same page. But the poetry vs. discipline comment isn't too off the mark since I would describe subaltern studies as more concerned with description vs. prescription like you seem to run into with too much orthodox marxism. Personally, I think there are aspects of each school of thought can be combined to produce more flexible and individually representative social philosophy.
Could you please turn on the "automatic subtitles" option ?
The person I already agreed with won this debate.
There I saved people the effort of commenting.
I would say though that anyone coming to this with little knowledge of either argument would at least leave thinking they had a clue as to what Chibber was arguing.
Good comment.
Why there isn´t spanish subtitles? It will be ok if many people of diferent languages, can listen and learn from this conference. Thanks from argentina.
please turn on the "automatic subtitles" option
After this debate, its worth actually visiting E San Juan Jr.'s book in critique of Post-Colonial studies which was written years ago. Chibber really demonstrated here nothing more than a liberal apologism and rather naive reading of Marx for which he even states he has no interest in having a one that takes Marx for his own terms. I really do not even understand the point of talking about the Universalism of Marxism, then to merely say a reading of Marx does not matter.
Where did he actually say reading marx doesnt matter?
It seems that Chatterjee got the better of Chibber in this encounter. Even Chibber' response in Verso Books is advertised as guaranteed to re ginite the debate. That's an acknowledgement that Vivek got, in a sense, shut down here.
Sería genial que este subtitulado.
WAMM! Whoever put together the intro, it's excellent! Thank you for uploading this.
I have never seen a debate more decisively won!
yeah, Chibber destroys him
Chatterjee’s response to Chibber is so detailed, thorough, and rigorous that it did to Chibber what Chibber was hoping to do to Subaltern Studies. Chatterjee sounds scholarly even when he goes for the jugular (as in his remarks @58:25 about Chibber’s conception of capitalism being “so capacious as to bring a blush even to the pale cheeks of Adam Smith”).
I was particularly impressed by a few of Chatterjee’s points. He says out that Chibber must assume that 20th century India shared the same time-space as 17th century England and 18th century France, otherwise he couldn’t engage in the kind of comparison he does. But that is an extremely reductive historiography.
Chatterjee also challenges Chibber’s implicit claim to represent “the” Marxist position. Chatterjee references Marx himself against Chibber’s conception of capital. He also notes how Chibber fails to notice references made by Subaltern Studies scholars to Marx’s own works (for example, “On the Jewish Question.” @44:40). Rather than claim to be a Marxist for political clout, Chatterjee uses Marx’s own analysis to *show* why Chibber has not accomplished his goal.
@54:52 Chatterjee nails Chibber on his “biopolitical” approach (“or is it zoo-politics since animals are also known to pursue and defend their need for physical well-being?”). Chatterjee notes that this conception of needs is independent of even mode of production, and leads to certain liberal doctrines, such as social contract theory.
In her commentary, Barbara Weinstein says that she finds Vivek’s critiques largely “persuasive,” but then also notes that the orientalism charge Chibber makes is probably overwrought. Subaltern Studies is not part of the “discourse of colonial domination” that Said was talking about re: Orientalism. Chatterjee buries the charge in his final commentary, noting that it is not about people “without” history, but about people with “different histories.”
Weinstein also points out how Chibber’s approach might have benefitted from more attention to gender and gender relations “as not irrelevant to discussions of class.” I do not think Weinstein meant it this way, but Chibber would probably find such a suggestion bordering on offensive. His ideology holds class as a fundamentally different kind of relation from gender, race, and other “identity” categories.
Chibber sounds a bit arrogant in his opening statement, and then a bit resentful in his response to Chatterjee. He does not really have a response to much of what Chatterjee says, simply repeating, “you’ll have to read the book yourself and decide.” That’s basically throwing in the flag. It culminates in his endorsement of the biopolitical/zoological accusation that Chatterjee makes, as well as an endorsement of the social contract theory. But how does that square with drawing on the Marxist tradition? Social contract theory says society is best conceived as a kind of implicit contract among the individuals who constitute it. Marxism says that society is best conceived as a conflict among the classes who constitute it. Those are not the same theory. So Chibber begins by positioning himself as representing the Marxist position and ends with him proudly endorsing non-Marxist doctrines.
Great rhetorical replies, but none of them actually address Vivek's criticisms.
@@tusharsingh4543 But Vivek's criticisms are hollow. Take, for instance, he charge of orientalism Vivek offers against Chatterjee.
As Chatterjee points out, Orientalism is not merely an emphasis on difference. Orientalism denies the historical character of non-Western cultures by claiming they are static, mystical, and do not progress. They therefore are not "historical." If subaltern studies emphasizes *different* historical conditions than the one's Vivek uses Marxism to project onto all of humanity, that is not Orientalism. Subaltern studies does not deny the historical character of non-Western cultures. It just says they have a different character from those of the West. So Vivek's charge of Orientalism is off the mark. Chatterjee is right when he accuses Vivek of "materialist universalism run amok."
Detailed and rigorous is certainly one way to describe it…
@@tusharsingh4543 It’s the same game that’s alway played. ‘You didn’t understand us’ presented in the most obscurant way possible.
@@daffyduck4674 Chatterjee is talking about what Marx said as to why Vivek is wrong which is so far from the actual point of his critique. Debating for debate's sake isn't the point. He should address the clearly shaky foundations of postcolonial theory but refuses to do so.
Chibber has published a knock down response to Chattejee. It's available on his website.
website?
@@asadrehman910 www.versobooks.com/blogs/1529-subaltern-studies-revisited-vivek-chibber-s-response-to-partha-chatterjee
then of course to just literally fess up and admit that one is a social contract theorist.
Chibber's defense argument was very impressive..
Idk, I found that he did not even bother to address Chatterjee's arguments.
@@TheRandomBiscuit simping for the new orientalism. Sad!
@@wngbjngwwgk simping for social contract theory cloaked in a Marx(ism) that ignores primitive accumulation! Sadder.
@@TheRandomBiscuit That's the weakest silliest reply they had to him, that he uses Weberian concepts and Rawls' social contract theory and so on. Vivek's argument isn't: that he's a pure Marxist and pure unvarnished Marxism is what's good and therefore subaltern studies is bad. It's that subaltern, postcolonial theory is specifically rotten in itself. It's rotten in its assumptions about the unique incompatibility of Eastern cultures with the materialist theory, historically disproven by the equivalent if not greater purchase Marxism has had in the 'global south', demonstrably false in considering the societies of their purview to possess dynamics unseen in e.g. European societies (like religious resistance, or survival of parts of culture despite the capitalist grey goo, or, uh, the wake of primitive accumulation OBVIOUSLY), and, far from the supposed intention of avoiding the "violence" "imposed" by the Marxist analytical lens, itself relies on crude, essentializing assumptions about "the way people are over there".
universalism is good. We're Asians bro, not aliens. Our religions, our lifeways. don't prevent us from applying a materialist lens here in the material realm. And that materialist lens, "imposed" for tactical practical reasons, is the only thing that has any chance at all of saving our religion and lifeways and culture and particularities. The alternative is drowning in blah blah blah with no way forward
@@wngbjngwwgk look, Im assuming you think im implicitly an Orientalist who thinks Indian or Asian are special and different. But I've read Guha, Chakrabarty, Chatterjee, and Spivak (not all their work, but i'm working my way through), it is obvious to me that they don't think this. I've read Chibber, and his reading of their works (or really only two works, one of Guha and one of Chakrabarty) is mistaken. I will try to briefly illustrate the incorrectness of the point on Chakrabarty by responding to your (and my) specific points and then adding a small summation on the complications of calling something Orientalist:
"he uses Weberian concepts and Rawls' social contract theory and so on" - I didn't mention Weber because I have not read, and thus cannot comment on, Weber. I specifically mentioned social contract theory because Chibber's analysis uses social contract theory (and rational choice theory/marxism). This is a poor framework for understanding the dynamics of capitalism. The reason that Marx's analysis has "so much purchase" is because Marx uses dialectics. This enables Marx to describes the deadlocks/antagonisms that produce what we call capitalism and what keeps it moving. Dialectics are also essential in understanding Chakrabarty's point because he argues that capital’s universalising tendency is necessarily (structurally) limited. But these limits are internal to its expansion: capitalism is constantly positing and overcoming barriers. And this has important humanistic examples, such as unwaged labour, reproductive labour, etc. BUT it includes categories internal to capitalism (by Marx): money, commodities, and abstract labour. Therefore: when Chakrabarty divides History 1 and History 2, he is talking about the dialectics involved in taking real, concrete labour and abstracting it, a process which is necessary for the expansion of capital and sustained dialectically. When Chibber says Chakrabarty is using History 2 to refer to the East (particular, different, etc.) and History 1 to the West (universal); this is just patently wrong. As David Blaney and Naeem Inayatullah say this about Chakrabarty's History 1 v 2 distinction: "[it] allows two historical stories: one comprising elements that are the logical/historical preconditions of capital (History 1) and another with elements that are not logical/historical preconditions but which capital nevertheless incorporates, internalizes, and transforms (History 2)." This particular distinction has nothing to do with West v. East. It is pointing out how capitalism works internally and in its expansion. Finally, these dynamics are missed operating with an analytic framework like rational choice theory, but this is a point which extends far beyond this conversation and considers the tradition in which one is trained (like Chatterjee was trained in a RCT framework, but is a good reader of Marx and a good social scientist in his own right).
"the wake of primitive accumulation OBVIOUSLY" - idk what you mean. are you saying that postcolonial theorists should see that, since primitive accumulation occurred in South Asia and in Europe that they are the same/similar? Quickly, primitive accumulation: a process whereby a part of the population loses access to their means of production and their labour becomes alienable as a result. Chatterjee's point is that, due to a combination of neocolonial influences and the Indian inheritance of a liberal constitution post-independence (i.e. at the impetus of capital's expansion on the subcontinent), South Asia (and perhaps other nations, although the analysis is for largely for South Asia, particularly India) seems to have maintained a large rural subaltern which does NOT seem to be proletarianized. The expansion of the market (which Chibber seems to suggest is the mark of capitalism; it's not) has not enough to proletarianize these subaltern. The concern then is whether it just a matter of time until they will be proletarianized. In order to find out, there has been a lot of anthropological, sociological, and historiological work.
This work, in acknowledging the particularities of history, is NOT Orientalist simply because it is understanding difference. Orientalism is complex. Said notes the unavoidable predicament of orientalism that happens when you produce any knowledge about a group of people, especially when they lack subject-formation (as laid out by Spivak). However, as i have tried to lay out, the two books Chibber talks about do NOT claiming that India is uniquely unsusceptible to capitalism, but that the contradictions endemic to capitalism are structurally necessary and it is showing how this manifests in its very particularity. Finally, it is unclear what this means: "far from the supposed intention of avoiding the "violence" "imposed" by the Marxist analytical lens, itself relies on crude, essentializing assumptions about "the way people are over there". Who are these thinkers that think Marx's analysis/framework is too violent to use? Marx and Marxism has been extensively discussed, alongside the social scientific work this group has done. Chibber, as you have said, makes no claims to be a Marxist. This makes sense because he often makes mistakes reading Marx (just one example shown before, misunderstanding Chakrabarty's distinction based on abstract labour to be a historical one about East v. West).
i didn't make points about Guha because Chatterjee already does that in the video.
Out of curiosity, since I'm not sure how familiar you are with the work of Subaltern studies: did you know anything about it BEFORE reading Chibber's book(s)?
In balance I think the leaves fall on subaltern side on the debate.
Does Partha Chatterjee's provincialisation of Europe tip into Orientalism? I think the defense that subaltern notions against European-derived universalism and calling the people of "east" as having a different character is a weak argument.
We should take the bull by the horns. Going further is it always orientalist to say for eg., that Indians do not have a sense of history, chronologically defined? I want to argue that is not always so. One of the salient features of Orientalism is essentialisation. It is one thing to argue that Indians do not have a sense of chronological history because of climate or temperament and another to say that it is a result of complex cultural and historical forces, that Indian conception of history is a "fill-in-the-blank" and suits it's own internal logic. Is it not a statement of fact that by and large Indian society has not in its wisdom found it useful to remember history chronologically? Worse still, there is a perverse Eurocentrism in saying that one cannot call the sense of history of a culture anything but chronological because otherwise it is to imply essentialisation; why, because that is the European critique of it's own prior scholarship, and thus all scholarship must be judged against this known critique.
Similarly, I do understand why the point that liberal intelligentsia in India gained dominance without hegemony is so contentious. When said in 1950s, it would have implied that Indian peasants do not fit into a Whig notion of progress because of their essential character. But today is not 1950s and there is truth in the above statement. [Bourgeoisie] Liberalism never gained consent, in language or idiom of the Indian masses. This is only an accusation, if seen from a 'universal', i.e Eurocentric view. Historical processes, such as the incomplete digestion of communal relations, by "forces of capital" can explain this equally well.
Subaltern studies is not burdened by any colonial guilt, and need make no apologies to its universalisms
Im sorry if you come to the same conclusions 19th century victorian racialists have reached it doesnt matter if you got there via a trip to mars you're still responsible for promiting said victorian essentialisms. Even if you've convinced yourself your ideology has got nothing to do with victorian essentialism doesnt make it not so. How can you be convinced the creeping orientalism in sabultern studies isnt the legacy of victorianism?
your writing is so inappropriate for youtube comments. i’m an academic who works w marxism and am familiar w postcolonial thought and your linguistic flourishes, whil stylistically quite enjoyable, seem to nestle and soften what is fundamentally a reinscription of an orientalist gap. the only difference here as opposed to a colonial ideology is that the logic of capital and the moral humanistic values of liberalism have extended so far and become so widely accepted that they facilitate the space to argue in favor of fundamental differences in the west and east without the concern of a dangerous othering because diversity is held as fundamentally good. let’s grab the bull by the horns.
@@GayTier1Operator i’m an academic who works w marxism and am familiar w postcolonial thought and your linguistic flourishes.
> This is embarrassing to say the least; whatever logic you were aiming for, is ultimately shattered by this bald-faced, condescending argument from authority. This is a RUclips comment section, nobody cares about your academic background; and neither does it guarantee a theoretical framework that is immune to ideological moorings.
@@litcrit6704 the person i was replying to was using heavy academic language and making an argument based from a thoroughly academic position ie subaltern studies. they also made reference to the legitimacy of scholarship several times, hence my reply. i agree with you it’s stupid to brandish credentials in general, esp in youtube comments, but they did it first in other comments as a way to question the legitimacy of other replies.
so, respectfully, either respond to the substance of my reply or kindly shut the fuck up. i do not care what a random youtuber thinks of my presentation.
What's the song in this clip called?
It's very difficult to settle some of the issues raised in the debate, without reading a lot of material, but I have very little patience with the claim the author was engaging and irony. Irony has no place in academic writing, and it's embarrassing to see the "it was a joke" defense, being used at an academic conference.
For my part, whenever I've had to read articles from postcolonial studies, I've found much of the writing to be profoundly unclear and controversial, especially with respect to knowledge attributions.
Only leftists do this kind of discussion.. nobody understands except who already studied something.. 🤣
I'm recently read Ranajit Guha, so nuance.. but simple language.. i think today's thinkers need to have better examples and simple language.. ❤
Chibber is like the players at the end of mortal combat- "finish him"
This “debate” made Chibber look really bad imo