Conference Participation
Invited Papers:
2017. October 9th. "Introduction to Digital Humanities." Comparative Literature in the 21st century: Theory and Praxis. Jain University, Bangalore, India.
2011. December 29th and 30th. "On Postcolonial Translation." In Translation: Problems and Mediation. Organized by JSS College for Women, Mysore.
2007. December 13th. Presented Paper titled “Feminist epistemology: Issues in sexual/cultural difference” at Efigies, ENS, Lyon, France.
http://triangle.ens-lyon.fr/spip.php?article636
Papers Presented:
2014. Nov 21st to 23rd. "Responding to Taylor's Secularity via Two Indian Thinkers: Vivekananda and Gandhi." 12th DANAM Conference. San Diego, California.
2014. April 11th to 13th. “The role of women in three Hindu Texts,” 8th South Asian Studies Association (SASA) Conference held at Westminster College, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2009. May 21st to 31st. Paper titled “Culture, culture which culture?: Relativism, Essentialism and the Culture problem" Rethinking Culture & Development: Feminist Crossings at Lataguri, West Bengal. Organized by School of Women's Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata.
2009. April 2nd to 4th. Paper titled “Translating ‘Theory’: The problematic history of Gender Studies/Feminism”at workshop on Gender and Translation: Kannadadalli Paaritoshika padagala prayoga organized by Kannada University, Hampi at Kuppalli.
2008. September 4th and 5th. Paper titled “Nationhood and Translating Indian Literature” at ‘Translating India into English: Problems and Perspectives’ organized by University of Kerala, Trivandrum.
2006. March 10th and 11th. Presented paper titled “Translation and the production of truth about women.” National Seminar on Indian Translation Traditions organized by the Department of English, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat.
2006. January 10th and 11th. Presented paper titled “Debates on Women’s Education in Karnataka in the 19th and the early 20th century”. Workshop on Education, CSCS, Bangalore.
2005. December 17th to 20th. Presented paper titled “‘Feminist’ readings of ‘Traditions’ and the idea of Stridharma in the writings of the 12th C Vachanakaratis.” Second International Conference on Religions and Cultures in the Indic Civilisation organized by Indic Studies Network, CSDS and Manushi at Delhi.
http://www.indicstudies.org/list-papers.php
2005. January 21st to 26th. Presented paper titled “Saints, Social Reformers and the Postcolonial Nation-state” at the 10th Cultural Studies Workshop organised by Centre for Studies in Social Sciences (CSSSC) and International Institute of Social History (IISH) at Bhubaneshwar.
Conferences Organised:
2005, November: Workshop for Young Research Scholars (with others), held at the Raman Research Institute, Bangalore.
2004, November: Workshop for Young Research Scholars (with two other CSCS students), held at Christ College, Bangalore.
Conferences Attended:
2003. Workshop on Sexualities, Anveshi, Hyderabad.
2003. Workshop for Young Research Scholars at CSCS, Fireflies, Bangalore.
2005. Workshop on Education and Syllabus formation, CSCS and Christ College, Bangalore.
2005. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Workshop at Christ College, Bangalore.
2005. Enculturing Law: New Agendas for Legal Pedagogy at NLSIU. 11-13 August. Bangalore.
2006. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics, Centre for the Study of Local Cultures (CSLC), Kuvempu University Shankaraghatta.
2006. Workshop on The Future of Higher Education in India, conducted by CSCS and Bangalore University at Bangalore University, Central College Campus, 20-21 February.
2006. Workshop on syllabus formation in Cultural Studies, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
2006. National Seminar ‘Thinking Through Region’ organized by Dept. of Political Science and Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), Bangalore. July 2005. Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta.
2007. Workshop on Feminist Methodologies, Kannada University, Hampi.
2007. Workshop on British Colonialism, Ecole Normale Superieure, Lyon, France.
2009. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics conducted by CSLC and University of Ghent at Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta. 18th and 19th January.
2009. Workshop on Responses to Modernity in Kannada. Organized by Centre for the Study of Local Cultures (CSLC), Kuvempu University. 9, 10, 11 May.
2010. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics conducted by CSLC and University of Ghent at Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta. 22nd and 23rd January. (Discussant).
2010. 13th and 14th November. Workshop on “Can we rethink Sanskritization?” organized by CSLC, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta, Shimoga.
2011. 22nd and 23rd January. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics conducted by CSLC and University of Ghent at Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta.
2017. October 9th. "Introduction to Digital Humanities." Comparative Literature in the 21st century: Theory and Praxis. Jain University, Bangalore, India.
2011. December 29th and 30th. "On Postcolonial Translation." In Translation: Problems and Mediation. Organized by JSS College for Women, Mysore.
2007. December 13th. Presented Paper titled “Feminist epistemology: Issues in sexual/cultural difference” at Efigies, ENS, Lyon, France.
http://triangle.ens-lyon.fr/spip.php?article636
Papers Presented:
2014. Nov 21st to 23rd. "Responding to Taylor's Secularity via Two Indian Thinkers: Vivekananda and Gandhi." 12th DANAM Conference. San Diego, California.
2014. April 11th to 13th. “The role of women in three Hindu Texts,” 8th South Asian Studies Association (SASA) Conference held at Westminster College, Salt Lake City, Utah.
2009. May 21st to 31st. Paper titled “Culture, culture which culture?: Relativism, Essentialism and the Culture problem" Rethinking Culture & Development: Feminist Crossings at Lataguri, West Bengal. Organized by School of Women's Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata.
2009. April 2nd to 4th. Paper titled “Translating ‘Theory’: The problematic history of Gender Studies/Feminism”at workshop on Gender and Translation: Kannadadalli Paaritoshika padagala prayoga organized by Kannada University, Hampi at Kuppalli.
2008. September 4th and 5th. Paper titled “Nationhood and Translating Indian Literature” at ‘Translating India into English: Problems and Perspectives’ organized by University of Kerala, Trivandrum.
2006. March 10th and 11th. Presented paper titled “Translation and the production of truth about women.” National Seminar on Indian Translation Traditions organized by the Department of English, Veer Narmad South Gujarat University, Surat.
2006. January 10th and 11th. Presented paper titled “Debates on Women’s Education in Karnataka in the 19th and the early 20th century”. Workshop on Education, CSCS, Bangalore.
2005. December 17th to 20th. Presented paper titled “‘Feminist’ readings of ‘Traditions’ and the idea of Stridharma in the writings of the 12th C Vachanakaratis.” Second International Conference on Religions and Cultures in the Indic Civilisation organized by Indic Studies Network, CSDS and Manushi at Delhi.
http://www.indicstudies.org/list-papers.php
2005. January 21st to 26th. Presented paper titled “Saints, Social Reformers and the Postcolonial Nation-state” at the 10th Cultural Studies Workshop organised by Centre for Studies in Social Sciences (CSSSC) and International Institute of Social History (IISH) at Bhubaneshwar.
Conferences Organised:
2005, November: Workshop for Young Research Scholars (with others), held at the Raman Research Institute, Bangalore.
2004, November: Workshop for Young Research Scholars (with two other CSCS students), held at Christ College, Bangalore.
Conferences Attended:
2003. Workshop on Sexualities, Anveshi, Hyderabad.
2003. Workshop for Young Research Scholars at CSCS, Fireflies, Bangalore.
2005. Workshop on Education and Syllabus formation, CSCS and Christ College, Bangalore.
2005. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies Workshop at Christ College, Bangalore.
2005. Enculturing Law: New Agendas for Legal Pedagogy at NLSIU. 11-13 August. Bangalore.
2006. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics, Centre for the Study of Local Cultures (CSLC), Kuvempu University Shankaraghatta.
2006. Workshop on The Future of Higher Education in India, conducted by CSCS and Bangalore University at Bangalore University, Central College Campus, 20-21 February.
2006. Workshop on syllabus formation in Cultural Studies, CIEFL, Hyderabad.
2006. National Seminar ‘Thinking Through Region’ organized by Dept. of Political Science and Centre for the Study of Culture and Society (CSCS), Bangalore. July 2005. Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta.
2007. Workshop on Feminist Methodologies, Kannada University, Hampi.
2007. Workshop on British Colonialism, Ecole Normale Superieure, Lyon, France.
2009. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics conducted by CSLC and University of Ghent at Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta. 18th and 19th January.
2009. Workshop on Responses to Modernity in Kannada. Organized by Centre for the Study of Local Cultures (CSLC), Kuvempu University. 9, 10, 11 May.
2010. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics conducted by CSLC and University of Ghent at Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta. 22nd and 23rd January. (Discussant).
2010. 13th and 14th November. Workshop on “Can we rethink Sanskritization?” organized by CSLC, Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta, Shimoga.
2011. 22nd and 23rd January. Workshop on Dharma and Ethics conducted by CSLC and University of Ghent at Kuvempu University, Shankaraghatta.
The Role of Women in Three Hindu Texts.
Abstract
When viewed with the background knowledge of the mainstream ascetic traditions, the Sanskrit text Kamasutra (300 BCE - 400 CE) appears to be an aberration within a largely moralizing ascetic tradition. Yet, we know better today that there are other such descriptions and instances found in, say, the Ashva Medha yaga in the Vedas and the Shatapatha Brahmana. But these descriptions and instances suggest sexual connotations that are neither entirely similar nor dissimilar to the erotic approach in the KS, and have puzzled scholars of Hinduism and feminists alike. While scholars of Hinduism occasionally use of the concept of ars erotica to explain what we encounter in texts like the KS, feminists face greater dilemmas in accepting them because of the kind of subjectivity conferred upon women. This paper presents a relatively new approach, through the concept of non-normative ethics, to help understand the above anomalies. It draws upon Foucault's description of non-normativity in antiquity and normativity in the Christian eras. The paper accomplishes three tasks by proposing the concept of non-normative ethics: 1) Theorizing the differences between ascetic and erotic traditions within Hinduism. 2) Contextualizing the British critique of Indians as immoral. 3) Distinguishing between ars erotica manuals such as the KS and other literature that make implicit references to relationships of erotic-sexual nature.
Abstract
When viewed with the background knowledge of the mainstream ascetic traditions, the Sanskrit text Kamasutra (300 BCE - 400 CE) appears to be an aberration within a largely moralizing ascetic tradition. Yet, we know better today that there are other such descriptions and instances found in, say, the Ashva Medha yaga in the Vedas and the Shatapatha Brahmana. But these descriptions and instances suggest sexual connotations that are neither entirely similar nor dissimilar to the erotic approach in the KS, and have puzzled scholars of Hinduism and feminists alike. While scholars of Hinduism occasionally use of the concept of ars erotica to explain what we encounter in texts like the KS, feminists face greater dilemmas in accepting them because of the kind of subjectivity conferred upon women. This paper presents a relatively new approach, through the concept of non-normative ethics, to help understand the above anomalies. It draws upon Foucault's description of non-normativity in antiquity and normativity in the Christian eras. The paper accomplishes three tasks by proposing the concept of non-normative ethics: 1) Theorizing the differences between ascetic and erotic traditions within Hinduism. 2) Contextualizing the British critique of Indians as immoral. 3) Distinguishing between ars erotica manuals such as the KS and other literature that make implicit references to relationships of erotic-sexual nature.
Saints, Social Reformers and the Postcolonial Nation-state:
State’s cultures and the culture of the state.
Abstract
The paper tries to understand the ambivalent positions that the state finds itself in, time and again, and especially during controversies that involve “religions” and cultures. I show that there exists a complex nexus between the state (power) and particular researches in the “social sciences”/scholarship (knowledge) in general that go into defining culture: an argument made by many. This is the State’s version of culture.
However, we also know that the state in India carries peculiar characteristics that makes unlike a state in different cultures. The difference has been attributed to the influence of culture, and this we can see comes into play, despite the state's stated version of culture. Formulations such as :our modernity", “our” state or the “postcolonial nation-state” have all tried to capture this. Perhaps to another formulation is due, in the light of the peculiarity of the Indian state: The Culture’s State. This paper tries to tighten the reach and scope of this formulation by expanding the limited understanding of state and governance hitherto and by taking up questions that go unanswered in the formulations "our modernity" or the "post-colonial nationstate". In this sense the paper looks at what might be the overlapping areas between the formulations: States mediating Cultures, and Cultures mediating States.
The paper examines two controversies (the Basava Vachana Deepti controversy and the Dharmakarana controversy, 1996, 1997) as representing the tension between the culture's state and the state’s culture and seeks to understand the conceptual preoccupations of the state in understanding them and the challenges it received. The paper argues that the confusion or ambivalence in the state’s positions, should alter our notion of the state as only claiming religious neutrality, but not being neutral as such. More importantly its ambiguous responses (in facing challenges to religious or culture-related controversies) should be read as indicative of the coming to play of culture- or in other words, the Culture's state.
Debates in women's education in the late 19th and early 20th century Karnataka
Abstract
This paper is organized mainly around a set of archival materials of the Mysore State/Karnataka of the late 19th and early 20th century. A few theoretical and historical questions guide this attempt to understand the material at hand.
Firstly, the paper will introduce the archival materials and give to the participants of the workshop, an idea of the genres that the material maybe classified into, along with the level of seriousness and value with which they each need to be treated. The material consists of diverse kinds of writings, discussions and letters and also includes magazine articles, newspaper reports, land administration documents, court rulings and so on. Secondly, an attempt will be made to read the material together to make sense of the historical times they represent along with an attempt to justify whether they can even be read collectively and how and the problems we face in this task. We will read our archival material through the eyes of some of our existing theories but also assess these theories for usefulness. We will ask if it is justified to seek out the materials as examples of narratives that sought to hasten nation-building. I will argue that it does not capture the nature of the material to arrive at such a conclusion.
Finally, I will argue that women's education during the aforementioned period was not a part of the nation-building or modernity project as is often made out to be. To say that it is, to me, an inadequate way of looking at the colonial period. We need to rethink the conclusion that is often drawn: that there was a lack of attention to the condition of women while political and cultural choices for the nation, modernity and democracy were being made.
I will argue that there were notions of sexual difference in pre-colonial societies that persisted in this period and influenced the discussions. They persisted, partly because they were not entirely challenged, which then resulted in specific kinds of education that is envisioned for women (a strong idea of ‘Indian heritage’ is discernible in most of the material we will engage with). I do not view the notions of sexual differences and their influence as automatically patriarchal or oppressive of women, but seek out the justificatory criteria that might have prompted its persistence in the vision behind women's education.
We will study the materials for the responses they contain to the cultural and political choices available at the time by viewing them as active agents that sought to think through modernity and sought to shape their future. Most of the writings seek to work out practical and scientific solutions to what they saw as the ‘problems’ confronting them.
The materials could be examined to see if there is in them a desire for modernity (as argued by Madhava Prasad), a demand for a different/reforming modernity or ‘our’ modernity (Partha Chatterjee), an understanding that modernity is violence (Ashis Nandy), a quest for a regional modernity (Janaki Nair) or the presentation of a philosophical critique of modernity (Javeed Alam).
What Unites India? The role of Translation and Culture in Producing the Nation
Abstract
This paper falls under ''Indian Literature in English Translation’ and Nation building’ amongst the areas outlined in the concept note of the workshop. The paper is in two parts. In the first, I shall show what is problematic in the claims made about nation-building and its homogenizing tendencies as it is usually made with regard to languages. I think, that the homogenizing tendency of which nation-building is accused of, is only a secondary-level-problem. The primary problem, that often goes unaddressed under this area, is the very process of the transition of Indian culture and society into nationhood. Even as scholars make arguments that we have successfully negotiated or derived the ‘Indian’ version of nationhood (Partha Chatterjee 1986), there are also those who continue to look upon nationhood as a problem and say that languages like English and Hindi dominate over other languages and create problems. I do not see this as a consistent case against nationhood, nor does this suffice as a problematization of the linguistic issues at stake and the role of Indian Literature in English. I shall argue in this paper that the issue of language, homogenization and nationhood take on hues markedly different from the western version (in the case of Europe) of the same problem, in India. This is because of India’s approach to cultural differences, its jaati system and attitude towards plurality. I argue that India’s approach to cultural differences is characterized mainly not by an opposing tendency but by an indifference, which ensures respect, and does so better than what the practicing of tolerance even.
In the second part of the paper, I describe in detail and through examples, evidence that within Indian society and culture, the survival of a language and literature is ensured through a cultural dynamic of asserting the superiority or richness of one’s language while practicing an attitude of indifference towards others (much like how one glorifies one's community or its practices). I show that this is not always to be mistaken for chauvinism or linguistic politics. Several kinds of conclusions can be drawn from this thought process: English which is seen as acting as a language that unites the different languages or regions through Indian literature in translation can now be seen as only playing a functional role. The role of English can be seen as an event where language takes on the role primarily of - communication.
I then show that the difference between languages and institutions that play an organizing role and those that play a substantive/conceptual role. The vernacular, I think, still plays the substantive/conceptual role. I argue that nation-building as an endeavor is less-embarked upon through English or any other language for that matter. In fact, the feeling of nationality persists despite language differences and it is so because of an underlying cultural realm. The underlying cultural reality ensures nationhood, patriotism, pride and not vice versa. Nationhood, I shall show, is not sustained by languages or the literature produced or shared in English alone (except as mediums of communication) but through the common cultures that persists across the geographical space of India. And cultures do not depend or sustain themselves in one or an other language or practice alone and hence continues to thrive over time. Indian literature whether available in English translations or not, I think, will be read in India not simply because it is in English, but because of the underlying culturality.
Translation and the production of ‘truth’ about women
Abstract
This paper understands translation as a cognitive as well as a cultural endevour. It seeks to link the thesis that there is the ‘production of truth about women’ through discourse to the Indian traditional texts. Translations of texts from the Indian traditions run the risk of being read for multiple meanings or truths, while they can only be contextually understood and often not in the kinds of ways that is proposed by modernist scholars or historians who fancy producing multiple meanings as a means of exploration that imposes no responsibility. Some postcolonial translations definitely see texts from the Indian traditions as ‘producing the truth about women’. However the Indian traditions view language, meaning and productions of truth with very particular, context-specific attitudes that are different from contemporary understandings of the same. The very idea of what a text is, is thus different.
In this paper, I look at two kinds of texts from the Indian traditions: the Streedharmapaddhati, an 18th C Sanskrit text and the 12th C vachanas. They illustrate the differences in genres that I want to bring out and show how problematic it is, to see them as holding meanings (other than for pedagogic purposes) or producing truth. Language herein seems as only incidental to the process and not a discourse at all. I will suggest that theories/or acts of translation that presuppose ‘meanings of texts’ or truth, as a central concern or primary element to seek out, may very well meet with a blank when engaging with texts from the Indian traditions that are mostly pedagogical in nature. The paper will seek to arrive at a deeper understanding of ‘conditions of translatability’.
Culture, culture, which culture? Relativism, Essentialism and the Culture Problem.
Research Proposal/Abstract for workshop on Rethinking Culture & Development: Feminist Crossings.
The proposed research roughly falls under the rubric “reading culture and development as opposed to / complementary to each other” mentioned in the concept note of the workshop.
It is known now that ‘development’ brought forth its share of violence along with modernity and colonialism. And that development confronts culture and an already dynamic society that is situated in its practices, beliefs and traditions. However there is a severe under-theorization of these practices beliefs and traditions. Or the theories that do exist have not helped us in creating the change that as feminists we have aspired for. This gap between feminist aspirations and existing equations in society and culture are possibly a result of Orientalism or of using western categories for analysis.
The undertheorization is easily visible in many instances. Partha Chatterjee in his well-known essay, “The Nationalist Resolution of the Women’s Question” tells us how “traditional patriarchy” was reconfigured in the 19th century along a set of binaries, but does not tell us what “traditional patriarchy” itself constitutes of. What constitutes traditional patriarchy has more than often been taken for granted or has been based on simplistic readings of Kavyas like the Mahabharata or Ramayana or texts like the Manusmriti. One example of the realization of inadequate theorization could be witnessed in the editorial change that a journal like Manushi made, based on responses from Indian women. There could be many other examples.
Feminists have increasingly begun to realize that in most studies, agency, for example, has been assumed to be taking one particular form, mostly of a direct kind and that resistance has in turn been understood as agency. The presupposition of a subject and structure in understanding agency although has come under sever critique in recent times, has not guaranteed new ways of looking at the issue.
What I bring to this workshop is a keen awareness that there is a gap between feminist aspirations, its coincidences with the developmentalist agenda and what is understood as the ‘situation on ground’, ‘the field’, culture and society. If we understood culture and society differently (or more accurately), I contend, the disasters that quick developmentalist recipes produce can be avoided. This is I think, at least, one way to begin to investigate the interworkings of development, culture and feminism.
I also think that it is an interesting enough way to begin the investigation, given the fact that Orientalism (in the Saidian sense) has been deeply influential upon our thought as academics and feminists and yet we have hesitated for very long to assert our experiences in the face of stereotypical representations of ourselves. The issue at stake here is dodged almost-always by a denial of pure origins or by an exposition of ‘anti-theory’. I am hopeful that there are other alternatives we have not explored. And one such alternative, could emerge if one used a more sophisticated notion of culture. At an extremely generalized level, scholars often tell us that there is no such thing as an “Indian culture” or that there simply are “too many cultures” and that “we must not homogenize” (following Said’s work). While the call against homogenization is correct, the level of generality with which it is asserted is not productive at all.
I would like to bring to this workshop my understanding of cultures as sites of learning. During the course of this workshop, I would like to introduce to my peers this theory and show how its contributions work towards a better understanding of feminism, culture and development and its interlinkings. I will situate the possibilities in concrete terms: in terms of our understanding of agency, empowerment, femininity and violence. Needless to say, I will place the possibilities vis-à-vis other papers and interactions at the workshop. One definite step could be in the following direction: to expose the assumptions of what constitutes “human” according to the developmentalist discourse vis-à-vis the cultural discourse. I look forward to an extremely productive discussion.
The proposed research roughly falls under the rubric “reading culture and development as opposed to / complementary to each other” mentioned in the concept note of the workshop.
It is known now that ‘development’ brought forth its share of violence along with modernity and colonialism. And that development confronts culture and an already dynamic society that is situated in its practices, beliefs and traditions. However there is a severe under-theorization of these practices beliefs and traditions. Or the theories that do exist have not helped us in creating the change that as feminists we have aspired for. This gap between feminist aspirations and existing equations in society and culture are possibly a result of Orientalism or of using western categories for analysis.
The undertheorization is easily visible in many instances. Partha Chatterjee in his well-known essay, “The Nationalist Resolution of the Women’s Question” tells us how “traditional patriarchy” was reconfigured in the 19th century along a set of binaries, but does not tell us what “traditional patriarchy” itself constitutes of. What constitutes traditional patriarchy has more than often been taken for granted or has been based on simplistic readings of Kavyas like the Mahabharata or Ramayana or texts like the Manusmriti. One example of the realization of inadequate theorization could be witnessed in the editorial change that a journal like Manushi made, based on responses from Indian women. There could be many other examples.
Feminists have increasingly begun to realize that in most studies, agency, for example, has been assumed to be taking one particular form, mostly of a direct kind and that resistance has in turn been understood as agency. The presupposition of a subject and structure in understanding agency although has come under sever critique in recent times, has not guaranteed new ways of looking at the issue.
What I bring to this workshop is a keen awareness that there is a gap between feminist aspirations, its coincidences with the developmentalist agenda and what is understood as the ‘situation on ground’, ‘the field’, culture and society. If we understood culture and society differently (or more accurately), I contend, the disasters that quick developmentalist recipes produce can be avoided. This is I think, at least, one way to begin to investigate the interworkings of development, culture and feminism.
I also think that it is an interesting enough way to begin the investigation, given the fact that Orientalism (in the Saidian sense) has been deeply influential upon our thought as academics and feminists and yet we have hesitated for very long to assert our experiences in the face of stereotypical representations of ourselves. The issue at stake here is dodged almost-always by a denial of pure origins or by an exposition of ‘anti-theory’. I am hopeful that there are other alternatives we have not explored. And one such alternative, could emerge if one used a more sophisticated notion of culture. At an extremely generalized level, scholars often tell us that there is no such thing as an “Indian culture” or that there simply are “too many cultures” and that “we must not homogenize” (following Said’s work). While the call against homogenization is correct, the level of generality with which it is asserted is not productive at all.
I would like to bring to this workshop my understanding of cultures as sites of learning. During the course of this workshop, I would like to introduce to my peers this theory and show how its contributions work towards a better understanding of feminism, culture and development and its interlinkings. I will situate the possibilities in concrete terms: in terms of our understanding of agency, empowerment, femininity and violence. Needless to say, I will place the possibilities vis-à-vis other papers and interactions at the workshop. One definite step could be in the following direction: to expose the assumptions of what constitutes “human” according to the developmentalist discourse vis-à-vis the cultural discourse. I look forward to an extremely productive discussion.
‘Feminist’ readings of ‘Tradition’ and the idea of streedharma in the writings of the 12th C vachanakaratis
Abstract
This paper focuses on looking up a theory of the emergence of feminism and examines the existing feminist readings of the 12th C vachanas in this light. Feminisms, we know, are of different kinds; with their different ideological leanings, different levels of commitment to politics and so on.
I also formulate a set of questions to ask of the vachanas directly through the theory of the emergence of feminism (by Joan Scott, in Only Paradoxes to Offer) and I show that the vachanas do not yield answers to the questions formulated or yield absurd answers and are therefore made up of markedly different preoccupations. I discuss the implications that follow about our understandings of indigenous feminism and proto-feminism and the like, in India.
This paper focuses on looking up a theory of the emergence of feminism and examines the existing feminist readings of the 12th C vachanas in this light. Feminisms, we know, are of different kinds; with their different ideological leanings, different levels of commitment to politics and so on.
I also formulate a set of questions to ask of the vachanas directly through the theory of the emergence of feminism (by Joan Scott, in Only Paradoxes to Offer) and I show that the vachanas do not yield answers to the questions formulated or yield absurd answers and are therefore made up of markedly different preoccupations. I discuss the implications that follow about our understandings of indigenous feminism and proto-feminism and the like, in India.
Problems for a Feminist Epistemology in India
Abstract
In this paper, I show what problems there are for raising feminist epistemological questions in India. I briefly trace trends in feminist epistemologies we are familiar with in the academia (largely western) and show that these theories place differently—objects, life, society, culture and science from those we can chart in Indian society or epistemology. In India then, to raise a feminist epistemological question, I suggest seems to be a category mistake, since focusing on a social sphere by overlooking a cultural one, while the one depends on the other (something I argue out), is unyielding.