[Reader-list] Re: [Urbanstudy] Re: Problematizing Definitions

Prem Chandavarkar prem at cnt-semac.com
Thu Dec 22 10:47:14 IST 2005

Let me - like Anant - stick my neck out in "the presence of a whole 
bunch of cultural studies folks".

Was just reading Gayathri Spivak's essay "Can The Subaltern Speak". 
Spivak examines philosophical production, such as Foucault, Deleuze and 
the Subaltern Studies Group, who seek to unmask the workings of power in 
order to reveal voices that are typically not heard.  While such 
analyses often start from a critique of essentialism, they tend to posit 
other essences through the construction of monolithic and anonymous 
presences such as "the workers' struggle" or "the history of the 
subaltern".  And because these essences are monolithic and anonymous, 
they involve the erasure of individual identity.  Therefore any attempts 
to speak for the subaltern eventually construct representations that 
erase their identity.  It does not matter whether this comes from the 
activist philosopher or from the organic intellectual who has risen from 
the subaltern ranks.  The organic intellectual destroys his/her status 
as a subaltern by attempting to represent the subaltern.

Spivak draws a distinction between two forms of representation.
1. Proxy - the attempt to speak for, as in politics
2. Portrait - the attempt to speak of, as in philosophy
It is important to distinguish between these two forms.  While proxy may 
appear to be more genuine since it demands engagement (speaking 'to' the 
subaltern, and not just speaking 'of'), it should be realised that the 
myths and beliefs constructed through portraiture affect the basis on 
which choices of proxy are made.

All this ties back to the point Anant made - when Zainab interacts with 
the woman and child some meaning is produced, but when she reports it to 
this discussion group the woman and child are excluded and we now are 
aware of two different languages operating, and immediately wonder which 
one is more authentic.

So returning to the question "what constitutes culture?" - we must first 
ask if the question is worthwhile.  To ask the question at all implies a 
belief that it is answerable, which in turn involves an assumption that 
culture has already occurred in an observable fashion.  This assumption 
immediately pushes culture into the past (it does not matter whether 
this is the immediate past of yesterday, or the remote past of history). 
   And culture is most alive when it is in the present, when it is 
actually experienced.

So rather than asking 'what is culture' it is more worthwhile to ask:
1. What is the basis on which claims to define culture operate, 
intersect and compete?
2. What are the politics, myths, beliefs, genealogies and spatial 
practices that underpin the construction of such claims?
3. What are the traces we leave in space that eventually accrue into 
memories and symbols?
4. What are the conversations and intersections that take place between 
tacit experiences and explicit definitions of culture?
5. (Most important to us) What is the complicity of the intellectual in 
all of these processes?
6. How can we individually use such critique to construct our own 
ideology and ethics?


anant m wrote:
> hm. i hope i am not making an ass of myself in the
> presence of a whole bunch of cultural studies folks. 
> i think it is better to think of a geneology of
> culture rather than define it. to my reckoning, the
> first loaded use of the word culture was made by
> mathew arnold.
> some time in the second half of the 19th century. this
> was just before the time colonial anthropologists were
> seriously beginning to wonder if they had it all
> worked out. for arnold, culture was high culture all
> that is 'beautiful and intelligent' and he was
> strongly opposed to the plebian and the ordinary. and
> you must read his dismissive references to the irish!
> education therefore had to be in the hands of the
> cultured and not democratized. 
> later on a whole range of marxist critics led by
> raymond williams turned it on its head and argued that
> culture is really the ordinary. this was a way of
> challenging the ways in which high culture reproduces
> power relations.
> raymond williams and his work notwithstanding, culture
> remained largely the domain of anthropologists first
> the structuralists strauss and then bodley and geertz
> types whose primary means of getting at culture was
> via ethnography where one places oneself firmly in the
> lifeworlds of those whose culture is being studied and
> then withdraws to the library to reflect on the
> ensembles of meanings and practices that are not one's
> own. hence ideas like primitives, savages and noble
> savages and then the ultimate 'thick descriptionists
> and so on. 
> Here is the cross that the scholar bears: she/he at
> the moment of the ethnographic encounter and actually
> coproduces meaning with an interlocutor but when she
> or he withdraws to write about it for a diffferent
> audience, she or he produces the culture of the
> 'other' for the consumption of scholarly kin. 
> thus in your interaction with the woman whose child
> you thought was being treated cruelly (at least at
> firsy anyway) she and you together coproduced
> meaning.but when you report it to us, the woman
> remains outside of this conversation and it is her
> culture versus our culture that we end up talking
> about. 
> well, that was an attempt at a rough and ready
> geneology of culture. i have no idea what culturality
> means. others please add or delete. 
> anant
> --- zainab at xtdnet.nl wrote:
>>I am still interested in understanding the 'general
>>meaning' of the term
>>culture? What constitutes culture? And what
>>constitutes acts of
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Exclusive Xmas Game, help Santa with his celebrity party - http://santas-christmas-party.yahoo.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group archives, please visit https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup

More information about the reader-list mailing list