These are three videos of a few students having a private discussion in Columbia University. (Though personally, I dont think the standard is very high, the discussion is pretty basic... however, it is interesting nonetheless)
In the third video the discussion moves to a point where interesting arguments are raised about the fact that it'd be 'cool' to have a feminist realist theory following the lines of constructivist realists/realist constructivist .... It is interesting to observe how they discuss the fact that IR theory lectures always take realism as the starting point (which is fine given the historical origins of our discipline), but at this juncture, the disclaimer that this is only one of many worldviews is missed out. Somehow, all other theoretical enterprises always have to 'match-up' to what realism sets out to do.....
Feminist IR Theory - Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lFcTL70v0M&feature=related
Feminist IR Theory - Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRZRgKenOxw&feature=related
Feminist IR Theory - Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnB1t-cTmjk&feature=related
we can even discuss some of the specific issues brought up in the discussion...
Friday, February 12, 2010
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Imperialism of 'History' - Finding an Alternative?
"For the silent majority of the world, the makers of history also live in history and the defiance of history begins not so much with an alternative history as with the denial of history as an acreage of human certitude." - Nandy
'History' is fascinating, but the logic of history, some would say, makes it more amenable to imperialistic ambitions. For that matter, 'a chronological sequencing of events' which marks a clear distinction between past, present and future (in essence, an idea of progress) is one of the more celebrated after-effects of enlightenment. Hegel, Marx and many other prophets of the enlightenment era have used an abused history to museumize the past,justify the present and fix the future. And that is why, Nandy thinks that the project of 'alternative histories' is not as emancipating as it seems. For him, it is in the denial of history and celebration of many other alternate forms of telling the past, i.e. folk, myth, and so on, that the silent majority of the world find their ultimate calling.
These alternate forms of recounting the past do two things, which history suppresses. First, they provide us with an alternate idea of time. The past, present and future, thus, are not sequentially separated. The lines between the three are blurred, even some times fusing into one. That means the past is not always objectified, something that is there. It is always in the making. And thus, more closer to the present. Similarly, future is not always pre-fixed, not completely in the hands of past and present and thus the driver of both, 'Man' (Of course, not 'woman'). Future has its own latency, its own subjectivities, its own uncertainities and depends more on an active collaboration of 'nature' and 'human' rather than just the latter.
Secondly, these alternate forms of recounting past are moral/ethical and not amorally and dispassionately chronicled. The message upfront that these forms convey is explicitly moral. Their affect on present and future is not determinative but suggestive. The history though has a determinative role. History in fact follows a telos, whose every point seems to be pre-defined, not just the end. Of course, sometimes myths and folks also point to a telos, as in Armageddon, or circularity in lfe, as in Hindu mythology (rebirth, but it also has a telos in 'Moksha), but the end is just a 'pointer' which keeps one reminded of what 'one ought to do' but not necessarily what 'one would do'. These forms, in a sense, try to locate 'moral and reason' in an active connivance and not in passive divergence.
Of course, the idea is not to eulogise myth and folk, and such forms. They have their own drawbacks. May be others could pitch in here.
'History' is fascinating, but the logic of history, some would say, makes it more amenable to imperialistic ambitions. For that matter, 'a chronological sequencing of events' which marks a clear distinction between past, present and future (in essence, an idea of progress) is one of the more celebrated after-effects of enlightenment. Hegel, Marx and many other prophets of the enlightenment era have used an abused history to museumize the past,justify the present and fix the future. And that is why, Nandy thinks that the project of 'alternative histories' is not as emancipating as it seems. For him, it is in the denial of history and celebration of many other alternate forms of telling the past, i.e. folk, myth, and so on, that the silent majority of the world find their ultimate calling.
These alternate forms of recounting the past do two things, which history suppresses. First, they provide us with an alternate idea of time. The past, present and future, thus, are not sequentially separated. The lines between the three are blurred, even some times fusing into one. That means the past is not always objectified, something that is there. It is always in the making. And thus, more closer to the present. Similarly, future is not always pre-fixed, not completely in the hands of past and present and thus the driver of both, 'Man' (Of course, not 'woman'). Future has its own latency, its own subjectivities, its own uncertainities and depends more on an active collaboration of 'nature' and 'human' rather than just the latter.
Secondly, these alternate forms of recounting past are moral/ethical and not amorally and dispassionately chronicled. The message upfront that these forms convey is explicitly moral. Their affect on present and future is not determinative but suggestive. The history though has a determinative role. History in fact follows a telos, whose every point seems to be pre-defined, not just the end. Of course, sometimes myths and folks also point to a telos, as in Armageddon, or circularity in lfe, as in Hindu mythology (rebirth, but it also has a telos in 'Moksha), but the end is just a 'pointer' which keeps one reminded of what 'one ought to do' but not necessarily what 'one would do'. These forms, in a sense, try to locate 'moral and reason' in an active connivance and not in passive divergence.
Of course, the idea is not to eulogise myth and folk, and such forms. They have their own drawbacks. May be others could pitch in here.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Welcome All!
We would like extend our gratitude to all of you... Lets hope we can together make this a productive endeavour...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)