![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The (repeated) addition diff diff of this info is WP:UNDUE
References
The stature and significance of Skedon Pollock is not determined by Malhotra's writings; at best, Malhotra's most recent publication is noteworthy because Sheldon Pollock is an outstanding author and scholar. Malhotra is not a scholar, and academically completely insignificant.
This piece of text was added with the following edit-summary:
It's not "the reader" who decides, it's us, the editors. And not every criticism is worth mentioning at the same extent, certainly not in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Malhotra is not a scholar, and academically irrelevant. Mentioning him in the lead is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. To give a comparison: there is this joke of a mouse and an elephant walking together. Says the mouse: wow, are we having fun stamping together! This is an article on Pollock, not on Malhotra. If someone is seriously interested in Pollock, let them expand the article by writing a synopsis om The Death of Sanskrit and The Language of the Gods. Either by reading those publications, or by reading WP:RS - which is not Malhotra. For the moment, two sentences in the body of the article suffice. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the function of this section? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You repeatedly demand other editors define English words that you don't know. Otherwise you delete material. Thats absurd. Okay here is the definition of hermeneutic:
1. the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) 2. a method or principle of interpretation. Merriam-Webster
. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is the definition of suspicion:
1. a feeling that someone is possibly guilty of a crime or of doing something wrong
2. a feeling that something bad is likely or true
3. a feeling of doubt Merriam-Webster
VictoriaGrayson Talk 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The over-the-top coverage of the Faculty statement is totally UNDUE. It was just a signature on a letter! All that it shows is that Pollock opposes Hindu nationalism. Surprise? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
VictoriaGrayson Talk 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Lack of any reference to this widely discussed event is now quite noticeable. See
Scott Jaschik (March 1, 2016) Nonscholarly Litmus Tests for Key Scholarly Role, Inside Higher Ed https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/01/scholars-india-demand-harvard-u-press-drop-its-well-respected-editor
And also from http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-March/042858.html:
[1] Staff Reporter (March 1 2016). Murthy foundation under fire. The Hindu. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/murthy-foundation-under-fire/article8297746.ece
[2] Indrani Basu (March 1 2016). Pro-JNU Statement Spawns Petition For Ouster Of Sheldon Pollock As Editor Of Murty Classical Library. Huffington Post India. URL http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/01/sheldon-pollock-murty-lib_n_9345928.html
[3] ET Bureau (February 29 2016). JNU fallout: Petition wants Murty Classical Library to remove editor. Economic Times. URL: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51186110.cms
[4] Anushree Majumdar (February 29 2016). Murty library editor: Petition wants US scholar removed, cites JNU remarks. Indian Express. URL: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/murty-library-editor-petition-wants-us-scholar-removed-cites-jnu-remarks/
Malaiya ( talk) 18:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Me? Some quotes from the petition:
With other words: 'no scholarly approach please, but a reproduction of the "traditional" understanding.' Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been dense. The reason Computer Scientists are in the lead is that N.R.Narayana Murthy was the Head of an IT firm, Infosys. All these Computer Science profs would have sent hundreds or thousands of their own graduates to work for Infosys, they would know people know in Infosys at all levels, and they are even likely to be personal acquaintances of Narayana Murthy. And, the Murthys need their goodwill for the sustenance of Infosys. So, this is in fact extreme economic pressure being put on them. I am afraid RM has scored big! I hope there will be a robust public debate about the issues (and non-issues) they have raised so that the Murthys can make up their mind. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
See Kautilya3's edit, Vic's revert, JJ's re-revert & subsequent self-revert, and JJ's expanded note.
Why is the petition quoting a purva paksha statement from Pollock's speech? Is this RM's doing again? Nandini Majumdar, What the Petition against the Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock Is Really About. Well, if it is, his dubious scholarship will get fully exposed. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's another update Petitioners angry after Sheldon Pollock gets Rohan Murty support – may stay on as Murty Classic Library editor:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What's being meant with
I guess this refers to the Indo-Aryan migration theory, which likely is being rejected by the petitioners? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Toucher for Kautilya3! But my point is clear, I think: one may try to reject scholarly insights, but it won't change reality. Also in the 17th century northern Indian languages were related to European languages (a relation which had already been noted in the 17th century, by the way). One may view this as being "imposed" on Indians, but it doesn't change the fact of this relation, no matter how hard some may try to do so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a bright young man, not afraid to take a clear stand:
Not fit for an encyclopedia, but quite outspoken. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
[ This edit] subtly changed the tone of the section on the petition against Pollock, rephrasing opinions as facts. The edit moved the subparts downward in the comparison-table, so I'll compatere them here:
Old | New |
---|---|
A petition initiated by Indian scholars demanded that Pollock be removed from the editorship of the Murty Classical Library of India. [note 1] | A petition initiated by Indian scholars demanded that Pollock be removed from the editorship of the Murty Classical Library of India. [note 2] |
Among the reasons cited was what the petitioners perceive as Pollock's political activism condemning the Government of India in its actions against the students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University. [1] | The petition notes from the long academic career of Prof. Pollock that it is well-known that he has "deep antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished and practiced in our (Indian) civilization." It said "he echoes the views of Macaulay and Max Weber that the shastras generated in India serve no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express themselves." To back up their claim, the petitioners cites his 1985 paper [2] |
The petitioners further raised concerns that "the sentiments and understanding of the millions of Indians who practice these traditions" should not be violated, and therefore the translators should be "deeply rooted and steeped in the intellectual traditions of India," and "also need to be imbued with a sense of respect and empathy for the greatness of Indian civilization." [3] | The petitioners also perceive Pollock's political activism condemning the Government of India in its various actions like the students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University insidious to the political integrity and undermining its sovereignty. [4] [5] |
The petition also cites Rajiv Malhotra's book The Battle for Sanskrit, in which Pollock is a major topic. | The petition also cites Rajiv Malhotra's book The Battle for Sanskrit, in which Pollock is a major topic. |
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The Ramayana material was representative of a paper which frequently repeats terms such as the "Other", "Others", "demonizing", "fully demonized Other" etc. VictoriaGrayson Talk
References
So, it might need some clarification. But, it's a start. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It would have been fair to mention that Frazier's "accusatory finger" was
quoted by Rajiv Malhotra at his website:
Or did Rajiv Malhotra get his quote from Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: with this edit you split-up the section on critical methodology, with the edit-summary "moving info to reception section and adding." I don't see why this info should be split-up. And you actually did more:
{{
cite book}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help)
I could understand the removal of "Rajiv Malhotra used the same quote after it appeared at Wikipedia.
[1]", but not the rest, and certainly not when you do not mention so in the edit-summary.
I find moving the sentence "highlighting its function as a purveyor of forms of authority that are culturally and ethnically exclusive, benefiting the few at the expense of the many" back into the main text also problematic; the sentence is almost incomprehensible, unless you read it very carefull - or paraphrase it, as I did. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: You removed my edit with this revert citing cherry picking. I don't understand why is it cherrypicking? HemaChandra88 ( talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a context for "beyond Raj and Auschwitz"; as this quote is being used now, it's totally unclear what it means or what it refers to, ut somehow suggests that Indology is connected to Auschwitz. In Europe, this is a very sensitive topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What, then, are the prospects of a scholarship that is "postmodern" with respect both to the subject and to the object of scholarship? How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz in a world of pretty well tattered scholarly paradigms? I can only offer some very tentative thoughts, little more than notes to my "Notes."And from two pages earlier on page 112:
A self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America may recognize and attempt to escape its implication in new forms of coercive power by fostering a critique of the imperial conditions of our scholarly production.In other words, the statement is essentially synthesis. If it needs to be used in its present form, it needs to be presented as a statement by Grünendahl (on Pollock's "post-Orientalist messianism") ideally collated along with his other criticisms of Pollock in the context of German Indology. Thanks.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 11:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan:, @ Cpt.a.haddock: What's wrong with citing things as Pollock describes in his papers? We're not here to sanitize things, are we? As VictoriaGrayson mentions the quotes are as it appears in his book Deep Orientalism. HemaChandra88 ( talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz …, it does not immediately follow that this is somehow the lynchpin of his scholarship. Better (and ideally neutral secondary) sources are needed to make such statements.
@ Cpt.a.haddock:Based on my experience editing contentious articles with numerous editors, your "excessive quote" tag is incorrectly applied. There are many Featured Wikipedia articles with more quotes, or even lengthy quotes. See for example Truthiness and Wife selling (English custom). Also note WP:QUOTEFARM says to remedy by "working smaller portions of quotation into the article text", which is what this article already does. The 4 lengthy quotes in this article are not in a quote box. Lastly, obtain consensus for this tag. VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Cpt.a.haddock: but then, please, also explain (or repeat) what problems you see here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Cpt.a.haddock: What does your edit 'removing dupes' mean? see [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 ( talk • contribs)
@ Joshua Jonathan: I do not think you are accurately presenting Pollock's views here. VictoriaGrayson Talk 12:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: I was actually rewriting the same section. Here's what I had when I hit preview (and saw your edit!):
In his 1993 paper, Ramayana and Political Imagination in India, Pollock studies the evolution of Rama, the protagonist of the Sanskrit poem, Ramayana, from a mythological ruler to an object of worship often used by kings and leaders to legitimise their rule. He calls the Ramayana fundamentally a text of "othering" as outsiders in the epic are "othered" by being represented as sexual, dietetical, and political deviants. The primary antagonist, Ravana of Lanka, is not only "other" due to his polygyny but is presented as a tyrant. Similarly, Pollock states that the rakshasas (demons) of the poem can be viewed from a psychosexual perspective to symbolise all that the traditional Sanskritic Indian might desire and fear. He contrasts the "othering" in the Ramayana with the Mahabharata which not only has no "othering", but in fact has "brothering" due to the shared identity of the antagonists. [1] Pollock notes that the Ramayana's apparatus of othering and its demonising formulation lent itself for use by the ruling elite of medieval India particularly after the 12th century. He tracks its use in later commentaries of the Ramayana where the Muslim outsiders were cast as rakshasas and asuras, or in the case of a Mughal translation, of Akbar being projected as the divine king, Rama and divs as the rakshasas. [2] He reasons that this recurrent "mythopolitical strategy" of using the Ramayana as a political instrument has also found favour in modern India in the form of the Ayodhya dispute. [note 1] This is clear not only in the choice of Ayodhya, the traditional birthplace of Rama, but also in the attempts by the BJP and VHP to portray Muslims as demonic. [3]
I've kinda paraphrased (at least the thrust of) the long (and abstruse) quote into the text. I think the fact that the "othering" is of outsiders needs to be clarified (Pollock does so too). Anyhow, I think your edit provides some much needed context to the section. Thanks :) Will you be editing the "Lack of an Indian culture" section as well?-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
I tried to find free pdf's with texts from Sheldon Pollock; I found only two a few:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, "Crisis in the classics" has a very interesting opening-part:
This sounds very familiair, doesn't it, predating a certain recent book on Sanskrit and Sheldon Pollock?... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
JJ, Pollock will praise local languages like Tamil, Telugu, Kannada etc., but will attack Sanskrit. There is a difference. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The "Crisis" is more or less well-known in India, at least among the people familiar with Indian culture. It is mostly a self-inflicted crisis by the Independent India, and had to do with the so-called "scientific temper," "communalism" vs. "secularism" dichotomy, and the Leftist hold over the Indian academe.
The "toxicity" is also well-known. Until the 20th century, Manu, whoever he was, was celebrated as a pioneering law-giver of the world. His icons had been installed all around the world, from Indonesia to New York. But in 20th century, he was roundly demolished, and his Dharmashastra is routinely burnt as a form of protest.
If Pollock engages in advocacy on these issues, he is quite welcome, but it is not particularly original or novel. The scholarship is really in his interpretations of the texts and, there, I think he takes considerable liberties. Not as bad as Wendy Doniger, but about halfway along the same road. I think it is right to critique it as neo-Orientalism. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: this is about your revert [6] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 ( talk • contribs)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The (repeated) addition diff diff of this info is WP:UNDUE
References
The stature and significance of Skedon Pollock is not determined by Malhotra's writings; at best, Malhotra's most recent publication is noteworthy because Sheldon Pollock is an outstanding author and scholar. Malhotra is not a scholar, and academically completely insignificant.
This piece of text was added with the following edit-summary:
It's not "the reader" who decides, it's us, the editors. And not every criticism is worth mentioning at the same extent, certainly not in the lead. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Malhotra is not a scholar, and academically irrelevant. Mentioning him in the lead is WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. To give a comparison: there is this joke of a mouse and an elephant walking together. Says the mouse: wow, are we having fun stamping together! This is an article on Pollock, not on Malhotra. If someone is seriously interested in Pollock, let them expand the article by writing a synopsis om The Death of Sanskrit and The Language of the Gods. Either by reading those publications, or by reading WP:RS - which is not Malhotra. For the moment, two sentences in the body of the article suffice. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What's the function of this section? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You repeatedly demand other editors define English words that you don't know. Otherwise you delete material. Thats absurd. Okay here is the definition of hermeneutic:
1. the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible) 2. a method or principle of interpretation. Merriam-Webster
. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is the definition of suspicion:
1. a feeling that someone is possibly guilty of a crime or of doing something wrong
2. a feeling that something bad is likely or true
3. a feeling of doubt Merriam-Webster
VictoriaGrayson Talk 15:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The over-the-top coverage of the Faculty statement is totally UNDUE. It was just a signature on a letter! All that it shows is that Pollock opposes Hindu nationalism. Surprise? - Kautilya3 ( talk) 09:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
VictoriaGrayson Talk 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Lack of any reference to this widely discussed event is now quite noticeable. See
Scott Jaschik (March 1, 2016) Nonscholarly Litmus Tests for Key Scholarly Role, Inside Higher Ed https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/03/01/scholars-india-demand-harvard-u-press-drop-its-well-respected-editor
And also from http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/2016-March/042858.html:
[1] Staff Reporter (March 1 2016). Murthy foundation under fire. The Hindu. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/murthy-foundation-under-fire/article8297746.ece
[2] Indrani Basu (March 1 2016). Pro-JNU Statement Spawns Petition For Ouster Of Sheldon Pollock As Editor Of Murty Classical Library. Huffington Post India. URL http://www.huffingtonpost.in/2016/03/01/sheldon-pollock-murty-lib_n_9345928.html
[3] ET Bureau (February 29 2016). JNU fallout: Petition wants Murty Classical Library to remove editor. Economic Times. URL: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51186110.cms
[4] Anushree Majumdar (February 29 2016). Murty library editor: Petition wants US scholar removed, cites JNU remarks. Indian Express. URL: http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/murty-library-editor-petition-wants-us-scholar-removed-cites-jnu-remarks/
Malaiya ( talk) 18:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Me? Some quotes from the petition:
With other words: 'no scholarly approach please, but a reproduction of the "traditional" understanding.' Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been dense. The reason Computer Scientists are in the lead is that N.R.Narayana Murthy was the Head of an IT firm, Infosys. All these Computer Science profs would have sent hundreds or thousands of their own graduates to work for Infosys, they would know people know in Infosys at all levels, and they are even likely to be personal acquaintances of Narayana Murthy. And, the Murthys need their goodwill for the sustenance of Infosys. So, this is in fact extreme economic pressure being put on them. I am afraid RM has scored big! I hope there will be a robust public debate about the issues (and non-issues) they have raised so that the Murthys can make up their mind. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 00:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
See Kautilya3's edit, Vic's revert, JJ's re-revert & subsequent self-revert, and JJ's expanded note.
Why is the petition quoting a purva paksha statement from Pollock's speech? Is this RM's doing again? Nandini Majumdar, What the Petition against the Sanskritist Sheldon Pollock Is Really About. Well, if it is, his dubious scholarship will get fully exposed. - Kautilya3 ( talk) 01:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Here's another update Petitioners angry after Sheldon Pollock gets Rohan Murty support – may stay on as Murty Classic Library editor:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
What's being meant with
I guess this refers to the Indo-Aryan migration theory, which likely is being rejected by the petitioners? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Toucher for Kautilya3! But my point is clear, I think: one may try to reject scholarly insights, but it won't change reality. Also in the 17th century northern Indian languages were related to European languages (a relation which had already been noted in the 17th century, by the way). One may view this as being "imposed" on Indians, but it doesn't change the fact of this relation, no matter how hard some may try to do so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a bright young man, not afraid to take a clear stand:
Not fit for an encyclopedia, but quite outspoken. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
[ This edit] subtly changed the tone of the section on the petition against Pollock, rephrasing opinions as facts. The edit moved the subparts downward in the comparison-table, so I'll compatere them here:
Old | New |
---|---|
A petition initiated by Indian scholars demanded that Pollock be removed from the editorship of the Murty Classical Library of India. [note 1] | A petition initiated by Indian scholars demanded that Pollock be removed from the editorship of the Murty Classical Library of India. [note 2] |
Among the reasons cited was what the petitioners perceive as Pollock's political activism condemning the Government of India in its actions against the students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University. [1] | The petition notes from the long academic career of Prof. Pollock that it is well-known that he has "deep antipathy towards many of the ideals and values cherished and practiced in our (Indian) civilization." It said "he echoes the views of Macaulay and Max Weber that the shastras generated in India serve no contemporary purpose except for the study of how Indians express themselves." To back up their claim, the petitioners cites his 1985 paper [2] |
The petitioners further raised concerns that "the sentiments and understanding of the millions of Indians who practice these traditions" should not be violated, and therefore the translators should be "deeply rooted and steeped in the intellectual traditions of India," and "also need to be imbued with a sense of respect and empathy for the greatness of Indian civilization." [3] | The petitioners also perceive Pollock's political activism condemning the Government of India in its various actions like the students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University insidious to the political integrity and undermining its sovereignty. [4] [5] |
The petition also cites Rajiv Malhotra's book The Battle for Sanskrit, in which Pollock is a major topic. | The petition also cites Rajiv Malhotra's book The Battle for Sanskrit, in which Pollock is a major topic. |
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
The Ramayana material was representative of a paper which frequently repeats terms such as the "Other", "Others", "demonizing", "fully demonized Other" etc. VictoriaGrayson Talk
References
So, it might need some clarification. But, it's a start. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
It would have been fair to mention that Frazier's "accusatory finger" was
quoted by Rajiv Malhotra at his website:
Or did Rajiv Malhotra get his quote from Wikipedia? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@ VictoriaGrayson: with this edit you split-up the section on critical methodology, with the edit-summary "moving info to reception section and adding." I don't see why this info should be split-up. And you actually did more:
{{
cite book}}
: |first1=
has generic name (
help)
I could understand the removal of "Rajiv Malhotra used the same quote after it appeared at Wikipedia.
[1]", but not the rest, and certainly not when you do not mention so in the edit-summary.
I find moving the sentence "highlighting its function as a purveyor of forms of authority that are culturally and ethnically exclusive, benefiting the few at the expense of the many" back into the main text also problematic; the sentence is almost incomprehensible, unless you read it very carefull - or paraphrase it, as I did. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:04, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: You removed my edit with this revert citing cherry picking. I don't understand why is it cherrypicking? HemaChandra88 ( talk) 12:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Please provide a context for "beyond Raj and Auschwitz"; as this quote is being used now, it's totally unclear what it means or what it refers to, ut somehow suggests that Indology is connected to Auschwitz. In Europe, this is a very sensitive topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
What, then, are the prospects of a scholarship that is "postmodern" with respect both to the subject and to the object of scholarship? How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz in a world of pretty well tattered scholarly paradigms? I can only offer some very tentative thoughts, little more than notes to my "Notes."And from two pages earlier on page 112:
A self-consciously responsible scholarship in late twentieth-century America may recognize and attempt to escape its implication in new forms of coercive power by fostering a critique of the imperial conditions of our scholarly production.In other words, the statement is essentially synthesis. If it needs to be used in its present form, it needs to be presented as a statement by Grünendahl (on Pollock's "post-Orientalist messianism") ideally collated along with his other criticisms of Pollock in the context of German Indology. Thanks.-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 11:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan:, @ Cpt.a.haddock: What's wrong with citing things as Pollock describes in his papers? We're not here to sanitize things, are we? As VictoriaGrayson mentions the quotes are as it appears in his book Deep Orientalism. HemaChandra88 ( talk) 18:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
How, concretely, does one do Indology beyond the Raj and Auschwitz …, it does not immediately follow that this is somehow the lynchpin of his scholarship. Better (and ideally neutral secondary) sources are needed to make such statements.
@ Cpt.a.haddock:Based on my experience editing contentious articles with numerous editors, your "excessive quote" tag is incorrectly applied. There are many Featured Wikipedia articles with more quotes, or even lengthy quotes. See for example Truthiness and Wife selling (English custom). Also note WP:QUOTEFARM says to remedy by "working smaller portions of quotation into the article text", which is what this article already does. The 4 lengthy quotes in this article are not in a quote box. Lastly, obtain consensus for this tag. VictoriaGrayson Talk 23:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Cpt.a.haddock: but then, please, also explain (or repeat) what problems you see here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Cpt.a.haddock: What does your edit 'removing dupes' mean? see [5]— Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 ( talk • contribs)
@ Joshua Jonathan: I do not think you are accurately presenting Pollock's views here. VictoriaGrayson Talk 12:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: I was actually rewriting the same section. Here's what I had when I hit preview (and saw your edit!):
In his 1993 paper, Ramayana and Political Imagination in India, Pollock studies the evolution of Rama, the protagonist of the Sanskrit poem, Ramayana, from a mythological ruler to an object of worship often used by kings and leaders to legitimise their rule. He calls the Ramayana fundamentally a text of "othering" as outsiders in the epic are "othered" by being represented as sexual, dietetical, and political deviants. The primary antagonist, Ravana of Lanka, is not only "other" due to his polygyny but is presented as a tyrant. Similarly, Pollock states that the rakshasas (demons) of the poem can be viewed from a psychosexual perspective to symbolise all that the traditional Sanskritic Indian might desire and fear. He contrasts the "othering" in the Ramayana with the Mahabharata which not only has no "othering", but in fact has "brothering" due to the shared identity of the antagonists. [1] Pollock notes that the Ramayana's apparatus of othering and its demonising formulation lent itself for use by the ruling elite of medieval India particularly after the 12th century. He tracks its use in later commentaries of the Ramayana where the Muslim outsiders were cast as rakshasas and asuras, or in the case of a Mughal translation, of Akbar being projected as the divine king, Rama and divs as the rakshasas. [2] He reasons that this recurrent "mythopolitical strategy" of using the Ramayana as a political instrument has also found favour in modern India in the form of the Ayodhya dispute. [note 1] This is clear not only in the choice of Ayodhya, the traditional birthplace of Rama, but also in the attempts by the BJP and VHP to portray Muslims as demonic. [3]
I've kinda paraphrased (at least the thrust of) the long (and abstruse) quote into the text. I think the fact that the "othering" is of outsiders needs to be clarified (Pollock does so too). Anyhow, I think your edit provides some much needed context to the section. Thanks :) Will you be editing the "Lack of an Indian culture" section as well?-- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) (please ping when replying) 15:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
References
I tried to find free pdf's with texts from Sheldon Pollock; I found only two a few:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Now, "Crisis in the classics" has a very interesting opening-part:
This sounds very familiair, doesn't it, predating a certain recent book on Sanskrit and Sheldon Pollock?... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
JJ, Pollock will praise local languages like Tamil, Telugu, Kannada etc., but will attack Sanskrit. There is a difference. VictoriaGrayson Talk 14:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The "Crisis" is more or less well-known in India, at least among the people familiar with Indian culture. It is mostly a self-inflicted crisis by the Independent India, and had to do with the so-called "scientific temper," "communalism" vs. "secularism" dichotomy, and the Leftist hold over the Indian academe.
The "toxicity" is also well-known. Until the 20th century, Manu, whoever he was, was celebrated as a pioneering law-giver of the world. His icons had been installed all around the world, from Indonesia to New York. But in 20th century, he was roundly demolished, and his Dharmashastra is routinely burnt as a form of protest.
If Pollock engages in advocacy on these issues, he is quite welcome, but it is not particularly original or novel. The scholarship is really in his interpretations of the texts and, there, I think he takes considerable liberties. Not as bad as Wendy Doniger, but about halfway along the same road. I think it is right to critique it as neo-Orientalism. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
@ Kautilya3: this is about your revert [6] -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by HemaChandra88 ( talk • contribs)
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).