Avishek Parui: So, hello and welcome to this
course entitles Feminist Writings, in what
is the concluding session of this particular
course.
I am very happy to have with me today, Prf.
Bharti Harishankar from the department of
Women Studies, Madras University and Dr. Merian
Simigarch from our very own department of
Humanities and Social Sciences, IIT Madras.
We also have the two TA’s who have been
very helpful with the running of the course
- Mohit Sharma and Sukriti Sanyal.
And we have research scholars who will introduce
themselves in due course of time.
So what we'll do in this course, we'll have
a generic discussion in terms of the relevancy
of this course, the content of this course,
and we will attempt to connect it with the
cultural [00:00:50] which are experienced
in the contemporary times and also historically.
But, you know, we talk about issues such as
reification, radicalization etc.
So it's going to be a free interaction and
hopefully it will trigger conversation and
dialogues for the participants as well as
interlocutors such as yourselves.
So let's start with the basics, which is the
very key question - why a course like this
in the first place.
So why do Feminist Writings?
What is the purpose and the utility of a course
in the world we live in today?
- Which is apparently globalized, apparently
liberalized and it's the quality as a big
banner everywhere.
So I'll start Professor Harishankar in terms
of the very basic question about the relevance
of a course on feminism and feminist writings
today.
So where do you see this course to be situated
in the context of our times?
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: For answering this question
and the relevance of Feminist Writing, I think
we also need to go back and revisit the question
of what constitutes feminist writing.
Because that has changed over the years.
So depending on what we look at as feminist
writing today, we can talk about whether or
not they are relevant.
So in particular, I'm in fact looking at what
began as foregrounding the voices of women
is now moving towards capturing the gender
spectrum.
And there again, adding we say LGBT, (())(2:19).
So, given that, we are expanding the spectrum.
What seems to me the basic relevance of a
course on feminist writing is to see that
there are other voices, and those voices are
not being captured.
And if they have been captured, have they
been fore grounded?
So going right back to the question of 'where
is the agency', 'where is the voice' and which
of those voices (1) are audible, and (2) which
of those voices are making a change.
And I would certainly think that making a
change is a very crucial aspect of what we
mean by feminist writing.
Avishek Parui: Yes, I agree completely.
I think agency and articulation are two of
the chief categories.
And like you said, this reconfiguration of
agency and the agentic voices and we can figure
out what is marginalized, and what isn't marginalized.
These categories are very fluid in quality
and very context sensitive as well.
So that's a really rich response I think.
We can just take it off from the air.
But you know, Merin, do you have a response
to that, in terms of the...
Dr. Merian Simigarch: Yes.
I would entirely agree with what Professor
Harishankar just articulated.
And there was a time when in terms of genealogy,
in terms of critical tradition, in terms of
writings, it was an 'all men' kind of space
kind of literature or cultural articulation.
So whatever you take, it was an 'all men'
space.
And we all know there were a series of historical
events which were responsible for including
men, including women and then there were lots
of debates and discussions about it.
I think it is all the more relevant in the
contemporary to have a course like this, which
talks about feminist writings.
Because now we live in a... space in terms
of literature, in terms of culture.
There are women everywhere.
There's an increase in visibility which almost
leads literary culture and critics to even
delude themselves into believing that the
problem has been solved.
Women are everywhere, there is a great deal
of visibility, there are women writers, there
are women protesting, there are women activists,
there are women occupying every slot in terms
of literature, culture and everything that
concerns human living.
So it's all the more relevant today to talk
about what is feminism and what is feminist
writing because it is important to understand
that.
It's not just about the visibility, it's also
about where and in what context these visibilities
are framed.
If I may quickly recall, in one of the essays
by, Susie Tharu and Tejaswini Niranjana it's
a post-mandal essay which appeared.
There she talked about the problems for the
contemporary theory of gender.
So one of our arguments is that.
Just because there are women out there, protesting
mandal commission, it does not mean that the
problem ends there.
And it becomes all the more difficult.
It's a very problematic position when you
find women out there, protesting something
like reservation where caste also intervenes.
And suddenly you realize you cannot take the
(())(5:25) position of being with women.
Because that could also put you in a very
problematic horrid.
The another contemporary thing that I can
think of is the recent events in Kerala - Sabrimala
issue; where again you find women taking a
political position and they are out on the
streets and they are expressing themselves.
But again, the politics of that is very problematic.
So I think a course like this and similar
courses are very important to understand the
crux of feminism and also, not to lose the
same (())(5:50), this is an on-going articulation
against various forms of patriarchy.
There's no standard model.
So just because women are visible out there,
it does not mean that the problem hasn't been
dealt with.
Avishek Parui: Yes.
That’s a really interesting point because,
you know, we often delude ourselves like you
said, and to believe in it is a linear equation
between visibility and agency, which isn't
quite the case at all.
And sometimes, it works the opposite way and
in case of the Sabrimala incident, for instance,
is spectacularly visible.
Dr. Merian Simigarch: Yes.
Avishek Parui: Right?
It was a spectacle; it was a hyperreal thing.
If you think about the agency in question,
that becomes a very fragile point.
So that's a classic case in point.
So thank you both for very rich responses,
holding it up for the TAs and the discussions
in terms of the responses.
Speaker 4: Like Merian said that despite the
visibility, the structures of power are still
the same, and this is something that we see
in a text like Tickets Please, which is situated
in...
Avishek Parui: By D.H. Lawrence.
Speaker 4: Yes, which is situated in a post
world was scene and in that story, we see
that how the harassment happens at the work
place and the imbalance of power is utilized
to coerce, it is like a forced constraint
is being extracted from women which they have
to pay for with their own jobs, their own
employment and which leads to their dependency.
And this is something that you find resonance
in the current issues happening both in India
and worldwide; issues which result in the
#Meetoo movement, the harassment which has
been going through, for a long time.
Those cases which have come out now have been
there since decades and those cases have been
swept under the rug and those things have
been carried on.
And just like in Tickets Please, it erupted
at a certain moment and despite the visibility,
despite a much wider spectrum of employment
options available now than they were in 1919.
A similar thing is happening, a similar exploitation
of power is taking place.
Even older texts can us a perspective into
current issues which are still relevant.
Avishek Parui: Right.
Great, thanks for that Mohit.
Any other responses?
In terms of seeing the texts that we have
covered in this course - the question of visibility
and agency.
Because I think, what it comes down to is
the question of embodiment, extended embodiment
in a social space and how that becomes problematic
and how the key question of agency actually
becomes more fragile with visibility.
So that is a very easy question with which
we delude ourselves, something, we moved on
from patriarchy because women are seemingly
in positions of power.
But then that becomes very very problematic
as you said.
So moving on from that, in terms of looking
at feminism today, like you said at the very
beginning, these are historical trajectories
and our students of this particular course
will be very mindful of the historical evolution
of feminism as it was.
So how do you see feminism situated today
apripos of the textbook understanding of feminism
as we read from (())(8:59) century onwards.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Yes, one word I can think
of is rhizomic.
Avishek Parui: Yes.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: That's the only feminism
that is going but somewhere along for any
particular interpretation, we seem to be isolating
strands of feminism.
So I would put feminism in approval today
certainly, feminisms.
But at the same time, I would also say there
are multiple angles that feminism offers.
So, I'm not only talking about the intersectional
aspects of feminism where we are looking at
the concerns of caste, class, gender, religion,
region, language.
But I'm also looking at the kind of theoretical
interventions that we see in feminism today.
Certainly taking a very multi-disciplinary
projection there.
But the bottom line seems to be - whether
you are a practicing academic or an activist
in feminism, the concern seems to be - how
to negotiate the three A's - Advocacy, Activism
and Academics - how do we bring them together?
And do we need to bring them together at all?
So that would be an open question.
But certainly, I don't think we can avoid
asking that question anymore.
Avishek Parui: Yes.
What is interesting is the word 'rhizomatic'.
We wouldn't ascribe a positive attribute to
that structure.
Do you think that makes feminism more plural...?
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Absolutely.
Because, I think, at every point in time,
historically, people, but I would in fact
say women, themselves have said - 'okay, we
have come to this stage and probably feminism
is done.'
So we have been waiting to write the obituary
of feminism for a really long time.
And the fact that we have continued and more
importantly the fact that certain things have
been added as we moved, makes feminism have
that resonating structure.
And, we can also look at it the other way
and see, its precise because it is rhizomic,
that it has moved into a different direction
and caught those different perceptions.
Avishek Parui: Right.
That's really interesting.
Merian, how do you situate yourself in terms
of academic, in response to this question
in feminism today?
Dr. Merian Simigarch: I would again like to
take off from one of the points Professor
Harishankar made about the binary - feminist
activism and the literary kind of feminism
- that we are more comfortable in dealing
with.
So in an ideal situation, perhaps, this binary
should not exist.
But the truth remains that - when you practice
literary feminism, within a theoretical framework,
there's a way in which we begin with the historical
conditions and there is a lot of activism.
And the political situation which comes in,
but when it comes to really reading a text,
it seems to be entirely divorced from the
historical backdrop and from that trajectory,
the chronological, political, historical trajectory
through which feminism also came from.
Since, you are also familiar with one of the
texts that you did as part of this course.
Githa Hariharan's The Remains of the Feast,
if you take that text as a case in point.
I would say that, one way you can read the
text is, as a perfect articulation of feminist
politics where certain kinds of taboos are
being overcome through various measures.
If you are familiar with the text, you would
know the details as well.
But I'm also thinking that, if one is also
conscious and really familiar with certain
ground realities about caste, for instance,
which is there, loud and clear in the text,
but if you go deeper into the text and also
analyze the different structures that the
text is apparently subverting about brahmanists,
about gender, you would also know that there's
a certain way in which the text plays within
a comfort space.
So I think this comfort is something that,
as academics, we are also comfortable to deal
with it.
But yes, you look at the text and do not look
at what really constitutes the outside of
it.
And we find this is very very liberating.
Again, coming back to the text, if you look
at it, and if you see the figure of the grandmother,
who is positioned as the radical one, you
would also see that there is hardly anything
at stake.
The family knows that she cannot threaten
any of the structures.
They continue to do the rituals in the same
way that had been doing.
There is no unsettlement that happens over
there, except that the grandmother... and
in fact, on the contrary, it appears as an
act of benevolence.
There is there is secular model family who
allows the grandmother to eat laddoos from
a Muslim vendor who is allowing the untouchable
things, to enter their household - there is
an act of benevolence.
And it's very loud and clear - the act of
benevolence as well.
And I think, one should be able to cross over
with binary in this fashion by engaging with
the text and also looking at the structures
within which the text is situated.
I think that would us to...
I do not have a formula in mind even when
I say this.
Perhaps we do not have the appropriate theoretical
frameworks to deal with.
But the problem with feminism, something like
feminism is that, like many other theories
that we deal with, this is not entirely literary,
it emerged from a lot of historical struggles.
So that needs to be taken into account even
when we are doing theory, even when we are
doing criticism.
Avishek Parui: That's a really interesting
response because I think we may sometimes,
in the risk of doing a disservice to feminism,
in terms of how we deal it really textually
in a classroom and this could be a reification
that happens there - which is one of the points
I wanted to culminate on but I'm glad it came
up right now - the relationship between radicalism
and reification.
So how can a radical become reified quickly,
so get caught in a new liberal narrative in
terms of the benevolent narrative which he
just mentioned.
I think that particular text isn't really
a strong case in point in terms of appearing
to be radical but we know that nothing actually
changes, where we sort of end up being in
this liberal space where brahminism and the
rituals are discontinued.
There is this little ripple somewhere which
is very comfortable to be within a domestic
space because it doesn’t go out in the real
world.
So in that sense, it's a really interesting
text in terms of looking at the ontology of
radicalism and what is actually radical at
all and the culture in which it is situated.
Any responses from the scholars and TA's especially
in relationship to that text - Gita Hariharan's
The Remains of The Feast.
Speaker 4: Sir, just adding on to what you
said, I think the hyper connected nature of
today's reality and the fascistic nature of
the medium makes it all the more easier to
reify the radical.
So, initially, now that the social media and
everything that we see, that makes it all
the more easier.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: But, you know, I would
like to just raise a query there.
So, this entire fascisization that you are
talking about, is that a fashionable tone
of stereotyping?
Are we coming right back stereotyping but
we are doing it in such a hyperconnected way
that it feels like a reality that you are
projecting, benevolent or otherwise.
But are we going back to a good old construction
- deconstruction stereotypes?
Speaker 4: I think, ma'am, it's a two-way
sword kind of a situation where both things
are happening simultaneously on the same medium
and it's sometimes difficult to discern between
which way a certain course is going.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: See, I was looking at
the larger picture here.
See, here we are talking about feminist writing.
I am, in general, concerned about what we
do as part of gender studies.
Because we have the theories, Indian and outside,
but when we look at the material to connect,
and I am talking of text in a very general
sense of very post-modern text where anything
is a text under discourse.
So when we are looking at that situation,
where are our texts?
And I certainly believe it comes from the
groundwork that is being done by activists
and people who are advocating feminism at
that level.
How do we make that connect from what happens
at the ground level and bring it into our
classrooms?
And that always is one proving to which, consoles
me a lot because I feel that we need to give
illustrations in class which also goes back
to reality.
I'm not saying it should all the time go back
to reality, but it should also back to reality.
And where are out instances four our readings?
So do we look at writings literary otherwise,
but do we also open up these writings to what
happens.
So these oral narratives, the archives, where
are we?
And where are they going to come into our
courses, our writings?
Dr. Merian Simigarch: I think in this context;
we also need to ask the larger question of
Canin.
So when we talk about feminist writings, we
are essentially bringing up a set of texts
which have already been decided by Canin.
Canin if you look at, you know, the traditional
understanding, there is a certain kind of
a patriarchy which is woven into it.
So maybe there should be a way in which we
can bring out of those boxes as well.
And bringing in texts which are non-canonical
but again as pointed out, there's again a
risk over here - about these non-canonical
things becoming the canon in a different way.
So this should be a system by which, you know,
there is some kind of flexibility.
It should always be built in, not allowing
the canon to solidify in some way or the other.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: I think the risk of normalizing…
Every time there is a canon, you feel it will
mobilize.
Avishek Parui: And normativize as well.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Yes, and normativize.
So how do we overcome that?
Avishek Parui: That's a really interesting
question because I think that connects with
some of the key things about policies in any
situation in terms of discretion and content
creation.
And I think that's a really valid question
in terms of the dialogue between what happens
in the world out there, what happens in the
classroom.
And I think, we as academics, you know, are
very responsible to a certain extent, we should
be held accountable to a certain extent for
this insularity that is there in the classroom.
So while you see the way out this in terms
of making it more dialogic, so you think it
can happen through seminars and conventional
processes or do you think there should be
a path breaking thing which should be done
in terms of making it more inclusive, it can
make activists, collaborating, so how do you
think that could...
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Yes, so collaboration
is a way forward, the way I would look at
it.
But I, as an academic, it seems to me more,
that aspect better, I would say, let's start
from there - the kind of rigor we bring into
research and I think the charm of doing feminist
research is to have that self-reflective subjectivity.
And can we formalize it?
Can we theorize that?
And breathing that theorization into our interpretations
into our teachings.
So I think, feminist research methodology
would differ from say, any social science
research.
(1) It would insist on the subjectivity, but
it will also put a caveat they have say, let
it be subjective but let it be self-reflective
first.
So that, in the name of subjectivity, we are
not bringing in biases and prejudices but
we are actually making ourselves aware of
those biases and prejudices and I would say
that one aspect, if we can bring it into our
classrooms, especially on feminist writings
and studies, we will do a really good work
there.
Because for every theory or concept that we
read in this course, there is a reality out
there which as created that concept in the
first place.
But for us to grasp the concept better, we
need to go back to that reality as well.
So, I look at it as a very continuous to and
fro movement.
And the tone for movement maybe important
not only in the teaching-learning but also
in interpretation.
Avishek Parui: Absolutely.
So I suppose what we are hoping in the not
recent future is the more healthy balance
of theory and praxis in terms of having not
just a collaborative but a more symbiotic
relationship; what happens in the field in
the real world and what happens in the classroom
and not necessarily compartmentalize those
as water tight categories.
Any responses from the TA's and scholars?
Speaker 6: Hello, I am Shiji, I am a research
scholar in this department.
Ma'am I would like to add on to what you have
said.
Talking about feminism in today's perspective,
today's world, it should be like going back
to the roots because these texts - whatever
we are learning, it came because of a kind
of activism which emerged at that point of
time and then, this text came back.
So adapting these texts in this particular
real life scenario and interpretation of it
in this today's world matches a lot.
Avishek Parui: So, some of the TA's, you would
be able to throw some light on it in terms
of some of the text that we have covered in
this course which potentially, let's say something
like Judith Butler, even de Beauvoir for instance,
so how do you situate them in terms of the
discussion we are having.
Because, in one hand, they are superstar academics
and their content is always ontologized and
universalized across the world.
But how important is it to take them out of
the textbook and situate them in a way, for
concerning the gender politics happening in
the world out there?
So what would be your take?
Speaker 6: Sir, I think when we are talking
about, say Beauvoir, what is very interesting
that she has done is open up the position
of women as a construct, right?
So it's looking at different aspects of it,
so be it the sociological perspective, political,
cultural, medical - so she critiques it from
all the historical and all the angles and
sees it - how a woman, as we say, know it
that it's not born and how one becomes a woman.
So, during the time of the second wave movement,
I think it is a very seminal work, because
again, it throws a very constructionist perspective
to the category of women which is not biological
or sex based.
And when we, obviously come to the third wave
which Butler represents and she carries forward
what Beauvoir is saying but she puts a very
different and interesting notion, a very third
world approach to it and questions the category
of the woman itself - which problematized
everything.
Again.
speaking from a very hardcore point of theory
because, when we talk about activism probably,
this question doesn't come because we know
who the women are and the second wave has
consolidated that category, that it is the
feminine consciousness that is there; they
are the women.
But when we come to the third wave and we
have distinguished between sex and gender
and asking questions - as in who can speak
in the name of a woman.
And then we know that, as ma'am said that
there are many feminisms now; it is not only
one category.
And every identity is fluid, even if we are
aspiring for subjectivity, it is subjectivities.
So how can a person, or how can we take a
stand?
Like how identity politics has been heavily
criticized before, especially in the third
wave and it does not, because again, we speak
from a particular position that is singular
and that is monolothic and has to be, everything
has to be plural, so that we are inclusive
and it does not really have to be, I mean
that is what we need.
That is what feminism is for, as a theory.
So I think Beauvoir, if we bring her...
Butler, if you talk about Judith Butler, then
for the complicated issues of who is the woman
and who's name are we talking about?
But then, I think Butler also says that even
if we understand that 'woman' is not a singular
category, it is plural, but we also recognize
that there is a need to speak from a position.
Otherwise, how do you negotiate the different
discourses around you and how do you channelize
yourself through them.
So I think that is a very important thing
- to recognize that the woman is not just
a woman born with a biological sex of being
a woman, it can be, the definition can be
expanded and it is multiple and fluid and
changing, evolving all the time.
But even when we need to speak about it, just
like there is disability studies, perspective
or a class perspective, race perspective and
different other perspectives.
Avishek Parui: That's very interesting because
what that does is, it brings us to one of
the most heated debates that we keep having;
not just in feminism but I suppose in all
-isms.
So the relationship between essentialism and
contructionism.
Suppose when you say something that disrupts
and we sort of deconstruct it, there is a
degree of liberation about it.
Then when it comes to owning a certain identity,
a certain degree of essentialism is probably
helpful as well, to a certain extent.
So how do you see, as an academic, this very
fine tuning between essentialism constructionism?
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Yes, it is in relation
to feminist studies and it is the balance
that we need, all of us strive to strike between
and positioning and performing.
So, to what extent do we position ourselves,
vis-a-vis an idea, a construct and to what
extent do we perform the construct.
And in my opinion, I think till we position
ourselves, we are rather clear about where
we are coming from.
With the minute we start the performative
aspect, I think, inevitably, signs of essentialism,
which in the initial stages, we try to position.
But somewhere along, we seem to you know,
somehow let go of that grasp.
I'm not saying that it is necessarily wrong,
in fact in my opinion that gives the variety
that we bring into feminist texts today; it
is precisely because of that.
You know, we can alternate and we can very
consciously alternate between one and the
other.
Avishek Parui: Merian, what would be your
response to this?
Dr. Merian Simigarch: Yes, I think Harishankar
is, to very loosely put it, to be in it to
understand where we are coming from, I think
that could be one of the starting points which
can help us be originally the regression of
canon itself.
For instance, we all would agree that there
would be certain feminist discourses, discourses
which are predominantly considered as feminist,
that can come across as alienating and even
threatening to a certain communities and even
other women.
I think we must discuss this text - The Yellow
Wallpaper, as part of the course, and it is
seen as this embodiment of feminist, the feminist
text - one of the pioneering texts that is
very very wide and that is the critique - the
whiteness of it and the social structures
within which the text situated - that can
come across as very very alienating and even
threatening to somehow who does not inhabit
those social spaces.
So I think, in our context, in the Indian
context, that would make more sense, the kind
of feminism that we feel it together, we come
across every day.
Some examples from the contemporary social
media - #Meetoo movement.
Much as we all completely support the need
for it and the way it is radically changing
the ways in which the social spaces, deconstructed,
we must also pay attention to the fact that
this is the space which only certain kinds
of women can access.
The language of it, is very very alienating
to someone who does not inhabit this urban,
metropolitan centers, who does not have access
to that kind of language and the frameworks
within which the movement itself works.
So, unless one has attended to these things
as well, I think there is a real danger of
feminist discourse itself - becoming another
kind of patriarchal framework within which
some kind of licensed patriarchy works within
academics.
And it is something, as academics, we should
pay attention to.
Avishek Parui: Yes.
I suppose what is interesting to see how patriarchy
can operate overtly in discourses while seemingly
seeming to be liberating and liberal and the
rest of it.
But it’s actually embedded in a very overt
patriarchal discourse which is always a danger
and it reification as well.
But it's really interesting in The Yellow
Wallpaper, I think it is one of the most problematic
texts which we have covered in this course
so far.
The rightness of it just stares at your face
and despite all that female agency and the
medical trauma and the masculinity and medical,
so the collusion that happens as a result
of which the specialty of the female subject.
But then, of course, rightness is something
which is very much a part of the discourse
and that is a very covert patriarchy which
is operated with that seemingly radical text.
So this will connect that to what the TA's
have covered it quite extensively.
How do you situate that particular text in
the modern narrative of feminism in The Yellow
Wallpaper?
Speaker 7: So before answering your question,
I had a question just when you mentioned The
Yellow Wallpaper and why we were doing it.
And we were talking about female agency and
the talks about hysteria and a woman that
is hysteric.
And when she actually, the narrator tears
down the wallpaper, it is some kind of agency
as she has saved herself from the medical
imprisonment and she comes out.
But, so I would like to question this position
of the hysteric.
So when we talk about... so certain theorists
or feminists are seeing this as a very liberating
position, where women can go out of the discourse
of the patriarchal discourse and setup and
construct and talk about, express her feelings
in a more empathetic or, you know, giving
a way to her emotions.
Whereas some different school of feminist
are seeing this as a very limiting position
which again brings a woman to that same binary
of irrationality and confines her within it.
So I would like to ask - what do you think
about it?
What is the way around it?
Would you like to see the position of the
hysteric as agentic position or one that again
confines the woman within the same binaries.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: First of all, I would
like to look at the position as one way or
the other.
More than a position, it is a space.
So this space of being hysterical, that offers
upon (())(33:33) for negotiation, I think
is welcome.
Because it doesn't compromise with the sense
of agency.
But at the same time, if the legal of a hysteric
put on them from outside, that is where I
think we need to be a little careful.
Because, who is authorized to define a person
as hysteric?
I'm of course not talking about medical credentials
here, but in general, who is authorized to
label another person?
I'm moving right back to this politics of
naming.
So when one shouts, does it become hysterical?
When you go and ask what happens when a man
shouts, what happens?
So I think two related aspects need to be
looked at in this.
One, there are certain things we cannot look
at as positions.
So here, I think, the act or fact of being
a hysteric can provide the much needed space
to negotiate and articulate.
That is all.
On the other hand, it also raises a question
of who is authorized to name someone, call
someone hysteric.
Or is it a perception on the part of the individual
herself.
Avishek Parui: I agree with you completely
on that because this space becomes a big deal
in terms of gender performances and each form
of involvement as a general is very spatial
in quality.
That deeply informs the different degrees
of involvement.
But I was intrigued with what you said about
the whole politics of naming and classifications
medically done.
Because, I was thinking of the First World
War - when soldiers came back from the war
and they were hysterics, they exhibited all
symptoms of hysteria.
But of course, because they were big guys,
they couldn't be named hysterics.
So they coined a term for Shell Shock and
no one thought what that meant.
And this entire medical confusion around Shell
Shock was a classification; they couldn't
come up with a classification quickly enough
at that point of time.
Which is why, where and when interestingly,
Freud became very handy.
Because he just comes in at the perfect moment
when the British neurologists are struggling
to understand what's happening with these
big guys, who are shivering like children
and women - I think the term that is used
is malingerist and chivelrist [not sure of
2 words 00:35:59], but it was very quickly
reclassified.
So hysteria moved from being a disease of
the womb to something that can affect even
muscular guys coming back from the trenches
or traumatized by the horrors of the war.
Which brings us to the broader question of
classification which I think we've been discussing
so extensively already.
The whole idea of classifying or labeling
groups which can sometimes appear to be liberating
in quality, appear to be radical in quality.
But that can again quickly, sort of, feed
into the whole idea of reification - the moment
you classify someone as a group as LGBT or
gay or lesbian - there's a degree or danger
of reification even in that classification
as well.
Because you stop saying that - that subject
is compromised and constricted in terms of
being just that and nothing else.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Absolutely.
I think we can go right back to this Indian
construction of the image of Kali, for instance.
So your only one hand, we are very quick to
differentiate Kali from the more benign (())(37:06)
of goddesses.
Whereas at the same time, look at the colonial
construction of the Bengali babu as an effeminate
- because he worships Kali.
So that is where I see the danger of labeling.
You label a thing or a person in relation
to a very specific moment and context.
But be very quick to take it away from that
context and extrapolate.
And that extrapolation is in my opinion, very
dangerous because we do, two very related
mischiefs there.
One is that we take out what we originally
intend and provide an intent where it was
not meant.
And, as an extension of that, we also take
it as a point of contestation.
And, not all times do you have a contestation
there.
So in fact, I surprisingly, when I was dealing,
reading up on the perception on Kali in Indian
(())(38:21), it's surprising that Sister Nivedita
had a perception, coming from outside, which
should have technically speaking emerged from
within India.
Speaker: Right.
That is very interesting because I was thinking
of Mrunal [author name 00:38:36] work and
the whole idea of the effeminate or [one word
00:38:44], you know the masculine British.
And what's also interesting is that how that
masculine British got informed by the (())(38:46)
movements which in turn borrowed by heavy,
from Indian military forces.
The Tipu Sultan regiment, you know, that was
what [00:38:39], the mustache of Tipu Sultan,
that informed the Baden-Powell masculinity
which gets very, effectively the face and
no one talks about that at all.
And that seems to be a British convention
at the top, completely.
So this sartorial marques, this sort of embodied
marques, I think they are, like you said,
they are sometimes very effectively and strategically
faced away in terms of a complete diverse
in the context and making some kind of a timeless
universal (())(39:23) of the feminity or masculinity,
which then get very co opted into broader
narratives as terrorism, colonialism etc.
Marien, how would you like to respond to this
value of classification and the dangers of
classification as it were?
Dr. Merian Simigarch: I think it is all about,
who gets to lead here and who gets to categorize.
And that also, essentially brings in this
bit of power, the structure is within the
topic.
If I may go back to the example that Sukriti
used when she asked this question - the category
of hysteria and the text being The Yellow
Wallpaper.
So taking the ending of the text, it’s a
very powerful ending.
While there is also a sense in which we get
that there are certain images, there are certain
labels which can be used only to talk about
women.
We find the man fainting at the end.
The man faints at the end but that becomes
you know, it is almost like telling us that
it became too big for him handle it.
But there is no term to talk about it.
The story, it is a very powerful story, especially
at the ending when Ravin told that - yes,
the woman emerges as the stronger one in this
entire discourse and at the end of it, we
realize that the weaker man does not get labeled.
On the other hand, from conventional leaders,
a lot of publishers as you know during that
time, who sympathized with the man, because
this was not something that she was supposed
to encounter, and also that, the man in the
story, the moment he encounters something
which he has never encountered before, he
just cannot take it, he collapses.
But there is no term to categorize that, it's
just an aberration.
If we extrapolate that into any of the circumstances,
any of the situations that we deal with the
contemporary, the spaces within the discourses
or within the other kinds of articulations
that we find in the culture, the politics;
there was a way in which a certain set of
people, always get a name, always get a label,
they always get categorized and they always
circumvent those things which are inconvenient.
And I believe that in terms of feminist discourse,
in terms of engaging with feminist writings,
unless one begins to engage with those inconveniences,
we may not be able to push past these boundaries
and these delimiting categories.
So, it's always easy to deal with categories
and labels, so instead of adopting the labels
and the categories which have been handed
over to us, as (())(42:01) that, we just discussed
too.
So I think it is about to step back and who
had labeled a particular thing as X,Y or Z
in the first place.
And look at those conditions wherein which
the labeling and the categorization happened.
So that is perhaps one of the steps that we
need to take.
This also ties up very neatly with the question
of ‘can make the best of agency.'
Avishek Parui: Yes, completely.
Because you know, one needs to be mindful
of the materiality of labeling.
I mean it's not an abstract activity, there's
a very material activity which has solid economic
underpinnings, political biases, ideological
biases as a result of which certain labeling
happen.
So the materiality which informs the informs
the process of labeling is something, obviously,
it's the (())(42:48) effectively, you know,
people don't get to know the material nominations
which took place to inform that directly.
But once that is dug up and studied and examined
as textual categories, then it becomes easier
to understand the little politics of labeling.
But this, sort of brings me, because I was
thinking of, you know, a self-reflexivity
and I sort of thought that it's a really important
point because, one of the things that fascinates
me about feminism as a student the way it
allies itself to so many other movements around
that time.
I'm thinking particularly about French feminism,
the movement and the degree it borrows or
it sort of lends itself in a very dialogic
way to post positivism.
Right?
So how do you think this aligns it's work
in feminism, already the first thing we know
that how (())(43:36) work.
But looking at today, how do you see feminism
connecting itself symbiotically and sort of
dialogically to some of the movements around
the world?
Let's say the whole refugee crisis movement
to immigration policy movement.
So do you think feminism has, sort of potentially,
a dialogue in these things in terms of connecting,
maybe (())(43:58), drawing all these movements?
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: The answer to that is
actually - Yes and No.
Because, yes, it is dialoging, so we too have
had a lot of these intersections and these
interactions happening which is, you know,
whether it is with Marxism or psychoanalysis
and post modernism or post colonialism.
So this list is fairly endless.
The types of feminisms captured, the kind
of interactions that have been there.
And I see the value of those interactions
in two ways - one is certainly, all these
theories - have had an impact on the way feminism
has shifted as a theory.
But I found, find even more interesting is
- the way feminism answers back to them.
And I think if we study the dynamics of that
answering back, the dynamics itself is amazing.
Because each covers most of the points that
we raised in our discussion today.
Just by going back and asking - yes, this
will be useful for many things but is it useful
for this particular idea too - is gender included
in this?
You know, that one idea seems like a very
simple question but - even when you do your
Foucault (())(45:29) for instance, or Foucault's
sense of discipline and power or micro politics
of power, time and again, you feel like asking
the question - by the way, is gender included
in this?
You don't know.
See, we kind of adopt and adapt it to look
at feminist text.
Whereas, I don't think these theories by themselves
would have lead to anything.
But I think that we, all of the engagement
between feminism and these theories, that
have actually come up with some really interesting
questions asked.
I don’t think we have answers.
But certainly, these are very important questions
to raise.
Avishek Parui: Right, interesting.
So this is for all the scholars.
Because I am aware that you come from different
research clusters.
So how do you see feminist connects to some
of the clusters you are more aware of - let's
say post-modernism or post-structuralism or
post-colonialism.
As you have seen as researchers, how do you
see the connection operate at a textual level
or even an experiential level?
Speaker 8: Hello, my name is Swati Shrivatav
and I am a research scholar at IIM Madras.
Now, since we are talking about The Yellow
Wallpaper - there is another text that comes
to my mind - The Awakening by Kate Chopin
- American edition which was also criticized
for being very white in terms of its feminist
approaches.
So that brings me to a question.
Aren't we using feminism according to our
conveniences?
Right?
Because in that text, we see, there is a white
woman who is cornered by her own problems.
And then there is a maid; a working woman,
who is not taken into consideration of feminism,
right?
And that brings me to the idea of sisterhood
which I think we are not using as effectively
as it has been projected in theories.
When we practice sisterhood in texts, in literature,
but not in reality; be it family, be it work
place.
Because, we must have heard women beings agents
of patriarchy, right?
And that is what I would like to question.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Okay.
When you mention Kate Chopin, I was in fact
thinking of this entire literary debate that
came up when Jean Rhys's Wide Sargasso Sea
came, and how it centers the (())(48:02) and
the attic.
But the (())(48:07) responses to Wide Sargasso
Sea, interestingly focused on the characters
of Tia and Christophine and said - when the
cream like entity come in and how do we deal
with them.
So my response, I don't know if it is an acceptable
response, my response is that - all of these
things have a ripple effect and there (())(48:39)
who far and white, but I think in at any given
point in time, we actually disrupt the ripple
itself and assume that this is very good.
Right?
And that is why, I think, in this, as you
rightly questioned - why is that we are not
able to look at the sisterhood, which is such
a lovely theoretical concept.
Why is it not getting practiced?
I would say, we are holding too many handles.
And we don't know which handle to choose at
any given point in time; the handle of being
a woman, the handle in terms of your caste,
your class, your urban location for instance.
So I think we have far too many handles there.
But I would still say that it is better to
have those handles because the option we have
is a binary.
So we certainly know about the binary even
if some concepts like sisterhood cannot be
applied in total.
Speaker 9: Do you think, this what you mentioned
now and the idea of mischief that you mentioned
previously - do you think this is a kind of
an inherent danger or potential danger in
the rhozomatic development of feminisms; each
feminism developing from their own places
and there they interact with different discourses
which also resonate in a similar environment.
And the way those interactions between discourses,
the way they shape culture, the way they shape
things around them, can have a counterproductive
effect on another discourse of feminism.
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Yes, absolutely.
I mean that concern is a very valid concern.
I mean when we talk about the kind (())(50:35)}
that a rhizomic structure provides you.
This linear is always there.
However, what I have found in all the intersections
that we talk about in relation to feminism,
I think the primary focus is on the feminist
there and the gender construct.
So, you know, we are prioritizing one over
the other.
I'm not looking at them as one taking away
an influence that can disrupt what had happened
earlier.
But I look at it as a perspective that is
added.
And in my opinion, we already had a lot of
rhizomic expansion with feminism.
And this is what disrupted the core with which
we started in our movements.
So given that, I am personally not worried
because I feel that we need to raise those
intervening questions.
Because when the theory gets formulated, I
think in the earlier years it doesn't have
to worry because it's coming out of one ideology,
it's coming out of one context and we are
all aware of the context.
But when it moves beyond the context historically,
that is when I think, we need to be worried
whether, you know, whether, as Merian rightly
pointed out - do we move right back and create
a canon around of this so called periphery
or margin.
And I think, precisely the question which
you raised, will they be counter-productive.
If they are counterproductive, do we extend
the equations?
That kind of of canon formation, in fact I
could even add the word 'unthinking canon
formation', I think it's doing its job.
And we need it.
So I do not necessarily see it as a problem.
Avishek Parui: There is thin line between
reality and problem, right?
On one hand, we sort of separate, we obviously
open up the Pandora's box as it was, which
could be an inconvenience.
But I take as Merian pointed out, as we look
at feminism today, we need to not just accept
but also celebrate inconvenience in a way.
Because, in a way that cuts, sort of cuts
off the complete seamless narrative which
gets very easy co opted to patriarchy and
the other forms of (())(52:59) such as nationalism,
consumerism, capitalism etc.
So that inconvenience becomes, I think, in
a sense a discursive phenomenon which must
be accepted and celebrated and articulated
over and over again.
And that interruption, inconvenience - and
these are also very post-modern categories
in a way, right?
Because that adds on to the new idea of self-reflexivity
where the use of self critique yourself all
the time.
And therein lies the resistance, if I can
use the word resistance against any danger
of reification because it is breaking itself
all the time - discursively, thematically,
ontologically.
And if you accept and articulate inconveniences
and interruptions, then I think that itself
becomes resistance against any meta narrative
which will be ascribed onto you as a category.
So just to, sort of, answer the question again,
so in terms of looking at inconveniences,
Merian, would you situate feminism as a movement
which is sort of dialogic with inconveniences,
as Mohit was mentioning in the question, that
is very common sensical question in terms
of whether or not that undercuts some of the
motivations of feminism.
But do you think that's a risk worth taking
in terms of being more inclusive?
Dr. Merian Simigarch: Of course, lots of debates
on how we engage with gender and feminism,
example, our context - if we try to make gender
and caste sit together, it would be like plenty
of inconvenience which will suddenly emerge.
But there is a certain kind of feminism, certain
brand of feminism which uppercuts feminist
(())(54:29) and that is something that other
feminists find very very problematic.
So the moment caste comes in, what would have
been seen as progressive, as modern, begins
to look very (())(54:42), to say the least.
And that is something which becomes visible
only when you look at gender and caste together.
If you only look at gender and look at feminism
as a very ideal state, then it's a perfect
thing to have.
But when you bring in, when you inject caste
to it, and for instance, if you bring in a
certain Dalitness to it, which is like in
arrest, you're bringing a blackness to it.
You begin to see that this is really not perfect,
this is a convenient thing, yes?
A convenient thing which will ensure that
patriarchy does not affect me and at the same
time, I will not get categorized with the
other.
So it will ensure that I will be not be categorized
as 'the other' in terms of the patriarchal
system.
But it wil also make me stay immune against
the other kinds of things which could be lower
caste, which could be lower class.
So I think that is something which we still
do not have a correct framework for it.
So which is why perhaps this relies on theory,
also becomes a very problematic thing.
Avishek Parui: Not at least because of the
neurocentric biases in these theories.
Right?
Dr. Merian Simigarch: Yes.
Avishek Parui: Because that's where most of
these theories come from and it's a sort of,
blindly mapping those theories into the reality
under certain situations.
It becomes a wonderful textual experience,
it reads wonderfully as a text and it is very
attractive in the classroom.
But the question is that - is it actually
viable or helpful in the reality out there.
That becomes a very key question.
So I think as a academics we need to be careful
about how we use theory as well, in terms
of how we map theory and in certain (())(56:27)
realities.
So where we base, and that's a very generic
question, I know, but would you sort of, caution
through this, against this by mapping of interactive
theories such as deconstruction and post-structuralism
on to let's say feminism?
What will be your voice of caution in this?
Prf.
Bharti Harishankar: Okay, one is, of course,
as I think Diana (())(56:50) puts it, this
was the olden days with post-colonialism which
says - let's not put the entire bandage to
heal things up.
So we are not very really looking at theory
as a quick fix to read a text.
I think that's one danger that all of us,
I mean there's a lot of temptation out there
in terms of theory.
So it is very easy to find a theory.
And there are theories that we don't find
a text to back.
So I think that certainly one caution that
we take.
And I can also tell you from practice that
it's maybe a good idea to look at the underlying
philosophy to a theory.
Because, very often when we use just a few
concepts out of those theories, (())(57:39),
but if you go right back and then, you know,
see for instance, even Simone de Beauvoir,
you realize that it's coming from a major
existential (())(57:50), how do you look at
the whole concept of 'the other'.
So I think that to me is certainly one caution,
I mean, let's not jump into the theory bandwagon
because the theory is there.
That is one.
Second is, at what point in the text do we
bring that?
So do we read the text, let the text open
out and then you say - okay, this connects
up, this particular idea can be better explained
through a theory.
That's one way of doing it.
But having said this, I must also say that
theory certainly gives a structure to the
way we interpret the text.
So we cannot really say - no theory from today.
Because the theoretical structure to your
interpretation actually makes that interpretation,
at least articulated in a way where people
can take it or leave it.
See, otherwise we would just end up talking
thematically and (())(58:53) to a reality
that is certainly a very confined reality.
So wr certainly don't want that.
So that opening out certainly happens with
theory.
So that is where I feel both theory and text
is a balancing act.
But the minute we say that one is more important
than the other, I think we run a problem.
But I also agree with you about at neurocentric
baggage that we have.
Some of those are (())(59:31) that we are
able to apply.
So somewhere around, I think, Foucault seems
pretty versatile to me.
(())(59:42) for quite a long time.
So certainly, again you know, Derrida, while
the philosophy is (())(59:51) the chapter
of deconstruction.
So I think somewhere around, it is also fashionable
to sight and forego a few theories.
But I don't think if we forego this notion
of - let's look at the theory, let's adopt
it, yes, but let's adapted as well.
So I really think all aspects of a theory
has to fit in your scheme of interpretation,
not needed at all.
But we somehow feel forced to just stick to
one theorist.
So then we are, I think, upfront whether it's
our research papers or our dissertations and
thesis we are quick to say - a psychoanalytic
approach or a post-modernist approach or deconstructionist
approach or, you know, a feminist approach
or an intersectional feminist.
So I think we don't have to rush to that choice
of theory that quickly and I think we haven't
even forced to make a combination and I think
more than in any other field, feminist writing
allows you that opportunity.
You wouldn't say - I want to look at this
particular idea of this theory where I want
to combine it to offer a better interpretation,
a new insight into my text, into the text
that I am dealing with.
So I think that option is there and we are
probably not exercising the option very well
till now.
Avishek Parui: I completely agree because
there is a danger of some degree of hyper
intellectual presumption that, where I consume
certain theories and just blindly replicate
it in textbooks.
And as you said, this very frozen mathematical
models where you can apply psychoanalysis
to (())( 01:01:53) theory to a wonderful (())(01:01:56)
side of it but that obviously is very limiting
and reifying.
So I think we can end on that really interesting
note because it's very sensitively liberating
to (())(01:02:05) theory, as Merian put it
and more accommodating to inconveniences and
I suppose that connects back to the fundamental
question with which we open the relevance
of feminism today; that in a way that would
probably equip us better to negotiate better
with inconveniences and not negate incontinences
but to accept and celebrate inconveniences
as a way to move forward in the world we live
in today, in a world where we internalize
today.
And perhaps that acceptance and celebration
of inconvenience would make us more self-reflexive
as you pointed.
And therein lies the political possibilities
of feminism; not just the classroom textbooks
or as a movement with which we can internalize
and contest the actions that we do as thinking
human beings in the world we live in today.
So with that we end this particular session.
Thank you very much again to Professor Harishankar
Dr. Merian.
And also the two TA's of this course - Sukriti
Sanyal and Mohit Sharma.
And thank you to all the research scholars
who attended the session.
Thank you very much.
With that we conclude this session of Feminist
Writings, the NPTEL course that we ran from
January 2019, thank you.
