The Subaltern-Regional Paradigm Part 01 of 05

Summary

In this video, the focus is on 'The Subaltern, Regional Paradigm Part A' by Pradeep, exploring the politics behind literary history writing. The author delves into how power dynamics influence the documentation of history, leading to the marginalization of certain groups and works. It critiques traditional literary histories for limiting interpretations and immortalizing texts, which can stifle the evolution of thought and discourse. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the power structures that shape our perception of literary merit and the need for a more inclusive and dynamic approach to literary analysis.

Takeaways

• 📚 Literary history is not just a documentation of the past but is influenced by power dynamics and politics.
• 💭 The writing of history, including literary history, is not innocent; it's tied to power and the interests of those in authority.
• 🔍 Power structures determine whose version of history is told, often favoring the narratives of the powerful and marginalizing others.
• 🎭 Aesthetic rules and values are often dictated and perpetuated by those in power, shaping cultural norms and values.
• 🏛️ Hierarchies, such as caste systems, are human constructs used by the powerful to maintain their dominance and control.
• 🌐 The concept of 'marginalization' is evident in how certain languages or cultures are deemed superior or inferior based on the interests of the powerful.
• 📜 Traditional literary histories can limit interpretations by conferring enduring fame on certain works, thus trivializing other potential meanings.
• 🚫 Literary history, driven by power politics, often mummifies texts, turning revolutionary works into museum artifacts.
• 🔄 The process of institutionalization in literary history sets up norms that can stifle diversity in interpretations and appreciation of texts.
• 🔮 According to Foucault, the construction of history is a form of social control, where power and knowledge are used to maintain the status quo.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is the discussion of 'Part A' of Module 6 titled 'The Subaltern, Regional Paradigm', focusing on the essay 'What did literary histories say to you' by Pradeep and Pambirikuna.

What does the term 'subaltern' refer to in the context of the video?

In the context of the video, 'subaltern' refers to the marginalized or oppressed groups whose experiences and perspectives are often overlooked in mainstream historical narratives.

Why does the author argue that history writing is not an innocent desire to document the past?

The author argues that history writing is not innocent because it is related to power dynamics, where those in power determine the narrative, often to serve their own interests, rather than providing an objective account of events.

What is the role of power in shaping literary history according to the video?

Power plays a significant role in shaping literary history by determining which texts are considered significant, how they are interpreted, and which aesthetic values are promoted, often in the interest of the ruling class or those in power.

What does the term 'aesthetic' mean in the context of the video?

In the context of the video, 'aesthetic' refers to a set of principles or values that underlie the work of a particular artist or artistic movement, influencing the creation and appreciation of literary and artistic works.

How does the video explain the concept of 'marginalization' in relation to literary history?

The video explains 'marginalization' as the process by which certain groups or works are excluded or downgraded by the dominant social powers, who control the narratives and aesthetic values, thus creating a hierarchy that favors their interests.

What is the significance of binaries like 'Sanskrit or Prakrit', 'literate or illiterate', 'classic or folk' in the video?

These binaries are significant because they represent the classifications created by social powers to categorize and rank literary works and languages, which often leads to the marginalization of certain forms of expression and knowledge.

How does the video relate the concept of hierarchy to power dynamics?

The video relates hierarchy to power dynamics by explaining that hierarchies are created by those in power to establish a ranking system that reflects their interests and values, often marginalizing or alienating those who do not fit within the dominant framework.

What does Foucault's theory contribute to the understanding of history and power as discussed in the video?

Foucault's theory contributes to the understanding by suggesting that the urge to construct history is a disguised desire for power or knowledge, as those in power use historical interpretations to exert social control and maintain their dominance.

How does the video critique traditional literary histories?

The video critiques traditional literary histories for limiting the interpretation of texts by institutionalizing certain readings and immortalizing specific works, which can lead to the trivialization of other potential interpretations and the exclusion of marginalized voices.

What is the meaning of 'mummified' in the context of the video's discussion on literary history?

In the context of the video, 'mummified' refers to the process by which literary history freezes or fossilizes texts, turning them into static artifacts that are removed from their original context and revolutionary potential, reducing them to museum pieces.

Outlines

00:00

📜 The Politics of Literary History Writing

The paragraph delves into the concept of literary history and its connection to power dynamics. It discusses how literary history is not merely a documentation of the past but is influenced by the politics of power. The author, Pradeep, critiques the notion that history writing is innocent, arguing instead that it is intertwined with power, as those in authority often write history to serve their interests. This includes the establishment and perpetuation of aesthetic rules that favor the powerful. The paragraph introduces the idea that the writing of history, including literary history, is a means for those in power to shape narratives and maintain their dominance.

05:04

🌐 Power and Aesthetic Marginalization

This section examines how social powers use aesthetic rules to marginalize certain groups and their artistic expressions. The author discusses how those in power determine and popularize aesthetic standards, often to the detriment of cultures and art forms outside their interests. The paragraph highlights the use of binary classifications, such as Sanskrit or Prakrit, literate or illiterate, and classic or folk, as tools of marginalization. It also touches on how power structures, like the caste system, are used to justify and perpetuate hierarchies that favor certain groups, leading to the alienation of indigenous peoples and their knowledge.

10:08

🏛️ The Hegemony of Aesthetic in Literary History

The paragraph explores the idea that the urge to construct history is a disguised desire for power or knowledge. It references Michel Foucault's theories on power and knowledge as forms of social control. The author argues that power structures hegemonize certain aesthetic forms, which in turn dictate interpretations and appreciations of art. Literary history, as a result, becomes a tool for institutionalizing specific aesthetic norms, often at the expense of diverse interpretations. The paragraph emphasizes that literary history is not impartial but is shaped by the political interests of those in power, leading to a biased and limited understanding of literary works.

15:11

🚫 Limitations of Traditional Literary Histories

The focus of this paragraph is on the limitations imposed by traditional literary histories on the interpretation of texts. It criticizes the tendency to 'immortalize' certain literary works by conferring enduring fame upon them, which limits the interpretive possibilities of these texts. The author argues that literary works should be interpreted rather than immortalized, as their significance evolves through history and time. Traditional literary histories, by institutionalizing certain interpretations and imposing them as the standard, trivialize the diverse interpretive potential of texts. This approach can lead to the exclusion of alternative readings and the marginalization of texts that do not fit the established norms.

20:14

🗝️ The Fossilization of Radical Texts in Literary History

The final paragraph addresses how literary history can 'mummify' even the most radical texts by freezing them in a particular period of time, thus limiting their interpretive potential. It discusses the practice of placing texts within specific historical periods and the risk of precluding other readings by doing so. The paragraph concludes by emphasizing that traditional literary history, governed by power politics, turns revolutionary texts into museum artifacts, stripping them of their dynamic and transformative potential. It suggests that a more open and diverse approach to literary history is necessary to fully appreciate the richness and complexity of literary works.

Keywords

💡Literary History

Literary history refers to the account of the historical development of literary writings in a specific region or language. It involves the comparison, categorization, and tracing of literary techniques used across various periods. In the video, the author discusses how literary history is not merely a documentation of the past but is intertwined with power dynamics, where those in power shape the narratives and interpretations of literary works.

💡Power Politics

Power politics in the context of the video refers to the influence exerted by those in authority, often shaping the narratives and interpretations of history and literature. The author explains that history writing is not innocent but is related to power, as those with power determine whose stories are told and how they are told, thus influencing societal perceptions and values.

💡Aesthetic Rules

Aesthetic rules are the principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement. The video discusses how social powers predicate and perpetuate unwritten and written aesthetic rules, often in their own interests. This means that the standards of beauty or artistic value are often determined by those in power, which can lead to the marginalization of works that do not conform to these rules.

💡Marginalization

Marginalization in the video is used to describe the process by which certain groups or works are pushed to the periphery or excluded from mainstream narratives. The author points out that binaries like Sanskrit or Prakrit, classic or folk, are signs of marginalization, set up by social powers to favor certain writings or cultural expressions over others.

💡Hierarchy

Hierarchy in the video is discussed as a system of ranking people or things, with those in higher positions having more power and influence. The author explains that hierarchies are determined by those in power and are used to justify and maintain their dominance, often at the expense of others who are ranked lower.

💡Interpretation

Interpretation in the context of the video refers to the process of understanding and giving meaning to literary works. The author argues that any literary work is a sign structure and can only be interpreted, not immortalized. This challenges the traditional literary histories that tend to limit texts within hegemonic structures of interpretation, suggesting that texts should be open to various interpretations rather than being fixed in a particular meaning.

💡Institutionalization

Institutionalization in the video is the process of establishing something as a convention or norm within an organization or culture. The author discusses how literary history is not only a justification of a particular form of aesthetic but also its institutionalization, meaning that certain aesthetic standards and interpretations become the norm, often determined by those in power.

💡Immortalization

Immortalization in the video is the act of conferring enduring fame or significance upon a particular literary work. The author criticizes the tendency of traditional literary histories to immortalize certain texts, suggesting that this limits the interpretative possibilities of the work and freezes it within a specific historical or cultural context.

💡Mummified

Mummified in the video is used metaphorically to describe how even radical texts can be fossilized or frozen by literary history. This implies that the dynamic and transformative potential of a text is lost when it is confined to a static interpretation within traditional literary histories.

💡Artifact

Artifact in the video refers to an object made by humans, typically one of cultural or historical interest. The author uses the term to illustrate how revolutionary texts can be turned into mere museum artifacts by traditional literary histories, losing their original impact and relevance.

Highlights

Literary history is an account of the historical development of literary writings, relating, comparing, and categorizing various forms of literature.

History writing is not merely an innocent desire to document the past; it is related to justice and power.

Power dynamics determine who writes history, often those in authority who make laws and govern according to their interests.

Aesthetic rules, both written and unwritten, are often determined and popularized by those in power for their interests.

Social powers can degrade and debase aesthetic knowledge and productions outside their interests.

Binary classifications like Sanskrit or Prakrit, classic or folk, are signs of marginalization set up by social powers.

The natural order of power does not exist; power flows according to the interests of certain social powers.

Hierarchy, a system of ranking, is determined by people in power according to their personal interests.

Social powers' interpretations of history can lead to the alienation of knowledge of indigenous peoples.

Foucault's theory suggests that the urge to construct history is a disguised desire for power or knowledge.

Power hegemonizes particular forms of the aesthetic, influencing interpretation and appreciation.

Literary history is a justification and institutionalization of a particular form of the aesthetic.

Literary history's judgments are not impartial and may not serve the interests of the general populace.

Any literary work is a sign structure and can only be interpreted, not immortalized.

Traditional literary histories limit texts within hegemonic structures of interpretation.

Established literary histories trivialize interpretational possibilities by institutionalizing and imputing immortality into texts.

Literary histories preclude potential for other readings by enshrining texts in particular periods of time.

Even radical texts can be mummified by literary history, turning revolution into a museum artifact.

Transcripts

[Music]

dear students

in this video i would like to discuss

part a

of module 6 titled the subaltern

regional paradigm part a

is titled what did literary histories

say to you and that essay

is written by pradeep

in the introductory paragraph of this

essay

the author talks about the writings of

history and the politics behind

the writings of history and he

slowly comes to the writings of

literary history and the power

politics behind the writings of literary

history what do we understand by

literary history literary history gives

an account of the historical development

of literary writings

in a particular region or language

it relates compares and

categorizes poetry prose

drama and other writings of others

at various periods it also traces

the literary techniques used

throughout the various ages of

writing so in this essay

pradeep and pambirikuna is talking about

the writing of literary history

so let us see what is there in the essay

history writing is not merely an

innocent desire to document the past why

does he say so

it is related not only to justice

but also to power the consideration of

power

always depends on the laws

focus on laws social powers also

predicate and perpetuate unwritten

and written aesthetic rules very much

in their own interests so here we find

an explanation of writing

history what is there behind

the writings of history in general

why is history writing

not an innocent desire to document

the past the answer is given here

it is related not only to justice

but also to power so writing of history

is related to power power

in the sense who writes the history

is determined by the persons

in whom the power rests

persons with power or people with power

are people in authority

they are the makers of law

and sometimes there is a tendency

that the law makers they govern

the people according to their own

interests

so let us see what is there the

consideration of

power always depends on the laws

focus on laws

social powers also predicate

perpetuate unwritten and

written aesthetic values

aesthetic rules very much

in their own interests so what

is happening those authorities

who have power to write history

they tend to predicate what is the

meaning of predicate

it is there in your glossary page number

154

predicate means to put before

to determine so they

have the capacity to determine

perpetuate but perpetuate means

cause to spread widely popularize

spread it determine spread it

what unwritten and written

rules aesthetic what do we understand by

aesthetic aesthetic means

a set of principles underlying

the work of a particular artist

or artistic movement

so there are some written or unwritten

features for the aesthetic

and these unwritten and written

rules are sometimes

determined and also popularized

by those in power

and they will be determining and

popularizing

it in their own interests

by the same process social powers also

degrade and debase aesthetic knowledge

productions

outside their own interests

so there is a tendency that these social

powers

degrading and debasing

debates in the sense downgrading

some artistic words

and that is also done according to their

own

interests so what happens as a result

hence description such as

sanskrit or pragrit literate

or illiterate classic or fork

are also signs of marginalization

[Music]

here the author is talking about

another relim of discussion

why does the author regard binaries like

sanskrit or prakrit classic or fork

as a science of marginalization

why because these binaries

are set up by the social powers

who work according to their own

interests to popularize or to degrade

or to debase certain

writings after categorizing people

into varnas or cards

looking at those who were outside the

system of varna dharmas

wondered as to who this beings where

after all power is hardly reflexive

about its own knowledge aesthetic

self-constructions given that

the natural order of power does not

exist

so this is the weakness of the social

powers

who create history

they hardly realize

the knowledge aesthetics

self-constructions

they make as the common mass

thinks power does not flow naturally

it flows according to the interests of

certain social powers

the notion of a human hierarchy

is merely an interpretation of

power so what do you understand by

hierarchy hierarchy means it is there

given in your glossary page number 154

system of persons or things ranked

one above the other so hierarchy is

a system of ranking

people or things belonging to the lower

level to the higher level it is a system

of persons or things

ranked one above the other so who

determines this hierarchy

this hierarchy is determined by

the people in power in the society

and they will be determining this

hierarchy according to their own

personal

interests it is through

self-interpretations that

man synonymous with brahmin

colonized the earth so here a comparison

is

made between two terms brahmin

and man man is there

in the effects level of this hierarchy

brahmin is also there in the apex level

of

caste system so there is a tendency to

equate

these two concepts and

these two persons tend to colonize the

whole

earth so that is one of the

interpretations

of the hierarchies being made by the

social

powers such exercises

also alienated the knowledge of

the first indigenous peoples

so if the social powers are making such

hierarchical orders then

some group or some sex in society

will be isolated or

alienated which sections of society

the indigenous peoples

of a particular society will be

alienated or

marginalized according to foucault

the urge to construct history

through interpretations is the disguised

desire for power or knowledge

itself so there is a reference to

fuku who

he was a french philosopher historian

writer political activist and literary

critic focused theory's primarily

address

the relationship between power and

knowledge

and how they are used as a form of

social control through societal

institutions so here

according to foucault the urge to

construct

history through interpretations

history has to be analyzed through

interpretation and that particular

activity is the disguised desire

for power or knowledge itself

it is power that hegemonizes

particular form of the aesthetic

what is the meaning of hegemonises

hegemonize in the sense create

predominance it is

power that hegemonizes

a particular form of the aesthetic

it is what we have just told about

the social powers they

make who should come in the apex

position

and who should come in the lowest

position

power determines for a particular form

of the

aesthetic which in turn determines

interpretation and appreciation

so if we have to understand history

it has to be understood

through interpretations but these

interpretations

are also determined by people

in power sometimes

such predeterminations became

the yardstick to measure literary merit

and were canonized as literary

history now we are slowly coming to

literary history literary history

is also determined by

or devised by or written

by such social powers

with their own political interest

thus literary history is simultaneously

a justification as well as

an institutionalization of a particular

form

of the aesthetic

so there is a word called

institutionalization what is the meaning

of that

institutionalization means the action of

establishing something as a convention

or norm in an organization

or culture that is the meaning of

institutionalization

so we are setting up a code of

law we are setting up a no a set of

norms for a particular

activity that is happening in the

society

or if for a particular cultural

mode or an artistic mode

we are setting up a set of rules or

norms such a process

of setting up or establishing

certain conventions or norms

for a particular kind of artwork

or culture is called

institutionalization

here what is referred to thus literary

history is

simultaneously a justification

as well as an institutionalization of

a particular form of the aesthetic

so literary history results in

a kind of institutionalization

of a particular aesthetic

its judgments are hardly impartial

or in the interests of the general

populace

this paragraph has begun with ascendance

what was it

history writing is not merely an

innocent desire to document the

past as the innocent people

think as the general populace think

just like that the writing of literary

history

is also not impartial

as the general populace thinks about it

it is not in the interest of the general

populace

also so here in the introductory

paragraph we get

an idea about history writing

the politics behind history writing

and also aspects of the writings of

literary histories the power

politics behind it the

institutionalization

and judgments and interpretations

behind the writings of literary

history now i am proceeding to

the next paragraph any literary work

is a sign structure and can only be

interpreted not immortalized

so in this paragraph pradeep and pambri

kuna

is talking about the

structures of interpretation

traditional literary histories limit

texts within the hegemonic structures of

interpretation so he is criticizing

the traditional literary histories

and in this paragraph in the first

sentence he is talking about

a literary work how a literary work has

to be

conceived any literary work

is a science structure and can only be

interpreted not immortalized

it's a very important statement when we

go through literary history

we find a lot of literary works

and we get meanings out of this literary

works

through interpretation so there is no

need for

immortalizing a literary work

okay immortalizing meaning conferring

enduring fame upon

a particular literary work so what is

the meaning of it

there is a tendency for this social

powers to confer some greater

significance to

certain texts and consider some

other texts as inferior to certain texts

so the immortalization is not needed

according to this order okay we have to

interpret

the different text so we don't have to

immortalize the different text

why does he say so a text survives

through

history and time because of its

various interpretations but

established literary histories tend to

trivialize such interpretational

possibilities

by institutionalization and imputation

of immortality into the texts

this is the reason for the question

how do traditional literary histories

limit the meaning of a text

how do they limit they tend to

trivialize

trivialize meaning making silly

trivialize such interpretational

possibilities

by institutionalization and

imputation of immortality into text

so if we make some

aesthetic with a set of

nose or a set of rules

we are actually limiting the perceptions

of that particular aesthetic if we are

giving

importance to some of the literary texts

then

we are discarding some others

and making some as prominent so these

two

activities are done by the traditional

literary history according to our oda

and this activity will limit

the interpretation of the different

texts

by enshrining a text in a particular

period of time

by virtue of its supposed singularity of

signification

such literary histories preclude

the potential for other reading

by enshrining a text in a particular

period of time

so when we discuss literary history we

are placing certain texts

into a very a particular period of

history some other text into the other

period of

history so if we make such

period-wise division of the texts

what will happen there is a tendency

to preclude to avoid

or to preclude means avoid in

advance to avoid some

other readings of the texts

we are just limiting the interpretative

possibility of a

text thus literary histories

limit these texts within the hegemonic

structures of

interpretation and appreciation

even the most radical of text is often

mummified by literally history what is

the meaning of

mummified fossilized or

frozen even the most

radical of text is often

frozen by literary history

revolution thus becomes a museum

artifact artifact meaning

an object or a thing an object made by a

human being

typically one of cultural or historical

interest so revolution is only just

an object that has to be kept in a

museum or anything like that

revolution doesn't happen if we think

in the line of the traditional literary

history

because it has some power politics

behind it

and the traditional literary history is

governed

by some social powers which

institutionalizes and makes

prejudice judgments on their

different interpretations so with this

i conclude this session we will be

continuing our chapter

in the next session thank you