The Subaltern-Regional Paradigm Part 01 of 05
Summary
TLDRIn 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
📜 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.
🌐 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.
🏛️ 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.
🚫 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.
🗝️ 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.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Literary History
💡Power Politics
💡Aesthetic Rules
💡Marginalization
💡Hierarchy
💡Interpretation
💡Institutionalization
💡Immortalization
💡Mummified
💡Artifact
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
浏览更多相关视频
The Subaltern-Regional Paradigm Part 03 of 05
SHS 21st Literature Q1 Ep 2 Represintative Text from the Region
Critique a Literary Selection | Literary Approaches || GRADE 10 | MELC-based VIDEO LESSON | QUARTER3
AN INTRODUCTION TO LITERARY THEORY: What is Literary Theory?
Formalism literary criticism and example| Critical approach in literature
What is Genre in literature? Explained in Bengali | English Major | Semester 1 | Chapter 3 | elit
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)