Re: [Urbanstudy] Re: Problematizing Definitions

zainab, 
i remember once suggesting dipesh chakrabarty's
provincializing europe in response to something you
said. one thing i learnt from this book is to think
about the universal as a placeholder. it is always the
particular that occupies that place. the challenge is
in finding ways of translating one particular into the
other without using a middle term. useful as this is,
somehow it seems to gloss over the complexity of power
relationships in our daily life. i find this
particularly distressing in our debates on the rights
discourse. ragpickers have a sense of rights and
entitlements too, i suspect, which our own sense of
rights and universality blocks out in such a way that
we either impose our notion of rights on their
experience or we slip into a rationalization of our
outsiderness. hence the importance of the kind of
writing you do. it allows us to think about how we
talk with other people. keep posting.
anant

--- Priyasha Kaul <priyashakaul@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> hi zainab,
>       enjoyed you writing, as always. I agree with
> you on the
> problematics of the entire 'rights discourse', but i
> feel as much as
> it is derided in "intellectual circles" today, it
> continues to be
> important because even though the city as a public
> space and its
> subjective carving out in the lived sense remains
> wildly different
> from differing standpoints, the important thing is
> that those
> experiences and understandings are at one level
> related to ones rights
> in the everyday sense of living rather than an
> objective/bounded and
> defined legal sense. and the enforcement of these
> rights is
> necessarily related to power (in the foucauldian
> sense) which
> privileges the rights and understandings of some in
> society over
> others.
> 
>  "Intervention" or alternatively the lack of it,
> therefore, in
> whatever form, be it through government agencies or
> the NGO-type,
> becomes a doubly problematic issue since it tends to
> become a
> phenomenological exercise in what they think are the
> "rights" of the
> rest of society.
> 
> Best
> Priyasha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/20/05, zainab@xxxxxxxxx <zainab@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Dear Mr. Reddy,
> > Reading your email, some questions come to my
> mind:
> > a). Is there anything as universal rights? What
> constitutes universality?
> > b). How do we define culture? What acts constitute
> culturality?
> > c). What is the relationship between culture and
> lifestyles?
> > Regards,
> > Zainab
> >
> >
> > > It is not so much about definitions as it is
> about
> > > conceptualizations--cluster of concepts, which
> are part of some theory.
> > > And
> > > such a theory filters what you experience of.
> > >
> > > In the first case, it sounds like there is only
> one way of describing, or
> > > like the rights-talk (or its variants) is the
> best way of describing.
> > > Here,
> > > the debate is not so much definitions, but to
> what extent theory of rights
> > > does captures the experience of the natives? If
> one denies the
> > > rights-talk,
> > > one is not denying the phenomenon, that is, a
> coarse description competing
> > > theories accept.
> > >
> > > Abt the second case. Surely the ragpicker's
> experience is different from
> > > yours. Do your and his experiences share any
> common structures? Assuming
> > > that a common structure is being shared, the
> only way to defend such a
> > > possibility is linking it to 'collective
> culturality'.: again, people
> > > resort
> > > to their pet notions of what culture is.
> > >
> > > Idem for the third case.
> > >
> > > All these cases share one thing: does whatever
> is seen in some place
> > > constitute culturality? Those who answer in the
> affirmative share this
> > > claim
> > > as well: every practice is cultural; and such
> claims do have nothing to
> > > say
> > > about cultural differences, except that cultural
> difference is a
> > > difference
> > > in beliefs. The explanatory relation between
> practice and belief is
> > > defensible only within the ambit of semitic
> theologies.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Reddy, V.
> > >
> > > On 12/15/05, zainab@xxxxxxxxx <zainab@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> There are some of these days when I think about
> 'definitions' and I am
> > >> bothered ?
> > >>
> > >> 15th December 2005
> > >>
> > >> I have suddenly discovered the camera and am
> making pictures everywhere
> > >> I
> > >> go (these days).
> > >>
> > >> Yesterday afternoon, I was walking past the
> Grant Road Bridge, making my
> > >> way to Lamington Road. Grant Road Bridge is the
> home to many pavement
> > >> dwellers and drug addicts. At one point, I saw
> a child screaming and
> > >> crying, drawing everyone's attention. The legs
> of this little boy were
> > >> tied. He may have been about three years old.
> Next to him was his little
> > >> sibling. She was a new born infant, deep in
> slumber, inside a pen. For a
> > >> moment, I was shaken by the wailing of the
> little boy. For a moment, I
> > >> was
> > >> moved by the cruelty of the act of tying his
> feet. But when I brought
> > >> out
> > >> my camera, I decided not to moralize the
> picture, but to show one more
> > >> aspect of street life in one part of the city.
> I did not have the
> > >> courage
> > >> to make the picture from forward. So I decided
> to go back and make the
> > >> picture. I photographed. A little commotion
> ensued. A woman came running
> > >> and she came up close to me saying, 'No
> photos', 'No pictures'. I was
> > >> frightened. I decided to show her the picture I
> had made and delete it
> > >> in
> > >> front of her eyes to reassure her. She grabbed
> me by my arm and pushed
> > >> me
> > >> away, 'go away from here'.
> > >> My guess was that the woman was mildly mentally
> deranged. She was very
> > >> aggressive when she pushed me. I began to
> wonder why the child's legs
> > >> were
> > >>
> > >> tied. My only guess is that maybe its mother
> did not want it to wander
> > >> around the road in her absence; so this was a
> good way to keep the child
> > >> put ? basically safety of the child.
> > >> The lady who pushed me may have been the
> mother. And again I guessed ?
> > >> perhaps she did not want me to make the
> picture, thinking that if I were
> > >> a
> > >> social worker type, I would take away her
> children thinking that she is
> > >> a
> > >> cruel mother and put them in foster care ? I am
> only guessing here!
> > >> What interested me about the experience was the
> definition of rights ?
> > >> are
> > >> rights truly universal? In the context of
> lifestyles and cultures, do
> > >> rights take on relative meanings? For instance,
> in the case of this
> > >> child,
> > >>
> > >> there may have been perfectly legitimate
> reasons for tying his legs in
> > >> the
> > >> context of their lifestyle and culture ? does
> the rights' framework then
> > >> do unintended violence to such people and
> cultures? Does it give power
> > >> of
> > >> definitions (in the Foucaultian sense) to
> certain groups to intervene on
> > >> behalf of the greater good (greater good
> questionable 
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Urbanstudygroup mailing list
> Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City
> 
> To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group
> archives, please visit
>
https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup
> 



                
___________________________________________________________ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com