Skip to main content

Which Shore is More Important?

The readings from week four had two distinct branches for me. One dealt with the construction and negotiation of pain, and the other with the need for participation and solidarity to improve life.

How do we negotiate pain? For a vast majority of us, it may be safe to say that we think of the physical aspect of pain when we think about it. One can easily point to the location of pain, as in arms, legs, stomach etc. But can this pain be actually objectified? Most people would agree that we cannot see pain. Can pain be pin pointed? Perhaps not. Then how are we constructing it as a physical element? If we take a more post positivist approach we can perhaps define pain as electrical impulses to and from the brain. In that case, why do we not consider pain as a brain manifestation?

I witnessed first hand the tendency among the Western doctors to quantify pain - tell me on a scale of 1 to 10, where your pain is right now. I wonder how effective such a statement can be, as it is easy to poke holes into such a concept. Could it be that pharmaceuticals have patented mediations for each level of pain and as soon as a patient says my pain is 9, he/she will get medication A and a scale 5 will get medication B produced by another firm? Will it be too wrong to say that this is the politics of pain?

I wonder about the responses of those cultures whose beliefs are more focused on the peace and well being of the mind than the body. Then there are those who can separate their minds from their bodies. How would they construct pain? On what scale? Will it be possible to recreate a specific pain to the finest of details? Perhaps because I did not read the original/entire story of Khol Do I did not understand the pain reference in the excerpt Das (1997) mentions. Would that not be more of a jubilation and elation than pain? Can someone actually feel the pain on another's body? Some may find this idea far fetched. But haven't we heard of tribes/people who can feel sympathy pain?

The other branch I read and enjoyed was the need for participation and solidarity among cultural insiders to effectively improve life. This to me is more effective and perhaps realistic to bring change in people who do not have a voice in the society. Assisting people find their voice seems more rewarding to me than trying to understanding why pain is what it is, and it surprises me to see that health scholars perceive marginalized populations devoid of agency and 'prescribe' interventions and 'improvements.'

It would be a priority for me in my career to learn to recognize what is important and what is not. I would like to lear to sort and filter my needs well, and customize my efforts into those that will really try to make a positive change for those who feel they need one.

Popular posts from this blog

Zionist hate mongering, the race/terror trope, and the Free Speech Union: Part 1

March 15, 2019. It was a day of terror. Unleashed by a white supremacist far-right terrorist. Driven by hate for brown people. Driven by Islamophobic hate. Earlier in the day, I had come across a hate-based hit piece targeting me, alongside other academics, the University of Auckland academic Professor Nicholas Rowe , Professor Richard Jackson at Otago University, Professor Kevin P Clements at Otago University, Dr. Rose Martin from University of Auckland and Dr. Nigel Parsons at Massey University.  Titled, "More extremists in New Zealand Universities," the article threw in the labels "terror sympathisers" and "extremist views." Written by one David Cumin and hosted on the website of the Israel Institute of New Zealand, the article sought to create outrage that academics critical of Israeli settler colonialism and apartheid are actually employed by universities in New Zealand. Figure 1: The web post written by David Cumin on the site of Israel Institute

Whiteness, NCA, and Distinguished Scholars

In a post made in response to the changes to how my discipline operates made by the Executive Committee of the largest organization of the discipline, the National Communication Association (NCA), one of the editors of a disciplinary journal Rhetoric and Public Affairs (RPA), Professor Martin J. Medhurst, a Distinguished Scholar of the discipline, calls out what he sees as the threat of identity (see below for his full piece published in the journal that he has edited for 20+ years, with 2019 SJR score of 0.27). In what he notes is a threat to the "scholarly merit" of the discipline, Professor Medhurst sets up a caricature of what he calls "identity." In his rhetorical construction of the struggles the NCA has faced over the years to find Distinguished Scholars of colour, he shares with us the facts. So let's look at the facts presented by this rhetor. It turns out, as a member of the Distinguished Scholar community of the NCA, Mr. Medhurst has problems wit

Disinformation, Zionist propaganda, and free speech: Far right cancel culture

Thursday October 12, 2023. The settler colonial occupation had unleashed its infrastructure of violence over the Palestinian people over a period of five days. Gaza was being indiscriminately bombarded, with mass civilian casualties that Amnesty International noted " must be investigated as war crimes ." At 3:32 p.m., my office phone rang. I was occupied and the call went to the voicemail. "Dutta, you are a murderous, f***ing, racist c***. Go back to where you belong...I will see to your termination in New Zealand." A couple of hours before that, an email had gone out from the Zionist Dane Giraud to the email listserv of the Free Speech Union, performed as a supposed apology for attacking my academic freedom. In the email, Giraud referred to my earlier b log post on the interlinkages between far-right Zionism, attacks on academic freedom, and the free speech union, noting how he had been enraged by the following statement on my blog: "I was therefore not surpri