Mohan Dutta: Culture-Centered Approach

In our advisee group meeting today (Zhuo Ban, Uttaran Dutta, Vicky Ortiz, and Shaunak Sastry, October 30, 2010), we discussed the idea of solidarity through reflexivity (see Dutta & Pal, 2010. As we participate in culture-centered processes of change, how do we articulate projects of solidarity that work toward change and are simultaneously critical of the dominant articulations of emancipation in global discourses of neoliberalism? How can we create avenues for discussing meaningful local participation in global scapes that celebrates the agency of local participation even as it works toward points of critique, both of processes of neoimperialism and the processes of local hierarchies that carry out the marginalization of the subaltern? Solidarity is at once a journey of friendship and a reflexive process that is critically aware of the locations of power one inhabits and the silences attached to these locations. This critical awareness by turning the lens on the self creates entr

I am reflecting on a very stimulating conversation I had with a student of mine at coffee today...It was a filled out room, there were other familiar faces, and the tables were situated pretty close by, so we had to somewhat monitor how loud we could get, and also watch our language/content somewhat, given the setting and our topic "Reflexivity, the postcolonial moment, dialogue, and proselytizing missions." This was an extension of an earlier class discussion where I had noted that "I feel more violated when someone is trying to convert me religiously than when a right wing republican says something really offensive about one of my ideals." The discussion in class was fruitful but for the sake of time, we had to move ahead to other topics. Our coffee conversation today was beautiful as it recognized for me once again the potential for dialogue as transcendental...When we explored ideas such as faith, the limits it places on dialogue, the openings it creates for dia

One of the fundamental tenets of CCA is its struggle against academic opportunism and clientelism that are established in academic structures and the bureaucracies tied to these structures. The critiques offered by earlier CCA projects have continually drawn attention to the middle class elitism and clientelism of mainstream campaigns that continue to use the subaltern contexts as grounds for doing research, gathering data, and publishing papers, without really the commitment to actually listening or making a difference. This albeit is a theme that is continually articulated through CCA projects where communities discuss their marginalization and exploitation in the hands of researchers. It is precisely in this backdrop then that I find myself negotiating the lines of co-optive politics as the language of CCA is turning more toward fundable options. People that trashed ideas of community knowledge or community dialogue are all of a sudden interested in the conversation because there is

One of the basic arguments of the Subaltern Studies project draws attention to the (im)possibilities of dialogue. There always has to be the acknowledgment that the fundamental essence of dialogue is brought into question by the project. Dialogue therefore is both contingent and fragmented, always open to re-interpretation. And also, it is precisely at this moment of dialogic intersections that the culture-centered approach outlines the relevance of engaging with the dominant structures, of challenging them, or bringing them to question, and of continually finding avenues for structural transformation. The politics of representation that must participate in aggregation in order to bring material change is itself situated amidst fragmented interpretations and dialectical tensions.

Reflexivity is a complex and challenging process, and much easier said than done. It is ultimately played out in praxis, as we negotiate the several points of privilege through which we as scholars secure access to public discourses. Being aware of one's power both as a privilege and as an entry point for change also has to come with an awareness of how one engages this power. The articulation of power in one context might be a positive entry point for change, and yet in another context might constrain the articulations of diverse worldviews. On one hand, listening to the "other" becomes a communicative process for engaging with this power; on the other hand, this act of listening has to be connected with praxis that is directed at change. And it is precisely at that moment of praxis (which is where our continuous commitments ought to be) that we come face-to-face with the tensions and paradoxes imbued in particular courses of action. When we make choices, these choices a

Mahuya and I just heard today that our piece "Dialog theory in marginalized settings: A Subaltern Studies approach" has just been published as the lead article in Communication Theory . This is a piece that took a great deal of love, care, commitment and honestly, work. We started working on this in 2007, three years ago, and the piece went through many iterations to get to its current form in Communication Theory. As the piece evolved, it also tracked our trajectory as writers/thinkers/collaborators. As we grappled with the piece, we wondered: what really are the possibilities of participating in dialogues with the subaltern sectors, especially when the discourses of possibility, participation, empowerment, and democracy are so often co-opted into the neoliberal framework. The one thing that amazes me the most these days is the gross appeal of terms such as participation and democracy, which have simply become ways for co-opting the subaltern into the profit making agendas o

As noted in ths history of colonial Empires, the language and methodology of "science" have often been used to systematically turn human beings into populations to be studied and scripted, into subjects of interventions, as passive objects to be examined through the methodology of the scientist. The collection of systematic processes has in such instances been set in motion in order to precisely carry out the colonial project through the generation of knowledge. The ways in which knowledge has been produced have been intrinsically connected with the uses of such knowledge to perpetuate the oppression and exploitation of the subaltern classes, simultaneously keeping the subaltern sectors of the globe out of the discursive spaces of the mainstream. It is in this very backdrop that the native is once again silenced because she is told that she can't participate unless she trains with the masters, uses their tools, and speaks their language. The legitimacy of science is used

Just heard of one of these social scientists (who is known for making blanket statements) making some claim in a class that "there is no such thing as culture." This bright young mind (who truly believes he is a scientist in a lab coat and can measure things like skin color to predict social behavior) noted that culture doesn't exist because it can't be defined. In terms of epistemology, this raises a vital question regarding how social scientists think of the legitimacy of the science they do: To the extent they can define something, lay it out (they call it operationalization), and come to an agreement about it (which is mostly some privileged white men and women sitting around a table/journal/conference panel/review panel), the thing comes to existence. So from this standpoint, having some privilege and then using the privilege to come to an agreement is what constitutes the valdity of a concept. What I find insightful in this logic is the agenda of neocolonial

The return of orientalist frames within the multicultural academe that emphasizes the need for mapping out other cultures in order to generate profits for TNCs is played out in the form of the mushrooming of "culture experts" across university campuses. These "culture experts" use the language of cultural sensitivity and multiculturalism to serve an industry of orientalist politics with neocolonial agendas. With the increasing emphasis on culture across the academic disciplines, there is a growing turf war about the legitimacy of who gets to participate in this enunciative politics and in the politics of representation. Who gets to be the one that is doing the "representing?" First, it is worth noting that much of this turf war is situated within the terrains of West-centrism as Western scholars find themselves amidst a situation where they now have to make justifications in order to maintain the privilege embedded in their enunciative position amidst this

One of the key elements of the CCA is the concept of structure (Dutta, 2008). Structures refer to forms of social organization that create as well as constrain access to a wide range of resources. These resources not only include basic necessities such as food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education etc., but also the communication infrastructures necessary to participate in the dominant public spheres. Based on empirical evidence documented in health communication scholarship for instance, the CCA notes the correspondence between the absence of communication infrastructures and the lack of health infrastructures. These correlations narrate an underlying economic dimension where being poor gets constituted in the realm of being unable to secure access to a plethora of resources necessary for life. Having noted this economic base of structures then, CCA raises questions about the role that communication scholars could play in challenging and transforming structures. In other words, no

One of my earlier blogs talks about US intervention in Aghanistan and the earlier support for Taliban offered by the US. This blog continues that conversation thread further. One of my students is studying the portrayals of "freeing Afghan women" that circulated in the US media during the US intervention in Afghanistan, further exploring the ways in which women in/from the Middle East construct, participate in and resist these images. In recounting a story of one of her interviews, she shared with me how a feminist scholar from the Middle East discarded postcolonial theory, stating that "Afghanistan really is backward. They don't even have a railway system." This statement stayed with me the entire evening, and here I am posting this message after much thought. When I begin with the notion, what really is backward, I also have to ask myself who gets to define the discursive frame of advanced/backward. The dominant logic of Western empires have historically scrip