Mohan Dutta: Culture-Centered Approach

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 h

Very often in health and development communication efforts targeted at the Third World, we hear our First World colleagues say things such as "We ought to be able to judge certain practices as inherently bad, ought we not?" Take for instance the Taliban's treatment of women in Afghanistan. According to these colleagues, we ought to be able to critique the Taliban and it's treatment of women. One of the things I would however like to point out in this context is that it was after all this impetus for freeing the women of Afghanistan from the Taliban regime that played out in US war efforts in Afghanistan. That the Taliban's treatment of women needs to be critiqued is a legitimate point. I would, however, like to add to this criticism by further suggesting that we also ought to locate our critique of the Taliban and its practices within the broader sociohistorical context of the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the role of the US in equipping the warlords in A

Many of the public diplomacy initiatives targeted at the Middle East focus on "winning the hearts and minds" of the people of the Middle East. To the extent that the objectives and strategies of public diplomacy initiatives are built around the goal of winning the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East, such initiatives are most likely destined to fail. This failure is inherent in the emphasis on persuasion built around top-down agendas directed at changing the attitudes and opinions of the targets of the message so that they would be more closely aligned with the goals of the sender of the message. Inherent in the idea of winning the hearts and minds is the notion of wanting to change the receiver of the message so that they would be more closely aligned with the sender's agendas. In the context of US public diplomacy efforts, the goal is to ultimately create positions of support for (a) US policies, (b) US corporations that might operate in the Middle East, a

Current public diplomacy efforts talk a great deal about cultural exchanges and creating cultural understanding. In most of these efforts, cultural understanding is defined in terms of cultural exchanges of artists, performers and writers rather than focusing on "real" points of entry for listening to various cultural communities (see for instance, the following report by the Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy). Although the arts and performances do provide insights into a culture, these are in many ways only some aspects of cultures. Arts and performances are important and yet only some of the more visible and easily accessible aspects of cultures. Ignoring the values and beliefs of cultures and the contexts within which these values and beliefs are negotiated leads to a short-sighted approach that ultimately does not engage with the deep-seated logics of the culture, which might in many instances be contradictory to the values and beliefs of US culture. Ultimately, t

In my other blog, Critical Thoughts , I discuss the inherently dishonest nature of public diplomacy efforts targeted at the Middle East. These efforts have been driven by a top-down agenda seeking to "Americanize" the Middle East, with the notion that an Americanized Middle East public would be more favorable toward the US and its agendas. An Americanized Middle East would be more closely aligned with US values,and hence would be favorable toward US security interests and would supply markets for US multinational corporations. In recent years, the language of dialogue and listening have been incorporated into these public diplomacy efforts although they continue to be driven by one-way agendas of changing the target audience. This outward show of listening serves to hide the top-down agendas of current public diplomacy efforts and makes these top-down communication strategies look more humane and dialogical. Pointing out the failure of such strategies as they are inherently d

The culture-centered approach discusses the possibilities for engaging in dialogue with subaltern voices. How do we as scholars engage in dialogue with those who have been traditionally silenced by mainstream communication platforms and discourses? How do we engage in dialogue with those subaltern groups whose subalternity is the very product of our existence as academics and our engagement in the academic process? Isn't the very act of academic engagement with subaltern communities marginalizing? What are the possibilities of dialogue when we impose our one-way research methods, data gathering techniques and methods of data analysis in order to explore subaltern voices? What are the possibilities for dialogue in the realm of the very journal articles in which we publish our work and the review processes we go through in order to publish our work? Ultimately, whom does this work serve? What are the opportunities for developing subaltern studies methods that offer opportunities for