Inescapable Reflexivity for Social Science Research in India for Now: A Personal Dialogue with the Lived Contexts of Anthropology

A. Das
{"title":"Inescapable Reflexivity for Social Science Research in India for Now: A Personal Dialogue with the Lived Contexts of Anthropology","authors":"A. Das","doi":"10.4314/IJMA.V2I11.4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a reflexively critical account of the lived practices particularly of anthropology that might stand broadly valid as well for other social science disciplines in most of the Indian Universities except a few elite ones. This is because the ways the dominant discourses of institutional learning in postcolonial India—more particularly of ‗science‘ disciplines—persist as foreign to and outside our everyday lived realities that their disorienting consequences surface more pronouncedly and specifically in higher education. The writing materializes my becoming of a site of dialogues regarding why, how and what might be the urgent reflexivity about the ―decline narrative‖ in ‗social sciences‘. The reflexive responses, nonetheless, are selective about the themes that I consider salient. They include: (a) how and why we need to accept our ‗reality‘ as ‗hybridity‘ that is assumed to complete and compete for the full circle of going global (‗western‘) and then to create the ‗real‘ differences in the research outcomes; (b) the reflexively critical journey beginning with where and how we stand in field research by merely „being there‟; (c) how we might redraw the possibilities of social science in India and finally (d) why and how the ambivalence of hybrid in-betweenness might help us speaking out ourselves. Thus, we cannot escape how we, like most of the postcolonial nations, unwittingly moved to the stabilising singularity at pre-neoliberal order that hardly could disembed us from the enduring ground of reflexive everydayness, even at the rise of neoliberal unstable multitude. Keywords : Reflexivity, Social Science, Anthropology, Dialogue, Hybridity, Ambivalence, Postcolonial, Merely being there, Fieldwork, Knowing/Becoming, Neoliberal, Education","PeriodicalId":14088,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Modern Anthropology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/IJMA.V2I11.4","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Modern Anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/IJMA.V2I11.4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This is a reflexively critical account of the lived practices particularly of anthropology that might stand broadly valid as well for other social science disciplines in most of the Indian Universities except a few elite ones. This is because the ways the dominant discourses of institutional learning in postcolonial India—more particularly of ‗science‘ disciplines—persist as foreign to and outside our everyday lived realities that their disorienting consequences surface more pronouncedly and specifically in higher education. The writing materializes my becoming of a site of dialogues regarding why, how and what might be the urgent reflexivity about the ―decline narrative‖ in ‗social sciences‘. The reflexive responses, nonetheless, are selective about the themes that I consider salient. They include: (a) how and why we need to accept our ‗reality‘ as ‗hybridity‘ that is assumed to complete and compete for the full circle of going global (‗western‘) and then to create the ‗real‘ differences in the research outcomes; (b) the reflexively critical journey beginning with where and how we stand in field research by merely „being there‟; (c) how we might redraw the possibilities of social science in India and finally (d) why and how the ambivalence of hybrid in-betweenness might help us speaking out ourselves. Thus, we cannot escape how we, like most of the postcolonial nations, unwittingly moved to the stabilising singularity at pre-neoliberal order that hardly could disembed us from the enduring ground of reflexive everydayness, even at the rise of neoliberal unstable multitude. Keywords : Reflexivity, Social Science, Anthropology, Dialogue, Hybridity, Ambivalence, Postcolonial, Merely being there, Fieldwork, Knowing/Becoming, Neoliberal, Education
印度社会科学研究的不可替代的自反性:人类学生活语境下的个人对话
这是一种对生活实践的反思性批判,尤其是对人类学的描述,这可能对大多数印度大学的其他社会科学学科也广泛有效,除了少数精英大学。这是因为在后殖民时代的印度,制度学习的主导话语——尤其是“科学”学科——坚持与我们的日常生活现实格格不入,以至于它们令人困惑的后果在高等教育中表现得更加明显和具体。写作物质化我成为一个网站的对话,关于为什么,如何和什么可能是紧急反思性关于“社会科学”的衰落叙事‖。然而,对于我认为突出的主题,反射性反应是有选择性的。它们包括:(a)我们如何以及为什么需要接受我们的“现实”作为“杂交性”,这被认为是为了完成和竞争全球化(“西方”)的完整循环,然后在研究成果中创造“真正的”差异;(b)反身性的批判性旅程,从我们在实地研究中的位置和如何开始,仅仅是“在那里”;(c)我们如何重新描绘印度社会科学的可能性,最后(d)为什么以及如何在中间混合的矛盾心理可能帮助我们自己说话。因此,我们无法逃避,像大多数后殖民国家一样,我们是如何不知不觉地在前新自由主义秩序中走向稳定的奇点的,即使在新自由主义不稳定的群众崛起时,这种秩序也很难使我们脱离反思的日常生活的持久基础。关键词:反身性,社会科学,人类学,对话,混杂性,矛盾心理,后殖民,仅仅存在,田野调查,认识/成为,新自由主义,教育
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信