{"title":"Book review: Sanjib Baruah, In the Name of the Nation","authors":"Samir Sharma","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043078","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043078","url":null,"abstract":"Sanjib Baruah, In the Name of the Nation (New Delhi: Navayana Publishers, 2020), 278 pp. ₹599.","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"292 - 294"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48522407","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-17DOI: 10.1177/23210230211043604
Sudhir Kumar Suthar
Elizabeth Chatterjee and Matthew McCartney, eds. Class and Conflict: Revisiting Pranab Bardhan’s Political Economy of India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2019. 299 pages. ₹1,395
{"title":"Book review: Elizabeth Chatterjee and Matthew McCartney, eds. Class and Conflict: Revisiting Pranab Bardhan’s Political Economy of India","authors":"Sudhir Kumar Suthar","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043604","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043604","url":null,"abstract":"Elizabeth Chatterjee and Matthew McCartney, eds. Class and Conflict: Revisiting Pranab Bardhan’s Political Economy of India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 2019. 299 pages. ₹1,395","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"301 - 303"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44482295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-17DOI: 10.1177/23210230211058536
Hilal Ahmed
Writing a conventional obituary for Prof Dhirubhai L. Seth (or Dhirubhai!)—the former Director and one of the founding members of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and member of advisory board of this journal—is a difficult task. Dhirubhai was a theorist of the present. He would always respond to the challenges, issues and anxieties posed by the contemporary moment. The past in Dhirubhai’s framework is always seen in relation to contemporary concerns. For him, ‘historicization of an event, or an object...or an institution of a distant past becomes credible, and makes good historical sense, only when it is done in terms of contemporary concerns and sensibilities’ (DLS, p. 25). Dhrubhai’s intellectual adherence to here and now forces us to always engage with him as our contemporary. His lively, assertive and interventionist intellectual quest cannot be treated as history. For this reason, the colourful intellectual personality of Dhirubhai cannot be commemorated in an orthodox unadventurous mode. The vastness of Dhirubhai’s work poses a challenge of a different kind. He used to describe himself as a writer of short stories to justify his faithfulness for writing long essays instead of books. These essays address a number issues such as nationalism, democracy, caste, religion, backwardness, institutional development, non-party political processes, grassroots movements, intellectualism and so on. Although there are two edited volumes based on his various writings —Satta Aur Samaj: Dhirubhai Sheth (edited by Abhay Kumar Dubey, 2009) and At Home with Democracy: A Theory of India Politics (edited by Peter R. deSouza, 2018)—it is very difficult to provide a thematic label to Dhirubhai’s intellectual universe. Any conventional tribute, especially in strict professional academic sense, is almost meaningless, if not entirely futile. To avoid such explanatory difficulties, we must engage with Dhirubhai’s notion of intellectualism: How did he conceptualize the role of intellectuals in a postcolonial society like India? Dhirubhai makes a crucial distinction between academic work and intellectual pursuit. For him, academic work refers to the formal, professional engagement with a particular subject matter. On the other hand, intellectual work is seen as a creative devotion to an idea simply to nurture a process of constructive thinking. Dhirubhai introduces an innovative dimension to this conceptual distinction. He emphasises the decisive role of language in the realm of ideas. He writes:
为Dhirubhai L. Seth教授(或Dhirubhai!)——发展中社会研究中心的前主任和创始成员之一，也是本刊顾问委员会成员——写一篇传统的讣告是一项艰巨的任务。迪鲁拜是当代的理论家。他总是对当代的挑战、问题和焦虑做出回应。在Dhirubhai的框架中，过去总是与当代问题联系在一起。对他来说，“一个事件或一个物体的历史化……或者一个遥远的过去的制度，只有当它在当代的关注和情感方面被完成时，才会变得可信，并具有良好的历史意义”(DLS，第25页)。德鲁拜对此时此地的智慧坚持，迫使我们总是把他当作我们的同时代人来看待。他活泼、自信和干涉主义的知识探索不能被视为历史。由于这个原因，迪鲁拜丰富多彩的知识分子个性不能以正统的不冒险的方式来纪念。迪鲁拜作品的浩瀚构成了另一种挑战。他曾把自己描述为短篇小说作家，以证明自己不写书而写长篇散文的忠诚。这些文章讨论了一些问题，如民族主义、民主、种姓、宗教、落后、制度发展、无党派政治进程、基层运动、理智主义等等。尽管有两本基于他的各种著作的编辑卷-Satta Aur Samaj: Dhirubhai Sheth(由Abhay Kumar Dubey编辑，2009年)和在家与民主:印度政治理论(由Peter R. deSouza编辑，2018年)-很难为Dhirubhai的知识世界提供主题标签。任何传统的致敬，尤其是在严格的专业学术意义上，如果不是完全徒劳的话，几乎是毫无意义的。为了避免这种解释上的困难，我们必须研究迪鲁拜的智识主义概念:他是如何将知识分子在后殖民社会(如印度)中的角色概念化的?迪鲁拜在学术工作和知识追求之间做出了关键的区分。对他来说，学术工作指的是对某一特定主题的正式的、专业的参与。另一方面，智力工作被看作是对一个想法的创造性奉献，只是为了培养建设性思维的过程。Dhirubhai为这种概念上的区别引入了一个创新的维度。他强调语言在思想领域中的决定性作用。他写道:
{"title":"Dhirubhai L. Seth 1936-2021: Commemorating Intellectual Politics","authors":"Hilal Ahmed","doi":"10.1177/23210230211058536","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211058536","url":null,"abstract":"Writing a conventional obituary for Prof Dhirubhai L. Seth (or Dhirubhai!)—the former Director and one of the founding members of the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies and member of advisory board of this journal—is a difficult task. Dhirubhai was a theorist of the present. He would always respond to the challenges, issues and anxieties posed by the contemporary moment. The past in Dhirubhai’s framework is always seen in relation to contemporary concerns. For him, ‘historicization of an event, or an object...or an institution of a distant past becomes credible, and makes good historical sense, only when it is done in terms of contemporary concerns and sensibilities’ (DLS, p. 25). Dhrubhai’s intellectual adherence to here and now forces us to always engage with him as our contemporary. His lively, assertive and interventionist intellectual quest cannot be treated as history. For this reason, the colourful intellectual personality of Dhirubhai cannot be commemorated in an orthodox unadventurous mode. The vastness of Dhirubhai’s work poses a challenge of a different kind. He used to describe himself as a writer of short stories to justify his faithfulness for writing long essays instead of books. These essays address a number issues such as nationalism, democracy, caste, religion, backwardness, institutional development, non-party political processes, grassroots movements, intellectualism and so on. Although there are two edited volumes based on his various writings —Satta Aur Samaj: Dhirubhai Sheth (edited by Abhay Kumar Dubey, 2009) and At Home with Democracy: A Theory of India Politics (edited by Peter R. deSouza, 2018)—it is very difficult to provide a thematic label to Dhirubhai’s intellectual universe. Any conventional tribute, especially in strict professional academic sense, is almost meaningless, if not entirely futile. To avoid such explanatory difficulties, we must engage with Dhirubhai’s notion of intellectualism: How did he conceptualize the role of intellectuals in a postcolonial society like India? Dhirubhai makes a crucial distinction between academic work and intellectual pursuit. For him, academic work refers to the formal, professional engagement with a particular subject matter. On the other hand, intellectual work is seen as a creative devotion to an idea simply to nurture a process of constructive thinking. Dhirubhai introduces an innovative dimension to this conceptual distinction. He emphasises the decisive role of language in the realm of ideas. He writes:","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"152 - 154"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41320818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-17DOI: 10.1177/23210230211043028
R. Gopi
Florian Matthey-Prakash, The Right to Education in India: The Importance of Enforceability of a Fundamental Right (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2019), 446 pp. ₹1,495.
{"title":"Book review: Florian Matthey-Prakash, The Right to Education in India: The Importance of Enforceability of a Fundamental Right","authors":"R. Gopi","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043028","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043028","url":null,"abstract":"Florian Matthey-Prakash, The Right to Education in India: The Importance of Enforceability of a Fundamental Right (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2019), 446 pp. ₹1,495.","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"299 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48738010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-17DOI: 10.1177/23210230211058542
Suhas Palshikar
{"title":"Editorial","authors":"Suhas Palshikar","doi":"10.1177/23210230211058542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211058542","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"151 - 151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45738937","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-14DOI: 10.1177/23210230211043025
S. Biswas
This article contests the conventional view that the ‘Depressed Classes’ lost out on representation by agreeing to joint electorates in the Poona Pact. It analyses the results of the elections to the provincial legislatures in British India that took place in 1936–1937 and 1945–1946 under the Government of India Act, 1935, to concretely appraise the working of the Poona Pact. The article argues that reserved seats, primary elections and cumulative voting redeemed the ability of the Poona Pact to provide both descriptive and substantive representation for the ‘Depressed Classes’.
{"title":"Did the Poona Pact Disenfranchise the ‘Depressed Classes’? An Analysis of the 1936–1937 and 1945–1946 Provincial Elections","authors":"S. Biswas","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043025","url":null,"abstract":"This article contests the conventional view that the ‘Depressed Classes’ lost out on representation by agreeing to joint electorates in the Poona Pact. It analyses the results of the elections to the provincial legislatures in British India that took place in 1936–1937 and 1945–1946 under the Government of India Act, 1935, to concretely appraise the working of the Poona Pact. The article argues that reserved seats, primary elections and cumulative voting redeemed the ability of the Poona Pact to provide both descriptive and substantive representation for the ‘Depressed Classes’.","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"239 - 253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41583504","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-13DOI: 10.1177/23210230211043041
Hilal Ahmed
The study of Indian politics, especially in the conventional disciplinary framework of political science, is often differentiated from what is called political theory. Indian politics, more generally, refers to the functioning of institutions (Parliament, Supreme Court, political parties) and the everydayness of political processes. On the other hand, political theory is envisaged as a sophisticated mode of thinking about certain concepts (liberty, equality, justice, secularism) and intellectual traditions (liberalism, Marxism and so on). The dominance of Eurocentric Western concepts and categories is clearly visible in such disciplinary representation of political theory as a subject. Although a section of Indian scholars has questioned this imaginary dividing line between theory (read Western!) and politics (read Indian/ empirical!) in last two decades, the study of the theoretical aspects of Indian politics has not yet been given adequate intellectual attention.2 Sudipta Kaviraj’s work is an exception in this regard. He has been engaging with the complexities of Indian politics for serious political theorization for almost five decades. Kaviraj’s work recognizes the historical formation of Indian politics as a point of departure to underline the specific constitution of Indian modernity. Unlike other scholars of his generation, especially the self-declared Marxists, Kaviraj has always been critical of theoretical rigidity of any kind. This intellectual openness helps him to engage with Western intellectual traditions without compromising with his adherence to the empirically informed, historically conscious, and theoretically adventurous analysis of Indian politics. Kaviraj’s work introduces us to an interesting methodological trajectory. He does not outrightly reject the value of Eurocentric/Western theoretical thinking. Instead of employing them uncritically, he asks us to locate these theoretical reflections in their immediate Western context. This contextualization of Western theories, Kaviraj argues, may help us in tracing the manner in which a particular modern experience is understood, evaluated and eventually theorized. In other words, Kaviraj is not merely interested in the act of theory; he seems to explore the mechanisms that produce theoretical reflections. Notes on Methods
{"title":"Concepts, Methods and Indian Politics: A Conversation with Sudipta Kaviraj","authors":"Hilal Ahmed","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043041","url":null,"abstract":"The study of Indian politics, especially in the conventional disciplinary framework of political science, is often differentiated from what is called political theory. Indian politics, more generally, refers to the functioning of institutions (Parliament, Supreme Court, political parties) and the everydayness of political processes. On the other hand, political theory is envisaged as a sophisticated mode of thinking about certain concepts (liberty, equality, justice, secularism) and intellectual traditions (liberalism, Marxism and so on). The dominance of Eurocentric Western concepts and categories is clearly visible in such disciplinary representation of political theory as a subject. Although a section of Indian scholars has questioned this imaginary dividing line between theory (read Western!) and politics (read Indian/ empirical!) in last two decades, the study of the theoretical aspects of Indian politics has not yet been given adequate intellectual attention.2 Sudipta Kaviraj’s work is an exception in this regard. He has been engaging with the complexities of Indian politics for serious political theorization for almost five decades. Kaviraj’s work recognizes the historical formation of Indian politics as a point of departure to underline the specific constitution of Indian modernity. Unlike other scholars of his generation, especially the self-declared Marxists, Kaviraj has always been critical of theoretical rigidity of any kind. This intellectual openness helps him to engage with Western intellectual traditions without compromising with his adherence to the empirically informed, historically conscious, and theoretically adventurous analysis of Indian politics. Kaviraj’s work introduces us to an interesting methodological trajectory. He does not outrightly reject the value of Eurocentric/Western theoretical thinking. Instead of employing them uncritically, he asks us to locate these theoretical reflections in their immediate Western context. This contextualization of Western theories, Kaviraj argues, may help us in tracing the manner in which a particular modern experience is understood, evaluated and eventually theorized. In other words, Kaviraj is not merely interested in the act of theory; he seems to explore the mechanisms that produce theoretical reflections. Notes on Methods","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"283 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47861590","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-13DOI: 10.1177/23210230211042993
Sasheej Hegde
Stemming essentially from D. L. Sheth and the work embodied in his 1999 essay ‘Secularisation of Caste and Making of New Middle Class’, the article attempts to outline the pathways for an alternative engagement with caste and politics. In perspective is what is termed the ‘triumphalist’ mode of encountering caste identities; and, along this course, the extant possibilities of the constructivist understanding of caste are addressed. The stakes of the exercise are largely theoretical and conceptual, although a further thought is thrown in about the contemporary ground of caste politics in India as well.
这篇文章主要源于D. L. Sheth和他1999年的文章《种姓世俗化和新中产阶级的形成》中的作品，试图概述种姓和政治的另一种参与途径。这就是所谓的“必胜主义”模式面对种姓身份;并且，在这个过程中，现存的种姓的建构主义理解的可能性被解决。这种做法的利害关系很大程度上是理论性和概念性的，尽管人们还进一步思考了印度种姓政治的当代基础。
{"title":"Of Caste and Indian Politics: A Detour Through D. L. Sheth and Beyond","authors":"Sasheej Hegde","doi":"10.1177/23210230211042993","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211042993","url":null,"abstract":"Stemming essentially from D. L. Sheth and the work embodied in his 1999 essay ‘Secularisation of Caste and Making of New Middle Class’, the article attempts to outline the pathways for an alternative engagement with caste and politics. In perspective is what is termed the ‘triumphalist’ mode of encountering caste identities; and, along this course, the extant possibilities of the constructivist understanding of caste are addressed. The stakes of the exercise are largely theoretical and conceptual, although a further thought is thrown in about the contemporary ground of caste politics in India as well.","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"155 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46055511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-10DOI: 10.1177/23210230211042990
Neha Ummareddy, Aniket Alam
‘We, the people’ is the most popular phrase from the constitutions. In spite of the fact that the number of countries including preamble as part of their constitution has been on the rise, preambles have received scant attention in academia. The importance of preambles has been established in multiple studies yet preambles have been looked at in isolation from socio-economic-environmental contexts. Our article attempts to present a unique insight by correlating preambles with the socio-economic-environmental and infrastructural context within which they exist. It explores whether these correlations exist and if they do with which features and to what extent and the possibility of a causal link. We pursue a statistical study between various indicators that reflect the growth of a country and the presence or absence of various elements in preambles across the world. Our study finds that correlations exist between the economic-social-environmental and infrastructural context of a nation-state and different elements in their preambles. Our study rigorously engages with patterns in development indicators across years to provide correlational insights into the role of preambles not just as a dormant reference but as active fragments of the socio-political-economic reality of a nation-state. We hope our article establishes grounds for a further study of the manner in which preambles and the non-political aspects of a nation-state can engage with each other.
{"title":"What Do Preambles Do? A Study of Constitutional Intent and Reality","authors":"Neha Ummareddy, Aniket Alam","doi":"10.1177/23210230211042990","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211042990","url":null,"abstract":"‘We, the people’ is the most popular phrase from the constitutions. In spite of the fact that the number of countries including preamble as part of their constitution has been on the rise, preambles have received scant attention in academia. The importance of preambles has been established in multiple studies yet preambles have been looked at in isolation from socio-economic-environmental contexts. Our article attempts to present a unique insight by correlating preambles with the socio-economic-environmental and infrastructural context within which they exist. It explores whether these correlations exist and if they do with which features and to what extent and the possibility of a causal link. We pursue a statistical study between various indicators that reflect the growth of a country and the presence or absence of various elements in preambles across the world. Our study finds that correlations exist between the economic-social-environmental and infrastructural context of a nation-state and different elements in their preambles. Our study rigorously engages with patterns in development indicators across years to provide correlational insights into the role of preambles not just as a dormant reference but as active fragments of the socio-political-economic reality of a nation-state. We hope our article establishes grounds for a further study of the manner in which preambles and the non-political aspects of a nation-state can engage with each other.","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"221 - 238"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46980440","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-07DOI: 10.1177/23210230211043611
Chaitra Redkar
Does the social background of a learner affect the learning process? If so, how can instructional design be sensitive to the sociology of a learner? What would be the starting point for introducing abstract ideas for those to whom both the experience and the language that constructs the idea are alien? What would be the takeaway for those students whose social location has recurringly denied them the time to pursue career in the area in which they are trained? What could be done to make learning more reflexive and take it beyond the reproduction of the jargon of the discipline? These are some of the questions that have accompanied me ever since I started teaching political theory and political thought, some 20 years ago. These questions emerged while observing a variety of learning environments. Classrooms in metropolitan cities are diverse in terms of language, linguistic skills, social background, financial capabilities and number of other ways. In smaller cities, classes are comparatively homogeneous in terms of language but other kind of diversities and hierarchies do exist. Engaging with a diverse classroom creates issues not merely pertaining to the medium of instruction but also for creating a frame of reference that makes sense to everyone. Different social locations come with varied political ethos and they also imply diverse learning environments available to the learner. These locations to a large extent define the facilities available for students’ schooling, to develop their language skills, to the time they are allowed to claim every day and in life as their own and number of such factors that may play crucial role in the teaching and learning process. Bringing together different temporalities and spatiality in one common frame becomes a big challenge for the instructor. Paradoxically, neither the learner nor the instructor is necessarily aware of the ethos of the varied location. To teach meta-political narratives to someone who is ignorant of the politics of her location by someone who is equally indifferent to her location as an instructor is not just paradoxical but is also self-defeating. It leaves a learner under an impression that politics lies somewhere else, far away from her own environment. Sadly, training of a professional political scientist doesn’t necessarily require interrogating the politics that shapes a particular learning or teaching environment. The thrust is on transmitting the jargon. What is acceptable is familiarizing oneself with what the celebrated scholarship produced. Learner thereby engages herself in only reproducing the ‘norm’ even while she tries to achieve the higher learning objectives identified in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). The evaluative, analytical and creative abilities of the learner if unleashed, remain shaped in a particular paradigmatic framework that has percolated in her learning environment. Any contribution in order to be significant has to confirm this framework, else is d
学习者的社会背景会影响学习过程吗？如果是这样，教学设计如何对学习者的社会学敏感？对于那些构建抽象想法的经验和语言都陌生的人来说，引入抽象想法的起点是什么？对于那些社会位置一再剥夺了他们在所培训领域从事职业的时间的学生来说，他们会得到什么？如何使学习更具反射性，并使其超越学科术语的复制？自从20年前我开始教授政治理论和政治思想以来，这些问题一直伴随着我。这些问题是在观察各种学习环境时出现的。大都市的课堂在语言、语言技能、社会背景、经济能力和其他方面都是多样化的。在较小的城市，阶级在语言方面相对同质，但也存在其他类型的多样性和等级制度。参与多样化的课堂不仅会产生与教学媒介有关的问题，还会产生对每个人都有意义的参考框架。不同的社会位置带来了不同的政治风气，也意味着学习者可以获得不同的学习环境。这些地点在很大程度上定义了学生上学、发展语言技能的可用设施，以及他们每天和生活中被允许自称为自己的时间，以及可能在教学过程中发挥关键作用的许多因素。将不同的时间性和空间性结合在一个共同的框架中对教练来说是一个巨大的挑战。矛盾的是，学习者和指导者都不一定意识到不同地点的精神气质。把元政治叙事教给一个对自己所在地的政治一无所知的人，而把一个对她的所在地同样漠不关心的人作为一名教师，不仅自相矛盾，而且弄巧成拙。这给学习者留下了一种印象，即政治存在于其他地方，远离自己的环境。可悲的是，专业政治学家的培训并不一定需要质疑塑造特定学习或教学环境的政治。重点是传播行话。可以接受的是熟悉著名的学术成果。因此，即使学习者试图实现Bloom分类法中确定的高等学习目标，她也只参与复制“规范”（Bloom et al.，1956）。学习者的评估、分析和创造性能力如果得到释放，仍将在其学习环境中渗透的特定范式框架中形成。任何贡献都必须证实这一框架，否则就会被谴责为过时或无关紧要。
{"title":"Bringing Back the Absent: Some Reflections","authors":"Chaitra Redkar","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043611","url":null,"abstract":"Does the social background of a learner affect the learning process? If so, how can instructional design be sensitive to the sociology of a learner? What would be the starting point for introducing abstract ideas for those to whom both the experience and the language that constructs the idea are alien? What would be the takeaway for those students whose social location has recurringly denied them the time to pursue career in the area in which they are trained? What could be done to make learning more reflexive and take it beyond the reproduction of the jargon of the discipline? These are some of the questions that have accompanied me ever since I started teaching political theory and political thought, some 20 years ago. These questions emerged while observing a variety of learning environments. Classrooms in metropolitan cities are diverse in terms of language, linguistic skills, social background, financial capabilities and number of other ways. In smaller cities, classes are comparatively homogeneous in terms of language but other kind of diversities and hierarchies do exist. Engaging with a diverse classroom creates issues not merely pertaining to the medium of instruction but also for creating a frame of reference that makes sense to everyone. Different social locations come with varied political ethos and they also imply diverse learning environments available to the learner. These locations to a large extent define the facilities available for students’ schooling, to develop their language skills, to the time they are allowed to claim every day and in life as their own and number of such factors that may play crucial role in the teaching and learning process. Bringing together different temporalities and spatiality in one common frame becomes a big challenge for the instructor. Paradoxically, neither the learner nor the instructor is necessarily aware of the ethos of the varied location. To teach meta-political narratives to someone who is ignorant of the politics of her location by someone who is equally indifferent to her location as an instructor is not just paradoxical but is also self-defeating. It leaves a learner under an impression that politics lies somewhere else, far away from her own environment. Sadly, training of a professional political scientist doesn’t necessarily require interrogating the politics that shapes a particular learning or teaching environment. The thrust is on transmitting the jargon. What is acceptable is familiarizing oneself with what the celebrated scholarship produced. Learner thereby engages herself in only reproducing the ‘norm’ even while she tries to achieve the higher learning objectives identified in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom et al., 1956). The evaluative, analytical and creative abilities of the learner if unleashed, remain shaped in a particular paradigmatic framework that has percolated in her learning environment. Any contribution in order to be significant has to confirm this framework, else is d","PeriodicalId":42918,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Indian Politics","volume":"9 1","pages":"278 - 282"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2021-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45395363","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：