概念、方法与印度政治:与Sudipta Kaviraj对话

IF 0.3 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE Studies in Indian Politics Pub Date : 2021-10-13 DOI:10.1177/23210230211043041
Hilal Ahmed
{"title":"概念、方法与印度政治:与Sudipta Kaviraj对话","authors":"Hilal Ahmed","doi":"10.1177/23210230211043041","DOIUrl":null,"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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Concepts, Methods and Indian Politics: A Conversation with Sudipta Kaviraj\",\"authors\":\"Hilal Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23210230211043041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Indian Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043041\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Indian Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23210230211043041","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对印度政治的研究,特别是在传统的政治学学科框架下,往往与所谓的政治理论相区别。更广泛地说,印度政治指的是机构(议会、最高法院、政党)的运作和政治过程的日常性。另一方面,政治理论被设想为思考某些概念(自由、平等、正义、世俗主义)和知识传统(自由主义、马克思主义等)的复杂模式。以欧洲为中心的西方概念和范畴的主导地位,在作为一门学科的政治理论的这种学科表现中是清晰可见的。尽管在过去的二十年里,一部分印度学者质疑理论(阅读西方!)和政治(阅读印度/经验主义!)之间的假想分界线,但对印度政治理论方面的研究尚未得到足够的智力关注在这方面,Sudipta Kaviraj的工作是个例外。近五十年来,他一直致力于研究印度政治的复杂性,进行严肃的政治理论化。Kaviraj的作品将印度政治的历史形成作为出发点,以强调印度现代性的具体构成。与他那一代的其他学者,尤其是自称为马克思主义者的学者不同,卡瓦拉吉一直对任何形式的理论僵化持批评态度。这种思想上的开放性有助于他与西方的思想传统接触,而不影响他对印度政治的经验、历史意识和理论冒险性分析的坚持。Kaviraj的工作向我们介绍了一个有趣的方法论轨迹。他并没有完全否定欧洲中心主义/西方理论思想的价值。他没有不加批判地使用这些理论,而是要求我们将这些理论反思置于其直接的西方背景中。Kaviraj认为,西方理论的这种语境化可能有助于我们追踪特定的现代经验是如何被理解、评估并最终被理论化的。换句话说,Kaviraj不仅对理论行为感兴趣;他似乎在探索产生理论反思的机制。方法说明
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Concepts, Methods and Indian Politics: A Conversation with Sudipta Kaviraj
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Indian Politics
Studies in Indian Politics POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
20.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: SIP will publish research writings that seek to explain different aspects of Indian politics. The Journal adopts a multi-method approach and will publish articles based on primary data in the qualitative and quantitative traditions, archival research, interpretation of texts and documents, and secondary data. The Journal will cover a wide variety of sub-fields in politics, such as political ideas and thought in India, political institutions and processes, Indian democracy and politics in a comparative perspective particularly with reference to the global South and South Asia, India in world affairs, and public policies. While such a scope will make it accessible to a large number of readers, keeping India at the centre of the focus will make it target-specific.
期刊最新文献
Book review: Sudha Pai and Sajjan Kumar. Maya, Modi, Azad: Dalit Politics in the Times of Hindutva The Politics of the Status Quo in Sri Lanka Book review: Sujata Patel, D. Parthasarathy and George Jose (Eds.), Mumbai/Bombay: Majoritarian Neoliberalism, Informality, Resistance, and Wellbeing Differently Imagined: Minorities and Majoritarian Politics in India Contemporary ‘Pasmanda’ Leadership and the Hindutva Politics in Uttar Pradesh
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1