Please read the review (from the URL) if you have
time. I think it has the answers to your questions. I
have no pleasure in calling anyone names. I am just
curious as to how another academician would react to
The issue I am trying to raise is not with anyone who
'"disagrees" or "thinks" it a misrepresentation', but
whether there is a basis for such an analysis with
such shaky foundations, and my anguish at how it is
passed on as scholarship by the academic world.
--- Nancy Gish <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Vishvesh,
> Since you do not say what is "scandalous" or why it
> is so, one
> cannot tell how to comment. But it seems to me you
> are also
> engaging in an attempt to misrepresent through a
> generalization. You assume motives for which you
> give no
> evidence, and you imply that criticism is likely to
> have bad motives,
> though you seem not to know the authors.
> I think as an American academic, I would want very
> evidence of either motives or general critical
> tendencies, and I do
> not think any critical position is "scandalous" just
> because anyone
> disagrees or thinks it a misrepresentation. What is
> the evidence in
> the book itself? Books are judged on argument and
> evidence, not
> whether the conclusion offends anyone.
> Date sent: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 06:57:13
> Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion
> forum." <[log in to unmask]>
> From: Vishvesh Obla
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: (OT)A Scandalous 'psycho
> analysis' of India's Cultural Past : A case
> To: [log in to unmask]
> There is a book on Lord Ganesha, a Hindu Deity, by
> Paul B.Courtright (titled Ganesa: Lord of Obstacles,
> Lord of Beginnings), which has made a scandalous
> representation of the much-adored Indian Deity in
> name of psycho-analysis. A good friend of mine by
> name ‘Kalavai Venkat’ (along with another writer,
> named Vishal Agarwal) has given a fitting reply to
> with factual references and a conceptual grasp of
> Indian past. The review titled ‘When The Cigar
> Becomes a Phallus’ is found at
> Earlier it was the likes of Catherine Mayos and
> William Archers who reveled in such
> mis-representations of India. Even when you
> identified the journalists in them, they still
> to have had a motive : to justify the imperialistic
> ambitions of the British Empire. But the likes of
> Wendy Donigers and her lineage of psycho analytical
> critics seem to have a different motive : to
> deliberately a cultural phenomena for motives that
> disturbing when comprehended. One wonders if this
> what criticism of a specific nature is capable of
> if this is what the American Academia is enamored
> with? To make a generalized statement based on the
> work of a few critics may not be proper, but seeing
> the reputation Wendy Doniger and her ‘disciples’
> in the Western studies of Indology, it cannot but
> one wonder so.
> I know that this list consists of a quite a few
> Academicians from American universities, and I would
> appreciate if any one can comment on it.
> Thank You.
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.