BOOK REVIEWS BASED ON CRITICAL THEORIES

 

BOOK REVIEWS BASED ON CRITICAL THEORIES

 

 

 

Book: Seven Steps Around the Fire

Author: Mahesh Dattani

Theory: Subaltern and Ethnicity

Student: Jannani P, (2113312005017)

“A play can be written without dialogues too. The true canvas of a play is conflict. Characters in conflict with one another. Without conflict, you cannot have drama.”

-         Mahesh Dattani

Living writer, Mahesh Dattani, is one of India’s best and most serious playwrights writing in English and is the first to be awarded the Sahitya Academi Award. Most of his plays were problem plays and dealt with the cruelty of Indian society and its traditions. As a subaltern play, “Seven Steps Around the Fire” examines how it challenges the conventional sex roles through transgender identities in relation to heterosexist society and how they trace the evolution of post-independence Indian theatre to be able to deal openly with taboo topics such as alternative sexuality. Representing the Hijra community on a stage further adds to the spectrum of queer characters created by Dattani and highlights his abiding interest in the non-normative, marginalized community.  Dattani’s work has been described as, ‘A brilliant contribution to Indian drama in English.’

Mahesh Dattani, in his representation of eunuchs, seems to agree that the marginalized cannot raise their voices against any injustice done to them. In the play, he projects the pathetic situation of the hijras and the treatment meted out to them reflects the social and cultural discrimination. The attitude of the elitist class towards the subalterns is demeaning. The play, however, tries through on a rather minor scale; to liberate the identity of hijra people from divine, imperial, or criminal signification and situate them in a modern context and explore their marginality. Seven Steps Around the Fire deals with the violence inflicted on the hijra community who are not even allowed to show their faces in public. As a subaltern study, the play expresses the identity crises of the hijras and their heartfelt longing for being treated as normal social beings in an indifferent society where an influential person can get a hijra burned to death and get away with it without making any headlines. Seven Steps Around the Fire; is perhaps the only play in Indian Drama that highlights the woes of the eunuchs.

The play also exemplifies the hollowness of the patriarchal society. The Hijras in the play, represent the whole transgender community. They signify the suffering, the disrespect that the entire marginalized section of society has to face. The administration of hypocrisy reigns over our country and the poor have no say in our democracy. As a prejudiced play, it is the recorded journey of ‘eunuchs’ in the fire of hatred, animosity, and superiority. The story throws light upon the injustice done to the deprived community of the eunuchs.

 

“One Hijra less in this world does not Matter”

- Mahesh Dattani

The quote describes social deprivation, poverty, inferiority, mental torture, and social discrimination faced by the eunuchs. Love and gender identity are recurring themes that play a dominant role. Dattani had picturized the love of a hijra through this play, which had led to her own death. The play underlines the eunuchs longing for love and social acceptance without considering their race, class, and ethnicity and that is what the play demands from society.

 

 

 

Book: 1984

Author: George Orwell

Theory: Marxism

Student: Imaiya K, (2113312005016)

 

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

 

As a self-described democratic socialist, Orwell believed in an active government, yet his alertness to the excesses of official power informed Animal Farm and 1984, his two masterpieces about totalitarianism. George Orwell was the pen name for Eric Arthur Blair, a renowned English essayist, novelist, and critic. He often used his work to bring awareness to social injustices and to openly oppose totalitarianism. Orwell’s writings still influence pop and political culture, as the term "Orwellian" has come to mean authoritarian social practices. 1984 is a dystopian science-fiction novel set in the year of its name, originally published in 1949 by George Orwell. The novel is particularly impactful when looked at from Marxist mindset. Aspects of the novel’s plot, language, and characters will be analyzed from this perspective. While Marxism applies to the overall political concept. Marxism associates itself with class differences, economic and otherwise.

 

           

           With the concept of Marxism clear let us see how 1984 relates to the two concepts. Orwell presents a “hopeless” future, one in which mankind succumbs to a totalitarian governmental regime and ultimately loses the essence of what makes them human. 1984 seems to be stating that politics is solely a constant struggle for power and the only change brought about is the replacement of one ruling class with another. This idea is solidified by the class structure of the Party members within 1984 and ultimately by the power plays of the Party, which is to be impressed upon all citizens of Oceania. The Party’s control over the mindset of the people is demonstrated in the way that Oceania is constantly at war with one of the other political powers and the Party’s agenda is then forced upon the people. Winston, the protagonist, addresses the Marxist ideal of separating social classes, with the upper-level Inner Party members and the mid-level Party members, what Marx considered to be the Bourgeois and the lower-level Proletariat. The lower class in the world of 1984 is indeed referred to as Proletariat, or proles for short. According to Marx, when a group is oppressed by another group, there will be a revolution and that revolution will be led by the working class. This is a straightforward reference to Marx’s assertion that the proletariat will grow more uneasy and more skeptical of their government and will ultimately revolt against them. If this were to happen, the government would be overthrown and the political establishment will be forced to change. However, Winston doubts that this will ever happen because the proles have yet to awaken the rebellious side within them. Since they are lower-class citizens, they are not required to be as loyal to the Party as others. In fact, it was not desirable for the proles to have strong political feelings as this is how the Party keeps the proles under control and prevents an uprising. This is also why an uprising will likely never happen and things will never change. The belief that revolution will never take place is only cemented later as Winston reads Goldstein’s book of the Brotherhood, which expounds upon the ideals of revolutionists and depicts the great struggle they are up against in trying to take down Big Brother and the Party. 

The role of Marxism in 1984 is prevalent throughout the novel, evident in the way the government controls its people. Orwell paints a grim picture of the future and shows readers what could become of the world. The Party slogan emphasizes the power of the government. From a Marxist perspective, it is clear to see that the world of 1984 has spiraled out of control. This resonates with readers as something to fear, and they realize that it not only means being controlled by a higher authority but it also represents losing a part of the self and becoming just another part of an all too powerful system. Through a Marxist analysis, readers can understand the world of 1984.

 

 

Book: Kanthapura

Author: Raja Rao

Theory: Ecocriticism

Student: T.L Harini, (2113312005014)

 

The most recent critical field, ecocriticism, stands out among contemporary literary theory and cultural ideas. It gained recognition as a literary philosophy. Ecocritical discourse is unique. It investigates the relationship between literature, nature, and the environment. Humans are a component of nature. Human life is influenced by literature and art. The arts and literature are also influenced by human existence. Our relationship to the environment and literature is redefined by ecocriticism.

As seen in the works of writers throughout history, literature, and ecology are always strongly connected. The awareness of writers has often brought the two fields of environment and literature together. The study of literature and art that emphasizes the environment as well as the ideas that support this critical practice are collectively referred to as "ecocriticism." It is a new critical approach that critics might use to evaluate the literature. It is focused on ecological issues in all literature as well as nature writing. Eco-critics attempt to analyze a literary work from the perspective of an environmentalist who is terrified of the looming harm to the entire planet. As a book is examined, the distinctions between man/nature and culture/nature are likewise issues and fields of research. Several literary works have appealing locations in the wild and the wilderness, which offer numerous chances for ecocritical research.

 

                                                                                         

Raja Rao has brought novelty and distinction to Indian English Novel, for him writing was a vocation and not a profession. Raja Rao believes that one cannot become a successful writer without spiritual and metaphysical knowledge. He has commendable knowledge of Sanskrit and modern European literature. He is a contemporary version of R.K. Narayan and Mulk Raj Anand. As a writer he is the: Child of the Gandhian age and reveals in his works, his sensitive awareness of thwarting or steadying pulls of past tradition. (Iyengar 386). Philosophically and culturally, he is an Indian and an ardent believer in the Advaitic truth of “Shivoham, Shivoham”. For him writing is Sadhana. So, the idea of literature as anything but a spiritual experience or Sadhana, a much better word, is probably outside his perspective. Literature is “Sadhana”- the best life for the writer. Being a talented author, Raja Rao commits himself to penning Kanthapura, a period of all times that develops an enchanted and brilliant piece of art. The Cow of Barricades (1947), The Snake and the Rope (1960), The Cat and the Shakespeare (1965), Comrade Kirillov (1976), and The Policemen and the Rose are some of his other works (1978). As Raja Rao was only beginning his writing career, he penned Kanthapura in 1938. In pre-independence India, the political and social environment was dominated by the idea of freedom for the Indian masses. The novel's backdrop, the early stages of the Indian liberation fight led by Mahatma Gandhi, is appropriate for the period.

In the captivating novel Kanthapura, Mahatma Gandhi's fight for Indian independence from the British becomes a tangible reality in a small, remote village in southern India. It tells the tale of young, idealistic, and stormy Moorthy and his struggle against traditional forces. The work has the feel of an epic because it is seen through the eyes of a kind elderly woman who makes wise and humorous observations about the complexity and variety of village life. Many of the phrases used in the book are taken straight from Indian dialects, and the character names take you to India's historical past. The novel's plot takes us to a time when Gandhian ideals were prevalent and India was still a colony. The protagonist, a well-educated Brahman, is the first person we encounter. He welcomes the Dalits and the underprivileged in the village of Kanthapura, which makes him a non-orthodox Brahman. He finally receives ex-communication from the priests of the Brahman society, and he moves in with a widow in Hamlet who shares his admiration for Gandhi's ideology. The two of them struggle to promote peace and harmony in the village. But eventually, the intended outcome is achieved after much time, effort, and energy.

The novel's narrative is skilfully written. It connects India's continuous struggle for freedom with a fictional village called Kanthapura and the brilliant idea of author Raja Rao. Unlike many other novels that focus on the same Dalit-upper caste split in India, this one does not seem to deepen or widen the gap. The goal of Kanthapura is to provide a solution to the issue by uniting individuals and communities around the same things that serve as tools of the divide while working towards a larger and more inclusive purpose. Religion is well shown in Rao's Kanthapura. The Brahmanism that Moorthy represents is the real deal—an ideal Brahman who may be exemplary enough to be followed by the rest of the upper caste community. It is impossible to applaud Raja Rao enough for the proactive way he handled the difficult subject matter in his debut book.

As the mountains around the village and the river have always existed, even before the first child was born in Kanthapura, nature has a huge impact on the community's people. The community is under the powerful influence of all aspects of nature. The Kenchamma Hill and the river Himavathy are both highlighted. Achakka, the storyteller, claims that a tale has developed around its origin. It is stated that Kenchamma, "the Goddess of the Hill," put an end to the village's fear after a protracted and difficult battle. The goddess-named hill was stained scarlet by his blood. Kenchamma began residing in Kanthapura after conquering the monster. Himavathy, her daughter, rose to fame as the "Goddess of the River”.  Even though the novel was written in 1938 and is no longer current or relevant, readers can still be mesmerized and fascinated by its scenic descriptions and compelling tale.

 

                    

 

 

 

Book: Can the Subaltern Speak?

Author: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak

Theory: Postcolonialism

Student: Gurunischitha U, (2113312005013)

 

Postcolonial studies at its core is an exercise in ethics. One of its main agendas has been the dismantling of the Eurocentric worldview, which colonialism had naturalized and which had, in turn, marginalized numerous indigenous cultural and epistemic traditions across the colonized parts of the world. The other agenda has been to foreground the voice of the oppressed, at least within the academic institutions, so that the people subjugated by colonialism can be heard. Both of these ethical interventions are already prominently displayed in the works of Edward Said, the founding figure in the field of postcolonial studies. And, in Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, who describes herself as "a practical Marxist feminist deconstructivist”, we find a continuation of this ethical imperative that underlines post-colonialism which is characterized by her works, with the subaltern, and for the subaltern, both as an academic writer, theoretician and as an activist.

                                                                      

                                                                        

According to Gramsci, within a society, the ruling class mostly asserts its authority, by the non-coercive method, that is, by convincing the entire population that the interest of the ruling class is the interest of the entire population, which he defined as hegemony. Ranjit Guha defines subaltern as all those people within a society, who do not fall under the category of the elite. Subaltern is not really defined as a special class, caste, or race, but rather represents a negative space or a negative position. It is a position of disempowerment, without social or political agency, and without identity. Spivak through the essay "Can the Subaltern Speak," (1988) engages with these existing definitions of the subaltern. For Spivak, the characterizing feature of this subaltern position is that no speech is possible. Thus, the answer to the question 'Can the Subaltern Speak,' according to Spivak, is an unequivocal no. The subaltern cannot speak.

Theoretically, though anyone can speak or write infinitely, what will be accepted as discourse, and what will not, is ultimately determined by the power equations that underline the society, which points to the fact that Subaltern cannot be heard. It is impossible for them to speak up as they are divided by gender, class, caste, region, religion, and other narratives. She critically dealt with an array of Western writers starting from Marx to Foucault, Deleuze, and Derrida.

Knowledge always harms which shows the producer's interest. Westernized knowledge shapes our identities, and for third-worlders, Europe becomes the ideal. For example, according to the British, the abolishment of Sati after their intervention is, “white men saved brown women from brown men”, by which Indians are constructed as uncivilized and the British as civilized. She criticizes the leftists who essentialize the subalterns.

Despite her fame, Spivak did not create the subaltern concept. Spivak herself engages with many iterations of the subaltern notion. Yet, her name is now synonymous with "subaltern," demonstrating her importance in its invention.

     

        

 

 

Book: The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House

Author: Audre Lorde

Theory: Feminism and Gender

Name: Gayathri S, (2113312005012)

         The role of difference within the lives of American women: difference of race, sexuality, class, and age. The absence of these considerations weakens any feminist discussion of the personal and the political. It is a particular academic arrogance to assume any discussion of feminist theory without examining our many differences, and without significant input from poor women, Black and Third World women, and lesbians, in a country where racism, sexism, and homophobia are inseparable. To read this program is to assume that lesbian and Black women have nothing to say about existentialism, the erotic, women's culture and silence, developing feminist theory, or heterosexuality and power. And what does it mean in personal and political terms when even the two Black women who did present here were literally found at the last hour? What does it mean when the tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy? It means that only the narrowest parameters of change are possible and allowable. The absence of any consideration of lesbian consciousness or the consciousness of Third World women leaves a serious gap within this conference and within the papers presented here. For example, in a paper on material relationships between women, I was conscious of an either/or model of nurturing which totally dismissed my knowledge as a black lesbian. In this paper, there was no examination of mutuality between women, no systems of shared support, and no interdependence exists between lesbians and women-identified women. Yet it is only in the patriarchal model of nurturance that women "who attempt to emancipate themselves ay perhaps too high a price for the results," as this paper states. For women, the need and desire to nurture each other are not pathological but redemptive, and it is within that knowledge that our real power I rediscovered. It is this real connection that is so feared by a patriarchal world. Only within a patriarchal structure is maternity the only social power open to women. Interdependency between women is the way to freedom that allows the I to be, not in order to be used, but in order to be creative. This is a difference between the passive being and the active being.

 

 

          Advocating the mere tolerance of differences between women is the grossest reformism. It is a total denial of the creative function of the difference in our lives. Difference must be not merely tolerated but seen as a fund of necessary polarities between which our creativity can spark like a dialectic. Only then does the necessity for interdependency become unthreatening? Only within that interdependency of different strengths, acknowledged and equal, can the power to seek new ways of being in the world generate, as well as the courage and sustenance to act where there are no charters. Within the interdependence of mutual (nondominant) differences lies that security that enables us to descend into the chaos of knowledge and return with true visions of our future, along with the concomitant power to effect those changes which can bring that future into being. The difference is that raw and powerful connection from which our personal power is forged. As women, we have been taught either to ignore our differences or to view them as causes for separation and suspicion rather than as forces for change. Without community, there is no liberation, only the most vulnerable and temporary armistice between an individual and her oppression. But community must not mean a shedding of our differences, nor the pathetic pretense that these differences do not exist. Those of us who stand outside the circle of this society's definition of acceptable women; those of us who have been forged in the crucibles of difference -- those of us who are poor, who are lesbians, who are Black, who are older -- know that survival is not an academic skill. It is learning how to take our differences and make them strengths. For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change. And this fact is only threatening to those women who still define the master's house as their only source of support. Poor women and women of Colour know there is a difference between the daily manifestations of marital slavery and prostitution because it is our daughters who line 42nd Street. If white American feminist theory need not deal with the differences between us and the resulting difference in our oppressions, then how do you deal with the fact that the women who clean your houses and tend your children while you attend conferences on feminist theory are, for the most part, poor women, and women of Colour? What is the theory behind racist feminism? In a world of possibility for us all, our personal visions help lay the groundwork for political action. The failure of academic feminists to recognize difference as a crucial strength is a failure to reach beyond the first patriarchal lesson. In our world, divide and conquer must become defined and empowered. Why weren't other women of Colour found to participate in this conference? Why were two phone calls to me considered a consultation? Am I the only possible source of names of Black feminists? And although the Black panelist's paper ends on an important and powerful connection of love between women, what about interracial cooperation between feminists who do not love each other?

             

            

             In academic feminist circles, the answer to these questions is often, "We do not know who to ask." But that is the same evasion of responsibility, the same cop-out, that keeps Black women's art out of women's exhibitions, Black women's work out of most feminist publications except for the occasional "Special Third World Women's Issue," and Black women's texts off your reading lists. But as Adrienne Rich pointed out in a recent talk, which feminists have educated themselves about such an enormous amount over the past ten years, how come you haven't also educated ourselves about Black women and the differences between us -- white and Black -- when it is key to our survival as a movement? Women of today are still being called upon to stretch across the gap of male ignorance and to educate men as to our existence and our needs. This is an old and primary tool of all oppressors to keep the oppressed occupied with the master's concerns. Now we hear that it is the task of women of Colour to educate white women -- in the face of tremendous resistance -- as to our existence, our differences, and our relative roles in our joint survival. This is a diversion of energies and a tragic repetition of racist patriarchal thought. Simone de Beauvoir once said: "It is in the knowledge of the genuine conditions of our lives that we must draw our strength to live and our reasons for acting. Racism and homophobia are real conditions of all our lives in this place and time. I urge each one of us here to reach down into that deep place of knowledge inside herself and touch that terror and loathing of any difference that lives there. See whose face it wears. Then the personal as the political can begin to illuminate all our choices.

 

Prospero, you are the master of illusion.

Lying is your trademark.

And you have lied so much to me

(Lied about the world, lied about me)

That you have ended by imposing on me

An image of myself.

Underdeveloped, you brand me, inferior,

That’s the way you have forced me to see myself

I detest that image! What's more, it's a lie!

But now I know you, you old cancer,

And I know myself as well.

~ Caliban, in Aime Cesaire's A Tempest

 

 

THANK YOU