Good morning,
Class was very enlightening yesterday. The interpretations of Roy's novel are all over the map for our class. I am still trying to get my head around who is who and their relationships, what time period is this in, modern day or 23 years ago, and truthfully, what actually is going on.
We reviewed the word defined last class and my group (although sparse for Thursday), was responsible for essentialism. Because I took the word and defined it differently, I decided this week's blog would be on the comparison of the definitions and how I came to the conclusion that essentialism actually has multiple meanings. Spivak's article dismisses essentialism, stating that it is a generalization rather than a category. I do agree with her that if you categorize a larger group of people, such as woman, stereotypes can be made, creating a generalization. In my case, I viewed essentialism as more of a category with one connecting thread which sometimes could be rather obvious. For instance, I viewed almost all the characters in this book as one category, having all been related by blood, with the connecting thread of Pappachi and Mammachi. Melissa wisely stated that the caste system is another example of an essential group, through their stages of the caste system. The third and final group that I wish to acknowledge which I don't believe was actually mentioned, is the untouchables themselves. I feel that this group helps explain 'Essentialism' clearly, combining all class members personal definitions. It is a large group unlike any other in the Caste system, they will never leave this category because once an untouchable, always an untouchable, and within the group, they all share more than one characteristic but rather multiple qualities.
This blog today was more of me trying to work out the book and its concepts from my head on to paper. I am very interested to continue reading and use what we learned in class to interpret the book better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for the entry and honesty, Emily. I agree that essentialism is a tricky concept to wrap one's mind around. My suggestion is that you think of it more in terms of strategic - or political - essentialism. Remember that in essentialism, one group has the linguistic power to define a less-powerful group in terms of their essential traits. President Bush did this when he defined the Axis of Evil a few years back. Last night in their debate, both Biden and Palin used essentialism to define marriage as being between one man and one woman and, thereby, to discriminate against gays. Bush strategically uses essentialism to define Iraq, for example, in his discourse on the war. Biden and Palin strategically use essentialism to discriminate against gays. American and world history are filled with essentialist arguments that are used strategically to keep marginalized groups (women, the poor, people of color, gays, etc.) out of power.
I hope that this helps.
Post a Comment