|
Associates
of the Infinity Foundation [IF], one of the organizations
our students studied in 2003, have mounted a series of vigorous
challenges to the conception and conduct of "Hinduism
Here." To view these, please consult the Infinity
Foundation's Response to Sneha Mehta's paper, written
by Krishnan Ramaswamy, and Mr. Ramaswamy's
Response to Michele Moritis's paper about Arsha Vidya Gurukulum. In both instances,
criticisms are made not just about the work of individual
students but about Professor Hawley's guidance - or lack of
guidance - to them.
These attacks come
as no surprise. One of the main objectives of the Infinity
Foundation, especially in recent years, has been to criticize
the way in which Hinduism and Indic traditions have been represented
in American academic life. It therefore seemed very important
to include it among the organizations we studied as the course
was launched for the first time, and we are grateful to the
Infinity Foundation for consenting to take part in the work
of the course. The Foundation's surveillance of the Academy
points to another important fact: that a classroom at Barnard
or Columbia is also a place where "Hinduism Here"
happens. In the view of the Infinity Foundation, it happens
very inadequately.
In the list below,
which is far from exhaustive, the Foundation's challenges
are summarized in italic; a response by Jack Hawley follows
in roman.
1.
The playing field is not level. An asymmetry exists between
Western academics and Indic traditions, with the former occupying
the position of greater power.
I have tried to
structure this course so that any such asymmetry would be
removed - through dialogue, reading, and discussion. We have
devoted considerable time in class to a discussion of a colonial
and Orientalist past where this sort of criticism would certainly
have been justified. We have been impressed with the ability
of representatives of the Infinity Foundation to reach vast
numbers of people especially by means of the Internet, as
they themselves are quick to emphasize. This is real power.
The ability to post effectively on the Internet can be a very
good thing, creating the ability to misrepresentations quickly.
It can also be a bad thing, creating the ability to spread
falsehoods just as quickly.
2.
Emic vs. etic: Outsiders are not well positioned to see an
insider's truth.
I agree with much
that IF says in this vein, and have therefore been very pleased
that our class includes both people who are Hindu by birth
and those who are not: such balance and interplay is very
productive. But I reject the idea that there is a firm divide
between emic and etic - the inside and the outside. (There
is a large literature on this subject to which the IF never
refers.) I also reject the idea that there is any such thing
as monolithic Hinduism, though I respect efforts to find commonalities
that unify the tradition more than its structures would sometimes
make apparent. Similarly, I reject the idea that there is
in any singular way "the Indic view from within,"
as IF says. Elsewhere they have spoken about the fact and
virtue of plurality in Hinduism and Indic traditions: that
view doesn't always come across in what they say about this
course.
Rajiv Malhotra
and others at IF has said that only those who practice Hinduism
have the sort of constructive incentive that is necessary
to think about the Hindu tradition and those who practice
it fairly and creatively. I agree that that constructivist
position is a special one - this is why institutions such
as gurukulams and seminaries are crucial. But "the constructive"
comes in many forms. A religion that fends off lines of inquiry
even from friends is in trouble. Fortunately the IF's stance
is very much the exception to the rule as far as Hinduism
is concerned.
3.
Students in this course are ill-prepared and ill-guided.
The IF has suggested
the course could be improved if at least one other course
in Hinduism were required as a prerequisite. It has also criticized
me for not guiding students properly, whatever their level
of preparation.
In regard to the
former, I agree that background is always helpful - but it
comes in many ways. A Hindu Ph.D. student in biomechanics
(as one of our students is), commands a background that positions
him admirably to enter into the work of the course, even though
he has not taken a university-level course on Hinduism. A
student from a secular or Christian background who has a background
in education is well-positioned in other ways, especially
if she is interested in Hindu education practices. Both students
will have things to learn - and both have been excited by
the process of doing so.
The IF has criticized
student papers for being inaccurate, and has blamed me for
failing to correct - and indeed inspiring - errors. In fact,
the course requires students to submit papers simultaneously
to me and to the organizations being studied at the end of
the course. This means I am reacting to papers at the same
time as the IF, and suggesting changes as I go. Rajiv Malhotra
requested to see an earlier draft of Sneha Mahta's paper on
IF, and she complied. So he is well aware that I had some
of the same criticisms and queries as he did on this occasion,
and that Ms. Mehta revised the draft in light of what we both
had said and in light of her own further reflections. The
foundation also knows that this process of criticism and revision
is ongoing.
4.
The course is unscientific and irresponsible in its methodology.
I make no claim
that this course is scientific. It is a humanities course.
As such, our purpose is to investigate, appreciate, and interpret,
not to pursue a hypothesis that we form in our minds before
beginning. Krishnan Ramaswamy and Rajiv Malhotra have claimed
that I actually have such thesis and that I am trying to prove
it-through the work of students in this course. They claim
my thesis is that America is spawning its own brand of Hinduism
and that this Hinduism is influential in the world Hindu community
with a force that is disproportionate to the relatively small
numbers of American Hindus.
In the opening
section of his review of Michele Moritis's work, Mr. Ramaswamy
says the course syllabus itself does not substantiate the
latter claim. This is true. A syllabus by its nature is simply
a course outline, not an extensive argument. It is also true
that a number of thoughtful scholars - many of them Hindu
- have articulated this perspective on American Hinduism,
and the point has been made about several other religious
communities in diaspora, as well. In any case, such a thesis
is hardly to be regarded as criticism, as the IF seems to
think.
5.
The course should have been focused, at least in part, on
"the influence that majority-Christian preachers, western
or etic academics, and the news-media have exerted on popular
conceptions of Hinduism," since these have been (quoting
me) "far more creative than their sheer numbers would
predict."
Aspects of many
courses at Barnard and Columbia do indeed devote themselves
to this goal, mine included (e.g., a doctoral seminar on "World
Religions: Idea, Display, Institution"), and in this
course too, there is a component on the debate about "constructions
of Hinduism" where questions of external agency and privilege
arise crucially. In this course our primary focus is not on
conceptions and misconceptions from the outside, but on what
Hindus themselves think.
I am appalled to
find my conduct as an "etic academic" set alongside
that of right-wing Christian groups who characterize Hindus
and other non-Christian religions as demonic. Like the IF,
I am engaged in the fight to correct false representations
of Hinduism. It is discouraging to be classed with the enemy.
6.
The course "denies dignity" to Hindus and does not
engage them as equals. Hawley has been invited by the IF to
"have open debates and panels, where the scholars and
diaspora would be equally represented, but he has simply ignored
these invitations."
Not true. I hope
the inclusion of an interactive conference in the course is
obvious evidence to the contrary. A number of conference participants
have remarked on the atmosphere of balance, cordiality, and
respect that was established and maintained throughout the
day.
The charge that
I have ignored requests to engage in open debate is also false.
Rajiv Malhotra visited the class and engaged in quite a bit
of "open debate." In November, 2001, I organized
a panel at the American Academy of Religion that was explicitly
intended to put Hindus in conversation with academics. I invited
Rajiv Malhotra to be on the panel, and made sure that the
results would be posted not just on the listserv of RISA,
but on Indictraditions, a listserv launched by Mr. Malhotra.
Interested readers can recap this panel, which was called
"Defamation/Anti/Defamation" at http://www.barnard.edu/religion/headpage.html.
7.
Students are forced to adopt Hawley's perspectives.
Krishnan Ramaswamy
alleges that I use my power as grade-giver to persuade students
to lean toward perspectives I favor. Here is another expression
of the knowledge/power hybrid about which Sneha Mehta speaks,
as she herself is aware.
In assigning grades,
I give credit to cogency of argumentation and independence
of thought. Doubtless my sense of what counts as cogency and
independence would not be everyone's, but I try to keep my
own views separate from any expectation of what students might
espouse. In class discussion, a main purpose of mine is to
encourage debate - the presentation of many sides of an issue.
In responding to the IF's view of the closed discourse that
characterizes classrooms such as mine, a number of students
protested that it just didn't match their experience.
I am criticized
for "badgering students who come back with a positive
set of findings" and so forth. You can judge this for
yourself by reading Rama Krishnan's and Pankaj Jain's papers
on the IF. It's true that I raised questions and encouraged
them to think independently in their assessments. My goal
was to help them look at broader elements of context than
might be featured in the self-representations of the IF or
any other group. If this is badgering, then I have to say
that's a crucial part of what I think a professor's job is
about, and part of what I hope students will ask of each other.
|
