Paper - 201 Assignment

A CRITIQUE OF DESTRUCTIVE NATIONALISM: TAGORE’S THE HOME AND THE WORLD

Hello Beautiful People,

This blog is 201 (IEL1) assignment writing on  assigned by Prof. Dr. Dilip Barad sir, Head of the English Department of Maharaja Krishnkumarsinhji Bhavsinhji Bhavangar University (MKBU).

Name Pandya Chandani V.

             pandyachandani11@gmail.com

Sem 3

Roll No. 05

PG year 2020-2022

PG Enrollment No. 3069206420200014

Paper Name 201 (IEL1)

Topic Name A CRITIQUE OF DESTRUCTIVE NATIONALISM: TAGORE’S THE HOME AND THE WORLD

Submitted to Smt. S.B.Gardi Department of English

The Home and the World is a phenomenal work of Indian literature by Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore. It takes a global view of the concept of nationalism and patriotism. The novel is set in Bengal, during the pre-independence era of Indian political and domestic life in the background of the Swadeshi movement. The Swadeshimovement began in 1905 and gained major force against the decision of division of Bengal. It is a story of three separate individuals Bimala, Nikhil and Sandip, whose home as well as the world gets involved in the contemporary political atmosphere due to their involvement in the Swadeshi movement. Nikhil is a land owner and Sandip a zealous nationalist if one can call him so, fighting for the nation‟s independence, Bimala who while initially content with her house wife status, is later entangled in Sandip‟s nationalism present before her. Her choice for Sandip‟s cause puts before us the consequences of the furore of Sandip‟s nationalism. Tagore uses his characters in the present novel to not only put forward his views on nationalism but also to criticize destructive nationalism which seems to break not only the nation but also the whole world. Nationalism has been a constant theme in Tagore‟s work throughout his career from prose to fiction, in novels like The Home and the World, Gora and in essays like “Nationalism in India”, “Nationalism in Japan”, etc.

Milica Bookman describes two types of nationalism on the basis of its nature as constructive and destructive nationalism. She describes destructive nationalism: 

which suppresses human rights in the quest of aggrandizement of one peoples, adopts undemocratic forms of political expression and is ultimately counter-productive for the establishment of long term inter-ethnic harmony.

She also highlights that the concept is highly subjective.

Tagore in the present novel presents two ways of working for one‟s nation. Sandip‟s nationalism seems to have great analogy to Bookman‟s description. Through Sandip, Tagore delineates his criticism of destructive nationalism. Sandip is an unscrupulous man, who boasts of his love for the country. He is a major propagator of the Swadeshi movement and wants to arouse the common people in support of the Swadeshi‟s cause. He holds meetings and with his fiery speeches fills the country men with patriotic fervour. In order to achieve freedom he does not hesitate to adopt unscrupulous practices. Theft and robbery are not out of his purview and he and his disciples do not hesitate even before killing anyone. In the name of the nation Sandip takes a large sum of money from Bimala. His rampant corruption knows no bounds and he uses the sum thus acquired through theft for personal gains and comfort. The lust of money and selfishness of the movement activists is critiqued here by the author.

Sandip‟s nationalism is a facade of the rich and well to do people. The poor are only crushed beneath the weight of demands by the nationalists for the country‟s sake. The poor like Panchu and Mirjan in the novel are ample proof of how the downtrodden are merely doubly exploited in the wake of all the destruction in the name of nationalism. Panchu a poor pedlar, who in order to make ends meet sells cloth, when found selling foreign cloths is asked to give it up, and is fined hundred rupees. Even his whole bale of cloth is burnt and he is threatened with social ostracism. Similar is the case with Mirjan a boatman who is asked by activists to denounce the trade of carrying foreign cloth and is made to suffer the loss of means of livelihood by the deliberate sinking of his boat by Sandip‟s men. Both the incidents pointedly present before the reader‟s mind the inhumanity and lack of sympathy for the poor. The activists can only ask for the indiscreet participation to boycott foreign clothes and are unmindful of how this fanaticism in the name of nation would affect the poor and downtrodden. Everyone who goes against the so called principles of the movement is branded as the enemy of the nation.

Only the rich like Harish Kundu are able to participate in this show of patriotism. These people are oblivious of the condition of common man and just go on asking for contribution and support to the Swadeshi movement. The patriotic zeal of the rich hides within itself the exploitation that they do of the poor. These rich landowners resort to the meanest action in pursuit of their wants. When Harish Kundu is unable to get his rent he sells away the wife of one of his poor tenants in order to extract the rent from him. Nikhil says in the course of the novel A band of young fellows of the locality attached themselves to him [Sandip], some even who had been known as disgrace to the village.‟ (The Home and the World) The common man is motivated by the rhetoric of the activists and does not judge things in the proper light. The young enthusiastic students are highly motivated by the passionate speeches of the activists and idealise these landowners. Bimala too gets ensnared in the trap of Sandip‟s talent of rhetoric.

The activists of the movement do not even hesitate before resorting to the use of violence. Everywhere there‟s robbery, loot and murders. Murdering for compliance to the cause or for extraction of money is their first resort. Here Sandip‟s words might illuminate their belief „we shall simply steal or rob, for we must live‟ (The Home and the World). This type of destructive nationalism only breeds hatred between various ethnic communities in the nation. They are unmindful of their feelings. In the novel, Sandip and other activists start to see Muslims as their enemy because of their denial in participation of the boycott of foreign articles. Amidst the movement there are frequent instances of Muslim and Hindu riots. These narrow minded activists fail to see the importance of communal harmony for a Nation‟s development. Sandip idolizes Ravana, and sees him as the real hero of the epic. He believes: 

My theory of life makes me certain that the Great is cruel. To be just is for ordinary men,- it is reserved for the great to be unjust… successful injustice and genuine cruelty have been the only forces by which individual or nation has become millionaire or monarch…Whenever an individual or nation becomes incapable of perpetrating injustice it is swept into the dust-bin of the world. (The Home and the World)

What other outcome can be expected of a leader following such a theory, the only thing that can be assured is mere anarchy and lack of inter-ethnic harmony, which will prove disastrous in near future. Not only did Sandip justify his use of violence and unscrupulousness but he also exults in its feeling. Tagore says in his essay “Nationalism in India” that when “man‟s power of sacrifice is diverted from his ultimate object, which is moral, to the maintenance of this organization [nation], which is mechanical. Yet in this he feels all the satisfaction of moral exaltation and therefore becomes supremely dangerous to humanity”.His words can be equally applied to the danger imbibed in the lack of morality which is visible in Sandip‟s character in his nationalist fight. 

Nikhil on the other hand is on the whole opposite of Sandip. Through the character of Nikhil, Tagore highlights his concept of working for the nation. A positive and more vibrant endeavour for the country‟s development is presented through the portrayal of the character of Nikhil. Nikhil who belongs to rich landowning class is in no way similar to other exploitative landowners like Harish Kundu. Nikhil too wants to work for the nation and is enthusiastic for country‟s development. His way of nation building is by working for the country‟s development. His belief is „Let us dedicate our lives to removing the root of this sorrow in our country.‟ (The Home and the World) He helps the tenants under his area in every possible way. He knows the bad consequences of violence, used in the name of the nationalist movement by Sandip and his fellow workers. Where Sandip believes in division and violence Nikhil believes in the doctrine of love and freedom of choice.

Tagore, through the portrayal of Nikhil and his master Chandranath babu, puts before us a critique of Sandip‟s ideology as well as his idea about working for the nation‟s cause. Nikhil helps the poor and downtrodden people of his estate. When Panchu is threatened by Sandip he finds solace from Nikhil. In order to help the impoverished he lends them money. It is this generosity that causes him at times great financial damage. They both aim to make the countrymen self-reliant. It is keeping this object in view that Chandranath Babu did not give Panchu money as gift but as a loan to be repaid, when the latter was threatened by Sandip and his gang. Nikhil is critical of the extensive use of violence by the movement leaders. There‟s hardly a conversation of Sandip and Nikhil, in which there is no clash of opinion between them, and when the latter doesn‟t condemn Sandip‟s methods and violent activities. He is against the destructive elements in the movement. He is of view that one need not burn the foreign articles on pretext of boycott as he says to Bimala; one should simply stop using them. He says „You should not waste even a tenth of your energies in this destructive excitement.‟ (The Home and the World) Nikhil who is branded as traitor to the nation‟s cause, himself has been all this while a true practitioner of Swadeshi. Bimala also acknowledges the fact that when Swadeshi had not become as popular as it was then, Nikhil used to import Indian artefacts. He uses Indian pencils, soaps, oil lamps and other merchandises in spite of the fact that he can easily afford the western articles which are much more convenient than these Indian articles. Still Nikhil disavows his support to Sandip‟s movement, which asks him to clear off all the foreign articles from his estate. Nikhil is against this coercion, he sees it against his ideals as it means dictating others who cannot afford to do so. He compares it to tyranny,„To tyrannize for the country is to tyrannize over the country.‟ (The Home and the World) He in turn is lampooned and suspected by police as well as countrymen. Nikhil has with him what Tagore defines as „the strength of moral power‟ (“Nationalism in India”, 113) which he gains by adhering to truth, morality and self-denial. Sharmita Lahiri sees Nikhil‟s stance to Swadeshi as constructive, “Nikhilesh‟s „constructive‟ Swadeshi, devoid of inflammatory rhetoric and paraphernalia, remains unappreciated…Nikhilesh‟s Swadeshi and by extension Tagore‟s Swadeshi failed to capture popular imagination as it did not evoke excitement”.

It is Nikhil who brings forward the cordial and harmonious atmosphere that prevailed before the distrust because of Sandip‟s fanaticism. Previously Hindus and Muslims in his tenancy lived cordially. As he brings forward „The Mussulmans in my territory had come to have almost as much of an aversion to the killing of cows as the Hindus‟ (The Home and the World) but nowadays the riots are rampant. He believes in communal harmony and „If the idea of a United India is a true one… Mussulmans are a necessary part of it‟ (The Home and the World).

Here one might bring in Ashis Nandy‟s powerful critique of nationalism. According to Nandy, Tagore ascribed the concept of nationalism to the west. He says to Tagore, „the idea of nationalism is intrinsically non-Indian or anti-Indian, an offense against Indian civilization and its principles of religious and cultural plurality.‟ Nandy elucidates his views on the difference between nationalism and patriotism. Nationalism according to him is a modern concept, “an ardent form of „love of one‟s own kind‟ that is highly ego defensive and overlies some degree of fearful dislike or positive hostility to „outsiders.‟” Whereas patriotism „presumes the existence of community other than the country and gives them due recognition‟. He classifies Tagore as a patriot, against the „idea of territoriality grounded in the idea of nation state‟. 

Nikhil can be seen as Tagore‟s alter ego. He is made the author‟s mouthpiece to voice his concern for the contemporary time. Nikhil, like Tagore, is aware of his country‟s shortcomings like the rigid caste system and exploitation by Brahmins. As Tagore in his famous essay “Nationalism in India”, says „ from the earliest beginning of history, India has had her own problem constantly before her- it is the race problem‟. Tagore was highly critical of idolization of one‟s country in his work “Nationalism in India”. He says:

I had been taught that idolatry of Nation is almost better than reverence for God and humanity, I believe I have outgrown that teaching, and it is my conviction that my countrymen will gain truly their India by fighting against that education which teaches them that country is greater than the ideals of humanity.

The educated Indian at present is trying to absorb some lessons from history contrary to the lessons of our ancestors. 

These views of Tagore echo Nikhil‟s who denies worshipping one‟s country. Nikhil is aware of the danger that results from nation worship and says „To worship my country as a god is to bring a curse upon it.‟ (The Home and the World) Worship of one‟s country makes one turn a blind eye to its fault which hinders a nation‟s progress. In Nikhil one can see an amalgamation of Tagore and Mahatma Gandhi. Nikhil‟s abstinence from any type of force and violence reflects Gandhi‟s ideology of Non- violence. Nikhil is against the then prevalent feeling of hatred towards every Englishmen. He employs Miss Gilby in order to teach Bimala against the resentment of friends and family. Later when Swadeshi is all boosted up, he declines the request to make Miss Gilby leave on the pretext of her being European. He even dismisses Noren who insults Miss Gilby, which calls great resentment from all. Here Nikhil‟s action seems to echo what Gandhi says in his seminal work Hind Swaraj that „I can never subscribe to the statement that all Englishmen are bad.‟ Gandhi was aware of the role that Englishmen would play in the acquirement of freedom for the nation. 

Between Sandip and Nikhil stands Bimala. Vibhuti Wadhawan sees The Home and the World as an allegorical work in which Bimala can be seen as „India caught between two different kinds of modernity. Nikhil being the humane and the liberal aspect of nationalism, with Sandip defining the militant and aggressive form of nationalism that sways the country with idealism.‟ Bimala here can be likened to common people who are at first highly pleased by the eloquent rhetoric of the leaders like Sandip and see Nikhil and his ways as mere cowardice as compared to aggression of Sandip. She is swayed by the charismatic personality and speech making of Sandip. She saw in him „the champion of Bengal‟ (The Home and the World). He addresses her with laudatory epithets such as „goddess‟, „Shakti‟, etc. She is moved by the glory Sandip has attached to her. Bimala says that Sandip made her believe that the country required her, „I [Bimala] was acclaimed with a chorus of praise by all our patriot workers.‟ (The Home and the World) She and Anmol at last become disillusioned by Sandip and his nationalism. What previously appealed to Bimala and filled her with passion now appears to be mere babbling as she says in context of a conversation that „So Sandip has lost his aspect of the hero; a tone of low quarrelsomeness has come into his words.‟(The Home and the World) She starts seeing things clearly and it dawns upon her that theft was never a right alternative „Had I died begging for my country, even unsuccessfully, that would have been worship, acceptable to the gods. But theft is never worship‟ (The Home and the World).

Though the novel ends with grief of Nikhil‟s impending death but through Bimala‟s disillusionment, The Home and the World presents before the readers a slight hope of optimism that people cannot long be ensnared by the devil of destructive nationalism and will look forward to the power of love and humanity.

Works Cited :

Bookman, Milica Zarkovic. The Demographic Struggle for Power: The Political Economy of Demographic Engineering in the Modern World. Rutledge: New York, 2013. Google Book Search. Web. 25 Aug 2016.

Gandhi, M. K. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Navjivan Publishing House: Ahemadabad, 1938. PDF file. Web. 25 Aug 2016. <http.www.mkgandhi.org>

Lahiri, Sharmita. “India Through Different Lenses: A Study of Rushdie‟s Midnight‟s Children and Tagore‟s The Home and the World”. LibrAsia 2011: The Asian conference on Literature & Librarianship Official Conference Proceedings 2011. May 27-30. The International Academic Forum: Japan, 2011. 236-247 Web. 25 Aug 2016. http://iafor.org/librasia_proceedings.html

Media Power and Truly Educated Person

 Media Power and Truly Educated Person

What was the role of media in our everyday life ? This may be the important question to ask. So in this blog I'm going to share my views on the power of media and whom we can say truly educated person. So let's see.

The word “culture” itself it so difficult to pin down, “cultural studies” is hard to define. As far as cultural study is concerned, it has broader meaning because we see from various perspective then an individual can know what actually it lays in the meaning. Therefore firstly it becomes my job to deconstruct the meaning of culture as the meaning is elaborated according to different critics so at first we will have glance on the meaning of culture.

When we discussed about Cultural Studies first we discussed about the word ‘‘Culture’’.

What is culture?

‘Culture’, derives from ‘Cultura’ and ‘colere’ meaning ‘to cultivate’. It also meant ‘to honor’ and ‘project’ by the 19th century in Europe it tastes of the upper class .

          ‘Culture’ is the mode of producing meaning and ideas. This ‘mode’ is a negotiation over which meanings are valid. Elite culture controls meanings because it controls the terms of the debate.

The term culture in American anthropology had two meanings-

(I) the evolved to classify and represent experiences with symbols and to act imaginatively and creatively.

(ii) the distinct ways that people live, differently, classified and represent their experiences and acted creatively.

What is Cultural Study?

Cultural studies is the science of understanding modern society, with an emphasis on politics and power cultural studies is an umbrella term used to look at a number of different subject. Categories studied include media studies including film and Journalism, sociology, industrial culture, globalization and social theory.

“Cultural Studies is not a tightly coherent unified movement with a fixed agenda, but a loosely coherent group of tendencies, issues, and questions.”

   

Cultural studies is composed of elements of Marxism, Post structuralism and Postmodernism, Feminism, Gender studies, anthropology, sociology, race and ethnic studies, film theory, urban studies, public policy, popular culture studies and Postcolonial studies: those field that concentrate on social and cultural forces that either create community or cause division and alienation.

 It is but sure that the study of Cultural Studies in incomplete without the study of 'Power'. In addition, as in our times, 'Media' is the tool to control the perceptions and the subject, the Power makes extensive use of Media. All forms of media. Print, radio, TV, electronic, digital, social.

Media culture :-

In cultural studies , media culture refers to the current Western capitalist society that emerged and developed from the 20th century, under the influence of mass media. The term alludes to the overall impact and intellectual guidance exerted by the media (primarily TV, but also the press, radio and cinema), not only on public opinion but also on tastes and values.

"Noam Chomsky" gives five filters about Mass Media:

● Five  filters of Media : 

                                         

1) Media ownership : 

The endgame of all mass media orgs is profit. it is in their interest to push for whatever guarantees that profit.

                                          

2) Advertising: 

Media costs more than consumers will pay for advertisement. it feels the gap . it access to audience and media is not just selling you product but also selling the advertisers in the form of You .

3) Media Elite : 

In the Media Governments, cooperation and big institutions know that how to influence media by using their power and money . if you challenge the power for doing something wrong it is never accept by power. Either you will be punished or you lost your job and everything.

4) Flack : 

In this where the story which is showing the negative image or real face of power it becomes inconvenient for power and they try to hide it by discreading sourses or trashing the story and put the different story for diverting the conversation.

5) The common Enemy : 

To manufacture it need enemy, target, terrorism, immigrants or a boogey man to create fear to helps corral public opinion.

 The critique of Media studied under Cultural Studies gives an opportunity to provoke our thoughts to understand the how power makes use of media. Here we will see What is Power and how power makes use of media

1. "POWER":-

                                

"Power is the ability to make  others do what you would have them do. "

● Six civic sourses of power :- 

1) Physical power

2) wealth

3) state action

4) social norms

5) ideas

6) Numbers

● three laws of power : 

1) Power is never static
2) Power is like water
3) Power is multiplied by power and powerlessness is multiplied by powerlessness.

● power comes from :

1) Your purpose or social purpose  ( Prosocial or Anti social )
2) Education  ( teacher - student )
3) Political  ( use power to make people fear or for vote )
4) Parents and child.

Power is everywhere around us. To read power, one has to start thinking about the things which happens around them. Think how it happens and which type of power is working behind it. After having habit of doing this one can understand the power and also can save themselves from the trap of power.

2. Why Media Studies is so important in our Digital Culture ?

-  Media Studies is so important in Digital Culture because it become also part of Digital Culture. Threw Digital tools Media keep all work of their field and some works we can't keep without taking help of digital things. Noam Chomsky is also talking about mass media and how mass media controls the perceptions of large numbers of populations. In our day to day life who decides how certain things works. Well, seemingly it is the government but behind that it is mass media or news papers, news channels which control our perception. We blindly believe what news channels telling us but, before showing any news to us news channels also filters the news. They decide what to show and what not to show, they decides how debates are going to end, in a way every certain things which news channels are showing is pre-decided and planned or we an say scripted. Media controls the elite group of population and it makes us think in a way which they want.

3. Who can be considered as 'Truly Educated person' ? 

- At last they are talking about that what actually is being truly educated person and as Noam Chomsky says, “Its not important what you cover in class, its important what you discover”. It is about to inquire and create constructively, independently without external controls. Truly educated person has the spirit of questioning, they don’t accept what comes to them they question in a certain way to identify the fact.

So, this is how power controls media and media controls us but the work of truly educated person is not to believe everything first question then believe what comes your understanding says.

Thank you.

CS and Feminism - Cyberfeminism : Artificial Intelligence and the Unconscious Biases

 CS and Feminism - Cyberfeminism : Artificial Intelligence and the Unconscious Biases

Hello Readers!

                    Today I'm going to write about Cultural Studies and Feminism Cyberfeminism task given by our Professor Dr. Dilip Barad sir. Sp Let's see... 

Cyberfeminism is a term coined in 1994 by Sadie Plant, director of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at the University of Warwick in Britain, to describe the work of feminists interested in theorizing, critiquing, and exploiting the Internet, cyberspace, and new-media technologies in general. The term and movement grew out of “third-wave” feminism, the contemporary feminist movement that follows the “second-wave” feminism of the 1970s, which focused on equal rights for women, and which itself followed the “first-wave” feminism of the early 20th century, which concentrated on woman suffrage. Cyberfeminism has tended to include mostly younger, technologically savvy women, and those from Western, white, middle-class backgrounds. The ranks of cyberfeminists are growing, however, and along with this increase is a growing divergence of ideas about what constitutes cyberfeminist thought and action.

Prior to the advent of cyberfeminism, feminist study of technology tended to examine technological developments as socially and culturally constructed. One major argument was that technology has been positioned as part of masculine culture—something that men are interested in, good at, and therefore engage in more than women. Even though women throughout history have been active in developing new technologies, feminists have argued that technology has still been looked upon as a masculine creation. For example, although women had been involved in the creation and development of the computer, their contributions were largely marginalized, and their participation often ignored or written out of history. Therefore, feminists such as Judy Wacjman, a professor of sociology at the Australian National University in Canberra, and Cynthia Cockburn, an independent scholar and activist in London, argued that technology needed to be continually interrogated and re-conceptualized, and that women needed to become more active in technological areas as well.

Also pointing the way for cyberfeminism was the work of Donna Haraway, a professor in the History of Consciousness program at the University of California at Santa Cruz. In her groundbreaking essay “A Manifesto for Cyborgs,” she argues for a socialist, feminist cyborg that challenges the singular identities and “grids of control” that work to contain women and other marginalized groups. Haraway agreed that women needed to become more technologically proficient, better able to engage with the “informatics of domination” and challenge these systems. But Haraway also and importantly argued that women would need to be savvy and politically aware users of these technological systems; simply using them was not enough.

From these beginnings, cyberfeminism began to develop. Plant, an important early proponent, has  argued that women are naturally suited to using the Internet, because women and the Internet are similar in nature— both, according to Plant, are non-linear, self-replicating systems concerned with making connections. She has argued that although previous feminists have believed computers to be essentially male, we should instead see computers and the Internet as places for women to engage in new forms of work and play—where women are freed from traditional constraints and are able to experiment with identity and gain new avenues for claiming power and authority. Her view of cyberspace is as a welcoming, familiar space for women, where they can and must seize opportunities to advance themselves and to challenge male authority.

Some younger feminists active on the Internet, while they do not identify with theoretical arguments about masculinity or the similarities between women and computers, also see the Internet as a vital space for women to “claim their territory,” and use the technology to gain power and authority in contemporary society. Some women in this group would reject the label “feminist” altogether, but would still see the Internet as a vital tool or space for women to learn about and engage with. To advance these ends, individuals and groups have created Web sites, discussion groups, and other online resources for women interested in learning more about Internet technologies, and also for women already employed in information technology areas. These groups believe that empowerment for women can be achieved through women's greater knowledge of new-media technologies, and through the creation of more opportunities to advance in these lines of work.

Another branch of cyberfeminism argues that the idea of women gaining power and authority merely through greater use of new-media technologies is overly simplistic or reductive. Australian feminist scholars, such as Susan Luckman of the University of Queensland and Anna Munster of the University of New South Wales, believe that this approach reduces complex technological systems into mere tools and ignores their historical contexts of production and use. They believe that technologies are embedded in structures of power, which are not always positive. In their opinion, calls for women and girls to uncritically take up and advance the use of these new technologies does nothing to critically assess technology's larger role in culture, and how we wish to see technology develop—or not. Women must be part of this future, not by simply advocating for more women to engage in using technology, but by becoming more critically aware of the perils as well as promises that new technologies offer.

Other critiques of earlier cyberfeminist work suggest that the call for more women to engage with new technologies is based on mistaken assumptions about real living conditions. Simply put, all women do not have access to computers and the Internet, and likely will not in the foreseeable future; cyberfeminists who make the simple declaration that “all girls need modems” are ignoring the conditions of those who do not share their privileged middle-class, Western (and often white) background. Women's material conditions must be taken into account when considering how best to advance feminist ideas, online or otherwise. Beyond the root idea that gender equity, particularly in new-media technologies, is a desired goal, cyberfeminism itself, a growing area of thought and study, is not a unified set of ideas concerning women and new technologies. Cyberfeminists explore many areas of theory: that women are naturally suited to using the Internet, as both share important commonalities; that women can best empower themselves by becoming fluent in online communication and acquiring technological expertise; and that women would do best to study how power and knowledge are constructed in technological systems, and how and where feminists can disrupt and change these practices for the betterment of all members of society.

References :- 

(Best material for understanding this concept about Cyberfeminism 

-  https://s.amsu.ng/XRRgEDNAHELN ) 

Haraway, Donna. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouse™: Feminism and Technoscience. New York: Routledge, 1997.

Luckman, Susan “(En) gendering the Digital Body: Feminism and the Internet.” Hecate vol. 25 pp. 2 (1999) pp.36–48

Munster, Anna “Is There Postlife After Postfeminism? Tropes of Technics and Life in Cyberfeminism.”

Australian Feminist Studies vol. 14 29 (April 1999), pp. 119–131.

Plant, Sadie. “Babes in the Net.” New Statesman & Society January 27, 1997, p. 28.

Spender, Dale. Nattering on the Net: Women, Power and Cyberspace. North Melbourne, Victoria: Spinifex Press,1995.

Wide Sargasso Sea

 Wide Sargasso Sea

Hello Readers!

This blog is the part of my thinking activity in classroom. In this blog I would like to talk a famous postcolonial novel Wide Sargasso Sea by Jean Rhys.

Jean Rhys :- 

Jean Rhys, CBE was a British novelist who was born and grew up in the Caribbean island of Dominica. From the age of 16, she was mainly resident in England, where she was sent for her education. She is best known for her novel Wide Sargasso Sea, written as a prequel to Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre.

Wide Sargasso Sea:-     

  Wide Sargasso Sea, novel by Jean Rhys, published in 1966. A well-received work of fiction, it takes its theme and main character from the novel Jane Eyre by Charlotte Brontë.

The book details the life of Antoinette Mason (known in Jane Eyre as Bertha), a West Indian who marries an unnamed man in Jamaica and returns with him to his home in England. Locked in a loveless marriage and settled in an inhospitable climate, Antoinette goes mad and is frequently violent. Her husband confines her to the attic of his house at Thornfield. Only he and Grace Poole, the attendant he has hired to care for her, know of Antoinette’s existence. The reader gradually learns that Antoinette’s unnamed husband is Mr. Rochester, later to become the beloved of Jane Eyre.

◆ Comparison between Jane Eyre and Wide Sargasso Sea:-

Wide Sargasso Sea is both a response and a prequel to Charlotte Brontë’s Jane Eyre, set in the West Indies and imagining the lives of Bertha Mason and her family. Bidisha describes how Jean Rhys’s novel portrays the racial and sexual exploitation at the heart of western civilisation and literature.

👉Charlotte Bronte and Jean Rhys composed their novels in different centuries and came from very different backgrounds. However despite these disparities the use of symbolism in their narratives can be compared. Jean Rhys's 1966 novel Wide Sargasso Sea is a creative response to Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, a nineteenth century classic, which has always been one of English Literature's greatest and most popular love stories.

👉Jane Eyre is a story of true love that encounters many obstacles and problems, but surmounts these troubles to fulfil destiny. The main source of trouble is Rochester's insane first wife, Bertha Mason, a lunatic Creole who is locked in the attic of his country house, Thornfield Hall. The problem is eventually solved, tragically, when Bertha escapes and burns Thornfield to the ground, killing herself and seriously maiming Rochester in the process. The social and moral imbalances between Jane and Rochester are then equalled by his punishment for his previous actions, and Jane's rise in status due to an inheritance.

👉In Wide Sargasso Sea Rhys shifts the perspective on Jane Eyre by expressing the viewpoints of the different characters in the source material, so taking a different structural approach to the first-person narrative technique employed by Bronte. She wrote her version as a multiple narrative, giving Bertha a previously-unheard voice. Rochester, even though un-named in Wide Sargasso Sea, takes over the narration in part two, and Grace Poole enlightens us at the opening of part three. Rhys can be seen as repaying Bronte for her failure to give Bertha a voice by not allowing Jane one, even though she does appear in the novel. Antoinette, as Bertha is named in Rhys's novel, declares, 'There is always the other side', and this proves to be the governing theme throughout both novels.

👉Similarly, in Wide Sargasso Sea, Rochester and Antoinette's marriage can be seen as being doomed from the start due to the landscape that they pass through on their journey to the honeymoon house. They stop in a village named 'Massacre' where it is raining and rather grey, and Rochester takes an instant dislike to the place because of the name and the inhabitants, both of which he describes as 'sly, spiteful, malignant perhaps'; words which appear to convey his whole attitude to all those who surround him. Later Rochester describes the night the couple spent in Massacre, emphasising that he lay awake all night listening to cocks crowing; a symbol of deception. In the Bible Jesus says to Judas, 'before the cock crows, you shall deny me thrice', and this line, interestingly, appears in the novel further on when Rochester confronts Antoinette about her history.

👉Just as the name Jane Eyre can be seen to reflect Jane's character, the title of Rhys's novel can be seen to reflect the development of its plot. The Sargasso Sea, ('Sargasso' being the weed that gives that part of the North Atlantic its name), is almost still but at its centre has a mass of swirling currents, an image suggestive of Antoinette's character, and of the turmoil of her imprisonment and the method of her escape.

👉There is a limit to the extent to which we can see Wide Sargasso Sea as an interpretation of Jane Eyre, and we must remember that in some respects Rhys's novel takes pains to distance itself from Jane Eyre. The distinction is seen particularly in the inclusion of post-colonial theory in Wide Sargasso Sea.

◆ Jane and Antoinette in context of      Postcolonialism:-

The theme of black and white also links to the colour imagery presented by both writers, not only in the context of skin colour, but also in terms the colours that surround them in their environments. Antoinette's one time friend Tia, calls Antoinette a 'White Nigger' meaning that the emancipation has left the white slave owners in the same position as the blacks. Neither has power or money and both are resented by the new white people moving into the Caribbean. The 'white nigger' is neither a white person nor a black person, but is regarded as inferior to the Negroes.

A range of imagery in the form of colours is associated with the development of the intrigue behind Antoinette's madness, and Jane's love for Rochester. Rochester describes Bertha as having 'red balls' for eyes and a 'mask' instead of a face. This use of figurative language makes Bertha appear a grotesque monster, while in contrast Jane is likened to 'an eager little bird'.

◆ Jane and Antoinette in context of Feminism :-

We can also compare the difference between how the symbolism of fire distinguishes the representations of Jane and Antoinette's characters. Rochester describes the West Indies as 'Fiery' and we see his dislike of this unfamiliar environment grow to overpowering proportions, until he decides to shoot himself. He is prevented by 'a fresh wind from Europe', which entices him home. This scene echoes Jane Eyre, where Jane hears Rochester's voice calling her back to Thornfield. Rochester undoubtedly associates Jamaica with evil and so Bertha's fiery, manic disposition fits in with his view of the Caribbean. England is seen as 'pure', Jane is described as having 'clear eyes' a 'face', this healthy description informing us of her mental health. Rochester wants a true English Rose 'this is what I wished to have' (laying a hand on Jane's shoulder). Bertha's fiery, hateful and wild nature is the opposite of Jane's prim and typically English reserve. The passionate nature at the heart of the novel is epitomised in Jane's metaphor for her love for Rochester, 'Fiery iron grasped my vitals'. Jane's fire is in her love whereas Antoinette's fire is one of pain and fear. Fire also links Jane to Bertha, both in passion and in the actual setting of fire, most notably the fire that kills Bertha but symbolises rebirth in the character of Rochester.

Conclusion:- 

 In sum up we can say that one feature the novels have in common is that both authors make use of the literary device of symbolism in their writing. In both novels our appreciation of the characters and themes is enriched by the symbolism inherent in such narrative elements as dreams, visions, landscapes, characters' names, place names, colours, fire, and even the titles.

Why are We so Scared of Robots/ AIs ?

Why are We so Scared of Robots/ AIs ? 

Hello Readers!

                             Today I'm going to write about the Robots and also talk about Robotic world that in future we can see that all the people want to choose to keep work by robots not by theme self. we can see the future that now a days all become digital that's why one day somewhere everything depends on digital tools like mobile,computers, net,robot etc... even many works like Education, even home works like cleaning and cooking also. today we can see about why are we so scared of robots and AIs. So Let's see...

We all know about Digital world and Digital things that all the things created by us. than after we can see that somewhere we scare from them and this all because for us. we also afraid from some monsters. People scared from robot's presence and it's become harmful to us. We can see the movie is Robot also. 

We’ve all seen science fiction films about robots turning on their masters and we’ve certainly heard naysayers talk about how robots are coming to steal human jobs, but are they really so bad? The answer is no. Let’s explore three fears that about robots that simply don’t hold up to the light:

1. They’re Not Safe

First and foremost, you’ll hear about how robots aren’t safe. While it’s true that fenced robots in manufacturing are behind said fences for a reason, that’s not to say that their collaborative counterparts are dangerous as well. While nothing is completely safe, collaborative robots are in fact built using a standard set of guidelines known as the ISO TS 15066.

These provide some standards for collaborative robotics to abide by, which helps manufacturers ensure that their robots are as safe as can be. Today’s standards, combined with safety technology, has resulted in several excellent options for safety with collaborative robots:

● Power and force limiting

● Speed and separation monitoring

● Hand guiding

New safety technology continues to emerge as time goes on, quickly revealing that humans have no need to fear their safety around robots in the workplace, so long as they are well informed.

2. They’ll Take Our Jobs

Throughout history, people have always feared technology, because they were scared it would make their jobs obsolete. Cars, the printing press, industrial technology, all of these things were met with fear in the past. People were afraid these things would put them out of work, but in every case, they did not.

Instead, technology creates new industries, new jobs, and more prosperity as a whole. With robots, the same thing is happening today. People in manufacturing are afraid their jobs will be taken, but new jobs are already being created.

Whether it’s someone to program the robots, or a human to work on more intricate tasks that robots can’t perform, new roles are emerging as robots increase production and lower costs. Back-breaking jobs that humans hate can now be given to robots, thus freeing them up to do more rewarding work.

There’s nothing to fear, because technology creates far more than it destroys when it comes to industries, jobs, and careers.

3. Artificial Intelligence Is Dangerous

We’ve made some huge strides in regards to artificial intelligence, but we’re a long ways off from robots that are as smart, or smarter than humans. People who think about decades in the future may have concerns about the intelligence of robots being used against us, but that’s not something we need to worry about now.

The current landscape of robotics puts us squarely in control. As a result, the idea of robots turning on us or becoming sentient is still in the realm of science fiction. Major technology figures like Elon Musk, Stephen Hawking, and others are already thinking about how to properly harness A.I.

Geoff Hinton, known as the “godfather of deep learning,” told the BBC that “You can see things clearly for the next few years, but look beyond 10 years and we can’t really see anything. It’s just a fog.”

Instead, we should focus on the fact that today’s A.I systems can process information too vast or too complex for humans to grasp. There’s nothing to fear from the growth of A.I as we are still in the infancy of the technology.

 

Final Thoughts

The most common fears surrounding robots are often birthed from a lack of knowledge. Now that you know these things, are you afraid of robots? Have you ever been? Let us know in the comments!

The Final Solution by Mahesh Dattani

Hello Friends! 

                     Today I'm going to write about film adaption experience by watching a film in class. We have seen a film "The  Final Solution" directed by Mahesh Dattani, which was based on the play " The Final Solution". 

This play by Mahesh Dattani. Mahesh Dattani is a well-known English playwright, actor and director of India. He is the first playwright in English to be awarded the Sahitya Akademi award for Final Solutions in 1998.

This book about the Hindu family in Gujrat who save 2 boys of Muslim community. The theme of the play Final Solutions is to highlight human weaknesses, selfishness, avarice and opportunism. Woven into the play are the issues of class and communities and the clashes between traditional and modern life style and value systems. The problem of minorities is not confined to only Hindus and Muslims, it eats the peace of any minority community among the majority.

"Final Solutions" has a powerful contemporary resonance and it addresses as issue of utmost concern to our society, i.e. the issue of communalism. The play presents different shades of the communalist attitude prevalent among Hindus and Muslims in its attempt to underline the stereotypes and clichés influencing the collective sensibility of one community against another. What distinguishes this work from other plays written on the subject is that it is neither sentimental in its appeal nor simplified in its approach.

It advances the objective candour of a social scientist while presenting a mosaic of diverse attitudes towards religious identity that often plunges the country into inhuman strife. Yet the issue is not moralised, as the demons of communal hatred are located not out in the street but deep within us.

The play moves from the partition to the present day communal riots. It probes into the religious bigotry by examining the attitudes of three generations of a middle-class Gujarati business family, Hardika, the grandmother, is obsessed with her father's murder during the partition turmoil and the betrayal by a Muslim friend, Zarine. Her son, Ramnik Gandhi, is haunted by the knowledge his fortunes were founded on a shop of Zarine's father, which was burnt down by his kinsmen.

Hardika's daughter-in-law, Aruna, lives by the strict code of the Hindu Samskar and the granddaughter, Smita, cannot allow herself a relationship with a Muslim boy. The pulls and counter-pulls of the family are exposed when two Muslim boys, Babban and Javed, seek shelter in their house on being chased by a baying Hindu mob.

Babban is a moderate while Javed is an aggressive youth. After a nightlong exchange of judgements and retorts between the characters, tolerance and forgetfulness emerge as the only possible solution of the crisis. Thus, the play becomes a timely reminder of the conflicts raging not only in India but in other parts of the world.

Mahesh Dattani's 'Final Solutions' is that rare look at a socio-political problem that defies all final solutions….Arvind Gaur's competent direction… intense, topical and artistically mounted, Asmita's 'Final Solutions' brought back memories of Habib Tanvir's rendition of 'Jis Lahore nahi Dekhya' and Saeed Mirza's 'Naseem.

'Final Solutions' touches us, and the bitter realities of our lives so closely that it becomes a difficult play to handle for the Indian Director. The past begins to determine the outlook of the present and thus the earlier contradictions re-emerge.

Although, no concrete solutions are provided in the play to the problem of communalism but it raises questions on secularism and pseudo secularism. It forces us to look at ourselves in relation to the attitudes that persist in the society. Final Solutions has taken the issues of the majority communities in different contexts and situations. It talks of the problems of cultural hegemony, how Hindus had to suffer at the hands of Muslim majority like the characters of Hardika/Daksha in Hussainabad. And how Muslims like Javed suffer in the setup of the majority Hindu community. This all resulted in communal riots and culminated in disruption of the normal social life, and thus hampered the progress of the nation.

Questions/Answers :-

1. Does the movie help you to understand the narrative structure of the play ? 

- Yes, This film adaption helps us to understand the structure of the literary work. In the Final Solution, we can see the story told by Daksha's perspective in diary form. She wrote diary and threw the diary she tells us that what and how everything has happened in this play. Javier's perspective is for his experience and his story also shown different in flashback mode. Bobby's story also in different way. So we can see different types of stories used in one play, which we can understand threw the film in better way. 

2. What do you think about women's situation during the time of communal riots? 

- The situation of women during the time of communal riots very bad. Even in comman situations of the women was also not good. They don't speak anything because they haven't freedom of speech for say anything and also they can't do anything that they want. They haven't any kind of right for choosing her hobbies also. In the play and movie we can see Daksha's character that she wanted to be a singer but her father in law and mother in law denied to do. And its not enough even she also not listen the song also. 

3. Does the women characters like Daksha, Karuna etc. Have helped you in understanding it. If you the director of the movie, what kind of changes would you make in the movie. Does the movie do justice to the play ?

- Yes, All women characters helps us to understand the play. If I was the director, I'll end the play with solution. And we know about the society and their rules for religion and rituals that I should not conclude my movie with this way but conclude that point after knowing the situation and all the characters get justice after conclude the movie.

Foe by J.M.Coetzee

For by J.M.Coetzee

History is nothing but a certain kind of story that people agree to tell each other 

– J M Coetzee

Hello Friends! 

  

                     Today I'm going to write about the Thinking Activity task on the novel 'Foe' by J.M.Coetzee and also see some question and answers based on this novel. So let's see...

 

                    Foe by J.M.Coetzee

We learn who Foe is for starters. It's the writer Daniel Foe, better known to us nowadays as Daniel Defoe, best known as the author of Robinson Crusoe. And there will be few people out there who don't know his story. Foe tells the story of Susan Barton, a woman stranded, then rescued, from a desert island and taken back to England where she attempts to contact Daniel Foe, a writer, and have her story documented for the world to read. A re-appropriation of The Life and Strange Surprising Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Coetzee’s Foe is a work of psychological fiction with a thematic focus on the act of writing much like his novel Master of Petersburg, which features Fyodor Dostoyevsky as a central character. 

1. How would you differentiate the character of Cruso and Crusoe ? 

- One explanation for the difference in mindset and mental stability in the two Robinson Crusoe’s may be that in Robinson Crusoe, Crusoe felt that his island life had more value than Cruso did. Before becoming stranded on the island, religion wasn’t a focus in Robinson Crusoe’s life, and he frequently sinned; such as when he disobeyed his father. After becoming stranded on the island, Crusoe began to read the bible and incorporate God into his daily thoughts and actions. Crusoe expressed deep regret for his sinful past, and often attributed hardships to a lesson from God. This newfound life style gave significant meaning to Crusoe’s daily actions as they represented growth in his faith, and a positive change in character. For Cruso, the island did not lead him to make any significant changes in his character or ideals. Therefore, his daily actions had less significance to him, and when his reality and sense of self began to slip away from him he was not concerned.

Q.2) Friday’s characteristics and persona in Foe and in Robinson Crusoe.

- If Crusoe represents the first colonial mind in fiction, then Friday represents not just a Caribbean tribesman, but all the natives of America, Asia, and Africa who would later be oppressed in the age of European imperialism. At the moment when Crusoe teaches Friday to call him “Master” Friday becomes an enduring political symbol of racial injustice in a modern world critical of imperialist expansion. Recent rewritings of the Crusoe story, like J. M. Coetzee’s Foe and Michel Tournier’s Friday, emphasize the sad consequences of Crusoe’s failure to understand Friday and suggest how the tale might be told very differently from the native’s perspective.

Q.3) Is Susan reflecting the white mentality of Crusoe (Robinson Crusoe)?

- Susan Barton is the voice of the novel, she is not the main character because she is most concerned with telling the story of “Cruso’s island.” J.M. Coetzee is a male author who uses the voice of Barton to convey a deeper understanding of Defoe’s male character, Robinson Crusoe. As a woman, she is used as an instrument to further define the characters and story of Robinson Crusoe. The beginning of the novel is focused on Cruso and his island, while the end of the novel is focused on Barton defining her relationship with Cruso and also her relationship with Friday. Through her meek subservience and her role as the supporting actress to the ever-present figure of Robinson Cruso, Susan Barton’s voice is lost. Coetzee uses her as merely a device to relay the stories of Cruso and Friday.