the Theory Tree - The Official blog of the CCL reading group of HCU

Adopted - The Movie Poster

2011-04-15T21:01:00.000+05:30

For more details on the movie, see the previous post!

Love is not enough….

Of the 1.5 million adopted children in the United States, international adoptees are the fastest growing segment - and most adopted are Asian girls. First-time director, Barb Lee, goes deep into the intimate lives of two well-meaning families and shows us the subtle challenges they face. One family is just beginning the process of adopting a baby from China and is filled with hope and possibility. The other family's adopted Korean daughter is now 32 years old. Prompted by her adoptive mother's terminal illness, she tries to create the bond they never had. The results are riveting, unpredictable and telling. While the two families are at opposite ends of the journey, their stories converge to show us that love alone isn't enough to make a family work.

ADOPTED

(2008/USA/English/80min/Documentary)

Directed by Barb Lee

LECTURE HALL, HUMANITIES

18TH APRIL 2011, MONDAY

2.30PM

'Identity' Practicals

2011-04-12T15:13:00.000+05:30

Let us do an exercise!

Stand on one leg and with the finger tip of the other, draw a few circles on the ground. Now assume an expression of coyness ...

Well, well.

We have read two articles on identity, which talked about anything but identity, and now let us try applying it to a text! Our next reading session is a movie and a discussion that should emerge from it.

Adopted. The movie is a 2008 documentary directed by first time director Barb Lee.

It is an American documentary on inter-racial, international adoptions in the US and the problems that entails.

Read the plot summary below.

Of the 1.5 million adopted children in the United States, international adoptees are the fastest growing segment - and most adopted are Asian girls. While many of their stories are heartwarming and play into our self-image of American compassion and generosity, the realities are much more complex. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, adoptees have significantly more behavioral problems than non-adopted children. 'Adopted' reveals the grit rather than the glamor of trans-racial adoption. First-time director, Barb Lee, goes deep into the intimate lives of two well-meaning families and shows us the subtle challenges they face. One family is just beginning the process of adopting a baby from China and is filled with hope and possibility. The other family's adopted Korean daughter is now 32 years old. Prompted by her adoptive mother's terminal illness, she tries to create the bond they never had. The results are riveting, unpredictable and telling. While the two families are at opposite ends of the journey, their stories converge to show us that love alone isn't enough to make a family work.

Some movie, eh?
So, now on to the trailer.

The movie screening will be held at
2.30pm on Monday 18th April, 2011
in the Humanities Lecture Hall.
The movie is in English, and no subs.

I think the fun will start after the movie ends! We need volunteers for this theory adventure! Try applying what we have read in the previous two classes to the movie we are going to watch and see what happens. Hopefully, something less tragic than the movie itself! :D

All are welcome for the movie! You should have read the articles to participate in the ensuing argument/ discussion.

Posters coming up soon.

For the link hungry ones:
Movie Website | IMDB | Random Review

Reading Hall and Brubaker

2011-04-09T19:00:00.000+05:30

Thus we channelled a regular class into our good old reading club, without missing a beat! Did anyone knew it happened? But oh yes, it did! ;)

So, yes, we are back in our reading club, and the themes of our reading this time around is 'Identity'
The first reading of Stuart Hall's Who Needs 'Identity?' happened on Thursday 11 am at the Lecture Hall without much fanfare. The next reading is on Monday, 11th April, 2011. The essay is by Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper and is titled, Beyond "Identity". More on the essays and the authors below.

Stuart Hall

Stuart Hall is a Jamaican-born, Oxford-educated cultural theorist and one of the founding members of the Birmingham School of Cultural Studies (now, Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies). Hall's work covers issues of hegemony and cultural studies, taking a post-Gramscian stance. He regards language-use as operating within a framework of power, institutions and politics/economics. This view presents people as producers and consumers of culture at the same time.

Read more on Hall and his works here.

Rogers Brubaker

Rogers Brubaker is a sociologist who taught at UCLA from 1991. Rogers Brubaker has written widely on social theory, immigration, citizenship, nationalism, and ethnicity.
You can contact him at brubaker@soc.ucla.edu (No!)
Read more on Rogers Brubaker here and here.

The essay is co-written by historian Frederick Cooper, who specializes in colonialization, decolonialization and African history. Cooper received his Ph.D from Yale University in 1974 and is currently professor of history at New York University.

Who Needs 'Identity'?

Though written as an introduction to a book, Questions of Cultural Identity, edited by Stuart Hall and Paul Du Gay, the essay began to take a life of its own, anthologized in critical readers of cultural studies as well as identity.

The essay tries to recover Identity from its present day redundancy. Essentialized identities of the Cartesian metaphysics are now looked down upon and advanced theories of postmodernism renders Identity as a superfluous category. So then, he asks, Who Needs Identity?

Hall tries to create a history of this concept through cultural theory. He links Althusser, Lacan, Foucault and finally, Butler to weave a new idiom to speak about identities and its relevance to present day social analysis. On its way, Hall also brilliantly summarises these theoreticians's works, helping the readers adjust to his new history.

Read the essay (PDF)

Beyond "Identity"

Brubaker's and Cooper's essay features in Rogers Brubaker's book, Ethinicity Without Groups (2004), where he has critically engaged prevailing analytical stances in the study of ethnicity and nationalism and sought to develop alternative analytical resources.
Brubaker and Cooper also starts from the same premise as Hall, but goes on to radically different conclusions. While, for Hall, there is some hope in salvaging the lost pride of identity, Brubaker and Cooper couldn't be persudaded to think of identity as indispensable. They suggest a new idiom to talk about issues that are usually cloaked under the umbrella term identity, making it a very contradictory concept, deprived of any actual content.
Read the essay (PDF)

So, there we have it, two essays, and yes, please club, read the essays and come to the CCL department at 11 am, on Monday. The Reading Club, is full on!

You might have noticed that we have gone for a image-heavy post this time. Very much inspired by Jananie's (yes!) wonderful photo+painting blog Of kills, quills and pills.

New Year, New Resolutions!

2011-01-31T07:33:00.000+05:30

It's been sometime, ne?

Yeah, I don't even remember when the last post was (figure of speech). But here we are, in a new year. Well, we are one month done, but still a new year!

Let us read! We shall provide online copies of materials for each week and we are going to READ them and post comments on them and meet as well, whenever possible. :)

And for the first session we are reading J. L. Austin's first lecture from How to Do Things with Words

This is one of the essays which are oft-quoted, but seldom read.

But many of us will remember this quote and its performative significance.

'I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth' as uttered when smashing the bottle against the stem.

And thus,

What are we to call a sentence or an utterance of this type? I propose to call it a performative sentence or a performative utterance, or, for short, 'a performative.'

Now that the context is laid out, let's start with...

J. L. Austin was born in Lancaster and educated at Oxford, where he became a professor of philosophy following several years of service in British intelligence during World War II. Although greatly admired as a teacher, Austin published little of his philosophical work during his brief lifetime. Students gathered his papers and lectures in books that were published posthumously, including Philosophical Papers (1961) and Sense and Sensibilia (1962). Austin

In "A Plea for Excuses" (1956), Austin explained and illustrated his method of approaching philosophical issues by first Austin patiently analyzing the subtleties of ordinary language. In How to Do Things with Words (1961), the transcription of Austin's James lectures at Harvard, application of this method distinguishes between what we say, what we mean when we say it, and what we accomplish by saying it, or between speech acts involving locution, illocution (or "performative utterance"), and perlocution.

So now, on to the essay itself...
Click to View

More?
Read about his Lectures, or, if you are feeling adventurous,read the whole of the lectures.

Notes on the Reading Club
"You changed everything!" Yes, some arbitrary decisions, I hope will provoke some reactions.
A complete re-design is what you least expected, I am sure! But it was much-needed is what I believe. The question remains however: what is the re-design you had in mind? Comments welcome!

We will be showing films as a reading club. We are a reading club which shows movies. Cool enough, right? ;)

natter, chatter ... 'Talk to her'

2009-11-02T18:56:00.000+05:30

Reading group's inbox flooded with run-on discussions on Pedro Almodovar's Spanish movie 'Talk to her'(2002). As informed earlier, Sowmya initiated an argument, in the form of a questionnaire, raising some vital doubts on reading/understanding this movie. Barath responded, though there are clues that indicate Benigno is gay as well as bisexual, it wouldn't have stopped him 'loving'/'raping' Alicia. This, he reasoned, might have been due to Benigno's back ground. He also maintained that Marcos "couldn't have 'raped' Alicia". He agreed with Sowmya's observation that 'when could have Marcos possibly raped Alicia?'.

Lenny brought the 'auteur' into account. Though, he concurred Benigno must have 'raped' Alicia, he questioned the motive of the director. He doubted whether the director wanted the audience to read things in a certain way. He discussed man's 'gaze', visual narrative, constructed 'feminity' and 'effeminity' and alternate sexuality. He concluded the author might have 'naturally' wanted the audience to imagine a relationship between Marcos and Alicia.

Jananie (after a long gap) contributed some significant points, thereby making the discussion vivid. She notified Almodovar was a gay and indicated a certain pattern in his movies -( All About My Mother, The Bad Education, Talk To Her, Volver). They were: a. sympathetic representation of non-straight men vs possible 'villainisation' of straight men.

b.sexual ambiguity of the male characters and their typification.

c. The focus on alternative/ambiguous sexuality contributes to the perception of alternative sexuality and/as disease in contemporary society.

She interrogated whether the assumed 'rape' is rape at all. She also added that most of his movies have a dearth of lesbian characters and the 'straight' women who appear are victimized by men.

Bipin was annoyed by the 'language' used by the participants and the constructed ways of 'reading' the movie. He urged for alternative readings. He considered the movie to be a thriller. He recounted that as he came out of the hall he was completely confused as to know who the 'culprit' was. However, he agreed that through the 'silent movie' the director conveyed the 'unsaid said' as to who could have been the culprit i.e Benigno. On the other hand, he also believed the movie is ambiguous and open to multiple interpretations.

Lenny built upon Jananie's contribution/suggestion. He augmented that sexuality and disease in this movie could be seen in the context of larger social frameworks and institutions such as religion and law, family and state, hospital and prison. He considered this movie also talks about the (in)capability of expressing feelings and emotions, and alternative forms of expression other than 'talking'. He noted that 'rape' and 'making love' were ambiguous terms to describe the alleged act/crime.

what a discussion we've had ... hope there's more to natter and chatter...

2009-11-01T23:06:00.000+05:30

hi - after a prolonged gap; here, attempts at a recap. (we know, we were other-wise-busy).

the reading group was quiet for the past few days. though we watched a couple of movies, the discussions weren't as lively as we've had earlier (why?). well, the spanish movie 'talk to her' - initiated a discussion. Sowmya initiated an argument over the 'rape of Alicia' on friday, post-screening. what followed was a set of questions and two long interpretations/readings. Apparently, Sowmya suggested whether this could be carried forward into a combined paper on "straight"ness of cinema.

remember, the group also watched the tamil movie 'paruthiveeran' a month ago.

these are the questions Sowmya formulated:

1. yes, all clues point towards benigno being gay. but why was he behind
Alicia in the first place? he could be bi-sexual but does that mean he
would not have made love to her?
2. why did the silent movie about the dwarfed man entering the woman
disturb benigno? he says he was disturbed and then we see the formation of
an embryo.
3. If Alicia cant recognise anything in her coma state, how can she
recognise marcos in the end? only because they made love?
4. i vaguely remember marcos saying that "benigno gave life to Alicia"
does he say that? if yes, what does it mean?
5. is there any indication of when marcos could have "raped" alicia?

Regional Shorts

2009-09-11T11:58:00.000+05:30

Such a long gap, from the reading group! (is not good for anyone)

So the month's second reading session focussing on the theme of the month, 'Region' happened yesterday. The reading of the session had three readings: 'Poetry in the time of Terror', an innovative prose-poem piece by Robin Ngangom, a Manipuri Poet, Gulabi Talkies an interesting story by Kannada writer Vaidehi (and translated by Tejaswini Niranjana) and a story from Manik Bandhopadhyay titled the 'Ascetic'.

People: Sowmya, Bipin, Leonard, Shyam, Rajarishi, Prabhas and Viju

The session started off with discussing the Bengali story, 'Ascetic' whose motive Rajarishi traced it to the Vaishnava saint, Chiathanya Mahaprabhu. The motifs of leaving and return were discussed. Viju said the story reflected the prank twists of O'Henry stories. Rajarishi commented that the story was written as the counterpoint of another story of M. Bandhopadhyay called the 'Thief'.

Manik Bandhopadhyay's fights with Tagore and his ironical stories and his mocking of the Bhadralok were also discussed. The text was also deemed a male text.

Next in the line was 'Gulabi Talkies' a Kannada story by Vaidehi. The original story was written in a dialect of Kannada and the feministic overtones of the story were acknowledged first. The public-private spaces, the exposition of the altercations among the womenfolk, the marginalization of the women characters, the division between different kind of women of different classes, and the possibility of dissemination of articulatory spaces for women were discussed. The story also showed the emergence of early film viewing in the rural areas in much evocative detail. Sowmya commented that some parts of the story were used in introductory film texts.
Prabhas said how the talkies in the title might also signify the talking spaces enabled for the womenfolk due to the establishment of the talkies.

The third reading was a prose-poetic essay by Robin Ngangom, a Manipuri poet. His essay, detailing his position as a poet in times of terror, were strewn with poems he wrote and proved to be an interesting and innovative read.

The tone of the essay was discussed by Shyam and Viju. Shyam argued that the quoting of poets from other countries were ironical and was meant to show that the poet was intending it as a retort against the people who think all poets need to do is write poems of beautiful scenery and sentimental romance. Viju maintained that the quoting was meant to create a global lineage for the poet whose witnessing never stops. A poet in times of terror cannot but respond to what is happening around him/her.

The last paragraph of the essay which was meant to clear away the confusions proved to be totally against the whole essay thereby making the whole point of the essay, well, pointless.

Miscellany

Next Week
Friday , 18th
Video of a Dramatic Performance followed by a Presentation of his research work by Thongam Bipin.

The Week After (date not fixed)
Going to watch 'Quick Gun Murugan' or some other movie!

The theme of the next month (October)is tentatively decided to be 'Religion'. Since religion is such a vast topic, we are also searching for a subtopic under religion. Any comments on the topic should be discussed on our mailing list. It is working! Just select 'reply all' to any of our mailing list mails to make it active.

Please comment below the views on the current topic. Comments on the reading group should go to the mailing list.

Viju

P.S. Leonard (Lenny) is willing to be the co-writer for the blog. Yayness! Welcoming Lenny aboard!!!

Of Love and Foucault

2009-07-23T09:34:00.000+05:30

We had the third meeting on July 22nd Wednesday(postponed from tuesday due to some technical difficulties) on a Michel Foucault essay, What is Enlightenment? This was an essay written partially in response to Immanuel Kant's essay, 'What is Enlightenment?'
The people who attended the meeting were: Sowmya, Aparna, Bipin, Viju and Praveen.

Viju, initiated the discussion summarizing the main points of the essay. The essay announces Foucault's project of a archaeological and genealogical (in Foucault's usage of these terms)analysis of a historical ontology of ourselves. Kant's essay is responded to in brief, but mainly it serves as a preface to the main points foucualt tries to elucidate in the essay.

Aparna said that the main project is an inquiry into the attitude of modernity, and the non essential study of Enlightenment for such an inquiry.

Foucault's resistance to anything universal and global was pointed out by Sowmya.

The essay was not easy and the discussion turned to the cultural studies register itself and many examples of bad writing, from many foremost critical social science thinkers were pointed out and criticized. Praveen commented on the obscurantism of many writers. The problems of translation, usage of foreign vocabulary, practicality of cultural studies were all commented upon.

During the tea session after the main session, issues of Dev D was discussed which further lead to a discussion of love. And thus Praveen gave us a theme for another month, love! And we are not discussing love poems of fourteenth century, or sentimental mush from mainstream movies or from our own lives(they can be there). But love, theorized. This is, of course, tentative. But I am sure everyone will have their own say in this, like in, presenting a paper on love?!

Won't we love it? :)

- Viju

P.S. Purists who who abhor such topics being discussed in the group may treat this is a joke and can take a vacation on the LOVE month. :D

Seeing Dev D

2009-07-20T13:25:00.000+05:30

Our second meeting happened on 14-07-09 in the Mphil Classroom. The numbers dwindled to just five: Aparna, Bipin, Sowmya, Shyma and Viju were present for the meeting
The subject of the discussion was the Bollywood movie, Dev D directed by Anurag Kashyap. The movie was screened the previous friday.

The meeting started off with Aparna initiating the discussion. She compared the multiple adaptation of Devdas something akin to the adaptations of Shakespeare's Hamlet. The indecisive character of Hamlet, the protagonist of Hamlet, the play seems to be reflected in the poster of Dev D too.

Viju commented on the Dev D's characters meeting at the murky depths signifies their temporary stay there.

Shyma said that there is some steering away from the traditional binaries of modern and traditional as well as the london educated devdas and the image of dev d

Sowmya observed that the movie had too much colour and featured a debased hero. The role of chanda by a white woman and the NRI-ness of Dev D was highlighted. Again the movie was not trying to perpetrate that love is all innocent. Rather it is about the self. The inherent macho-ness present in Devadas characters was also commented on. She also tried to make a connection between the character's name, Devdas and the practice of Devadasi system prevalent in India.

Bipin made some amazing observations which seemingly everyone else missed. He said while in the original Devadas Paro is hurt by Devadas and gets a scar on her forehead. here Dev D hasa scar on his face by an accident which he himself is responsible. He also said about the possibility of many loves.

There were minimal discussions after the meeting. There is some uncertainty on tomorrow's meeting. I think Sowmya will update us on that.

Please post your responses as comments for this post below. Sorry for the delay.

- Viju

To Kalyan

2009-07-16T18:10:00.000+05:30

I am sure everyone has heard about Kalyan's father's death. He died of a heart-attack yesterday evening. This news has been shocking for all of us and we do share his incommensurable grief. Condolences from the deep of our hearts.

Kalyan, May your father's soul rest in peace.
And you, shall be in our prayers.

- the reading group

First Reading

2009-07-09T10:52:00.000+05:30

We had our first meeting and it was great!

The venue was changed from CIL lawn to our dear musty Mphil Classroom.

Participants: Shyma, Bipin, Praveen, Ambili, Sowmya, Sreebitha, Rathan and Viju

The meeting started off with Shyma's presentation. She introduced Kant, his obscure scientific discoveries and responded to the religious premise of the essay.

Bipin had issues with the initial passage itself saying how 'the self imposed immaturity' is not quite self-imposed, but rather a result of social conditioning.

Praveen brought in Ambedkar's perspective on enlightenment here.

Rathan tried to connect the spiritual nature of enlightenment, relating it to Buddha's nirvana.

Sowmya elaborated on the assumptions of the essay about the mind/body and nature/reason dichotomies.

Sreebitha pointed out that the 'intellectuals' were the only ones capable of enlightenment according to Kant. Though at the beginning of the essay, the mass seems to have included in the 'men', they seem to be missing towards the end.

Viju saw a major public sphere/private sphere divide that Kant seems to make in the essay.

The many discussions evolved out of this include
* Shyma said that while we are aware of the political readings of the essay, the religious interpretations of this are unavailable or inaccessible. Why?
* Bipin commented on the balancing act which Kant attempts at, which was a disappointment when considering the initial promise he holds out in the essay.
* The religious aspect branched off to several mini-discussions that involved issues like western enlightenment, Kant's intentionality, the essay's original premise, and 'Nirvana' as enlightenment.
* Foucault's essay, which we are discussing along with this one on 21st this month may probably give more insights on the essay and its implication

Miscellany
Praveen suggested that the topic of the next month to be 'Pulp Fiction' and everyone agreed heartily.
Fiction: A Mills and Boon Romance
Theory: Janice Radway on romance novels
Fiction: A translated pulp fiction from any local languages
Movie: Pulp Fiction

The movie screening (Dev D) is on Friday, 10th July, 1.30 pm at New Lecture Hall. Everyone is invited!

People! Put your typed responses to the essay as comments after this post. The discussions can continue after the responses.

-Viju

First Post

2009-07-02T15:27:00.000+05:30

Welcome to all!

This is the official blog of our unofficial reading group,
Under the theory tree.

The reading group is an unofficial community of a bunch of enthusiasts from the Centre for Comparative Literature in Hyderabad Central University to read theory and fiction, watch movies, discuss them and have lots of fun in the process.

The reading group meets every Tuesday from 3.30 pm - 5.00pm. The tentative venue is the lawn outside CIL

There is no quorum to be maintained. The meeting starts with whoever has come and others join in.
Though everyone has to participate equally, an Initiator is selected to ... ahem, initiate the discussion.

We have tentatively decided to fill the month in the following manner:
First Week: Theory
Second Week: Movie Discussion
Third Week: Theory Again
Fourth Week: Fiction

The Schedule for July 2009

7th July - Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment by Immanuel Kant
Initiator: Shyma

14th July - Discussion of the Movie Dev D
Initiator : Sreebitha
This movie will be screened on 10th July afternoon. For more details contact Sowmya.

21st July - Discussion of both Immanuel Kant's and Foucault's What is Enlightenment.
Initiator: Viju

28th July - The White Tiger by Aravind Adiga
Initiator: Sowmya

Click on the titles to view/download the respective document or movie.

What you can expect in the blog:
* Readings for each week
* Responses from the group on each reading
* Interesting movie and article links
* News and updates about the reading group
* and more!

Absolutely pissed by the retro looks, the design, the stupid caption? Well you are stuck with it unless you come up with something cooler, :P

- Viju

Credits...
Group Name: Sowmya and Aparna
Blog Design: Blogspot.com
Blog Header: Viju
Header Image: Dan Morelle through Flickr