BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cisrul.blog
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Centre for Citizenship, Civil Society and Rule of Law
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:UTC
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:UTC
DTSTART:20130101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;VALUE=DATE:20141014
DTEND;VALUE=DATE:20141015
DTSTAMP:20260411T201421
CREATED:20210819T194813Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20211027T094335Z
UID:10000001-1413244800-1413331199@cisrul.blog
SUMMARY:Questioning ‘community’
DESCRIPTION:In post-colonial period\, binary between community and modern \n \n\n\n\n\nretains as modern only community of nation-state with its homogeneous time\nothers stand outside it in heterogeneous time\n\nAlthough community in heterogeneous time is sometimes given positive value \n\n peasant or local presented as ethical antidote to anonymity of larger spaces\nGandhi: face-to-face relations are more organic than contractual\, legal status of citizenship\n\nPost-colonial scholars do acknowledge that community bends modern institutions to its own imperatives \ne.g. Partha Chatterjee \n\nvoting supposed to be individual but tends to be by group\ncaste gets “secularised” to have imprint on modern institutions\n\nSo “community” is a) ethical but also b) able to bend modern institutions \nBut this is very selective reading of community: can never understand modern political institutions as completely modern to begin with > they themselves draw on “community” institutions \n> What are other features of community that are not being captured in post-colonial theory but which might be revealed through ethnography? \n1. everyday morality of modern institutions: much of workings of community happens not through legal and political but through moral language > need to rethink distinction of legal-political and moral or religious \n2. hierarchy not of dignity but of honour – but is it possible to think of community without hierarchy of honour? \n> communities being managed as role-based performance: performing roles not just as individuals – never imagine individual purely as individual bearer of rights or legal entity \n3. temporal understood not as linear but as repetitive practices: ritualisation as opposed to modern innovation e.g. Gandhi: need to slow down time\, generating more repetitive practices \na. but post-colonials create mirror image of liberal citizenship\, civil society\, rule of law by extracting only positive faces of community \ne.g. “community as organic\, face-to-face”: but caste is also self-regulating etc. \nb. not the case we move from fluidity to regulation; governmentality has moved from moral-social into legal-political \ne.g. introduction of disposable glasses to avoid problem with pollution by caste \n>> if do not understand dark practices of community\, will not be able to understand modern state \nSourayan Mookerjea\nClaims to community ubiquitous in world at moment \nIn Tar Sands around Alberta\, Canada: drug use and domestic violence are endemic\, giving rise to alienated and unattached population in area; leaves rule of law in protracted crisis: crisis of legitimacy due to lax labour laws as well as lax enforcement of them \n> finds that gives rise to “community of politics” of collaboration between protest movements \nHow to re-theorise class politics in context of this mega-development? \n> inter-sectionality literature tries to address\, but more promising to use idea of “multitude” that non-identical to itself: “Community unified in meaning nothing but everything… like a monster that cannot be controlled” \nPolitical community may be redundant in that invocation of “community” is inevitably political \n\ndistinguish people making claim on institutions as “community” and people making claims on institutions on grounds that represent or embody their “community”\n\nDiscussion\nSian to AG: agrees that modern institutions not as modern as we think they are\, but surely still binarising if arguing that they are “traditional” \nTS: SM says “Political community may be redundant in that invocation of ‘community’ is inevitably political” but… \n\nimportant to keep separate our working definition of “political community” with invocations of “community” in world\, whether by post-colonials or by movements in Alberta\, not least so we can ask our analytical questions of these invocations of community: that is\n\nwhat is it people are doing when invoke “community” in ways described?\nspecifically\, what saying in terms of stake in institutions or authority structures and their will to subject to them?\n“community” (as Sourayan and Ajay are using it) is\n\na contemporary\, globalised political concept with tremendous force\na largely oppositional concept – hence used by post-colonial scholars as well as protest movements\n\n\nas oppositional concept\, interesting to compare and contrast to “civil society” which is also oppositional but which seems to work in somewhat different ways: I suspect that these oppositional scholars and movements are deliberately using “community” as an alternative to “civil society” > useful to ask why prefer community to this alternative oppositional concept of civil society\n\ncommunity does better job of distancing from “individualism”\nechoing only leftist tradition of solidarity\nalso echoes language of indigenous\, verging on noble savage\ncommunity also has connotation of local that supposedly alternative to national and perhaps more ethical\nromantic – which is still main trope of opposition\n\n\n\n\nFor Ajay\n\nPoint is not that community is not really like this > not possible to do ethnography of community any more than civil society – where would you find community to do ethnography of? where to find civil society to do ethnography of?\nCan however do ethnography of invocations of “community” (just as civil society”) by looking at movements defining themselves in these terms\, and asking what saying in terms of stake in institutions and will to subject to them\n\n\n\n> Ajay: still says that important to investigate communitarian structures and what really doing \n> Sourayan: \n\n\n\n\n\n“community” used by both right and left in Canadian context\nwhy have chosen “political community” as opposed to “cultural community” etc. for working definition?\n\n\n\n\n\nHanifi to AG: is multiculturalism an example of romanticism of post-colonial? \nTamas to AG: when Ajay conflates legal and rational\, he is confusing application of law with law itself – in parliament\, deputies debate which moral view is to have authoritative status\, even if the law is then applied in rational terms
URL:https://cisrul.blog/event/questioning-community/
CATEGORIES:Seminar,Workshop
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://cisrul.blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/cisrul-logo.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR