Author: Sankrant Sanu
Publication: www.sulekha.com
Date: December 20, 2003
URL: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305899
There has been considerable controversy
about Prof. Paul Courtright's book on Lord Ganesha. At the center of the
controversy are several assertions within the book, that have caused outrage
among devout Hindus, including assertions that Ganesha's trunk represents
a limp phallus in contrast to Shiva's erect one, that Ganesha's fondness
for sweets is a substitute for oral sex and so on.
For a detailed history of the controversy,
the protest of some Hindus against the book, and the response of academic
scholars of Hinduism on the RISA (Religion in South Asia) list, see Rajiv
Malhotra's detailed article: RISA Lila 2, Limp Scholarship and Demonology[1].
In this article we are concerned less with the particulars of the controversy
than the broader issues it raises about Hinduism studies and academic freedoms
in the American academic system. Even when we use Courtright as an example,
the critique is ultimately not intended to be personal, but systematic,
given the support Courtright has elicited from his RISA peers.
Outside the academic circles, the
question has more or less been of devout practitioners and believers feeling
hurt at what they perceive is the deliberate and provocative misrepresentations
of a symbol of their devotion. This has resulted in a response of petitions
and protest, not unfamiliar from those observed in followers of other religious
persuasions in similar matters. Inside academia, likewise, are the familiar
refrains of the danger to "academic freedom" and so on. The general sentiment
of the religion scholars is captured by the idea expressed on the RISA
list that "no matter what you all might think of Paul's claims, I think
we need to defend the academic study of religion in general...".
Indeed for those ultimately interested
in truth, religious sentiments that prevent a rigorous pursuit of the truth
can only be regarded as obstacles. So should a truth- seeker side with
the hurt Hindus or with the RISA academics?
Well, speaking personally, I was
not outraged by Courtright's book per se, even though Ganesha is a meaningful
symbol of devotion for me. This is because I was informed by the sentiment
expressed in our scriptures "Jaki Rahi Bhavana Jaisee, Prabhu Murat Dekhi
tin taisee." (Whatever the feelings one brings to the Lord, the Lord's
image appears likewise). As with anyone describing what he sees when faced
with a clear mirror, Courtright's book is not a commentary on Ganesha,
who is no doubt jovially unperturbed by the controversy, but likely a far
more accurate study of Courtright and his own stage of mental, emotional
and spiritual development in approaching that subject matter. That his
academic peers stand huddled around him in support might allow us to catch
an even larger glimpse in this mirror.
For someone who holds truth, above
all else, to be dear, perhaps resonating with a tradition that holds that
Truth is the highest dharma, and indeed Truth as the prime aspect of the
Supreme Lord, Sat-Chit- Ananda, the central question for lack of outrage
or otherwise becomes not one of sentiments, but one of truth. If Courtright's
observations are true, then however, insensitive they may appear to dogmatists,
they need to be supported (discounting for the moment that being sensitive
to the impact one's words, even when true, is also part of the Indian tradition
- -we shall remove standard academic discourse from the requirement of
sensitivity, for the moment). However, if they serve to ultimately propagate
falsehoods, with our without an underlying agenda, then some degree of
outrage is justified, perhaps proportional to the degree of falsehood and
the amount of damage such falsehood may cause.
However, any question of truth is
obviously tricky. Unlike the debate of Shankara with Mandana Mishra, there
is no person such as Mishra's wife Ubhaya- Bharati, who is mutually accepted,
as the impartial arbiter of truth nor does there appear to be any separate
objective touchstone of truth.
Indeed it is to a different, apparently
inviolable, touchstone that we are pointed to by Prof. Douglas Berger,
writing on the RISA list:
"Should Courtright's representations
of Ganesha be inaccurate, then these will be discredited by his peers,
and he will be held intellectually responsible for his views.[2]"
Thus, considering that, Courtright's
book was originally published nearly 20 years ago[3] and given the support
it still enjoys among his RISA peers, one can only conclude that his views
have not been discredited. Hence given the proposition above and applying
the rule of modus tollens we are forced to admit that Courtright's representations
of Ganesha are not inaccurate i.e. removing the double negation, are accurate.
Thus the Hindus that protest against this must be crazed fanatics, and
by the further logic of demonology, very likely the same as those that
kill innocent Muslims in Gujarat or those that support those actions. If
there was any doubt of this Orwellian logic, we have an aspiring entrant
into this power structure, a self-described all-but-done doctoral candidate
on "Sarvarkar and Hinduism" make this explicit:
"So, I would imgaine the issue is
related less to Ganesa' state of affairs (e.g. "limp," "flaccid") and more
a part of a larger campaign for the "self-defense of 'Hinduism'" in the
face of 'attack' by Western scholars (the new colonial gaze) and problematic
Muslims (the feared 'other').[4]"
The case in the academy is thus
closed. There are mild protestations from a few that deign to meet with
some of the Hindu community, but scarcely has the question been raised
(as it hardly could be, from within the system) that questions the proposition
that Prof. Berger made explicit - If Courtright were inaccurate, he would
have been discredited by his peers. Thus if it could be shown that Ganesha's
trunk does not, in fact, represent a limp phallus and given that Courtright's
views are not discredited within academia in the peer review process, then
Prof. Berger's proposition itself is false i.e. that the peer review process
in Hinduism studies is, instead, unable to distinguish between truth and
falsehood, or between good and bad scholarship. That is, practically anything
could be said and written, anything, that is, which doesn't draw any common
ground with "Hindutva" (we must not forget our bright line of unmitigated
evil), as long as it is written in the "bon ton" academic language and
as long as it follows the framework already established within the peer-
reviewing clique - it deserves, at best, unconditional plaudits and at
worse an impassioned defense of free speech.
The first question, that all truth
seekers whether within or outside academia must ask is - is the academic
study of Hinduism in America, as it currently exists, a valid discipline
in that it has some ability to distinguish between truth and falsehood,
and between scholarship and fiction?
The problem, of course, is that
the burden of proof is on the challenger. Prof. Courtright's limp phallus
comes with all the authority of peer-reviewed academia. A challenger cannot
simply claim hurt feelings, since as Patrick Olivelle writes, quite justifiably,
in RISA: "If we were not to "offend" any believer of any religious persuasion
with what we write, then we may as well give up the academic study of religion."
Nor is it sufficient, as some have done, to argue against the inapplicability
of Freudian methodology or how it has been discredited elsewhere. The methodology
itself comes with the weight of academic tradition, of course, generated
from within the same peer group[5]. Finally, the statement itself is beyond
verification or falsification - how does one "prove" that Courtright's
conception of Ganesha's trunk as a limp phallus is false? One can point
out that it is ahistorical, that it has no basis within the tradition,
no textual references and so on, but nothing really prevents Courtright's
personal fantasies about Ganesha's trunk to be presented as scholarly opinion.
Coutright's righteous indignation
about academic freedom and the support this has received from his academic
peers, appear to arise from a belief that his peers will not /cannot hold
him to account on matters of accuracy or evidence. The challenge to the
accuracy of the book has again come in a recent article by an outsider
to the academic study of Hinduism[6]. Courtright can thus state with remarkable
disdain for the voices of his sources ""Although there seem to be no myths
or folktales in which Ganesa explicitly performs oral sex; his insatiable
appetite for sweets may be interpreted as an effort to satisfy a hunger
that seems inappropriate in an otherwise ascetic disposition, a hunger
having clear erotic overtones." [em. added]
In most academic disciplines, to
come to such a definite conclusion, a scholar would have to marshal evidence,
a fraud would have to manufacture evidence but in Academic Hinduism studies
such efforts are, in Prof. Courtright's estimation, overkill. Courtright
may be credited with inventing one of the most ingenious devices in academic
Hinduism studies - a field known for its ingenious devices-"The Courtright
Twist" - whereby a respectable scholar can go from a hopeless "no evidence"
to a tentative "may be interpreted" to "clear... overtones" all in the
space of a single sentence.
Is this then harbinger of true Academic
freedom? Freedom from responsibility or pesky facts? No wonder a chorus
of voices has been shrilly raised in his support within RISA academics
for their desire to preserve this freedom, unquestioned by any opposing
voices.
Hold on, someone might say, isn't
this true of the field of religious studies, or all of humanities in general
- that many statements exists that are neither verifiable nor can be falsified.
What's so special about the Courtright Twist in Hinduism Studies?
Indeed. It might help to explore
this issue by analogy and see if we can detect some differences. How would
works produced by Wendy's Children[7], directly or metaphorically speaking,
look like in the study of other religions? What would happen if we were
to do a similar exercise with significant symbols of other religions? Would
what be the response from within academia to the following presentations
(apologies in advance for the scatological suggestions):
For Muslims, the Prophet Mohammad
is a significant central figure. Would psycho-analyzing the Prophet's relationship
with his young wife Ayesha, who was 9 at the time of their marriage, and
drawing "clear overtones" about Islam using the Courtright Twist be considered
legitimate scholarship by the AAR? More particularly, could such scholarship
about Islam go completely without challenge within the American academia
as was the case with Courtright's book?
Let us take another example:
One can imagine scholarship psycho-analyzing
Joseph faced with his virgin wife Mary giving birth and drawing clear overtones
about the impact this had on the upraising of the baby Jesus and the development
of Christianity. Would such a book exist for 20 years in the American academia
without any internal critique?
Can one imagine a legitimate "American
Studies" chair being conferred by an accredited University based on the
following thesis, without facing any academic challenges? "Although there
is no folklore or historical documents supporting this, one can readily
appreciate that by national consensus the American people built the Washington
Monument as an assertion of American manhood, its large size compensating
for the insecurity of their nationhood. Its image reaching towards the
Lincoln memorial, designed appropriately as a receptacle, has clear overtones
of the deep American and Christian inner conflict regarding homosexuality.
Taking these as "seed" ideas I am
sure a properly motivated and guided graduate students would be able to
come up with a paper in the right academic language on these topics. Someone
interested in more subtle subversion may sprinkle these "observations"
in the context of an otherwise scholarly appearing work, I apologize those
that I have no doubt offended by presenting these examples of "scholarly
topics" - indeed my point is to state that these are speculative fantasies,
more suitable for a hormonally- charged adolescent brain than for any serious
work of published academic scholarship. For most other scholarly
disciplines such as the field of Islam or American studies, it would be
hard for anyone to pass these off as serious work. More importantly, even
if some scholars did speculate on these, they would no doubt at the very
least be seriously challenged or worse, their motivation, ethics and intellectual
standards questioned, and would likely be laughed out of town and blackballed
by serious mainstream scholars. Certainly, as has been the case of psychoanalytic
models being applied to Jesus in Biblical studies, at the very least such
interpretations wouldn't be allowed to exist without refutation from within
academia.
In effect, that is how social science
academia prevents trash being written - not by "proving" as false fantasies
or opinions that can't be falsified but by the balance of power and the
relative development of understanding within the field of the academic
discipline itself that would not allow this work to pass off as serious
mainstream scholarship.
Yet, what does it say about standards
in the field of Hinduism studies in American academia that fantasies such
as those perpetuated by Courtright, Kripal and a whole host of Wendy's
children pass off as scholarship -- with some of them later admitting that
they have been struggling with their own sexuality in the process? What
enables Courtright's work to result in no substantial outrage or heated
debate from within academia as similar scholarship attacking major Muslim,
Christian or even secular American symbols would undoubtedly have done
from within the disciplines of Islamic, Christian, or American studies?
Why does it take an outsider Rajiv Malhotra to write an article or an act
of signature gathering by Hindu community groups outside academia to even
begin the discussion on RISA, twenty years after Courtright's book is originally
published? Why does it take Vishal Agarwal, again from the outside, to
even question the veracity of references for the dramatic claims[8] in
this peer-acclaimed book? Has the peer review system in RISA entirely failed,
operating simply as a mutual back-scratching clique?
So the second question is this -
What does it tell us about the state of academia in Hinduism studies when
a host of academic writing that is highly deviant from "emic" understanding
passes off as mainstream scholarship, without any significant internal
academic challenge?
Ultimately, this lack of the strong
dissenting voice from within the academia in Hinduism shouldn't be considered
a victory by any serious truth-seeking scholar. In a well-functioning system
truth and harmony lie in the dynamic balance point of opposing forces[9]
- without this balance there will be genocide, intellectual or otherwise.
This balance is as important in India politically between say Hindutva
and its opposing political forces, as it is politically in America, Left
and Right, or in academia. Voices from the Hindu community are speaking
up, not always politely, rarely in academically digestible forms, but they
are speaking up from outside because the opposition has failed to exist
within the system. Perhaps the worst response sincere academics in Hinduism
studies, who care about fairness and the importance of dissent, would be
to dismiss these voices of dissent as voices of fanaticism.
Of course, one reason that the state
of affairs has remained as it is, is because the power structure supports
it. In other words, there have been little academic or economic consequences
for Hinduism- bashing within the academia - no thesis will be held up,
no tenure withheld, no conference invitations passed by, no grants that
will fail to materialize - the consequences in the other direction may
well be disastrous. Thus the, by now predictable, response in academia
has been to dismiss all criticism as the result of "Hindu fanatics" or
"Hindutva." The existing power equations make it very dangerous for even
scholars that disagree to come out in support of Hindu viewpoints - the
use of the "Hindutva" label is thus used very effectively for censorship
through blackballing within the academic community. Unfortunately, that
has been the stock response in trade, a most amusing recent example (if
it hadn't been so predictable) on RISA being the smear post[10] against
Jakob De Roover and Prof. Balu for arguing[11] for a more nuanced understanding
of Indian secularism.
What is particularly interesting
is also the failure of most of the scholars active on the RISA list to
even understand why Hindus would find this scholarship on Ganesha offensive,
without resorting to branding the authors of the petition as fanatics.
While I personally did not support the petition simply on the grounds that
banning the book is an ineffective response to the problem of prejudice
in Hinduism studies[12] and, in fact, an avoidance of the need to develop
an intellectual critique strongly rooted in the dharmic traditions, something
that many of the Hindutva people fail to see; yet it isn't particularly
difficult to understand why, irrespective of who organized the petition,
many Hindus would be incensed at the depictions in the book, whether or
not they support the ideological stances of Hindutva. At the very least
the Hindu activists are owed our gratitude for bringing this issue into
public debate.
As David Freedholm, an American
school teacher concerned about the depiction of Hinduism in the American
academic system, writes:
"RISA scholars find themselves in
this situation because they for too long have failed to listen carefully
to the concerns of the Hindu community here in North America (and, for
that matter, in India). Of course, scholars are not required to do this
but it seems to me that it is both the ethical and the practical thing
to do.
"Contrast this to the Study of Islam
section of AAR. In its mission statement, the Study of Islam section recognizes
the key role it has in shaping the understanding of Islam in public schools,
universities, and in the public consciousness. They explicitly state that
they need to contribute to the "public understanding of religion" in general
and of Islam in particular. This concern that Islam be understood in ways
that are balanced and fair from both the emic and the etic perspective
is seen in the various projects they take on. They created a website (http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/
response.htm) in order to deflect criticism of Islam after the terrorist
attack on the WTC. Many Study of Islam scholars have dedicated themselves
to making Islam better understood in the West. Prof. Alan Godlas has created
an award-winning website ( http:// www.arches.uga.edu/~godlas/#islam) that
is "intended to be of use for non-Muslim and Muslim students and teachers
at all levels as well for members of the general public who wish to get
a non-polemical view of Islam." On his site, Godlas provides links to a
number of other efforts by Study of Islam members to make Islam better
understood and to present a positive spin on Islam.
"It is clear that these efforts
emerge because scholars of Islam in AAR, whether Muslim or non-Muslim,
feel a responsibility to the community they study. Why are there no similar
efforts by RISA? Where are the websites, public talks and statements, and
books that try to provide a fair and balanced presentation of Hinduism
and to correct misunderstandings of Hinduism in the public sphere (in the
media, in schools, etc.)?
"Instead, RISA scholars appear more
interested in the exotic and erotic aspects that they identify in Hinduism.
They appear more concerned with trying to highlight social problems in
India which they blithely blame on Hinduism. It is no wonder there is such
a disconnect between the Hindu community and RISA scholars.
"Now the diaspora Hindu community
is reading their work and feeling its effect and many find little resemblance
between their faith and the religion described in scholarly books. This
inevitably leads to some cognitive dissonance and to dissatisfaction and
hurt.
"Unlike with Christianity, Judaism
and even Buddhism in North America, there is no more mainstream counterbalance
to the more radical approaches taken by scholars to Hinduism. Christians
of a more traditional or mainstream inclination have many seminaries and
publishing houses to train scholars and publish books. For every scholarly
work on Jesus that takes a more radical approach (and such books and articles
do exist) there are several others that critique them and offer more traditional
views. At AAR/SBL one can find evangelical Christian and traditional Catholic
scholars rubbing elbows with more secular and radical scholars of Christianity.
"This is not the case with Hinduism.
There is very little representation of more mainstream or traditional Hindu
views in Western academia. When such views do appear they are scorned as
"fundamentalist" or worse. And, even worse, these scholarly views are seen
to become the authoritative interpretations of Hinduism in the West. For
example, Courtright's book on Ganesha is one of a relatively few books
on the subject in English available to a wide audience. Because it has
received approving accolades from the RISA community, it will be taken
as an authoritative perspective on Ganesha, despite the fact that its interpretation
is wildly at odds with that of most Hindus. It will be cited by authors
of textbooks and its views disseminated into material designed for non-
scholarly audiences. This would almost certainly never happen with a Freudian
analysis of Jesus because it would be just one of many scholarly and popular
interpretations of Jesus available. There is no such balance in Hinduism
studies.[13]"
Thus, as Freedholm points out, even
legitimate moderate Hindu anger is sought to be denied by many in the academic
community, by branding it under the "Hindutva" label, which itself is equated
with unmitigated evil, classifying anyone who espouses sympathy with their
issues as a "Hilter worshipper", supporter of the murder of Muslims etc.,
irrespective of their support or otherwise for those indulging in violence.
The tool of Hindutva demonology is of course used very effectively to keep
the Hindu voices from emerging that would challenge abusive scholarship
more aggressively in academia internally, which is a phenomena worth studying
in its own right. But the denial of the right to be angry at abuse is particularly
interesting. Again, recourse to the analogies from other religions might
help illustrate this. If we take a major symbol of another minority religion
in the US, say, the Prophet Mohammad and have an academic paper calling
him a pedophile or a terrorist, with an attached psychoanalytical map,
it will not surprise most of us if it incenses a large section of the Muslim
community. Whether or not one provides logical arguments to prove their
case, it would be difficult to deny that many Muslims would be legitimately
angry and aggrieved at these depictions.
Would the same standards of labeling
such Muslims as a "extremist" apply, as it was done in the case of the
Hindu petitioners, or would the focus of the gaze switch to prejudice and
lack of sensitivity of the those making the original remarks instead? What
allows Paul Coutright's demeaning of Hindu symbols meet no liberal critique,
unlike the legitimate support that American Muslims received for Jerry
Falwell's remarks against the Prophet Mohammad. Why are the Hindus expressing
pique at Paul Courtright's attack dubbed as fanatics instead, with very
little criticism of Courtright in the academic community?
This raises the third question --
are the standards of sensitivity in dealing with religious symbols of Hindus
in the academy lower than that for other religious traditions such as Islam,
Judaism or Christianity? What are the causes of this relative insensitivity
arise and what part does it play in dismissing any Hindu protest as "fanaticism"?
Is the technique of branding all
Hindus that speak up as "fanatics" used to "keep people in their place"
and reflective on the power balance within academia in the study of those
traditions? What are the levers of this power-balance? How important a
role does funding from "emic" sources (such as Saudi Arabia in the case
of Islam) play in creating "defenders of the faith" within academia and
conversely the predominance of funding from sources inimical to Hinduism
create incentives for Hindu-bashing?
What is even more ironic is that
many of the academics studying Hinduism often classify themselves as liberals;
at the same time they refuse to acknowledge the negative impact of their
own work on mainstream portrayals of Hinduism or on Hindu children encountering
this work in schools and colleges[14].
Now someone might argue that the
Prophet Mohammad or Jesus Christ are historic figures while Lord Ganesha
is a "god" that can be picked on with impunity, but such an approach again
fails to acknowledge the power of symbols of devotion. For many Hindus,
Ganesha is not like an abstract Greek pagan god but a living entity present
in their daily experience and ritual. He is as potent a symbol of reverence
as the Prophet Mohammad or Allah or Jesus Christ/Jehovah is for Muslims
or Christians. While academics may dispute the historicity of Jesus, it
is the significance of the symbol of Jesus as meaningful object of personal
devotion for Christians that creates the emotional bond for them. That
those who have been studying Hinduism for years still haven't figured this
out means that they have either understood very little or have deliberately
chosen to ignore it.
A poster in RISA-L gives the example
of Socrates picking on "gods", in defense of Courtright. Yet, there is
a large gap between Socrates and Courtright. Where Socrates uses insistent
reason, that can be engaged with and disputed, Courtright uses scatology,
provided legitimacy by his academic platform. As such it has already served
its purpose. As a fantasy, it can neither be engaged with nor falsified
(how do you prove that Ganesha's trunk doesn't represent a limp phallus
if it does in Courtright's dreams?). And, unlike Socrates, no chalice of
poison awaits Courtright. He is not bucking the system - to do so would
be to pick on the gods and goddesses of the academic system itself, like
Wendy Doniger and others. Rather, he is an entrenched part of the system,
assured of benevolence and manna from its gods. Given that in wishing to
knock Ganesha of the Hindu pedestal, he can likely find enough well-heeled
sponsors and peer accolades, can anything but laurels await him?
The Courtright issue is ultimately
not simply about feelings or academic freedoms but about the legitimacy
of the academic study of religions itself. Is to serve as a platform for
propaganda of various vested interests and cliques or will it forge for
itself the ethical and intellectual standards required of a legitimate
discipline seeking knowledge and truth? Is part of its mission to promote
an understanding of diverse viewpoints in a multi-cultural and multi-religious
society or to reinforce false stereotypes and create new ones?
If it is indeed to be a serious
discipline, organizations like the AAR would be well put to pay serious
heed to this criticism from outside the academic community. Some ideas
for this include:
1. A public disclosure of a map
of the scholars' own beliefs system and the significant influences on that.
2. A full disclosure of the funding
sources of the scholars and the institutes that employ them with their
religious and ideological affiliations, if any.
3. An active effort to provide space
for a legitimate platform for community-scholar interaction that is willing
to treat each side with symmetrical respect.
While none of this will guarantee
the validity of scholarship or its truthfulness or objectivity, it can
help make the system more transparent, legitimate and ultimately more effective
in its quest for understanding the human situation. Indeed it is not unusual
for other high-stakes disciplines such as medical researchers and even
stock-brokers to make such disclosures to maintain transparency. What could
be more high- stakes and all pervasive than religion?
The author is a practitioner of
Sanatana Dharma. He has not received any financial support for this essay
or his other writings criticizing the portrayal of Hinduism in the American
academia.
Notes:
[1] http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/
column.asp?cid=305890
[2] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/
msg07228.html
[3] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/
msg07223.html
[4] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/
msg07241.html
[5] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/
msg07230.html
[6] See, instead, a detailed rebuttal
that has come from outside the RISA system: http:// www.sulekha.com/expressions/
articledesc.asp?cid=307042
[7] Rajiv Malhotra created this
phrase for this school of scholarship in Hinduism studies, see http://
www.sulekha.com/expressions/ column.asp?cid=239156
[8] http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/
articledesc.asp?cid=307042
[9] At the risk of generalizing,
this may well represent an Eastern Way of looking at things vs. the Abrahamic
model of looking at the "other" as darkness to be eliminated.
[10] http://www.sandiego.edu/theo/risa-l/archive/
msg07275.html
[11] Yes, I'm using that abbreviation
with full awareness of the logic that will cause this branding iron to
swing to my back.:) [12] See, for instance, http://www.sulekha.com/column.asp?cid=245733
[13] Private email communication
[14] See, for instance the letter
by Trisha Pasricha, a 14-yr old Hindu American on mis-representations of
Hinduism in the school curriculum, quoted at the end of the article: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/
column.asp?cid=305890
