Whom do they address in the books they write?
Is the primary aim to convey the insight received during thought
Or
to use tedious vocabulary that appeals to peers but obfuscates the message to laymen
Maybe I am a bit thick, or I picked up a book not intended for me.
I wanted insights but ended up spending more of my time trying to decode the language and understanding what the author is trying to convey.
*Essay 1 - Why communalism is about caste*
I did not get the answer. The analysis was not convincing enough.
One problem I found in most of the book is the over emphasis on static analysis.
That economics, technology, Time, changes the way people think does not seem to be considered. The views of 1920 is extrapolated to 2000. What drove the actors a century ago drives another set today.
Reforms, Internet, Industrialisation, English.. what effect does these have?
I want answers for Tomorrow based on insights derived from events of yesterday.
Analysis of yesterday based on yesterday does not serve much purpose. Alteast to me.
The author says "neatness of categories like 'Hindu' and 'Muslim' hide the porousness of identities"
Very well said.
My question is, can you define ANY category that is not porous?
An individual is an individual. Classifications of people are bound to be porous.
Actually, in the next essay, the author classifies EMS neatly as a 'brahmin'.
Every publication of EMS is viewed through the prism of his caste based classification.
Maybe EMS did 'use' Marxism to fulfil himself or his caste.
I did not find much use of the analysis because I could not then go on to explain how the same Marxism under different leaders can be used for organised corruption today.
If the aim is to gain insights which would help one identify entrenched, manipulative interests of today; patterns that help build and upkeep these negative structures of today; then I probably need another book as this did not serve the purpose.
Is the primary aim to convey the insight received during thought
Or
to use tedious vocabulary that appeals to peers but obfuscates the message to laymen
Maybe I am a bit thick, or I picked up a book not intended for me.
I wanted insights but ended up spending more of my time trying to decode the language and understanding what the author is trying to convey.
*Essay 1 - Why communalism is about caste*
I did not get the answer. The analysis was not convincing enough.
One problem I found in most of the book is the over emphasis on static analysis.
That economics, technology, Time, changes the way people think does not seem to be considered. The views of 1920 is extrapolated to 2000. What drove the actors a century ago drives another set today.
Reforms, Internet, Industrialisation, English.. what effect does these have?
I want answers for Tomorrow based on insights derived from events of yesterday.
Analysis of yesterday based on yesterday does not serve much purpose. Alteast to me.
The author says "neatness of categories like 'Hindu' and 'Muslim' hide the porousness of identities"
Very well said.
My question is, can you define ANY category that is not porous?
An individual is an individual. Classifications of people are bound to be porous.
Actually, in the next essay, the author classifies EMS neatly as a 'brahmin'.
Every publication of EMS is viewed through the prism of his caste based classification.
Maybe EMS did 'use' Marxism to fulfil himself or his caste.
I did not find much use of the analysis because I could not then go on to explain how the same Marxism under different leaders can be used for organised corruption today.
If the aim is to gain insights which would help one identify entrenched, manipulative interests of today; patterns that help build and upkeep these negative structures of today; then I probably need another book as this did not serve the purpose.
Comments
Post a Comment