Heheh. Kang Khoiron marah. Iya, saku setuju dech kang. oiya, anak-anak KSS UGM bikin forum. kunjungi ya http://forums.cjb.net/kss.html
salah satu perdebatanya ada yang tentang subalterstudies di sejarah loh.
nih ada artikalnya davis luden. bagus banget.
The World of Politics Around Subaltern Studies
University of Pennsylvania
26 December 2005
The conference call for papers argues that the writing of social history has always been politically contentious and cites three reasons for the contentiousness of social history in our contemporary context.
I. Social histories need to challenge dominant styles of history-writing that privilege the political, acting as an antidote to the histories of Great Men, dynasties or national movements. This challenge opposes nationalist historiography, in which national heroes represent the
collective consciousness of the whole society.
II. The politics of the present challenges social history, providing different spaces to academics to choose their topics independently.
The weakness of social history in many parts of Asia is
related to these political environments.
III. Social history carries with it a need to shed the inward-looking, national nature of much history. Comparative histories embracing more than one national setting promise to revitalize local traditions of historiographic styles and traditions.
In this context, it is the aim of this conference to examine the diverse approaches to Asian social history and why they continue to be diverse. Thus, the leading questions posed for the conference are these:
1. What is the impact of political regimes and the general political climate on the craft of history-writing?
2. What are the historical debates and methods that are dominant? Which genres and historical sources have been
most frequently used?
3. How has the history from below been tackled in different Asian countries?
4. How has historiography influenced public debates?
I will address these four questions by dealing with the reasons for contentiousness in order of their presentation (I, II, III) above. I focus on South Asia, which here includes India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka (not Afghanistan). This short paper is argumentative, for I am not detached from debates about history writing. My position is well documented, but I have never had the opportunity to bring its elements together in a single discussion of historiography. I am glad to have it now.
I. Social Historys Politics of Nationality
Social history in South Asia has never divorced itself from economic, cultural, and political history. My own brand of social history, for example, is a composite called agrarian history, which weaves among and combines the social, political, cultural, and
economic, as well as geographical, ecological and technological aspects of agricultural environments over many centuries down to the present. (1984, 1985, 1994, 1999)
The idea that social history forms a separate historiography is untenable for South Asia. This idea gained currency elsewhere, but in the South Asian context, social history was never conceived as being entirely distinct from political history or as being pitched in any systematic way against the political. It was never meant to be so, for that matter, by E.P.Thompson and Eugene Genovese, early paragons of social history in the UK and US. Social history separated itself amidst the politics of historical professionalism in Europe and America, where, having supplanted political history as the leading historical field in the 1970s, steadily fell in stature to cultural history from the 1980s. Since then, cultural politics has supplanted the popular politics or social mobilization associated with social history
in the UK and the US, but not in South Asia. It is also notable that historical geography and economic history have virtually died out as distinctive fields in the US, but never in South Asia.
Social historys strength in South Asian historiography derives politically from its grounding in Marxist parties and a great variety of social movements, from womens movement to tribal, workers, peasant, ethnic, and caste movements; and academically from its mingling of many technical specializations, and today, in addition, from its internationalism
but that comes later. First, back to the basics.
Social historians of South Asia are inevitably involved in one kind of politics or another, and in most cases, very explicitly so. It is true, certainly, that nationalists and Great Men as well as the putative collective consciousness that resides in what Benedict Anderson calls the imagined community of the nation have been criticized and deconstructed. Marxists began this in
1945, when the class dynamics of Indian nationalism first emerged academically in a dissertation in Sociology at Bombay Unversity, whose author, A.R.Desai, went on to write and edit dozens of books on rebellion and contested social power in India. History from below thus began in India long before E.P Thompson made it famous, and its critical subject was from the outset the nationalist idea of a politically unified nation. (2002b)
The Partition of British India in 1947 would have entirely shattered the idea of a that a single, unitary Indian nation had come into being under British rule. But this very fact made the historical search for national unity more urgent and compelling. Very quickly, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh (in 1971) joined Nepal and Sri Lanka as homelands of unified national historiographies, committed conceptually to a unified nationhood that embraced loads of internal diversity; which in India included by 1956 a division of states along linguistic cultural
boundaries, some, like Tamil Nadu, imbued with intense regional nationalism; and by the 1970s also a war the independence to create Bangladesh and analogous rebellions against Indian national authority among Naxalites and Assamese in northeast India. Similar turmoil prevailed in all national environments in South Asia. (2002a)
Amidst the turmoil of the post-colonial political present, the phrase unity in diversity held national historiographies together, enabling a vast diversity of economic, social, and cultural histories to comprise a unified national heritage. Underlying unity historiographically, we find commonality, so that in each country, historians studying diverse social and cultural contexts brought them together nationally by stressing their common characteristics.
The composition of these commonalities changed over time and took various political directions. In Pakistan, there was a shift to Islam. In Nepal, populism struggled against royalism, and became a
civil war, which rages today. In Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, a dominant cultural heritage defined by geography, religion, and language held center stage, and in Sri Lanka the ethnic majoritarian thrust of this centrality generated minority separatism. In all the countries, the threat to national unity posed by minorities of different kinds living in variously compact regions with their own cultural heritage and social histories underlined the intellectual as well as political importance of unity in diversity for the construction of national identity.
Social history in South Asia is thus became the battleground where historians engaged political struggles in the present. Stressing commonalities that defined the separateness of peoples became a flexible strategy for uniting nations historically and also for splitting nations. For historians, the greatest of all commonalities derived from British imperialism. The map of the British Empire in South Asia became the bedrock of
national history. It remains so today.
Partition posed a problem that became increasingly prominent, especially in India, in the 1980s, conceived as a common problem for nations in South Asia, based on a common history of imperial conquest. The commonalities among South Asian nations also appeared greater as this world region beame separated from the Middle East and from the rest of Asia by the map of British India -- with Burma being the enduring anomaly -- for academic Area Studies programs around the world. Within a geographical vision of South Asian history forged by the map of British Empire, it became logical to think of Islam, for example, as a religion foreign to South Asia, an alien influence interpreted quite differently in different countries, but uniting various national social and cultural histories within a shared political geography of South Asia.
Amidst the fractious politics of the 1970s, a serious rupture began among historians, which shunted social history
off on a new course but inside the same conceptual map. Three interventions mark this rupture most notably. One was short-lived and lacked institutional form: called The Cambridge School, it was named only by its opposition, never by itself. Its argumentative thrust, which appeared first in early issues of Modern Asian Studies and then numerous books, was that Indian nationalism was in actual fact nothing but an incoherent congeries of individual tactical maneuvers in the modern political system that emerged under British rule. Its authors argued that people supported, opposed, and stood aloof from nationalism according to calculated self interest in networks of factionalism, patronage and clientage.
Such ideas soon spread to studies of the early history of British India, where collaborators and fellow-travellers among the native population came to be understood as having made British imperialism viable in the first place. In this light, the nation had no common confrontation
with British rule, no defining political commonality, in fact, at all.. The Empires political economy and social power relations had distinguished local, regional, and national arenas, where people lived their social life and engaged in politics inside their own distinctive economic and power realities. The political nation was entirely an artefact of systems of imperial governance that structured the operative logic of calculating individuals who had various powers to mobilize groups politically.
Having annihilated unity in diversity, however, historians in the so-called Cambridge School merely conjured a world of endless competition and struggles for power in Indian arenas of modern capitalism. This historical vision generated heated opposition. The main charge against it was and remains that it denies that imperialism was a unitary force, imposed upon peoples of South Asia (and elsewhere), which had systematic effects among peoples imbued with their own distinctive
In the 1980s, two new organized strains of historical research emerged. Subaltern Studies responded specifically to the Cambridge School, and split off from Marxists and nationalists to stress the enduring common subordination of ordinary Indian people and of India as a nation under British domination (2002d). Meanwhile, Hindu chauvinists responded more directly to Indias internal turmoil by promoting the idea that Indias eternal unity derived from the singular history of the Hindus (1996/2005).
Internationally, Subaltern Studies came to be known as a scholarly innovation of major importance, though in India (as in Sri Lanka and Pakistan) ethno-religious styles of historiography became much more political influential. Subaltern Studies quickly entered the international scholarly mainstream and emerged intellectually amidst a kaleidoscope of social struggles in India and the dramatic decline in the legitimacy of the Indian National Congress, which
followed Indira Gandhis national Emergency in 1974-6. In the post-Emergency years, the search was on for a new way to conceptualize the nation historically, amidst attacks from anti-nationalist scholars (of regional, ethnic, and Cambridge varieties) and also from national politicians in the Congress Party.
Ranajit Guha and his Subaltern Studies colleagues attacked the Cambridge School and nationalist historiography at the same time. For them, the Cambridge historians represented imperialist elites and Indian nationalists represented Indian elites, both of whom oppressed the common people of India and suppressed the history of subordinate classes as they wrote imperialist and nationalist histories, respectively.
The all-encompassing commonality of British imperialism remained, however, to unite the nation historically. The term colonialism became the unifying force defining the national identity of the subjects of Subaltern historiography. Initially committed to studies
of rebellion, Subaltern Studies shifted in the mid-1980s onto the course of post-colonial cultural studies and intensive studies of historys fragments. The political position of Subaltern Studies thus shifted from rebellion to critique, a masterful and hotly contested move amidst the cultural politics of the 1980s, which provided Subaltern Studies a favored position in the international academic shift away from materialists social history toward cultural studies, and also held it aloof from the cultural politics surrounding Hindu nationalism in India. (2002a)
As Subaltern Studies became internationally famous, the intellectual influence of the so-called Cambridge School nonetheless survived in various ways, though virtually no one evokes its name, except in derision. Nationalist history still thrives, of course, though not under that name. Hindutva history -- the study of Indian society through the lens of Hindu majoritarianism -- increased its influence with the rise of its
supporting politicians and followers (who drove Hindutva history into the Indian schools and now strive in diaspora to drive it into schools in the US state of California).
Trends in India represent trends in South Asia (and more generally in the world of social history, I would say). In Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, we find social history moving along four predominant routes of inquiry, each engaging the politics of the national present in its own way, attached respectively to (1) the political economy of group interest, (2) the teleology of territorial nationalism, (3) the identity of subordinate peoples, and (4) ethnic and religious majoritarianism.
The Subaltern style of social history has proved the most flexible, creative, and internationally respected. It has now embraced most South Asian historians working outside South Asia, as well as many more each year working in South Asia as well. Cambridge-style political economy lacks sensitivity to
cultural issues. Nationalist history is shackled by attachments to old national parties. Ethno-religious history is popular and pervasive but filled with academically dubious reasoning and research techniques.
Methodologically, Subaltern Studies has risen above the other schools of social history by developing major innovations in the way research is conducted, searching constantly for new source materials outside official archives to find the voice of poor, marginalized people outside of the national mainstream. Subaltern research also mingles folklore, literary studies, gender studies, cultural studies, and post-colonial studies, so it is more than social history: it is a multi-disciplinary combination of techniques to reveal the history of peoples without history. It has successfully combined old themes of history from below with current concerns with culture, resistance, memory, and marginality.
National commonalities that once defined unity in diversity still
remain central in the four majority modalities of social history. Subaltern Studies is, for instance, mostly Indian in a national sense. Even ethno-nationalists evoke diversity, in order to bring all variety of nationals under a unitary cultural category, whether it be Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, Tamil (2002c), Kashmiri, or Assamese (2003a).
Subaltern Studies joins other schools of social history, except ethno-nationalists, in stressing the nationally unifying commonality forged by British colonial domination. British and more generally western dominance is a uniting national commonality in all the schools of social history. But more than any other, Subaltern Studies has moved along with trends in post-colonial studies into the realm of cultural critique, where the colonial confrontation is most fundamental for scholars in various disciplines. Thus the politics of the past enters the politics of the present in the enduring predicament of nationhood forged under imperialism.
II. Social Historys Historical Space
It is notable that -- paralleling the career of Subaltern Studies -- the voice of the poor became a leading figure in the World Banks World Development Report in 2000, following fifteen years of experiments, notably in South Asia and particularly by BRAC in Bangladesh, to devise methods of data-gathering and interpretation that could usefully integrate ordinary peoples ideas about their own needs into development policy making. During the same fifteen years in which ordinary peoples voice became an academic as well as policy concern, national states in South Asia became wrapped more forcefully and intricately in the world economy under Structural Adjustment Policies during the progress of what became known as globalization.
In this same period, from 1985 to 2000, the migration of students, scholars, and scientists from South Asia to the US, Europe, and Australia became more numerically, economically, and intellectually
prominent. Academic support for Subaltern Studies in the US expanded rapidly after 1985, when Ranajit Guha forged an alliance with Bernard Cohn at the University of Chicago. After that, American-based academics became increasingly prominent in the social networks that enriched the reputation of Subaltern Studies. Today, many scholars most closely identified with Subaltern Studies work in the US, most importantly, Partha Chatterjee, who spends half of every year at Columbia University. The hub of Subaltern Studies now migrates between India and America.
Also since 1985, Hindutva history, politics, and social influence has drawn increasingly on resources located in the US. The latest effort to change the California curriculum is only one of many Hindutva initiatives in the last twenty years focused on the construction of new academic knowledge and teaching about India along Hindu chauvinist lines, which in turn draws strength from the history of Orientalist scholarship in
These recent trends indicate that the contemporary historical space in which the social history of South Asia operates is not as nationally contained as it once was. The mobility of scholars and scholarship among national environments coexists with the continuous re-inscription of national boundaries into the writing of social history.
The geography of US Empire is a prominent feature of the social space in which South Asian social history operates. Though British colonialism always reappears in each new reiteration of South Asias historiography, US imperial spaces remain invisible. Numerous individual university libraries in the US have more books from South Asia than do all South Asian libraries combined. Most of these books have been acquired through PL480 development aid and other US government funded educational programs; the remainder have moved to the US with private institutional funding, for example from the Ford Foundation. Now the University of
Chicago is at work using its wealth to revitalize and create new kinds of archives for social history in South Asia. Major US universities take pride in bringing eminent scholars from South Asia to the US on regular rotations, and whenever possible, permanently; and global inequalities in national wealth and salary structures make that project ever more practically feasible.
It is fair to say that whereas in 1985, the goal of US academic programs in South Asian Studies was to train Americans to become experts on South Asia, by 2000 the goal had become to bring South Asia itself to America. In this contemporary context, the academic spaces of South Asian diaspora and South Asian social history have collapsed into one another, certainly in the US. Gobbling up the world in this way is an American program that does not uniquely target South Asia, but the remarkable increase in the scale of South Asias presence in the US academic has notably coincided with the expansion of US
imperial activity in South Asia and with the concomitant expansion of US influence in South Asian markets and governments. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singhs recent declaration of alliance with the Bush administration dramatically represents Indias new position in the US imperial geography.
Thus when we consider different spaces available to academics to choose their topics independently, it is important to recognize that those spaces do not coincide with the national territories within which scholars so resolutely conceptualize social history. The US national-imperial space is an influential but invisible environment for people who write South Asian social history. It is fair to say, for instance, that an international academic struggle between a UK-Cambridge-style of political economy and a US-Chicago-style of cultural history marked the rise of Subtaltern Studies and its shift toward cultural criticism in the 1980s. In this struggle, Americans won and the British
became subordinate allies.
Spaces that influence how scholars write the social history of South Asia are not confined nationally at all, and certainly not by the US, for both American and South Asian intellectual life travel wide circuits of mobility. In these circuits, Dutch programs finance academic initiatives in India alongside the Ford Foundation. Oxford, Cambridge, Canberra, Tokyo, Paris, Los Angeles and Singapore are nodes of mobility for South Asian social historians, nodes in academic circuits that now include Yogyakarta.
Social histories of South Asia are composed in circuits of mobility that criss-cross South Asia, Europe, North America, Asia, Latin America, and Africa
but very, very unevenly. There is much more traffic between each South Asian country and the US and Europe than there is among South Asian countries. Historians each country in South Asia are much more likely to work and travel in rich Western countries than in neighbouring countries in South
Asia. South-South traffic across continents is even less common.
This uneven mobility has a history that indicates contemporary mobile spaces of historiography are not in fact new. The British Empire was a space for early nationalist and imperialist social history, which emerged together, interactively, and depended upon one another for their rhetorical force and political meaning. The nationality of social history itself is of course a global historiographic phenomenon, (1986) epitomized by EP Thompson, whose fathter was a great imperialist intellectual and who severed the origins of the English working class from its mobile circuits of world travel.
Even during decades of High Nationalism, from the 1950s to 1980s, the Cold War had a pervasive influence, inflecting in India, for instance, struggles about the relative importance of caste, class, markets, religion, and culture in peasant studies, which in turn reflected oppositions between market-oriented development schemes
and socialist and Gandhian programs. (1985c) For A.R.Desai, only class mattered for the Indian peasantry, but I was taught in US graduate school that there is no class in rural India: only caste. My teachers imbibed an American style anti-Marxist modernization theory that inflected allied Indian styles of anthropology, history, and development studies. The two volumes of the Cambridge Economic History of India and their critics represented struggles between modernization and class analysis in India, England, and America, moving constantly among them.
It can be truly said, therefore, that the social history of South Asia has always been international. Even in the decades of its most intensely nationalist orientations, its composition was connected rather tightly to public debates animating scholars in research centres in the US, UK, Russia, France, and Japan, to which scholars in each South Asian country were more intensely connected than they were to scholars in other South
Asian countries, let alone to scholars in more distance parts of the Global South, or what became known in Bandung as The Third World.
III. Boundaries, Mobility, and Social History
This final section of my paper must remain sketchy for now. Its main purpose is to suggest that the mobile spaces within which South Asias social history has been composed historically are becoming more visible, as are the boundaries which have contained the conceptualization of social history. The mobility of peoples in South Asia over many centuries and the changing spatial configurations of social life are now the subject of important new research. It is no longer assumed that the national territories of South Asian countries contain the societies about which historians write. Boundaries appear now to be constructs with a social life that needs thorough investigation. South Asia appears less and less to be a territorial container of social history and more and more to be a changing
configuration of spaces through which people, ideas, technologies, commodities, and cultures have moved constantly over the centuries, and in which the production of boundaries among peoples is a complex historical problem.
Several kinds of social history appear in these mobile spaces. One concerns the Indian Ocean, which no longer seems external to South Asia but now rather seems to be an arena of activity connecting South Asia with Africa, the Levant, Indonesia and China. These connections have a very long history, from ancient times to the present. Another space of social history with vast vitality in everyday life spans the borders between lowland agrarian societies and the mountains containing diverse societies and routes of travel all around. Conventionally, South Asia appeared bounded by mountains and the sea, but those boundaries are giving way now to a much more complex understanding of how societies took shape along the borderlands, how they have been cut off from
one another by borders, and how their histories have incorporated and at the same time transcended borders constructed in their midst.
Migrations and migratory social life have become more visible and clearly important in the age of diaspora, a term that makes sense today primarily in national terms but which historically has a much wider provenance, for in South Asia, the expansion outward of societies from central nodes of power and coherence into frontiers and along routes leading to new nodes of domestic settlement and to new kinds of cultural adaptation has an ancient history that now challenges older ideas about the fixed boundaries of civilization.
Cultural boundaries take new coloration in light of the constant mobility of peoples, religions, and ideas into spaces occupied by others where mixing and mingling dominate the social process of creating human order imbued with various levels and kinds of conflict and antagonism. It was once assumed that social spaces were
fixed with clear cultural traits and that the most important vectors of power were vertical, so that, for instance, colonialism emerged as a vertically downward exertion of power by The West over The East, Europe over Asia. Now the clarity of boundaries among cultural territories is fading. Lowlanders in the Gangetic Basin conquered peoples of the mountains at the same time as Europeans spread their power inland from the sea. As Indian Ocean and mountain borderlands of South Asia have come alive historically as social spaces of interconnected mobile cultural life, power relations have come to appear as much horizontal as vertical.
The spatial complexity of South Asia no longer appears clearly described by contemporary political boundaries, within which historians can blithely look into a fixed territorial past for genealogies of the present. Looking across the borders of adjacent countries and political divisions into areas previously ignored as a real part of social history
among our people is the order of the day. Thinking about boundaries as constituents of the historical imagination as well as of social life is now more important than ever.
(to be continued)
My relevant publications.
1978a. "Ecological Zones and the Cultural Economy of Irrigation in Southern Tamil Nadu," South Asia, I (NS), 1, 1 13.
1978b. "Who Really Ruled Madras Presidency?" Indian Economic and Social History Review, 15, 4, 517 21.
1984. "Productive Power in Agriculture: A Survey of Work on the Local History of British India." In Agrarian Power and Agricultural Productivity in South Asia. Edited by Meghnad Desai, Susanne H. Rudolph, and A. Rudra, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp.51 99.
1985/2005. Peasant History in South India, Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Paperback edition, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1990, reprinted 1993, 1995, 1997; Second edition entitled Early Capitalism and Local History in South India, 2005).
"The Terms of Ryotwari: Semantics and Disputes over Property Rights in Madras Presidency, 1800 1885." In South Indian Studies: An Anthology of Critical Essays and Recent Scholarship. Edited by R.E. Frykenberg and Pauline Kolenda. New Era Publishers, Madras. pp.151 170.
1985c. "Toward Peasant History: Focus on South India," Peasant Studies, 12, 2, 129 37.
1986. "Historians and Nation States," Perspectives, The American Historical Association Newsletter, 24, 4, April, 12 14.
1988a. "Agrarian Commercialism in Eighteenth Century South India: Evidence from the 1823 Tirunelveli Census," Indian Economic and Social History Review, 25, 4, 493 519. Reprinted in Merchants, Markets and the State in Early Modern India. Edited by Sanjay Subrahmanyam, Oxford University Press, Themes in Indian History, Delhi, 1990, 215 241
1990. "World Economy and Village India, 1600 1900: Exploring the Agrarian History of Capitalism." In South Asia and World Capitalism. Edited by Sugata Bose.
Oxford University Press, Delhi, pp.159 77.
1992a. "India's Development Regime." In Colonialism and Culture. Edited by Nicholas Dirks, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp.247 87.
1993. "Orientalist Empiricism and Transformations of Colonial Knowledge." In Orientalism and The Post Colonial Predicament. Edited by C.A. Breckenridge and Peter Van der Veer. University of Pennsylvania Press, 250-78. (A shortened version is to be reprinted in Orientalism and History: A Reader, edited by Edmund Burke III and David Prochaska.)
1994a. "History Outside Civilization and the Mobility of Southern Asia," South Asia 17, 1, June 1994, 1-23.
1994b. "Agricultural Production and Indian History." Preface to In Agricultural Production and Indian History. edited by David Ludden, pp.1-35.
1995/2005. Agricultural Production and Indian History. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Second Edition with new Preface and additional Bibliography.published as Agricultural Production and
South Asian History. Oxford University Press, Delhi, 2005.
1995a. "Urbanism and Early Modernity in the Tirunelveli Region," Bengal Past and Present, 114, Parts 1-2, Nos.218-219, 9-40.
1995b. "Patriarchy and History in South Asia: Three Interpretive Experiments," Calcutta Historical Journal, 17, 2, 1995, 1-18.
1996/2005. Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (paperback edition: Making India Hindu: Community, Conflict, and the Politics of Democracy, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996. Revised second edition with new Preface and additional Bibliography. Oxford University Press, Delhi. 2005.
1996a. Ayodhya: A Window on the World, In Contesting the Nation: Religion, Community, and the Politics of Democracy in India, Edited by David Ludden, pp.1-27.
1996b."Archaic Formations of Agricultural Knowledge in South India." In Meanings of Agriculture in South Asia: Essays in
South Asian History and Economics. Edited by Peter Robb.SOAS Studies on South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 35-70. (35pp)
1996c. Caste Society and Units of Production in Early Modern South India," in Institutions and Economic Change in South Asia: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Editors: Burton Stein and Sanjay Subrahmanyam. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp.105-133.
1998.India Before Colonialism: The International Impact of Indian Research Since 1947, in Indias Worlds and U.S.Scholars: 1947-1997, edited by Joe Elder, Ainslee Embree, and Ed Dimock, published for the American Institute of Indian Studies by Manohar Publishers, Delhi, pp.265-82.
1999. An Agrarian History of South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (The New Cambridge History of India, IV. 4. General Editor: Gordon Johnson).
2000b. Agrarian History and Grassroots Development, In Agrarian Environments: Resources, Representations, and Rule in India. Edited by Arun
Agarwal and K.Sivaramakrishnan. Duke University Press
2001a."Subalterns and Others in the Agrarian History of South Asia," In Agrarian Studies: Synthetic Work at the Cutting Edge. Edited by James C. Scott and Nina Bhatt. Yale University Press, 2001. pp.206-235.
2001b. "Development in South Asia." In International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Editors-in-Chief, Neil J Smelser and Paul B Baltes, Pergamon Press, Amsterdam
2001c. "Area Studies in the Age of Globalization," FRONTIERS: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, Winter 2000, 1-22
2002a. India and South Asia: A Short History. Oxford: OneWorld Publishers.
2002b..Modern Inequality and Early Modernity, (Comment on Articles by R. Bin Wong and Kenneth Pommeranz for AHR forum, Asia and Europe in the World Economy), American Historical Review, 107, 2, April: 470-480
2002c. "Specters of Agrarian Territory in South India," Indian Economic and Social History Review, 39, 2&3,
2002d. A Brief History of Subalternity. Introduction to Reading Subaltern Studies: Critical History, Contested Meaning, and the Globalization of South Asia, edited by David Ludden. Delhi: Permanent Black and London: Anthem Press., pp.1-42.
2003a.Where is Assam? Using Geographical History to Locate Current Social Realities. CENISEAS Papers, No.1. Series Editor: Sanjib Baruah, Centre of Northeast India and South and Southeast Asian Studies, Omeo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development, Guwahati, Assam. (online Powerpoint presentation coming)
2003bThe First Boundary of Bangladesh on Sylhets Northern Frontiers, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, 48, 1, June, 1-54.
2003c. Maps in the Mind and the Mobility of Asia, Presidential Address for the Association of Asian Studies, Journal of Asian Studies, 62, 3, November, 1057-1078. (Short version, Nameless Asia and Territorial Angst, HIMAL, June, 2003.)
Investing in nature around Sylhet: An Excursion into Geographical History, Economic and Political Weekly, 29 November; reprinted in Financial Express, Dhaka, 18 Dec.
2003e. Who First Declared the Independence of Bangladesh? Holiday (Dhaka) 11 July; also published as Forgotten Heroes, in Frontline, 20, 15, July 19 - August 1)
2003f. Why Area Studies? In Localizing Knowledge in a Globalizing World: Recasting the Area Studies Debate, edited by Ali Mirsepassi, Amrita Basu, and Frederick Weaver. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp. 131-7.
2004a. Introduction, Capitalism in Asia. Edited by David Ludden, Ann Arbor: Association for Asian Studies, pp.1-10.
2004b. "The Formation of Modern Agrarian Economies in South India, for The History of Indian Science, Philosophy and Culture, Volume VII, Economic History of India, 18th-20th Centuries, edited by Binay Bhushan Chaudhuri. Oxford University Press, Delhi, pp.1-40.
2005a. Preface to the second edition. Early
Capitalism and Local History in South India (1985/2005)
2005b. Preface to the second edition, Agricultural Production and South Asian History (1995/2005)
2005c. Preface to the second edition, Making India Hindu: Community, Conflict, and the Politics of Democracy (1996/2005)
2005d.Development Regimes in South Asia: History and the Development Conundrum, Economic and Political Weekly, 40, 37, 10 Sept., 4042-51
2005e. Where is Assam? HIMALSouthAsia, November 2005, http://www.himalmag.com/2005/november/cover_story_3.html
2005e A useable past for a post-national present: Governance and development in South Asia, Journal of thNur Khoiron <nuriron@...>
Yo lek ora paham karo tanggapanku
ora perlu dibahas.
pancen semono kuwi mampune. Ning, lek kepingin ceto,
wong sedulur sikep intine rodo nesu karo hasile film
sobirin. Iki dudu soal pribadi tapi soal prinsip, lek
dalam bahasaku kuwi soal 'pradigma".
Ning lek tetep ora biso mahami bab nesune sedulur
sikep, yo ora usah ditanggapi. "joko bodo mengan lele,
yen ngerti lek bodho yo menengo wae" (hehehehe)
--- Slamet Thohari <sepertipagi@...> wrote:
> aku juga ngucapin selamat dech. tapi nggak usah pake
> paradigma segala. aku malah nggak jadi bisa nikmatin
> padahal, sebelum aku baca komentarnya kang khoiron,
> aku bisa menikmatin betul. tapi setelah dianalisa
> begini dan begitu, aku malah ra dong.
> sip rin!
> Nur Khoiron <nuriron@...> wrote:
> Saya juga menyampaikan selamat buat sobirin.
> sebaiknya saya secara pribadi menyampaikan beberapa
> penjelasan yang mungkin menarik untuk didiskusikan.
> 1. Berkaitan dengan kemenangan itu, saya secara
> pribadi sebetulnya sebatas menyampaikan ucapan
> kepada sobirin secara pribadi, dari temen yang
> sebelumnya sama sekali tidak tahu tentang film,
> tiba-tiba melejit menjadi "filmaker" yang kini sudah
> diperhitungkan namanya. Itu suatu capaian yang
> fantastis, dan patut dihargai, ditauladani,
> untuk komunitas PMII di yogyakarta. Sobirin telah
> menunjukkan kepada komunitas PMII, bahwa anak-anak
> PMII (UGM) sudah bisa menunjukkan posisinya yang
> berbeda dengan yang selama ini dijadikan cita-cita
> ideal oleh aktifis PMII yang lain, khususnya sihab
> (hehehe). dorongan dan apresiasi sekali lagi patut
> disampaikan kepada sobirin.
> 2. Namun demikian, paradigma
yang sudah sejak awal
> saya bangun bersama seluruh komunitas Desantara
> (termasuk mas Gunritno) sekali lagi penting
> diperhatikan. Bahwa, saya, Desantara dan Mas Gun
> bersama dengan sedulur sikep yang lain sama-sama
> meyakini bahwa film dalam kaitannya dengan
> representasi suatu komunitas hendaknya berada dalam
> suatu hubungan dimana film hanya alat bagi suatu
> komunitas seperti Sedulur Sikep untuk dijadikan
> sebagai alat representasi diri. Dalam konteks
> paradigma "subalternian", film harus bisa menjadi
> yang dapat menjadikan kelompok subaltern bicara.
> konteks ini, paradigma subaltern juga harus bisa
> mengkritisi sekaligus mencurigai bahwa tidak semua
> representasi adalah benar-benar merepresentasikan
> suatu kelompok subaltern. Persoalan siapa yang
> memproduksi, dan bagaimana ia direproduksi merupakan
> pertanyaan-pertanyaan yang perlu
> terburu-buru menyimpulkan film yang benar-benar
> oleh komunitas yang direpresentasikan. Kiritik saya
> melalui email beberapa waktu yang lalu kepada
> saya kira sudah menyampaikan banyak hal, bahwa
> membangun suatu paradigma "film untuk komunitas" --
> sebagimana dipahami sekaligus dyakini sebagai
> desantara dan sedulur sikep, sungguh tidak mudah.
> Rezim pembuat film, dan industri yang mengungkungnya
> saat ini benar-benar belum bisa memahami makna dan
> substansi, "film untuk komunitas".Dulu saya pernah
> berdebat sekitar tahun 2002 dengan kelompok abduh
> kawan-kawan. Tapi ya itu tadi, ternyata yang bisa
> memahami pikiran saya malah mas Gun (hehehe).
> Jadi, saya kira Ini masih masukan pengantar, nanti
> saya sambung lagi, soalnya, saya harus cabut dari
> ini, banyak kerjaan (ahehehe)
> --- heru prasetia <heruyaheru@...> wrote:
> > wah hebat. selamat ya bir...
> > paling tidak hal ini mengimplikasikan tiga hal
> > 1. sobirin punya talenta bagus dan --kalo di
> > dengan baik dan berada di tangan2 yang baik-- ia
> > akan menjadi sineas yang akan meramaikan dunia
> > sinema di masa-masa mendatang (meramaikan bisa
> > berarti dua. satu, ya bikin2 film aja tapi gak
> > mutu. dua, bikin fim dan bagus!)
> > 2. peserta2 lain benar-benar buruk dan
> > menyedihkan.....hehehe...
> > 3. jurinya khilaf...
> > dari tiga kemungkinan di atas, mari berharap
> > kemungkinan pertama yang
> > sekali lagi selamat!
> > aku memberi penekanan khusus pada ucapan selamat
> > ini karena ingat dulu pas sebelum film ini
> > sobirin malam-malam datang ke rumah dan berniat
> > mengundurkan diri serta tak yakin pada dirinya,
> > terus kudorong dan kuyakinkan....(hehehe...boleh
> > dong numpang senang dengan merasa turut
> > berjasa...hihihi:p).
> > heru
> > Lafadl Jogjakarta <lafadl@...> wrote:
> > Dengan ini Lafadl mengucapkan Selamat atas
> > Film "Kulo Ndiko
> > Sami" yang disutradarai Sobirin dalam tiga
> > kategori
> > profesional.
> > berikut
ini berita di KOmpas:
> > KOMPAS Jogja - Senin, 19 Dec 2005 Halaman: 7
> > Penulis: Ang Ukuran: 3032
> > Film Dokumenter
> > PESERTA FFD MASIH MISKIN
> > EKSPLORASI
> > Yogyakarta, Kompas
> > Film-film peserta Festival Film Dokumenter
> > atau FFD IV 2005
> > dinilai oleh dewan juri masih miskin dalam
> > eksplorasi bentuk film
> > dokumenter, dan terbatas pada isu-isu yang
> > Materi dan ide yang menarik kurang digarap
> > dengan baik karena
> > kurangnya imajinasi para pembuat film. Berbagai
> > kelemahan tersebut
> > menurunkan kualitas film yang seharusnya bisa
> > menjadi karya unggulan.
> > Berdasar keputusan dewan juri yang dibacakan
> > oleh Dr St Sunardi,
> > dan Katinka van Heeder, di Benteng Vredeburg,
> > Sabtu (17/12), tiga
> > film terbaik kategori profesional FFD IV adalah
> > Tunggak: Sejantaku
> > Kekidanto produksi Kofidocs Semarang, Kulo Ndiko
> > Sami produksi In-
> > docs Jakarta, dan Nyanyian Tsunami produksi
> > Yayasan Promedia Jakarta.
> > Untuk kategori amatir, film Against
> > produksi paguyuban
> > Remen Film Yogyakarta, ditetapkan sebagai film
> > terbaik. Film dengan
> > ide paling unik diraih oleh Flipside Media,
> > Cimahi, dengan film
> > berjudul Slaughter House.
> > Tiga film terpuji kategori amatir/pemula
> > adalah Sebuah Catatan-
> > Perjuangan Kebebasan Pers produksi Clip On
> > Tangerang, Lentera
> > di Imogiri produksi Lintang Semesta Film
> > dan Rawat Kami
> > produksi Rental Film Indonesia Yogyakarta.
> > FFD IV, juga memberi penghargaan Apresiasi
> > Terpuji Juri Komunal-
> > yaitu penghargaan bagi para komentator siswa
> > Siswa penerima
> > penghargaan
tersebut adalah Annisa Sekar Pratiwi
> > (siswi SMA
> > Muhammadiyah I); Alb Arisetiadi (SMA Kolese de
> > Britto Yogyakarta);
> > Ega Dioni Putri (SMA 1 Yogyakarta); Ruli
> > (SMA 10
> > Yogyakarta); dan Yosafat Pradana Amiwaha (SMA
> > Kolese de Britto
> > Yogyakarta).
> > "Film-film peserta kompetisi sebagian
> > kekurangan dalam
> > penyampaian gagasan sehingga statement yang
> > ditampilkan tidak
> > jelas. Struktur narasi juga masih lemah dan
> > memiliki kepaduan
> > sebagai satu karya film dokumenter," ujar
> > salah satu juri.
> > Katinka menambahkan, film-film pilihan dewan
> juri juga memiliki
> > nilai khusus, antara lain film advokasi yang
> > berharga dalam
> > menjelaskan berbagai permasalahan sosial.
> > Ada upaya juga mencari ikon sebagai
=== message truncated ===
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
Yahoo! for Good -
Make a difference this year.