This is a continuation thread from http://rajivmalhotradiscussions.blogspot.com/2012/03/first-they-ignore-you-then-they-laugh.html
Here is a longer comment to "books@patheos" that I sent a short while ago. I'm not sure of they'll carry it but here it is nonetheless.
It is with utter consternation that I read Carl Gregg's final comments and high-handed closing of the comments section to his original review 'Confessions of a Western Universalist' of Rajiv Malhotra's book, 'Being Different - an Indian Challenge to Western Universalism' on patheos.com. As an Indian/Hindu-American, I'd been following with much interest, the conversation that Malhotra's book seemed to have generated on the site's book club section. The comments that Carl Gregg's review generated seemed to be, in my opinion, precisely the kind of well-reasoned and articulate responses that Patheos would hope to generate on its site. The conversation was of a high quality with a dose of tension that makes such discussions all the more interesting. At no point did I think that either the reviewer - Carl Gregg - or those who commented, ever crossed the line of civility.
(to read the review and ensuing comments, please see: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/carlgregg/2012/03/confessions-of-a-western-universalist/)
So when Carl Gregg added a controversial update to his original review (rather than simply make an additional comment, which would have been more appropriate), I was taken aback. Then, at the bottom of the comments section, he added: After 3 days and 35 (mostly lengthy) comments, we seem to merely be talking in circles. The comments all will remain for those who want to read them in the future. But I am closing the comments section on this post.
That Gregg, a regular blogger on patheos.com and one who presumably would want such discussions to continue for as long as possible (most bloggers and the sites that host them would be delighted if their posts generated multiple, articulate responses over several days) was so eager to abort a lively discussion seemed odd. Upon re-reading the comments, it became clearer why Gregg wanted to make a hasty exit. Contrary to what Gregg said, the commentators were not talking in circles. Rather they seemed to be finding holes in Gregg's review and comments and Gregg's responses in comparison, seemed feeble. Take this exchange for example. In one of his comments, Gregg is adamant that firsthand religious experience and mysticism are all over the Bible, Jewish history, and Christian history. Religious experience and mysticism are common experiences and practices in both East and West, not merely plagiarism or appropriation without reciprocity (although certainly there are instances of that).
To this and other remarks one Karthik M responded: To the extent that mysticism, personal spiritual exploration etc. may play a role in the praxis of some Christians today: it seems clear to me that these are the purloined and repackaged artifacts of a Dharmic tradition that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Unfortunately, the rightful inheritors of that tradition haven't gone the way of the Aztec or the Mithraite; we're still here, and at long last, we're calling them on it. Mr. Gregg contends that the characteristic ideas of dharma as laid out in Mr. Malhotra's book are all things that Christianity has come up with (all by itself) already. We'll see. My bet is, given the privileged historical narrative that lies at the very heart of Christianity's claim to exclusivism, such things are easier blogged about than done.
Progressive as he is, Mr. Gregg is at pains to minimize the history-centrism and chauvinism of Christianity in its 2000 year history. This of course flies in the face of Christianity's history and Gregg's own thoughts that 'behavior is much more believable than what people profess to believe'. How can he in good faith and without insulting our intelligence even claim to us, Hindu readers and Hindu-Americans, that his minority 'progressive Christian' views are reflective of the practice of most Christians (both in the US and in the Christianity that is exported abroad)! Gregg seems genuine in his personal desire to reject the history-centrism of Christianity. But to go so far as to claim that 'I couldn't disagree more that the Nicene Creed' which was written almost three centuries after the life of the historical Jesus is 'the gold standard of belief in Christianity' (343). Really? The vast majority of churchgoers and self-identified Christians would beg to differ! The Nicene Creed, professed clearly and aloud, week after week in the churches of America doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of the beliefs of Christians to Gregg. Is there a single church worldwide (barring the Unitarian Universalists) that has disavowed the Nicene Creed? Is there any major Christian denomination that is on the verge of doing so? Indeed, has the “progressive Christian church (if there is such a thing) unequivocally done it?
While he may not be guilty personally of the history-centrism of his fellow religionists, Gregg reveals himself to be a 'digestor'. To such Western universalists all good ideas must necessarily have their origin somewhere in the West! As a Hindu I feel compelled to ask Gregg, what would be so terrible if you and other progressives were to credit wholeheartedly (and not grudgingly as you seem to do) your ideas and practices to Dharma. Why not dislodge the deep-rooted biases that surround Hinduism when you openly embrace and credit its ideas rather than find obscure references to those ideas in the Bible? What makes you so unwilling to relinquish your 'Western' and 'Christian' identity while usually supporting the export of Christianity and Western mores to the rest of the world?
As a Hindu, I'm not sure what outrages me more. The scarcely disguised contempt of Doniger, Kripal and Nussbaum (well documented in Invading the Sacred) or the surreptitious, uncredited digestion of Hinduism by those like Gregg. As an adjunct professor, no doubt Gregg lectures his students on intellectual property matters and the virtues of free speech. Yet, as this exchange on patheos has revealed, he seems, at least for the moment, unwilling to challenge the widespread plagiarism of Dharmic ideas. Moreover, by cutting short a lively and very civil discussion, he showed his willingness to utilize the censorship of avoidance.
Finally, Gregg's mean spirited 'update' on Malhotra by Nussbaum seems to be a disingenuous attempt to silence Rajiv. Interesting because it wasn't Rajiv but others who were challenging his ideas on patheos. Undoubtedly, his admiration of Doniger, Kripal and Nussbaum will win him brownie points with the academy. Surely Gregg, when looking for information on Rajiv, must have found a good deal of data on the Hindu American response to Doniger et al and even Nussbaum. But revealingly, this wasn't even mentioned in his update. Gregg makes his loyalties quite clear and to us Hindu Americans the lesson is clear we have miles to go!
It is with utter consternation that I read Carl Gregg's final comments and high-handed closing of the comments section to his original review 'Confessions of a Western Universalist' of Rajiv Malhotra's book, 'Being Different - an Indian Challenge to Western Universalism' on patheos.com. As an Indian/Hindu-American, I'd been following with much interest, the conversation that Malhotra's book seemed to have generated on the site's book club section. The comments that Carl Gregg's review generated seemed to be, in my opinion, precisely the kind of well-reasoned and articulate responses that Patheos would hope to generate on its site. The conversation was of a high quality with a dose of tension that makes such discussions all the more interesting. At no point did I think that either the reviewer - Carl Gregg - or those who commented, ever crossed the line of civility.
(to read the review and ensuing comments, please see: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/carlgregg/2012/03/confessions-of-a-western-universalist/)
So when Carl Gregg added a controversial update to his original review (rather than simply make an additional comment, which would have been more appropriate), I was taken aback. Then, at the bottom of the comments section, he added: After 3 days and 35 (mostly lengthy) comments, we seem to merely be talking in circles. The comments all will remain for those who want to read them in the future. But I am closing the comments section on this post.
That Gregg, a regular blogger on patheos.com and one who presumably would want such discussions to continue for as long as possible (most bloggers and the sites that host them would be delighted if their posts generated multiple, articulate responses over several days) was so eager to abort a lively discussion seemed odd. Upon re-reading the comments, it became clearer why Gregg wanted to make a hasty exit. Contrary to what Gregg said, the commentators were not talking in circles. Rather they seemed to be finding holes in Gregg's review and comments and Gregg's responses in comparison, seemed feeble. Take this exchange for example. In one of his comments, Gregg is adamant that firsthand religious experience and mysticism are all over the Bible, Jewish history, and Christian history. Religious experience and mysticism are common experiences and practices in both East and West, not merely plagiarism or appropriation without reciprocity (although certainly there are instances of that).
To this and other remarks one Karthik M responded: To the extent that mysticism, personal spiritual exploration etc. may play a role in the praxis of some Christians today: it seems clear to me that these are the purloined and repackaged artifacts of a Dharmic tradition that has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Unfortunately, the rightful inheritors of that tradition haven't gone the way of the Aztec or the Mithraite; we're still here, and at long last, we're calling them on it. Mr. Gregg contends that the characteristic ideas of dharma as laid out in Mr. Malhotra's book are all things that Christianity has come up with (all by itself) already. We'll see. My bet is, given the privileged historical narrative that lies at the very heart of Christianity's claim to exclusivism, such things are easier blogged about than done.
Progressive as he is, Mr. Gregg is at pains to minimize the history-centrism and chauvinism of Christianity in its 2000 year history. This of course flies in the face of Christianity's history and Gregg's own thoughts that 'behavior is much more believable than what people profess to believe'. How can he in good faith and without insulting our intelligence even claim to us, Hindu readers and Hindu-Americans, that his minority 'progressive Christian' views are reflective of the practice of most Christians (both in the US and in the Christianity that is exported abroad)! Gregg seems genuine in his personal desire to reject the history-centrism of Christianity. But to go so far as to claim that 'I couldn't disagree more that the Nicene Creed' which was written almost three centuries after the life of the historical Jesus is 'the gold standard of belief in Christianity' (343). Really? The vast majority of churchgoers and self-identified Christians would beg to differ! The Nicene Creed, professed clearly and aloud, week after week in the churches of America doesn't seem to be sufficient evidence of the beliefs of Christians to Gregg. Is there a single church worldwide (barring the Unitarian Universalists) that has disavowed the Nicene Creed? Is there any major Christian denomination that is on the verge of doing so? Indeed, has the “progressive Christian church (if there is such a thing) unequivocally done it?
While he may not be guilty personally of the history-centrism of his fellow religionists, Gregg reveals himself to be a 'digestor'. To such Western universalists all good ideas must necessarily have their origin somewhere in the West! As a Hindu I feel compelled to ask Gregg, what would be so terrible if you and other progressives were to credit wholeheartedly (and not grudgingly as you seem to do) your ideas and practices to Dharma. Why not dislodge the deep-rooted biases that surround Hinduism when you openly embrace and credit its ideas rather than find obscure references to those ideas in the Bible? What makes you so unwilling to relinquish your 'Western' and 'Christian' identity while usually supporting the export of Christianity and Western mores to the rest of the world?
As a Hindu, I'm not sure what outrages me more. The scarcely disguised contempt of Doniger, Kripal and Nussbaum (well documented in Invading the Sacred) or the surreptitious, uncredited digestion of Hinduism by those like Gregg. As an adjunct professor, no doubt Gregg lectures his students on intellectual property matters and the virtues of free speech. Yet, as this exchange on patheos has revealed, he seems, at least for the moment, unwilling to challenge the widespread plagiarism of Dharmic ideas. Moreover, by cutting short a lively and very civil discussion, he showed his willingness to utilize the censorship of avoidance.
Finally, Gregg's mean spirited 'update' on Malhotra by Nussbaum seems to be a disingenuous attempt to silence Rajiv. Interesting because it wasn't Rajiv but others who were challenging his ideas on patheos. Undoubtedly, his admiration of Doniger, Kripal and Nussbaum will win him brownie points with the academy. Surely Gregg, when looking for information on Rajiv, must have found a good deal of data on the Hindu American response to Doniger et al and even Nussbaum. But revealingly, this wasn't even mentioned in his update. Gregg makes his loyalties quite clear and to us Hindu Americans the lesson is clear we have miles to go!
-KA
****************
I have read Carl Gregg's blog and all the 36 comments posted there. I must compliment you and all the respondents for your comments. They exhibited deep knowledge, a wide, inlcusive understanding, an admirable use of language, and a passion to defend what was being unfairly and ignorantly attacked. And most importantly, for having done so with restraint and dignity. My thanks and compliments to you and each one of the respondents.
It was also interesting to note the morphing of Carl Gregg.....
1) As you have pointed out in your mail, he started off with an almost supercilious and sarcastic dismissal ("I remain, for better or worse, a fairly unreconstructed Western Universalist"). This is Stage One - he expected to have you, and possible respondents, on the backfoot and expected you to react with anger.
2) That didn't happen. The comments were respectful, dignified and very probing. So, he tries to ward off further uncomfortable questions by saying his brand of Christianity differs from the mainstream - his main submission in support of this claim being he doesn't recognize Adam and Eve as historical figures and claims he doesn't recognize the Nicene Creed to be the Gold Standard of Christianity. He also says he denounces the missionary impulse of Christianity.
3) When probed on this asserstion, he fails to give specific examples of what exactly he means by this claim and which salient aspect of the Nicene Creed he rejects. When pushed to look within, though, he changes tack and says his brand of Christianity sticks to everything the Bible and the Gospels say. He is also silent when Ankur Kakkar asks him if he would publicly denounce the dangerously divisive work that evangelical missions in India are actively engaged in today with massive fund infusions from abroad.
4) His last-but-one comment makes one feel sorry for him. Whatever be the firmness or lack thereof of the ground beneath his feet, his feet themselves were shown to be made of clay in the tone he adopts when he says " I was researching the experience of other scholars with you and your work". And then goes onto close the comments section claiming the argument was going in circles when any reader could very clearly observe it wasn't.
Sad.
I'm even more saddend to note the company he seems to esteem - the likes of Wendy Doniger and Martha Nussbaum. That perhaps explains his morphing and his weak deaprture.
-SB
**************************************
http://beingdifferentbook.com/
To join the Yahoo egroup that has been set up specifically to discuss this book, send an email to: RajivMalhotraDiscussion-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
**************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment