Stanley Kurtz, an anthropologist specializing in Indian Studies,
uses psychoanalysis to substantiate his loathsome supposition that Hindu mothers
do not have ‘a Western-style loving, emotional partnership with their babies’:
The special relationship between the Hindu mother and her son appears
here as a variation on a distinctive Hindu pattern rather than as a mere
intensification of a style of intimacy found in the West . . . Nursing is not therefore, an occasion through which
mother and child cement on an emotional union. The child is frequently fed, yet
the mother seldom lingers to mirror the baby’s satisfaction. Thus, while the
child no doubt develops a strong emotional attachment to the mother as a result
of the physical gratification she provides, the mother does not respond by setting up a Western-style loving,
emotional partnership. [Emphasis
added.]
This racially biased and bizarre declaration is utterly false,
as anyone who has spent significant time with families in India can attest. It is absurd to say that a Hindu mother does not see
nursing her baby as an opportunity to cement emotional union, in the same ‘loving,
intimate’ way that Western women presumably do. Even more amazing is the limited evidence on which such statements
are based and astonishingly, that they pass inspection with peer-review
processes.
In another book, All the
Mothers Are One, Stanley Kurtz constructs a model for the psychology of
Hindus based on his studies of Indian social and family structures along with
interviews of some devotees of the Goddess Santoshi Ma. Kurtz claims that
Durga, one of India’s most revered deities, symbolizes the castrating Mother Goddess.
He interprets Goddess’ symbols as pathological—a manufactured ‘Durga Complex’
to explain his ‘findings’ about Indians:
[T]he characteristically Hindu form of conflicts over
unconscious incestuous strivings [in which] castration symbolism at the most mature
level represents transformative self-willed sacrifice signaling the abandonment
of infantile attachments.108
Obviously, Kurtz denies Hindus their sense of individuality:
Their notion of the divine knows neither boundaries of time,
place, substance, nor identity. [And therefore] . . . individualism is built into
our psychic structure but not into that of the Hindu. [Emphasis added.]
In addition to finding many technical flaws in Kurtz’s methodologies,
Humes criticizes his work for using ‘a method which in the end borders on
racism:’
Despite arguing for greater sensitivity to cultural difference
in psychology, ‘those people’ over ‘there’ are actually all alike—but not like ‘us’
. . . Kurtz’s psychology excludes Hindu women . . . they are, after all, ‘mommies’
whose psychology can be dispensed with in a few words and a note.
Mercifully, someone in the academy actually voiced criticism,
but it had little impact on Kurtz’s theories. (For anthropologists’ reaction
to this state of affairs, please read page 61 and 62, chapter 6)
Dehumanizing and exoticized images of Hinduism—no matter how
ludicrous and fringe they may seem on the surface—must not be taken lightly. History shows
that pogroms and genocides have followed similar patterns of cultural
denigration. The soon-to-be victims are alleged to be irrational, immoral, lacking a legitimate
religion, and even lacking in compassion so that they cannot show ‘proper’ love
towards their babies. In Western mythmaking, it follows that these ‘savages’ must
not be extended the same human rights as ‘we’ enjoy. (See the first chapter in section III for an account of this.) (For some
more elaboration of this, please refer page 62, chapter 6)
Though similar practices regarding women are found historically in
all major world religions, introductory classes rarely sum up Judaism, Islam or
Christianity with a list of negative attributes. Introductory classes on
Hinduism at the university level, often begin with the Rg Veda and
move on through the Upanishads and other texts, and end the year with the dangers
of Hindu fundamentalists who killed Mahatma Gandhi. The same can be seen in
secondary level World History textbooks, where after a survey of Hindu beliefs
and texts, they conclude with a list of ‘Hindu problems’ such as ‘suttee’ and
poverty caused by Hindu cultural norms. In a comparative context, the Hinduphobia
is tangible.
The case is being built that
Hinduism is not only inferior but that it causes human rights problems, and the
cure lies in its eradication. How
does today’s scholarship regarding Hindus compare with earlier Eurocentric
scholarship about Native Americans, Africans, Jews, Roma, and others, who became victims of various kinds of ‘savage wars’
and genocide? Malhotra has asked:
Are certain ‘objective’ scholars, unconsciously driven by their Eurocentric
chauvinism, perhaps to pave the way for a future genocide of a billion or more
Hindus, because of the supposed economic and/or ecological pressures of overpopulation later in
this century?
Even in those instances where the scholar might be criticizing genuine
social problems, Dave Freedholm, a teacher of World Religions in an American
secondary school, explains how Hinduism is not given the same treatment as
Christianity:
When scholars examine the world’s religions they usually attempt
to distinguish between their ‘universal’ theological/philosophical foundations
and the particular historically and culturally bound social structures of
societies that practice those religions. To take Christianity as an example,
biblical scholars, using a sophisticated hermeneutics, extract a ‘universal’
Pauline theology from the social context of Paul’s letters that presumed
slavery, the subjugation of women, etc. Pauline statements that seem to support this social order
are reinterpreted in light of passages that are deemed to reflect more
universal values.
Courtright is right in saying that Doniger had raised the
visibility of Indian civilization and the liveliness of its mythic tradition.
But raised the visibility in what manner?
Courtright praises Doniger’s efforts in recruiting young Indian students
into her school of thought:
Wendy has worked hard at Chicago to recruit Indian graduate students
(as we have here at Emory) because we are concerned that there is an imbalance
between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’—whatever that means—in the field.
Just because one brings in a diversity of skin tones to the
University of Chicago’s student body does not mean that a true diversity of ‘insider’
versus ‘outsider’ perspectives is represented, or that vigorous, uncomfortable
debate is permitted. It is always much easier for
a student—of any color or background—to conform to the dominant voices in the
discipline. As will be seen in section III,
sometimes graduate students are sent ahead as storm-troops to electronically engage
the ‘enemy’, creating a Hinduphobic space for their mentors.
This ‘sepoy mentality’ was exemplified by an Indian-American graduate
student at the University of Chicago who, in 2002, warned his RISA colleagues, ‘To
watch out for WAVES’ (the World Association of Vedic Studies), which he found ‘deeply
disturbing’.
Immediately, the well-known Sanskritist, Professor Gerald
Larson, who occupied the Rabindranath Tagore Chair at the University of Indiana
for many years, chimed in to support the call. Making no attempt to
independently verify the allegations, Larson wrote:
I am becoming increasingly concerned that the field of the
serious study of South Asian religion and culture is being ‘highjacked’ by a
variety of folks with ‘off the wall’ agendas ranging from crackpot religiosity
to the worst kinds of Hindu chauvinism. I, therefore, very much appreciate the
comment about the ‘WAVES’ conference and think these sorts of things need to be
exposed and rigorously criticized in the RISA exchanges.
Larson used the metaphor of hijacking to describe his concern
that the study of Hinduism was being somehow stolen by Hindus. He seems to
blithely ignore that the airplane—in this instance Hindu culture—belongs to
Hindus. Larson reduces the complex variety
of Hindus with their great diversity of views and ideas into extreme camps,
caught between ‘crackpot religiosity’ and the ‘worst kind of Hindu chauvinism’.
Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists routinely participate in
theological conferences specific to their respective faiths, without becoming
the recipients of similar attacks. Hindu self-study groups are unfortunately
dismissed as dangerous ‘Savages from the Frontier who threaten Eden’. It is
exactly this insistence on Eurocentric hegemonic control over
Hindu religious studies, and the power to categorize and demonize Hindus, that
worries many progressive voices and underscores the need for investigations such
as this book.
Read the entire chapter from page 60 to 65
