The 11th WCC Pre-Assembly on JCWM, Caste, and Disability

How long must we wait for ‘global’ ecumenical fora to accept that the categories of caste and the violence of casteism cannot be subsumed within racism? And when will we realise that not having disability explicitly expressed as a cross-cutting issue when discussing gender is a missed opportunity.

Why are the voices of dalits, dalit women, and women with disabilities not represented in the report of the recently concluded pre-assembly on “Just Community of Women and Men” of the World Council of Churches that met in Karlsruhe, Germany? 

A woman on a wheelchair and another woman sitting chatting opposite her on the ground, to be on eye-level with the woman in the wheelchair.
Barriers create disabled persons. Disability is part of diversity in creation and life. (Photo by Judita Tamošiūnaitė, www.pexels.com)

To my memory, there was a long-drawn struggle of about seven odd years in the late 1990s and early 2000s when delegations and various groups from India tried in several global platforms to have caste and casteism included as separate categories, alongside racism yes, but still as separate categories to be mentioned. UN (CERD) to my knowledge included caste/casteism within racism and said caste is racial discrimination.[1]

I would have thought that within global faith-based ecumenical spaces like the WCC at least, there have been enough debates and discussions over these past two decades to lead to platforms like the WCC making the token effort to include the words ‘caste’ and ‘casteism’ when mentioning categories of peoples and systemic forms of discrimination[2] in any reports from the Assembly.

It is my contention that “Caste is not entirely the same as Race” [3] and I believe, along with Meena Dhanda that, “Caste continues to be seen as a birth-ascribed status, and, even though historical ties to occupations have loosened for those who accept the religious hierarchical order, caste is still connected to ritual purity/pollution. It combines elements of social class, hierarchy and privilege sustained by endogamy (marrying restricted within a group).”[4]

And any celebration of ‘difference’ that subsumes caste identity under other rubrics fails to hear the seminal voice of Babasaheb Ambedkar and thousands after him who called for the ‘annihilation of caste,’ if necessary, by legal means.

It is therefore with much sadness that I note that the “Pre-Assembly Report – Just Community of Women and Men, 29 and 30 August 2022 | Karlsruhe, Germany,” has not deigned to mention the word caste or casteism anywhere in the report. I also note with sadness that this report has no mention of disability as a factor contributing to discrimination, inequality, and violence, nor does it mention “women with disabilities.”

While I am excited to note that sexual and gender identity, class, ethnic and racial identity are mentioned, I am disturbed that caste and disability find no mention. Under ‘violence and abuse’ the report mentions conflict and war, racism and migration, as exacerbating factors in the pandemic context. But it does not mention caste and disability as factors exacerbating violence and abuse nor casteism and ableism as systemic parameters of discrimination. 

I also find it ironic (and painful) that this section goes on to talk about intersectionality without any reference to caste or disability. How do you talk about intersectionality without at least a token mention of the south-asian context where intersectionality of necessity MUST talk about caste and disability and how a dalit woman with disability is probably the most marginalised in this framework of intersectionality that leads to violence, abuse, and invisibility of unimaginable proportions?

Few paragraphs later tracing the effects of gender based violence (GBV) throughout our communities, again racism and xenophobia are mentioned, indigenous and minority women are mentioned, but no mention of caste, casteism, disability or ableism.

In the ‘praxis (policy and practice)’ section of the report “patriarchy or power imbalances between women and men” finds mention, but no mention of systemic analysis necessary to expose power imbalance in ALL “power-over” systems (kyriarchal systems), primary of such systems being caste.

While acknowledging the need to talk of gender diversity in the context of “rights and responsibilities,” there is no mention of disability too as part of diversity, and the need to create accessible spaces for dalit women, and wo/men with disabilities to be visible, listened to, and accompanied in solidarity against the violence of unimaginable proportions perpetrated on them on a daily basis.

Calls to gender justice that do not take seriously ALL systemic forms of discrimination miss the  opportunity to be truly intersectional, and marks a reluctance to create a space for the ‘full and just participation’ of ALL peoples who are victims fighting with resilience the systemic discrimination of casteism and abelism.

I am deeply disturbed and disappointed to contemplate if it was the lack of the participation of dalit wo/men and women with disabilities at the pre-assembly of JCWM that caused this lapse and total exclusion of these issues and voices being represented in this report? I hope this presumption of mine is proved wrong and they were indeed represented in this pre-assembly.

However, my disappointment will still remain at why then were they not heard, and if they were, why not represented in this report? and if they were not heard at all, why were there no intentional mechanisms in place to facilitate them to articulate?

We must do better as faith-based ecumenical spaces to facilitate with intentionality to truly hear the unheard and create space for the invisibilised.

* I received the JCWM pre-assembly report circulated as a pdf through the WhatsApp broadcast group of the National Council of Churches in India. 

[1] Sheila Mathrani, “Caste system is racial discrimination: UN rights panel” in The Economic Times last modified Mar 30, 2007, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/caste-system-is-racial-discrimination-un-rights-panel/articleshow/1830276.cms?from=mdr

[2] For a detailed study on the problems in efforts to subsume caste within race, see Meena Dhanda, “Anti-castism and misplaced nativism: Mapping caste as an aspect of race” Radical Philosophy 192, (July/Aug 2015):31-43. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/anti-castism-and-misplaced-nativism

[3] Izza Ahsan, “Are Casteism and Racism Blood Brothers?” Countercurrents.org last modified June 9, 2020 https://countercurrents.org/2020/06/are-casteism-and-racism-blood-brothers/ 

[4] Meena Dhanda, “Anti-castism and misplaced nativism: Mapping caste as an aspect of
race” Radical Philosophy 192, (July/Aug 2015):38. https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/anti-castism-and-misplaced-nativism

 

Objectivity in Academic Writing in Social Sciences

Two and a half minutes read

A woman standing among flowers atop a hill at twilight
Your location decides the lenses you use

Is it necessary to prove ‘objectivity’ in reporting research? This is the elephant in social sciences and humanities higher education spaces that is seldom talked about!

From my student days I have been baffled by how to be ‘objective’ when what I write is something I chose to study and research precisely because I have a passion for it and a bias towards it!

There are areas of academic writing in particular like theological writing, and writing on social justice issues, where it is necessary to take sides while writing on certain topics. And I do not just mean that one takes sides only when writing about certain issue-based topics. When writing on methodological or technical tools in theological writing too, I believe it is necessary to exercise a bias in favour of, for example, certain hermeneutical methods or tools that could lend themselves more to certain types of theological inquiry.

In academic writing one is expected to have a reasonable handle on literature on similar and allied topics and one is expected to reference them in the course of one’s own writing. However, the choice to reference authors who could add strength to my argument cannot be adjudged a ‘subjective’ decision that discounts my writing altogether. It can be argued that I would lack integrity as an academic only if I refused to reference any other authors whose views were contrary to my own argument in an academic piece.

Having a clear position that is considered ‘subjective’ per se is therefore not the problem in academic writing. The problem is when one does not clearly outline this position as the location, stand point, and scope of one’s writing as you begin your piece. This is when you may be critiqued as being subjective when your reader assumed that you were supposedly setting out to cover a topic from varied angles whereas you set out confining yourself to pursue one line of inquiry based on a particular locus, but failed to spell out that this was your intent.

To understand more about the use of subjectivity in academic writing, you can read a well-researched study by Nunn, Brandt and Deveci that explores how ‘subjectivity’ and ‘objectivity’ are deployed in written reports of scholarship and research here. The study makes an important conclusion that I quote below:

We conclude that, while ‘subjectivity’ is an inevitable part of any act of understanding, we question whether ‘objectivity’ is a useful or tenable guiding concept for authors to embrace when reporting a contribution to knowledge. We propose transparency in displaying and thereby acknowledging assumptions, agency and inevitable subjectivity as an integral part of reporting knowledge creation as a more tenable position.[1]

[1] Roger Nunn, Caroline Brandt, & Tanju Deveci. “Transparency, Subjectivity and Objectivity in Academic Texts” in English Scholarship Beyond Borders Vol. 4.1 (2018) 72-102.

Literature Review in a Master’s Level Dissertation

A pile of books, with a spectables, a cup of tea and biscuits beside it
So many books to read. . . but choose you must, only those relevant to your argument

You have a great hypothesis in mind. You have a brilliant theological or missiological or hermeneutical breakthrough in your head that you wish to convey. You have a compelling argument to support your hypothesis and build the conceptual understanding in your head. Now, you have to commit all of this to paper. You sit down purposefully to do it. And then boink! Things simply don’t go according to the lofty plans in your head! Sounds familiar?

Those of you who have laboured through long hours working on a Master’s level thesis/dissertation within theological education in India will recognise this feeling of being in limbo while you are in the process of writing each section or chapter. Trying to translate all your ideas into the required thesis format leaves you feeling confused and alienated. Although you went through a ‘methodology seminar’ before you started your Master’s course, it does not equip you with an understanding of the whys and wherefores of each section required in a thesis format.

In this post, I handle one part of the required format, namely, ‘Literature Review’ or the ‘Previous Research’ section, and some tips to, hopefully, help you feel less alienated from what you are required to do in a literature review as a Master’s student. Although I write from the perspective of and for the field of academic writing within theological education in India, I daresay this could be helpful for other fields of academic writing in general as well.

Tip: If you could be a bit more organised about this ‘Literature Review,’ it will immensely simplify the not-very-inviting task of compiling your bibliography and footnotes sections as well. But more about this at the end of this post!   

Before we get into it, let me share with you what my awesome Masters’ Supervisor told me when I was whining to her about why she wanted me to add footnotes for everything that I had said in my first draft submitted to her, which, according to me, contained all my own thoughts and ideas!

She said, “Your first draft is beautiful and I know it’s all coming from your head. But my dear girl, someone has most likely already said what you want to say. So just find those to quote. Your time will come when you can write your own book without footnotes. But this is not yet that time. When you write a dissertation, this is the academic requirement.” Keeping this wisdom in mind helped me to cope with some of the rigour required in academic writing ever since.

So, like she said, remember the required formats in academic writing need to be fulfilled, but it will be helpful, and less alienating, to know how parts of this format fit into the bigger scheme of the research superstructure. So here we go . . .

Purpose of a literature review section

It needs to show that you have done three things as a Master’s level student:

1) read enough about the broad area of research in which you are situating your specific topic/study;

2) know how to answer critical questions in existing research on your specific topic, are familiar with questions that have been asked and answered, and have a grip on which aspects have received more attention and which ones have not; and

3) identified which areas have not been addressed and why, and show how you are going to address these gaps in your research/study; or alternately specify why your study does not address said gaps, but that you wish to show how the previous literature provides context for your own thesis.

What it IS NOT and what it IS?

A literature review cannot be just a list of books/articles you read while you were zeroing in on your thesis title and specific area of research.              

A literature review should be written in a narrative form, and be organised chronologically or thematically, grouping together similar arguments, identifying significant trends in the research area, and interlacing all of this with what these arguments are missing or lacking, that your research will address. You can read more about this in this helpful article put together by St. Mary’s University, California.

Your literature review should identify significant prior research, explain whether the questions you propose to deal with in your thesis have been asked before, and what answers have been obtained. It should outline, evaluate and synthesise current state of critical/ theoretical debate. It could also point out misinterpretations, contradictions, or conceptual problems in exisiting literature. Your literature review should explain how you will build on strengths of past literature, and overcome the limitations found in them. In short, the literature review should be situated within a line of inquiry and a developing body of knowledge, while pointing out how you diverge from it, agree with it, or use it to ground your own hypothesis or research questions.

How to organise a literature review?

Shona Mc Combes lists five steps in the process of putting together a literature review that you may find helpful, and I quote them here as it affords repeating:

1) Search for relevant literature

2) Evaluate sources

3) Identify themes, debates, and gaps

4) Outline the structure

5) Write your literature review

A rather more detailed article on how to go about these five steps has also been put together by the University of Pennsylvania, if you have time for a heavier read.

Tip: In your enthusiasm to show ALL that you have read, don’t forget to always connect each work you talk about with how it relates to your own thesis/research idea or research question.

How long should a literature review section be?

Depending on your chosen area of research, a literature review could be a full chapter by itself in a Master’s Thesis, or one of the longer sections (at least 4 to 5 pages) in your introductory chapter, or it could be a few pages long if it is for a research paper.

Warning: One paragraph citing three titles or articles with a line about who wrote each, and enumerating the three titles cannot be considered a ‘literature review’ and will reflect poorly on your capabilities as a Master’s student. On the other hand, do not use lengthy quotes from the literature you are reviewing but provide summaries in your own words.

Finally, a tip about something that will add many gainful hours to your life as a student! From year one of your Master’s course, before you zero in on your thesis title and specific area of research, you are required to be reading existing literature. Each time you feel that there are resonances in something you are reading, to the research idea/question that you have in mind, insert the bibliographic details of the book/article into existing free or reasonably priced software like Mendeley or some such.

This will save you many hours of trying to remember and find the books later when you get into the actual task of writing and need to insert footnotes and compile the bibliography. And you will also save time trying to manually follow the particular referencing style your seminary/ university requires you to follow (In the Senate of Serampore University system, Hunter Mabry’s Guide based on the Chicago Manual of Style or the Turabian citation style is followed). Try some of the existing software from year one of your course, until you find one that is user-friendly, and doesn’t pinch your pocket. Believe me, you will not regret it!

So that’s all there is to it. Don’t let it overwhelm you. Be organised. Your well-written literature review will give you clarity of thought and become a solid launchpad to organise the rest of your chapters.