Relocating Bakhtin/Reading Bakhtin/1
READING BAKHTIN
Bakhtin's world is, for all practical purposes, limitless and enormous. Many a readings are possible on the discourses of this unique doyen of simultaneity. Ever since his discovery by the American and European scholars, diverse schools of thought emerged which transgress the established frontiers of disciplines. The Bengali readers in the Indian sub-continent became aware of immense possibilities of Bakhtinian thoughts in the late eighties of the last century. But the overriding habit of Euro-centrism prevailed upon the recipients even in the postcolonial phase of social history. Only a few critics and thinkers of Bengali intellectual community felt the urgency of re-reading Bakhtinian conceptual frames and discourses with emphatic primacy on our own situatedness. Since positionality determines the nuances of the truth inherent in varying human situations, these scholars also had to interrogate the basic ingredients of the European and American commentators. A thorough reexamination of their intentions and basic postulates about Bakhtinian concepts is being undertaken. Because the western hegemonic framework of knowledge industry have all along been casting its deep shadow over the third world intellectuals and the Bengali literary firmament in the Indian sub-continent is no exception. Particularly in the latest phase of total domination of cyber technology, all the socio-cultural spaces belonging to the margin of margins are under threat of extinction. The other has to make its presence felt through reaffirmation of its identity, independence and relative sovereignty. It can be achieved by discovering and re-chiselling the alterities inspite of the implosion and domination of the western modes of thought in all spheres of contemporary life.
Though it is fashionable now to talk animatedly about postmodern decentredness, the time is just right for evaluation of Bakhtin from our postcolonial position. Yes, we cannot deny the distorting influence of various counterideologies as well as elitist polemics of the socalled liberal west. Bakhtin's ideas have always been appropriated by a wide range of multidisciplinary recipients. Our task is to comprehend the synthetic approach by which we can extend his ideas further. As our readings are entirely dependent on English translations of the original discourses, we have to accept the possibility of inadequacies and complications due to occasional slippages and loss of nuances. Inspite of such exigencies, our positional readings can nevertheless explore and decipher the conceptual richness of Bakhtin's thoughts. Throughout his life, the great thinker sought to situate Man through continuing dialogical relationship with various formations.
The basic question is: what is Bakhtin for? Or, if we frame it in a different way, how we should utilize his ideas? He is definitely one of the greatest theoreticians of novel. But his uniqueness is not confined to the exploration of a particular genre. He is also one of the foremost thinkers of philosophical anthropology. Moreover his impact on literary hermeneutics and criticism is immeasurable. The poststructuralists, feminists, Marxists, phenomenologists and post-modernists tend to celebrate many of his ideas. In the sphere of cultural studies, Bakhtin is equally important. That is why we are argueing in favour of a synthetic approach to his ideas as otherwise his profoundly inter-disciplinary and complex ideas can hardly be scaled properly.
Bakhtin's life has been described as an extraordinary odyssey through many an abrupt turns and plethora of eventfulness. But this has provided the western critics with the arsenal to represent his dissent not as crystallization of nonofficial countervoices against official discourses negating the possibilities of the other, but as his revolt against the Soviet socialist formations.
Having exclusive support of the hegemonic scholarship and subservient media, the misrepresentation of Bakhtin led to fortification of the capitalism-friendly tutored image of the great thinker. As it has been indicated already, such misappropriations are to be scrutinised thoroughly and alternative appropriation of his thought process should be attempted from our non-western perspective. The task is not easy because we have to encounter a whole array of well-publicized literature of cleverly manipulated counterdiscourses. Yet we propose to adhere to the basic dialogics of the texts of the Bakhtin cycle and would not enter into the debate regarding authorship of the texts. If we carefully follow the genuine manifestations of dialogue in his life and works, we would be able to comprehend as to how creative insight is integrally connected with chronotopic consciousness and why the participant observers can always have the scope of nourishing openendedness in existence, creativity and reception of the contextualized time and space. Over and above, the omnipresent dialogue is never finalisable. Therefore, the very process resists hegemony and its guiles everywhere. Such understanding of Bakhtin secures our present and future as well.
Of late there has been considerable reexamination of his thought process emphasizing on the special nuances of his early and late works. Likewise, Bakhtin's so-called middle period works have been subjected to close scrutiny. Though it is impossible to consign him to a single territory of understanding, various theoretical schools have nevertheless tried to interpret his projects in their own idiosyncratic ways. But we would prefer to look at him from a non-reductionist position, emphasizing on his syncretism and open-ended dialogism. Our situatedness prompts us to develop the central notion of addressivity not only as aesthetic and cultural paradigm, but as the key concept for understanding the multiple phenomena of existence. When the onslaught of the consumer society is at its worst, the task of situating Bakhtin in our historically different perspective has indeed become challenging. In the Indian sub-continent, the experience of the multiplicity of different languages, ethnic behaviours, discourses, priorities and symbolizing practices on the one hand and the disruptive, isolationist and non-conformist tendencies on the other, has made dialogical understanding both inviting and perplexing. We are required to reformulate Bakhtin in such a scenario. Inspite of the imposing presence of the western interpretations, we are to highlight the dialogical interrelatedness between different socio-cultural and aesthetic system and practices as wonderful manifestations of simultaneity. Besides, we are to privilege the marginal, the decentred, the contingent and the unofficial. However, the overwhelming process of globalization has rendered all the aforesaid spaces complicated, hybridized and tentative. Then there is the phenomenon of multi-culturalism which has redefined the notion of addressivity. It is, therefore, advisable to explore anew the key concepts like carnival, polyphony, heteroglossia, unfinalizability and simultaneity in the context of our own experiences.
We are expected to read Bakhtin in his totality, keeping in mind his own dialogic progress as thinker. We should avoid overreading the alleged dichotomy between his early and late works or his subtle and apparent 'compromises' with the official positions. Our first requirement is to develop such a Bakhtinian model which holds considerable promise with respect to proper theorization of our own chronotopic organization of lived time and space.
When globalization is sweeping across all geographical and cultural domains, our familiar world is fast losing stability and responsiveness. Time and space is in a flux and the Bakhtinian notion of interpenetrating unity seems to be out of place. In the horribly individualist contemporary world, how can we posit our otherness and claim us to be co-beings to the non-obliging partner? When globalization has assumed the character of new orthodoxy, it refuses to accept any respondent other than subscribers to its worldview. Hence, Bakhtinian scheme of things seems to be completely irrelevant. One wonders as to how we can salvage ourselves with the help of Bakhtin. If his thoughts are context specific, how we can reinterpret his ideas in a thoroughly changed and decentred world? What then would be the nuances of answerability and addressivity which he has so emphatically put forward? Bakhtinian ontology and epistemology are basically participatory. If we venture to situate him in a dehumanized world, we have to reaffirm that inspite of blatant hegemonic aggressions, our world remains essentially human and it is participative to the extent that the aesthetic, social and philosophical activities required in comprehending it is indeed an acknowledgement of continuing dialogics of self and other.