|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the Benefit of the Many: Resignification of Caste in Dalit and Early Buddhism |
|
|
|
| Author |
Josephson, Seth Joshu (著)
|
|---|
| Date | 2011.12.16 |
|---|
| Pages | 85 |
|---|
| Publisher | The Ohio State University |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
https://www.osu.edu/
|
|---|
| Location | Columbus, OH, US [哥倫布, 俄亥俄州, 美國] |
|---|
| Content type | 博碩士論文=Thesis and Dissertation |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Degree | master |
|---|
| Institution | Ohio State University |
|---|
| Department | Comparative Studies |
|---|
| Advisor | Hugh Urban |
|---|
| Keyword | dalit; signification; identity; caste; ambedkar; skillful means |
|---|
| Abstract | There is an inherent ambiguity in the Dalit reclamation of Buddhism as an ideological resistance to caste hierarchy. The Dalit Buddhist movement and early Indian Buddhism both set out to remake key identity categories, re-imagined the ideal community and engaged in parallel critiques of caste essentialism. In addition, each offered strategic departures from Brahminic caste discourse, resignifiying the given terms of difference in an effort to eliminate social inequality. However, Dalit Buddhism, as characterized by the writings of B.R. Ambedkar, and early Buddhism, as represented in the Pali cannon, operate with two distinct grammars of symbolic appropriation. While Ambedkar’s writing offers a new name, history, and value for those most disadvantaged by caste hierarchy, the Pali scriptures engage in the appropriation of caste categories and their re-ascription. In other words, Ambedkar produced a new identity for an existing object (“untouchable” becomes dalit), while the Pali scriptures appropriate caste categories (ariya, brahmana, etc.) and re-apply them other objects according to a hierarchy of valued practice. It will be argued that the utility of these divergent grammars is in part determined by the primary social body taken as the natural form of discursive reification. This social body, whether the monastic sangha or the Indian nation as a whole, is both the audience and object of signification. Furthermore, Ambedkar and early Buddhist writers appear to differ in their understanding of the goal of resignification itself: to create a more inclusive discourse (and therefore society) or to finally move beyond the limitations of discourse altogether. This investigation calls attention to distinguishable forms of symbolic change, provides some explanation as to their utility, and considers the final purpose of discursive change itself. As such, it has implications for both a theoretical understanding of strategies of counter-hegemonic discourse, and for the more practical task of a contemporary embodiment of Buddhist values. |
|---|
| Hits | 272 |
|---|
| Created date | 2023.03.29 |
|---|
| Modified date | 2023.03.29 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
