[0:00]Hello friends, welcome back. Chapter 3, kar rahe hain hum shuru Sociology ka aur isme humne already ek topic cover kar liya hai. Second topic cover kar rahe hain aur usme particularly main aapko aaj Critical Social Science ke baare mein chahta hu batana. What is it? Har Lambas aap sab log padh rahe ho usme ek aapko yeh cheez baar-baar nazar aayegi Critical Social Science, yeh hoti kya hai? Yeh agar hum isko classify karna chahe apne chapter 3 ke syllabus mein, toh yeh Techniques of Data Collection ya phir yeh dekho ek broader ideology hai, ek methodology hai. Usi ka ek part bana ke chalo. Isko abhi hum kisi cheez mein classify nahi karte, yeh cheez lekin pata honi chahiye hume ki kya hoti hai Critical Social Science. theek hai. Toh waise toh aapko main batau toh har ek social science kisi na kisi tarah ka toh criticism karti hi hai, theek hai na? Kisi na kisi tarah ki toh woh baat aisi offer karegi jo thodi critical hogi. Lekin Lee Harvey keh rahe hain, Lee Harvey naam yaad rakhna aapko yeh Har Lambas mein baar-baar dikhega. Lee Harvey keh rahe hain jo critical school hai, jo critical school, it goes beyond. Yeh thoda aage jaake baat karte hain. Yeh kya bolte hain ki kisi bhi cheez ki objective knowledge ya phir objective status ho hi nahi sakta. Humne padha tha na what is objectivity, what is subjectivity? Toh yeh bas yahi bol rahe hain ki objective ho hi nahi koi sakti koi cheez. Har ek cheez mein kahi na kahi subjectivity aa gayi. theek hai? toh yeh baat chahte hain aapko batana ki subjectivity kahi na kahi aa jayegi. Yeh red pen change karke dekhe, red pen thoda sa yaha pe itna suit nahi kar raha. Toh let's see ki kaun sa ek blue pen try kar lete hain. OK. Toh woh keh rahe hain ki objective jo approach hai, yeh nahi ho sakti, subjectivity hi hai, har knowledge subjective hai. Kis tarah se insan chahta hai dekhna, woh knowledge subjective hai. OK. Ya phir, woh keh rahe hain ki knowledge can be gained by quantitative and qualitative process and knowledge is a process which is never complete and never finished. Yeh baat dhyan rakhna. And never finished. Keh rahe hain aapne ek theory bana di. Theory mein aapne bola ki dekho aise-aise kaam hota hai. Ki kuch kuch process chal raha hai duniya mein, aise log behave karte hain ya aise log behave nahi karte. Toh, agar aapne theory bana di, theek hai? Aap chahte ho ki duniya iske hisab se chal rahi hai aap bata rahe ho. Lekin, woh keh rahe hain ki jo Critical School wale hain, woh keh rahe hain knowledge is never complete. Kuch naya nikl aayega and it is an unfinished business. Kuch naya nikl aayega, theory ko humein naya banana padega, evolve karna padega. Critical school wale bas kisi bhi cheez ki finality mein vishwas nahi karte ki koi bhi cheez final aa gayi. Finality pe inka vishwas nahi hai. Aage. Sometimes, woh kya bol rahe hain? Ki humein jo dominant ideologies hain uske beyond jana zaruri hai. Critical school wale hume bol rahe hain ki jo jo dikh raha hai abhi theories ke hisaab se, jo dikh raha hai samaj mein uske beyond jana zaruri hai. Sosho ka bhi kahi na kahi yahi ek dharm hai na? Sosho bhi yahi kehti hai ki jo dikh raha hai uske beyond jana zaruri hai. theek hai? Example bhi leke hum baat karenge yaha par. Jaise Lee Harvey aage bolte hain ki feminist studies hui jab housework ki, uske pehle toh tha ki aurte ghar pe reh ke karti kya hain? Kya kaam karti hain ghar pe, aise baatein hoti hain. Kitna often aap sunoge duniya mein bola jata hai ki aurte ghar pe reh ke karti kya hain? Toh lekin feminist studies hui housework par, unhone bataya ki housework bhi produces things of value. Ki kaafi valuable cheeze nikal ke aati hain bahar. theek hai? Aur kis jaise abhi aap dekh rahe ho na, ek India mein bhi ek muhim across the world, aise ek muhim chal rahi hai ki jo household wala jo kaam hai, household wale kaam ko kya karne ki baat ho rahi hai? Ki usko monetize kiya jaye. Ki na aurton ko uski salaries jab tak nahi milegi, aise bahut saari feminist maanti hain, ki tab tak aurton ko duniya mein izzat nahi milegi. Kyunki duniya kiski? Sirf salaries, income, paise ki duniya hai. Toh household work ko bhi agar aap monetize karoge, aurton ko salaries doge, tabhi samaj mein unko izzat milni shuru hogi. Chalo, ek aur idea hai, is parallel mein discuss kar raha tha ise. Toh aur, ek simple idea lo, Karl Marx ka idea. Karl Marx ne dikhaya hai ki capitalism kitna oppressive hai, uska structure kitna oppressive hai. Toh hua kya? Jo agar hum I ek waha pe jo us waqt jab Karl Marx jab paida hua 1825, 30, 40 ke era mein toh jo 1800 something ki jo era hai, usme jab Karl Marx jab operate kar raha hai. Toh Karl Marx ke hisaab se toh waha pe toh capitalism hi capitalism hai sab taraf. Dominant ideology, us waqt ki jo dominant ideology kaunsi capitalism hai. Karl Marx ne uske beyond jaakar dekha, uska oppressive structure reveal karne ki try kari, apni theories waise banai. Toh woh critical school ka ek woh bhi ek important thinker ban jayega. Toh isiliye Harvey says that class, gender, ethnicity and racism. Yeh extensively study hote hain Critical Social Scientist dwara. theek hai? OK, chalo, aage padhte hain. Ab Lee Harvey ispe kaafi baat karenge critical social research mein, humara Har Lambas se hi chapter humne banaya hai. Dekho, humne apne sources bahut jagah-jagah se source karte hain. Kisi ke notes mil jaye, kisi ki books mil jaye. Majorly dekho, aap kisi ke agar notes milte bhi hain hume, toh unhone bhi books se hi banaye hote hain. Toh haa, bas lekin yeh definitely hota hai ki unhone better arrange kiye hote hain. Toh bas wahi humara attempt toh yaha pe yahi hai ki ki jitna bhi kisi ke kisi toppers ke notes mil jaye aur sabse best jo humare paas source Har Lambas, Redger toh hai hi hain. Uske sivaye Ignou, kitna important resource hai. Toh, yeh sab se ab aisa ek maal aur ek aisa ek saman banaye ki baccho ko kaafi easy rahe convey hona. Kyunki ek particular level tak padhai karo, uske baad usko implement karte hain na? Implement karenge, questions attempt karenge gradually. Toh bas yahi chota sa attempt hai. Aise hi humne Har Lambas se hi chapter 3 banaya hai. Ghat-ghat ka pani ikatha kar diya. That's it. theek hai? Taaki kuch nikle kuch naya sa mixture. Dekhe kya banega usse? Generally number toh aaye hain aisa karke, aapke bhi aane hi chahiye. OK, theek hai? Chalo, wapas aate hain.
[5:31]Lee Harvey kya bolte hain ki main features kya hain critical social research ke? Aap padhoge Har Lambas, usme se apne dhang se padhna hai ise aur aage, theek hai? Main aapko thoda quickly samjhane ki try karunga. Woh bolte hain ki ek toh abstract concepts banate hain. Abstract ki generalize karne ki try nahi karte ki is particular situation mein aisa kuch hoga. Nahi, generalize karne ki tendency nahi hoti inki, bahut hi abstract rakhte hain. Abstract ka matlab kya hota hai? Ki ki aisi baatein karna jinko specific karna bada hi mushkil ho ki specify karna. Ki acha, yeh particular situation mein aise koi baat kar rahe hain. Nahi, specific baat nahi karte, is liye inki jo jo vichardharaayein hain woh kaafi abstract hain. Aage, then totality. Yeh ek important point hai ki cheezo ki history ke baare mein bhi jaanna chahte hain yeh ki yeh cheeze aayi kyu? Let's say abhi Karl Marx hai. Karl Marx batata hai jab capitalism ke baare mein ki capitalism ek particular tarah se kyu hai? Ki kyu woh amiro ko favour karega and garibo ko favour nahi karega. Toh, woh history mein trace karte hue leke aata hai ki history mankind ki kaise thi, kaunse kaunse various processes se insan guzra, feudalism, slave system, etc. Toh, isiliye generally jo jitne bhi critical social scientist honge, woh history mein jaake trace karne ki try karenge, aisa kyu hai? Aaj yeh cheez dikhti hai aapko, aaj acchi ya buri hai, toh yeh kyu hai? And then, Deconstruction matlab pehle bilkul tod ke dekhte hain, ekdam tod ke dekhte hain aisa kyu hai. Then try karte hain usko kuch naya meaning dene ki, reconstruct karne ki ek yeh attempt bhi karte hain, deconstruction and reconstruction. Acchhe point diye hain Harvey ne, paper mein likhenge toh generally number milne chahiye. And then last point hai praxis. Praxis ka matlab kya hota hai ki kahi na kahi Lee Harvey manta hai, jo critical social scientist hai woh practical baat karte hain jo dikhti hai samne samaj mein baat hoti hui, operation, yeh woh jo ho raha hai samne, uski baat karte hain. Practical reflective sociology ki baat hoti hai isiliye ki practical jo samne cheez ho rahi hai, reflective matlab apni cheezo pe reflect karna, sochna. Woh wali sociology ki baat karte hain. To understand about ways that exist to inform oppressed about structure of society. Jo oppress ho raha hai, usko samaj ke structure ke baare mein batana. Ki dekho is tarah se. Ki let's say ne dekho, operation ke baare mein baat karu, toh gender ki agar let's say main baat karu gender operation. Gender mein ek kahi na kahi humne pehle apne gender wale mein baat ki hui hai, male aur female mein humne ek aise agar ranking karein toh male ko thoda better darza diya gaya samaj mein, female ko thoda sa nahi diya gaya better darza. Aisa hai. Toh, females ko aware karna ki kis tarah ka operation ho raha hai. Toh, yeh critical social scientist ka woh kya mante hain apni ek duty mante hain, practical ek kaam mante hain woh, ho sakta hai yeh. And isiliye emancipatory concern. Emancipatory matlab azad karna ki jo operation se azadi dilane ka concern hai critical social scientist ka. OK, next. Ab Phil Carspecken bhi yaha pe ek baat bol denge.
[8:29]Ki critical theorists should be open to finding evidence that contradicts their theories. Research methods like questionnaire, interviews and case studies are used and emphasis is on purpose of research rather than technique.
[8:50]Ab lekin iska criticism bhi hai humare paas ki Martyn Hammersley, criticism lekar aayenge critical social scientist ka. Woh keh rahe hain difficult hai identify karna sources of oppression. Ki aap keh rahe ho ki let's say agar bole capitalism mein ki rich jo hai let's say, woh poor ko oppress kar raha hai.
[9:12]Kehte, kya yeh sure hai ki kya rich ne aisa kuch banaya hua hai? Ki ki ya phir samaj ka structure history se chala hua aa raha hai aisa? Toh isiliye history mein kab kisne shuru kiya hoga? Kehna bada mushkil hai. Isiliye keh rahe hain sources identify karna mushkil hai. Simple example batata hu. Let's say ki ghar mein bahut jagah aap dekhte ho, jaise rural areas mein, urban areas mein, India mein bahut often dikhta hai humein ki particularly jo women hain ya phir ghar mein ladkiyan hain, aisa unko khana ant mein milta hai. Khana ant mein milta hai kyuki pehle jaise let's say papa ka pet bhar jaye, bhai ka pet bhar jaye, uske baad mummy khana khayegi ya phir beti khana khayegi. Toh yeh hai yeh wala gender wala discrimination exist karta hai, bahut hi wide spread hai, akhbaro mein padhte hain, sab jagah aas pass dekha bhi hoga aapne I am sure. Toh, woh keh rahe hain ki yeh aisa kyu hai? Ki kya maa baap maa baap hain jo oppressor hain? Ki maa baap ka man nahi karta unko khilane ka? Kehte, aisa bhi nahi hai ki yeh toh kehte rivaj hai, yeh toh humesha se aise chalta aaya hai, aise hi hoga. Toh, isiliye identify karna bahut hi mushkil hai. Aisa kyu ho raha hai? Toh, isiliye Martyn Hammersley bol raha hai ki aap bas sirf bata rahe ho ki kaun isko propagate kar rahe hain, lekin kaha se aa raha hai yeh culture, uske baare mein baat hi nahi hoti. And then, oppressor could also be oppressed simultaneously and 'who is oppressor' is subjective. Toh, oppressor could also be oppressed simultaneously and 'who is oppressor' is subjective. Toh, oppressor could also be oppressed simultaneously and 'who is oppressor' is subjective. Jaise aapko main ek baat batau. Let's say haa, definitely duniya mein males ko bahut zyada privilege hai, females ko bahut kam privilege hai. hai na? Isko hum kya bolte hain system ko ki kiska rule hai, males ka rule hai. Isko humne patriarchy ka naam diya ki it is patriarchy. theek hai ji? Patriarchy ka naam diya humne Patri matlab male and archy matlab rule. Males ka rule hai. theek hai? Lekin the same time, patriarchy comes to bite males as well. Ki jab tak agar male ki job nahi lag jayegi, generally usko shadi nahi hoti. Toh bechare ko pehle job dhundni padti hai agar shadi karne ka man hai uska toh. Toh, theek hai? Toh wahi hai ki oppress bechara male bhi toh ho raha hai. Breadwinner ki jo responsibility etc, humne pehle discuss kiya hua hai main waha nahi jaunga abhi. Toh kaun oppressed kaun oppressor? Male bhi toh bechara oppressed ho gaya yaha par. Toh patriarchy ne isko bhi attack kar diya. theek hai? Ab agla point, Hammersley, Hammersley kaafi deep baat kar rahe hain toh sunte chalo bas. theek hai? Toh Hammersley ek aur baat kya bolte hain? Ki jo there could be oppressive ideologies among the oppressed. Jo oppressed ho rahe hain usme woh further bhi oppressive ideologies ko propagate kar sakte hain. Toh, keh te isiliye keh te kya keh te usko, ya keh te hum kya karein, criticise karein unko ya tolerate karein? Example Har Lambas, Har Lambas yaha pe example dete hain hume kiska? West aur Islam ka. Woh keh rahe hain west ne, jo western countries hain unhone Islam ko kaafi oppressive bana ke dikhaya. Western countries ne oppressive bana ke dikhaya Islam ko, bilkul sahi baat hai. OK. Lekin woh keh rahe hain ki agar aap keh rahe ho, theek hai, ki bhaii west ne Islam pe ilzaam laga diya ki bada oppressive hain, toh humein Islam ke defense mein aana chahiye ki nahi, Islam ko aap aise tag mat karo. Aise uski labeling mat karo, agar hum Islam ke defense mein aate bhi hain toh kehte bada mushkil ho jata hai kyuki kehte agar hum Islam ke defense mein aate bhi hain toh kya hota hai ki hum dekhte hain ki Islam mein women ko at par treat nahi karte men. Jaise aap dekhte ho Taliban wagaira mein, waha par example agar aap chaho exact karna, toh waha par women ko men ke at par nahi dekha jata. Toh, isiliye kehte kya karein ki Islam ke bachav mein aayein ya Islam ke bachav mein na aayein. Toh, bas yahi bol raha hai yeh is wale point mein. There could be oppressive ideologies among the oppressed, making it difficult to criticize one and tolerate the other. theek hai? Ki kisko criticize karein, kisko tolerate karein? Islam ko hum bachayein ya tolerate karein, ya phir it is Islam ko criticize karein. It becomes very tough. Is example se hi pata lagta hai hume. Next and difficult to establish if false consciousness has been cast off. Matlab ki let's say, humne bataya tha jaise let's say gender wale case mein humne aurton ko kaafi humne let's say aware kar diya. Aurton ko bata diya ki dekho aap bhi kaafi oppressed ho. Man lo unko baat samaj aa gayi. Toh, baat samaj aa gayi, uske baad kaise establish karenge ki jo unko baat yeh sach mein samaj aa gayi hai ki ab woh is tarah se let's say ki aurton jo ghar mein baccho ko khana nahi mil raha, betiyo ko khana nahi mil raha tha, unko khana milna shuru ho jayega. Toh, nahi, let's say uske baad let's say ho sakta hai, aapko main ek baat batau yaha par ek survey hai, movie mein bhi aaya tha ek yeh. Aapne shayad ek movie dekhi hogi Dum Laga Ke Haisha. Usme particular scene aata hai. Aur itni jagah pe aise baat hoti hai ki ek, main aapko example leke batata hu. Let's say husband and wife hai. Husband and wife hai. Let's say husband wife ko peet raha hai. theek hai? Maine pehle bhi kal bhi bataya tha last time aapko. Husband wife ko peet raha hai aur aur woh kyu peet raha hai, let's say ki wife der se ghar aayi jo bhi hua. Toh wife pitayi kha rahi hai yeh bolte hue ki kitna caring husband hai mera, dekho meri kitni safety ka kitna dhyan rakhta hai. Toh ab jo feminist honge unka toh dimag kharab ho jayega. theek hai? Toh ab isiliye, isiliye yaha par humne bada mushkil hota hai ki yeh bata pana ki let's say agar hum jaake batayenge is wife ko, bhai nahi, this is very oppressive, aapka husband aapko oppress kar raha hai jo bhi hai. Toh, theek hai woh man lo usko baat samaj bhi aa gayi. Toh, lekin kya woh chali yeh baat samaj sach mein aa gayi hai? False consciousness chali gayi hai? Toh ya truth realize ho gaya hai, yeh establish kar paana bhi bada mushkil hai. Isiliye Martyn Hammersley ke criticisms bhi hume yaad rakhne hain. OK. Next, ab Feminist School, part of critical school. Feminist school ke baare mein bhi jaan lo, yeh bhi critical school hai. Jo Feminist school hai, kahi na kahi yeh criticise karta hai kisko? Males ko. theek hai? Ki males ke karan hi kuch atyachar hue females par.
[15:32]Toh ab isme dekhte hain, teen tarah ki baatein karenge, teen approaches hain isko padhne ki Har Lambas mein hum dekhte hain jo. Pehli, ki mainstream research pe attack, kya hota hai main bataunga quickly. Then distinctive feminist research methods, and then feminist standpoint epistemology. Quickly dekhte hain kya hota hai yeh. Pehla, attack on mainstream research. Dekho jo woh aapka word hota hai na, woh mainstream, yeh mainstream ko thoda sa usne apne hisab se mainstream bana diya hai taaki it sounds good. Ki accha lage. Mainstream research. Kehte, simple se baat yaha pe kya bol rahe hain? Kehte, jitni bhi research hui hai, sabhi male oriented hui hai. Kehte, jaise Karl Marx ne jab capitalism ki padhai kari, capitalism ke bare mein bataya ki amiro ko favour karta hai, garibo ko yeh favour nahi karta. theek hai? Toh, woh keh rahe hain ki amir and gareeb jab aap bol rahe the, amir men and garib men ki baat kar rahe hain, aurton ke bare mein baat nahi ho rahi thi. Automatically assume kar liya gaya jo bhi pati ke sath ho raha hai wahi aurat ke sath hi ho raha hoga. Toh research saari male oriented hai. History mein jitni bhi research dekhte ho aap saari male oriented hai. Toh yahi bol rahe hain research kis pe male samples pe based hai, males pe apply hoti hai, females are overlooked. And women toh bas stereotypical way mein dikhayi gayi hai, jaha pe pati jayega waha sath-sath chal jayengi aurtein bhi, theek hai ji? Toh isiliye Ann Oakley bolti hai ki household work ko na padhna, bilkul research hi nahi hai kehte history mein jaake dekho. Household work pe koi koi koi koi research hi nahi milti aapko. And then Goldthorpe. Waha pe likhte hain ki ki jo bhi husband ki class thi. Husband amir toh wife ko amir mana gaya. Husband garib toh wife ko garib mana gaya. Toh husband ki class, wife ki class study hi nahi hui. Class ka matlab kya hota hai? Economic. Khana maine pehle hi cover kiya hua hai aur iska impact kya dikhta hai humein? Impact yaha pe alag se bana lete hain hum. Impact kya dikhte hain? Ki yeh wali baat jab expose hui, jab female research female oriented research nahi hoti, male stream research hi hai, uska impact kya dikhta hai humein? Impact yaha pe alag se bana lete hain hum. Impact kya dikhte hain? Ki increase in female oriented studies ki female oriented studies badh gayi. And then, isiliye female sociologist bhi badh gayi and isiliye jo sexist language hai jaise mankind. Insaniyat ko mankind kaha gaya, yeh yeh gender neutral toh nahi hai na? Ek humari class mein ek student hain, woh example leke batate hain ki bahut hi accha example hai jaise sadkon pe aap dekhte ho jab log kaam kar rahe hote hain. Woh kaam waha pe kya likha hota hai? Men at work. Kaam aurtein kar rahi hoti hain. Lekin men at work likha hota hai. Toh jo language hai, language bhi kaafi sexist hai. Sexist matlab? Sexist ka matlab hai ki woh gender neutral nahi hai, particular. Main aapko simple ek baat bolta hu. Ki let's say aap imagine karo, main bolu ki main ek factory mein gaya, waha pe bahut sare workers kaam kar rahe the. Toh, worker se aapke dimag mein kya aaya, male ya female? I am sure ki majority ke dimag mein males aaya hoga. Ki kaise hoga. Toh yahi bas main chahta hu convey karna aur yahi chahte hain yeh feminist bhi convey karna ki jitni bhi humari jo language hai, kaafi sexist hai. Hum ek tarah se imagine karte hain, kahi pe, let's say, main bolu ki kitchen mein, kitchen mein roti pak rahi hai. Kya imagine karoge, papa bana rahe hain, mummy? Mummy bana rahe hain, most of the time na yahi banta hai aapke dimag mein. Toh, bas yahi hai, generally ki kis tarah se humari jo language bhi sexist ho gayi hai. Usko decline karne mein, inhone kaafi zor diya. Next, second tha humara topic, ki isme female wale female studies mein, feminist research methods. Isme bhi Ann Oakley, kaafi important feminist hai. Yeh kya bolti hain? Closer relationship between interviewer and interviewee breaks down barriers. Ki keh rahe hain jitna jitna ek interviewer aur jiska interview ho raha hai interviewee, uske beech mein jitni closer relationship hoga, utna better hai interview ke liye. Jo aapke positivist thinker, yeh woh type hain, woh keh rahe hain ki nahi, bilkul arms length pe deal karna hai. Yeh interview lene wala aur let's say yeh interviewee, toh yeh arms length pe hone chahiye. Koi khaas inmein baat nahi honi chahiye. Baat hogi toh bias create hoga. Objectivity ka loss ho jayega, etc. Toh yeh Ann Oakley bolti hai, galat hai yeh. Aapko jitna yeh aapas mein interact karenge, utna ek dusre ko better jaan payenge. Dost bana payenge. Khul ke baat hogi. Toh, isiliye bring feminist approach to interview. Woh keh rahe hain, female generally kya hoti hai, warm, emotional. Toh, isiliye is interview ko leke interview jo humara method hai data collect karne ka, usme female approach honi chahiye, not men oriented approach. Jo men approach wale ko kya manti hai woh ki woh bilkul hi hostile hai. Baat karne mein itna man unka man nahi hai. Interview liya objectively, that's it. Uhh keh rahe hain, nahi. break the boundaries. OK. Criticism kya hai iska? Woh keh rahe hain ki aap, Ann Oakley ek bas naya naam dene ki try kar rahe hain kisko unstructured interview. Hum aage padhenge waise ek word hi hai unstructured interview. Unstructured interview kya hota hai? Bas jo baat cheet hoti hai. Jaise generally more or less UPSC mein aapka jo interview hoga, woh unstructured interview hi hoga. Aap jaoge waha pe, baat se baat se baat nikalti rahegi. Ek se baat dusri. Toh isiliye, generally haa, definitely woh apna question beech mein le aayenge kuch na kuch puchne ke liye, lekin aapke sawalo pe sawal banate jayenge. theek hai? Toh, wohi bolte hain ki aap Ann Oakley kiski baat kar rahi hai, unstructured interview ki. Kehte koi naya naam dene ki try mat karo ise. So, lekin hum kya usko hum end mein defend kar sakte hain Oakley ko? Wo ki Oakley goes beyond, as it involves advising and helping interview interviewee as well. Ki interview ko madad karo ki acha aapko sawal samaj nahi aaya toh aapko main samjhane ki try karta hu. Let's say ki aap koi baat nahi aap khul ke samne aao. Toh, isiliye Oakley goes beyond. OK. Toh ab last apna tha, feminist standpoint epistemology. Usme kya bolte hain ki unique experiences hain women ke. Woh keh rahe hain ki aap epistemology ka matlab kya hota hai? Ki study of knowledge. Ki yeh knowledge create kaise ho rahi hai? Knowledge ban kaise rahi hai? Usko epistemology kaha jata hai. Toh, keh rahe hain ki ab jo women hain, unke experiences extremely alag hain. Aap keh rahe hain, let's say, main agar saari research banana shuru kar bhi di. Man lo maine capitalism ki maine agar padhai kari. Karl Marx ke tarike lagaye aur sirf females pe lagaye maine saare females ke point se dekha maine. Sirf females ke point se maine rich female and poor female dekha. Tab keh rahe hain aap na kya karne ki try kar rahe ho? Ke sirf classify karne ki try kar rahe ho. Saari amir aurtein ek tarah behave karti hain, saari garib ek tarah behave karti hain. Toh keh rahe hain ki knowledge yeh jo create ki gayi hai, previous knowledge, yeh wali knowledge ko create karne ka tarika toh galat tha hi. Isko redefine karne ki zarurat toh hai hi and kya bolte hain ki inko dekhne ke liye ab humein ise kaafi todna padega. Kaise? Main aapko batata hu. Toh woh keh rahe hain ki jo women ke jo experience kaafi unique hai, kaafi variety hai. Saari rich ek jaisi nahi hai. Saari poor ek jaisi nahi hai, jaise Karl Marx man lo mante the pehle. Toh woh kya bolte hain? Example kya likhte hain yaha pe hum? Ki ek jo black lesbian aurat hogi, black lesbian jo women hongi, unke experience agar white middle class jo experience jo agar lesbian ek aurat hai, usse kaafi different hai. Black lesbian hona kaafi kathinayiyo se bhara hua hoga. White middle class lesbian hona itna mushkil nahi hoga. Toh isiliye woh bol rahe hain ki chahe ho sakta hai ki dono hi ek middle class family ko belong karti hon, lekin inke experiences kaafi different hone wale hain. Black ko racism ka bhi samna karna padega, etc. Toh isiliye woh bol rahe hain ki aap bilkul monolithic, ek jaise dhang se samaj lo bas. Saare rich ek jaise, saare poor ek jaise. Bas pehle Karl Marx ne male ke hisab se padha ab main female ke hisab se padh dunga, nahi. Woh keh rahe hain aapko todna padega kyuki unique experiences hain, groups ke bahut vary karte hain. Iska bhi criticism hai. Woh keh rahe hain Ray Pawson keh rahe hain ki difficult hai respondents ko convince karna ki woh oppressed hain. Jaise humne baat kari, husband wife ki ladai hogi, husband peet raha hai, toh wife keh rahi hai koi baat nahi kitna caring hai mera, meri safety ke liye hi mujhe peet rahe hain ki main itna late kyu bahar aayi. OK. And then, agar keh rahe hain apni research mein feminist standpoint, jo marzi karo. Kehte agar research mein aap men ko exclude kar doge toh research phir aapki aadhi ho gayi. Kyuki let's say agar aap men ko oppressor man bhi rahe ho, toh usse baat toh karo, pucho toh sahi. Usse baat karna bhi zaruri hai apni research puri karne ke liye. Isiliye incomplete analysis, solution present mat karo. And feminist kya bolte hain? Lekin hum overall feminist ko hum defend kar sakte hain apne answer mein, last mein solution likhte hue, conclusion. Ki feminist ka jo agenda kya hai, reformist hai. Woh reform chahte hain karna. Isliye isse humko discard toh nahi karna chahiye. OK. Toh ab ek last ek slide hai yaha pe humare paas Postmodernist methodologies ki ki postmodernism kya hota hai? Hum yeh word bahut often use karte hain. Jaan lo yeh bhi. theek hai?
[23:29]Toh Postmodernist kya bolte hain? Woh keh rahe hain ki jaise aap keh rahe hain jaise positivist, yeh woh, bahut sare koi bhi bana raha hai theory, woh bol raha hai ki yeh rahi meri theory and baki sab theories bakwas. Toh woh keh raha hai lekin postmodernist keh raha hai ki aisa nahi kar sakte hum. Postmodernist kya keh raha hai ki koi aisa criteria duniya mein exist nahi karta jis se hum kisi theory ko ya kisi knowledge ko untrue bol dein. Ki hum bol dein yeh wali knowledge jo thi, yeh untrue hai.
[24:02]This is not valid, this is not right. Keh rahe hain koi criteria exist nahi karta kyuki again, they go back to what? Subjectivity. Ki ho sakta hai uske liye yeh sach ho. OK. Toh isiliye keh rahe hain ki untrue aur true mein distinguish karna koi tarika nahi hai, sabhi ki apne-apne sach hai, Mahatma Gandhiji ne bhi kaha tha yeh. And methodologies mein kya bolte hain yeh? Ki postmodern ethnography. Ethnography kya hota hai? Ki particular kisi ethnicity ko utha ke usko research kar dete hain, us pe ek graphy matlab ek detailed account likh dete hain, particular kisi ethnicity pe. Let's say ho sakta hai ki aap kisi ek Madhya Pradesh ki kisi ek shahar mein jaake likh do ki yeh shahar ke log kaise behave karte hain. UP ke kisi shahar mein likh do, New York pe likh do. Toh ethnography ek particular group ki hoti hai. Aur deconstruction karne mein vishwas karte hain. Cheezo ko tod-tod ke dekhna. Aisa kyu hai? Let's say men at work kyu likha gaya hoga? Ki kya karan honge iske? Deconstruct karna, tod-tod ke dekhna. theek hai? Derrida, Jack Derrida ek bahut hi important postmodernist hain, unke ideas hain yeh. Ki language toh bechari insufficient hai, woh toh puri sab kuch samjha hi nahi sakti. Language is an insufficient medium to convey. Jo Jurgan Habermas ne bhi yahi kaha tha. Language insufficient kyu hai? Kehte, kitni saari cheezein hoti hain jo language apne aap zabardasti convey kar deti hai, hum kehna nahi chahte. Main kehna chahta tha jaise maine aapko example liya workers wala. Workers mein automatically aapne imagine kar liya ki males hi honge. Ki kitchen mein koi kaam kar raha hai, aapne imagine kar liya female hi hogi. Toh keh rahe hain language isiliye bechari represent kar hi nahi sakti, language ko toh deconstruct karna padega, todna padega. Uske baad hi usme se meanings nikal sakte hain, agar koi hain toh. Otherwise toh kya, yeh jo postmodernist wale toh kya mante hain ki meanings hi kya hain kya nahi hum keh hi nahi sakte. theek hai? Thoda thode se high-fi type cheeze karte hain bolte hain. And then, Foucault, Michael Foucault, ye kya inka inka idea kaun sa hai? Discourse analysis. Bas na, aap dekho, paper ke point se, ideas humein pata hone chahiye kya hain. Jack Derrida ka idea kya tha? Deconstruction. Foucault ka idea kya hai? Discourse analysis. Humne discourse analysis humne thode se iske bare mein baat bhi ki hui hai, apna chapter tha, kaun sa? Initial politics wala chapter. Politics wala chapter bhi hum Har Lambas se hi banaya hua hai and toh waha par discourse analysis ke bare mein thoda jaan sakte ho. Discourse waise kisko bolte hain? Jo existing, jin baato pe debates ho rahi hain. Toh, woh keh rahe hain ki jo debate ho rahi hai, woh kis karan se ho rahi hai? Uska analysis hona zaruri hai. Ki generally, koi na koi agenda hota hai. Let's say agar ek political party, political party dusri political party pe kuch ilzam laga rahi hai, toh kuch agenda hoga. Yeh counter ilzam laga rahe hain kuch agenda hoga. Discourses kyu set kiye ja rahe hain? Dekha, yeh agar isko padhna chahiye.
[26:27]Toh, wahi se jaake pata lagega hume ki sacchai kya hai, ya agar koi sacchai hai toh. Toh isiliye, it generally does not create new knowledge, but criticizes existing knowledge. OK. New nahi hai, dost. Yeh new hai. Toh, keh rahe hain ki koi nayi knowledge create nahi karte postmodernist wale. Yeh kya karte hain? Bas criticize karte hain existing knowledge ko. And isiliye inko bolte hain thoda kaam karo and acchi cheezein bhi create karo. Generally, lekin yeh bhi chalo acchi baat hai ki existing knowledge ko bhi ek naya roop dete hain yeh, existing knowledge ko deconstruct karke reconstruct karte hain. Toh, inka criticism dekh lo quickly. Phil Carspecken again he is back. Yeh kya bolte hain? Believes that there are ways of convincing others about validity of the knowledge, if argument is grounded in reality rather than mere persuasion. OK. Toh, keh rahe hain ki jaise aap keh rahe ho na ki koi knowledge sach koi knowledge jhooth nahi. Kehte, nahi, jo kuch cheez sach ho, uske tarike hain logo ko batane ke dekho. Let's say main bolu ki Delhi mein hai aapka India Gate, toh hai bhai India Gate jaake Delhi mein dekho, dikhega aapko, hai na? Toh, keh rahe hain there are ways of convincing. Toh isiliye, keh rahe hain ki jo aapka argument hai, woh reality mein hai ya persuade karne ki try kar rahe ho? Lekin let's say main aapko main persuade karne ki try karu. Main dekho main, lo, kabhi New York nahi gaya. Toh, waha jaake main bolu ki New York mein particular ek restaurant hai, woh waha pe yeh serve karta hai, aisa koi high-fi se dish, ki woh aliens ka meat serve karta hai. Toh, main persuade karne ki try kar raha hu. Ki hai karta, nahi karta pata nahi. theek hai? Main bas main gaya hu main bolu main gaya hu. Toh aap will you trust me? No you will not trust me. Toh, isiliye ki jo keh te isliye differentiate karna zaruri hai ki argument reality pe based hai ki Delhi mein India Gate hai ya New York mein koi meat serve kar raha hai aliens ka. Toh dono mein farak hai, persuade karne mein aur real hone mein. Toh isiliye yeh Phil Carspecken bolta hai ki har cheez ko untrue ya true mein aise dekhna yeh bhi sahi nahi hoga. Toh Mats Alvesson, yeh bhi again naam likha hua hai waha par apne Har Lambas mein, yeh kya bolte hain? If argument is grounded in reality rather than mere persuasion, Mats Alvesson says that postmodernist should refine rather than reject conventional studies, he proposes method of 'reflexive pragmatism'.
[28:00]Ki postmodernist ko refine karna chahiye, reject karne pe jo inka zor hai, refine karne pe zor dein toh better better hoga samaj ke liye. Toh, and isiliye bolte hain reflexive pragmatism word. Dekho, bas word hi hain humare paper ke liye toh. Reflexive, reflex kya hota hai? Ki react karna, quickly, sambhalna, theek hai, samajhna. Ki ki acha samne wale ne kuch kaha toh uske aap accordingly khud ko adjust kiya, respond kiya. Toh, pragmatism kya hota hai? Practically dekhna. Toh, keh rahe hain ki reflexive pragmatism hona chahiye, ki aap jo samne jo criticism jo offer kiya ya fir jo criticism aap offer kar rahe ho kisi theory ka, postmodernist wale, toh uske hisab se khud ko adjust kar le. Practical, practical situation ko dekh ke adjust karein. And, toh data which involves researcher to produce data pragmatically without expecting it to provide an objective picture of reality. Ki zyada keh te objectivity ki taraf bhi keh te haan bhagna is not very right ki aap kya karo ki pragmatic hi na rahe. Ki pragmatic, pragmatism ka matlab aap samajhte ho sabhi log, pragmatic is practical hona. Ki practically na rahe. theek hai? Lekin haa ki kya hona chahiye reflexive ki halaat ko dekh ke khud ko accordingly adjust karna. Toh yaha pe last mein isiliye phir bolte hain ki humein humein ki cheezo ko humein various angles se cover karna chahiye, ek brilliant idea denge yeh. Last mein keh te isiliye humein research ko humein tod dena chahiye do tukdon mein. Kis mein? Ek toh low ambiguity aur ek high ambiguity issues. Keh rahe hain ki har ek issue aisa nahi ho sakta ki haan, yeh yeh issue ya toh true hai ya false hai. Keh te dekho, issues mein ambiguity rahegi hi rahegi humesha hi hamesha. Toh keh rahe hain, isiliye keh te lekin kisi kisi mein ambiguity. Ambiguity ka matlab kya hota hai? Ki confusion ya phir do raaye. Toh keh rahe hain kisi mein low hogi confusion, kisi mein high hogi. Let's say agar main bolu aapko ki Delhi mein India Gate hai. It is an it is an low ambiguity question. Hai na? Ki Delhi mein India Gate hai ki nahi. Haa, bhai hai, kaafi kaafi high percentage surety hai, hai. theek hai? Man lo kal main jau waha pe na mile mujhe, there is a there is a scope ki koi gayab kar de, alien utha ke le jaye. theek hai? Lekin haa, but yeh definitely low ambiguity wala ek sawal hai. theek hai? OK. Toh aur let's say main ab main bolu ki kya women ki empowerment India mein women ki empowerment ho gayi. Hai na? India aap kahoge kaise pata laga aapko? Yeh kya hai? High ambiguity question. theek hai? Toh keh rahe hain, isiliye issues ko agar isme tod diya jaye low ambiguity and high ambiguity mein toh keh te kaafi humara kaam aasan ho jayega. Critical scientist ka kaam bhi aasan ho jayega. Har cheez ko woh equally criticize karte rahenge, aisa bhi sahi nahi hai. Toh, isme tod ke dekha jaye toh humari science ya social science ke liye kaafi accha yogdan ho sakta hai. theek hai dosto, toh yeh thoda alag sa lecture tha humne banaya kyuki bahut saare terms aap use karte ho. Sociology mein aapko yeh words milenge aapke words rich ho jayenge. Toh aapka definitely aapka score increase hota hai and aap thode se sociological likhna shuru kar dete ho. Kam saman mein zyada number attack karne ki, zyada number gain karne ki humari try hai. Baki agar aapne yeh lecture abhi complete dekha, toh aap mujhe ek unique code bataoge. Kya bataoge, batao end mein? Aap bataoge let's say aap, you will write Karl Marx in the comments. theek hai dosto, thanks a lot for watching this. Thank you.
