So much for organising this, and thanks for going into the thinking for showing up.
I am really excited to share this when thinking of it as a kind of bridge piece between two projects and keen to hear your feedback.
So the speaker sense between the first book World Literature for the Wretched of the Earth and my second book project Anti-Colonial Sociology.
And so the second book project began really as a spinoff of the chapter on a baker in the first book.
But the goal here is to try to rethink that almost entirely and move it forward from the 1930s,
1920s and 1930s to something like the kind of post-independence bending world the world of Afro-Asian Solidarity.
And so this paper is a very big, but the deputy project is trying to think about Afro-Asian solidarity in people
like Nkrumah and Dubois and all these kind of thinkers who are looking in the 50s.
So we had so today's transition, they should be I hope it will be a bridge between these two projects.
And so, you know, some of it will be of rethinking the the the original question about an anti authoritarian
sociology and because work and the next will become thinking about kind of capacious sociology,
which would begin, which would allow for a certain type of what I'm calling so superior as it moves to think
about the question of society or the question of the social as a way of organising as well,
and certainly as a way of thinking political community beyond the realm of the nation state.
One may as well begin with a curious translation of conscience in French to conscious and conscience in French and English.
I apologise in advance. These words will I'll do my best to make them sound different from each other when thinking of what I'm trying to say.
Despite my thick accent is conscious and conscience, and in French it looks like contents conscience.
And so in French, the word can mean either conscience or unconscious, depending on the context, and one was able to sort that out.
But in English, this confusion would be sort of productive if largely unacknowledged.
Early 20th century sociology in the Anglophone world, which had inherited an assortment of from the yet the philosophical thought
from France and Germany as it was quickly translated to English William James
as someone who oversaw these translations and they were coming up quite rapidly and then the Nelson-Atkins to the extent that the Germans was logical,
philosophical traditions say from looks to Tony's erase conscience.
This unconscious must separately.
Max Weber's studies of comparative religion and bureaucratic capitalist authority muddled this distinction between class and the
class consciousness and how you give a good basis with the complicated when something like consciousness of moral salvation.
The French philosophers and sociologists that influenced early American sociology.
So when people call me in and Durkheim, Gabriel TUD used the same word conscience for what would become ultimately alternative.
The conscious and conscience and English translators is faced with very sudden deadlines.
Bad luck with the task of figuring out the proper English word from the French, including sentences that had both meanings.
Many of Durkheim translators kept the phrase conscience collective safely quarantined in both italics and
inverted commas really kind of making sure that they could know something had to be looked at in French.
William James, John Dewey and Billy and other police theorists expressed little concern over the untranslatable European input,
even when drawing on English sources, especially something like Adam Smith's account of sympathy and the theory of moral sentiments.
English philosophers really thought conscience and conscience separately in his textbook on Ethics, which is an introductory textbook on ethics.
John Dewey Race From the thinking process itself, we have conscience, which implies a conscious,
thoughtful attitude which operates not only informing purposes, but in measuring and evaluating evaluating actions by the Senate just approved.
But it is evident that by far, the larger of ethical terms are divides from social positions contrasts in this broad sense.
In early 20th century, sociology contents referred to the event in which the individual recognised
yourself as an incomplete social unit and therefore had obligations to others.
The specialised usage aligns us closer to the words etymology on meaning with gents meaning to know in modern
and short sociological contents was meant to indicate the shared knowledge required for social cohesion.
Again, John Dewey. The analysis of contents shows that it involves three elements which may be distinguished in theory,
although they have no separate existence in the actual fact of chance itself.
But these three elements include one the knowledge of certain specific forms of conduct
to the recognition of authority or of the oblique obligatory ness of its forms,
and three the emotional factors which cluster around this recognition.
So by aligning contents with obligation, airiness or obligatory ness and recognition,
Dewey is able to demonstrate that morality is itself a product of a relationship between the shared knowledge between something like share knowledge.
Societal forms and societal norms. And norms. Or mores and social obligations and duties to others.
So conscience is proof that morality is a social project,
both intertwined and shared obligations to others and then the realisation that would be conscious.
So the DWIs definition of contents and Dewey's sense of morality is implicitly egalitarian, and I think this is something that would play out.
And because what we do in both his textbooks on ethics as one of his essays do you
would distil these theoretical concerns with a focus on the conflict as a sort of fact,
consciousness means joint a mutual awareness.
But it's Bergsten who most clearly lays the groundwork for uniting a democratic consciousness with fraternity.
And we're in big trouble also, and it's very similar in terms of laying out all of these terms.
I apologise. There's a lot of them, but we'll move chronologically to the 50s for them.
So these are the groundwork for uniting a democratic consciousness with a fraternity.
In this passage, I like it more capacious leads and did familial relationship.
So here's the good democracy proclaims liberty demands equality and reconciles
these two hostile sisters by reminding them that they are sisters and by all,
and therefore exists of everything fraternity looked at from this angle.
The Republican model shows that the third term dispels the oft noted contradiction between the two others,
and that the essential thing is fraternity a fact which would make it possible to
say that democracy is evangelical in essence and that its motive power is love.
Evangelical and love are surprising words here, but because it's using them in a specific sense,
they're expending forces as they mean to be the means to suggest something like expanding
forces of obligation and therefore a conscious obligation to others in a properly open society.
Books on key phrases here in the study on religion and morality consciousness
both individual and social is the relation is the result of the fact that we
are in a continuous contact with men whom we resemble and united to them by a
discipline which creates between them and us a relation of interdependence.
And Peter arrived in Morningside Heights to begin his post-graduate work under John Dewey alongside the 1913 1914
visiting Professor Henry books on the philosophy was greeted in New York by Columbia University's head librarian,
who presented him a bibliography of scholarship produced by American academics.
A contribution to the bibliography of only books. Bookstore listing nearly 500 entries.
His lectures at Columbia were so popular that Jim Will writes the largest bulletin the university was quoted to.
Overflowing and a whole dose of literature appeared. The following year, 1914 in 1915, John Dewey in France was taught a class,
perhaps on competitive ethics that was over enrolled with graduate students from both anthropology and sociology.
In 1916, James Hovey Robinson and Charles Beard clashed with the university over what they identified as academic freedom.
The right to a faculty to openly criticise U.S. foreign policy at the brink of World
War One and short and big arrived in Newark at an intellectually exuberant time,
and it seems likely that he would have attended books and lectures,
read books and were obviously doing a bit of return to India in the 1920s, where he worked as an activist against caste oppression.
A lawyer and political critic because political writings from the 1930s to the 1950s retain the vibrant assemblage of sociology,
philology and philosophy and fatalism that of the American Academy, the 1910s.
So when trying to think through here is what happens when a certain type of sociological discourse is kind of retained ember
like and then been brought out again 40 years later and used to think through a political problem outside of academia.
Meanwhile, as we can on the post-war post-war sociology, especially in the US and the UK, today shot the empirical and data driven.
So what we have here is a sociology that looks like sort of something out of time.
In a time capsule, as Arun Mukherjee argues, reading it in isolation without paying attention to an astounding number of other thinkers,
both contemporary and from the past, does justice neither to the richness nor complexity of its thought.
We may bo admin controls a description of this worldly conjunction.
We're in the crisis of the European sciences and men not only names a decisive shift in metaphysical thought,
but also debates about what constitutes science and the human and academic institutions in North America and in the UK.
I want to focus on what in the book, what I did was I focussed on two of the joint philology in the first instance and sociology and the second.
What I'll do here, just in case you have not encountered this bizarre assemblage of human sciences,
I'll briefly run through what I've argued about philology and we'll get to the heady sociology through the effort.
But in the kind of the first time I was thinking about this,
I was trying to combine philology and physiological critique, competitive, theological and sociology.
I have yet to figure out how to move away from that, so I will appreciate your suggestions.
So one was in emergency, so let's start out first.
One was an emergent science that was a sociology and one of them was a science in decline.
That was philology. Sociologist ascendance and philologist descent are not merely contemporaneous.
Their respective rise and fall centred around a crisis about the methodological protocols the social sciences were attempting to demarcate.
The disciplinary autonomy from the so-called natural sciences and the human sciences were
attempted to defend themselves despite the institutionalisation of national literatures.
This is especially true in the US, and so this is also the moment of the kind of invention of the comparative literature department or the
institutionalisation of the comparative literature department in the face of or alongside departments like English,
French, German national languages. They were also more overt, attempting to distinguish themselves from each other.
When I think images work, dozens of captures this field at this moment in the photograph is a snapshot,
as it were of this crossing between philology and decline in sociology and ascendant.
Philology had by the 19 teens lost its exemplary status to recall the three interrelated missions of philology an 18th century city of languages,
historical linguistics and comparative ism shed.
Despite the various projects and methodological commitments, history as well as particularly human practise,
James Turner has traced philology slow loss of its autonomy in the late 19th century.
And that does becoming literature, history, anthropology and religious cities where competitive religious cities.
Even as distinct, even if as distinct human sciences,
they retained their mythological commitments to flog the object and the unit of study became the defining feature of the disciplinary order,
not the methodology. So in other words, that biology is the basis for these, these these departments, these disciplines.
But the object shifts and and defines the discipline. Although it had been reduced to covert methodological commitments in the early 20th century,
19th century philologist contributions, the humanities have been safely secured.
The Indo-European theory of language the 18th and 19th century philologist produced, as Edward said, and others,
including big, have shown propagated a theory of race predicated on the notion of unique linguistic heritages.
So to call from Casperson hair to a competitive philology with its very varied hair,
daring inheritance took largely took largely took the language as the expression of an inner spirit
of its language speakers who formed an autonomous culture and consequently an autonomous nation.
Language was therefore a reflection of a culture's creativity and freedom of thought, and her brilliant analysis on comparative ism.
Michael Manzella argues that the grammatical process of inflexion became the primary
feature of the difference between Indo-European and area languages Sanskrit,
Persian, Greek, Latin and modern European languages and Semitic languages, Arabic and Hebrew.
According to 19th century philology, Inflexion,
which Indo-European languages possessed most the ability for speakers to create new words and concepts.
Slack in Arabic and Hebrew, which forced languages to rely on a recognition alone,
meant that some medical individuals were fated to remain comprised, impure, constrained and immature.
And then other languages, if you were curious, was sort of haphazard the kind of words.
So this is a logical physiological sociological contract was the alleged proof that Europeans were the descendants of a Western tradition,
the Romans and the Aryans and ancestry that the Europeans should with South Asia,
which was separate from and distinct from the cimatu Jews and Arabs,
philology named the linguistic proof language for sociological theory race and then simultaneously for biology,
named the genealogical justification, shared ancestry for political knowledge, colonial exploitation.
This philological endeavour of at least two purposes which and bitter notes were obviously not in harmony.
One that the Aryan race existed in a physiological sense with a typical hereditary hereditary
fit into the Aryan race existed in a physiological sense as people speaking a common language.
The conclusion that people who share and common ancient language must therefore must
share a common ancestry and therefore must also share a common racial community,
is an inference from an inference from an inference vigorous.
By the late 1930s, the slide transfiguration of philology sociology was realised in its most horrific form forms.
It legitimised Nazism, monstrous human sciences,
which used physiological difference to produce sociological and ethnic difference for which a political solution was necessary.
And simultaneously, it authorised extraordinarily extraordinary violence under the caste system,
which used philosophical theological difference to respect the equivalence of India's law to British law,
thereby displacing caste as a social problem or ethnic difference outside the reach of political concerns.
And Shruti Coppola has written about this, and I will come back to it.
But it's fantastic that Orientalist Philology and European social sciences have
been the justification for European colonialism as well as as beneficiaries
should come as no surprise and claim that the same human sciences were also the
basis for National India's nationalist liberation movements in the 20th century,
including the in a new wave from the 40s to the sixties.
Shouldn't we know this is not in itself a new argument, but what I'm trying to show here is that America has as motivated,
has a kind of illuminated a particular confluence of the various progeny of philology
and sociology to mobilise it as a way of returning to these same sources of
mineral and caste authority and to reveal the fundamental connexion either to a
kind of sociological podrick or to the collusion with Empire in the first place.
All right now onto sociology, because it was a sociologist when sociology was to groups his contemporary colleague Dubois.
Hesitant, crudely put, sociology had yet to fully develop its own social scientific protocols for disciplinary
autonomy and instead therefore revelled in a moment of social equal social science,
which has been sadly lost in the shift from Sigmund Sociology to an empirical note which is
said following William James sociology moved from radical empiricism to positive empiricism.
William James wrote that sociology, especially especially under John Dewey, could made biology and psychology continuous.
But how do you blend of empiricism, fatalism, psychology, anthropology, political theory,
pragmatism and metaphysics with a foundation to this from the circle of sociology?
When Dubois and Baker were sociologists, sociology was still planned enough.
It was hesitant enough to be useful for radical politics of anti-racism, anti-colonialism and anti-Castro them.
So early, sociology unconvinced that the autonomous individual was at all a useful unit to
measure or account for the modern experience and also hesitant of its own autonomy,
borrowed metaphors from cell biology and epidemiology to describe the contours of this collective consciousness,
whose ontology was put multitudinous beyond imagination, tangled up muddy, painful and perplexed.
One of my favourite phrases from William James because like many books, I especially were drawn to cell biology,
and thinkers like Declaim and Todd were drawn to models of epidemiology, especially mass contagion.
And this feels like a completely different thing to study in the in during COVID than than before.
We're going to I'm going back to give our talk one more time. And that's a completely different read.
Pulled in the opposite directions. So on one hand, the infinitely small, the sole and the infinitely large contingent mass contagion,
early sociological thought profitable revolutionary models for rethinking minutes of human interest objectivity in Brussels
phrasing it was then it was the analogy between the cell and the human that formed the basis for social and moral obligation.
So this can return to sociological consciousness consciousness.
The components of an organism,
these books are becoming momentarily conscious but barely have outlived the wish to emancipate itself when it would be recaptured.
By necessity, an individual forming part of a community may bend or even break a necessity of the same kind,
which to some extent he has helped to create, but to which some more he is to yields the sense of necessity,
together with the consciousness of being able to admit it is nonetheless what we call an obligation.
So we have here a metaphor based on cell biology that then extends out to its
consciousness to think about the relationship between consciousness and obligation.
And I think what should be pointed out here is that this this particular analysis of the relationship between morality, obligation,
consciousness and cell biology are based on a kind of commitment to the perpetual insufficiency of individual human subject in the Francophone world.
It's anonymous here, I think largely mostly synonymous with the French Empire and the intertwined
genealogies of anti-colonialism and sociology have received slightly more attention.
This has tended to focus on enjoyable and Jesus, as essay was published in International Sociology in 1951.
Inspired by AS Gregory Mann has written a meeting between Mademoiselle Maria Keita on a key on a put in concrete in Guinea in 1946.
The essay has been central to debates over the foundations or existence of Francophone postcolonial cities.
Burundi's essay was a sociological sketch that fitted with an anti-colonial politics in Keita.
Himself would later become an anti-colonial activist who flirted with anthropology,
the anti-colonial force of Blondie, its argument for sociology in the situation between neo colonial.
It was that colonised societies were concurrent with their colonisers societies.
In other words, in opposition to anthropology, which which displaced the the the the the studied subject back in time from the studying subjects,
sociology is an implicit claim about brainy and interconnectedness.
Anthropology, so goes this argument was ill suited to study concurrence and interconnectedness with its focus on untouched.
It was its focus on the disposition of untouched primitive tribes and closed off cultures.
Never before contacted tribes in all of this kind of way.
Margaret Mead from those moments of anthropology show.
French sociology, on the other hand, was an implicit claim to temporal equality,
the force of the spread across the French Empire, without denying the importance of this claim.
Frederick Cooper has shown how poorly mythological quality translated to political equality.
Sociology was no less immune to the laws of colonial collusion than anthropology ones.
So even if this is kind of mythological commitment to equality was there, it really kind of saw action as anything outside of mythology.
Under the rubric, for example, of modernisation theory, sociologists use concurrence as the alibi for forming new forms of experienced imperial but
new forms of imperial expansion through this time mostly from the US and the Ford Foundation.
And that's sending a count of modernisation theory as it drew on post-war sociology and
political science in the context of Turkey highlights this mythological ambivalence.
Briefly, what is Belinda Belinda with a sociologist ability or as a sociologist after sociology could argue for its disciplinary,
autonomous and bologna? It might be the case.
I think there's a strong case to be made that Belinda was arguing it just with Claude Libbey Strauss.
But if there was, if there was an implicit, if nonetheless highly contested sociological method for Bundy and his British is the French Empire.
It was then made for an anti-colonial reinvigoration to become like a political campaign,
embittered and other sociologists and I think including Clement and Cromwell Russell,
these anti-colonial politics out of messier material by listen sociology, social psychology, religious studies and criminology.
Other scholars have shown how only Pixel's ratings in French and English translations were influential in anti-colonial, and personally,
I think most notably Muhammad was the most methodological differences between
the the century sociology and post-war sociology produced two closely related.
But I think significantly different anti-colonial politics.
So whereas post-war sociology offered equality rustled from empirical methodology early is to the from the settler sociology,
implicitly upward equality and fraternity wrestled from the literary experience of radical imperial last.
This a lot of activists convicted to think more imaginatively about political community outside the Empire and the nation state
said consciousness and obliquely obligatory relationships that operated across geographical and arbitrary political lines.
So having laid out this in the disciplinary conjuncture,
I think we'll move to the moment so in between takes sociology outside of the
academy and kind of deploys it for political anti-Castro poses as a treating it.
And because Annihilation of Casts Self published in 1936 isn't undelivered,
lecture was meant to be a lecture for the treatment of a faction of the ISI,
much interested in dismantling the caste system as part of a broader project of Hindu reform movements.
The book catalogues the injustices of the Hindu caste system, identifies the cause of those injustices amongst the quartette of Hinduism itself,
and finally describes the necessary steps needed to eradicate caste altogether.
But that became annihilation of cancer.
However, it was deemed too radical for the collective who insisted that dismantling the dismantling a customer,
perhaps not even the annihilation of cars that come from within the privileged castes, not from untouchables does.
Or even suggests that one of the ice imagine for a moment and better offers a global analysis of demands for justice and national independence,
with a focus on the ways in which religious and social movements have been seen, in particular opposition to the universality of politics.
On the contrary, a picture shows these binaries avoid many of the interesting intersecting concerns of the most revolutionary movements.
Consequently, the status of the individual under an oppressive or social religious structure is no
less political than that individual's claim to the right of democratic equality.
And Shruti Coppola has written and how the separation of the social and the political.
The social continued to be a location of oppression.
An ambitious project was to reunite these two to move that product forward and related.
The cast, which by justifying itself as a religious or social matter has been allowed to bypass politics, is in fact political, social and economic.
The cost of the system is not merely a division of labour raison d'etre. Very famously, it is also a division of labourers or embittered.
Hinduism is a set of oil regulations which must be totally destroyed in order to produce egalitarianism.
Hinduism and egalitarianism are fundamentally incompatible. Leading argument of an of caste Starrcast has prevented Indians from forming a
society due to a lack of shared consciousness and big debates in this society.
As such, does not exist. It is only a collection of castes.
Each caste is conscious, conscious of its own existence of its own existence.
There's an utter lack amongst Hindus of what the sociologists call consciousness of kind.
There is no Hindu consciousness of crimes in every Hindu. The consciousness that exists is the consciousness of his caste.
That is the reason why Hindus cannot be said to form a society or a nation.
Big bows, the phrase consciousness of kind from sociologist Franklin Henry getting's beginnings.
Consciousness of kind. Drew on Adam Smith's concept of sympathy or sympathy.
The sympathetic, impartial spectator to describe a heterogeneous social unit and how it cookies.
In other words, a society is formed when multiple consciousness is experienced.
The same thing together casts and contrasts isolates consciousness and therefore prevents common activity output and by preventing human activity,
is prevented the Hindus from becoming a society with a unified life and a unified consciousness of its own being.
By isolating consciousness within caste identity, Hinduism was fundamentally antisocial in spirit.
Hinduism prevented the formation of sympathy and therefore of society necessary for humanist egalitarianism.
I think I mean, if this might be where I would politely, I mean, for the sake of disagreement, disagree with Shruti here,
which is to say that where she would say something like the separation, a separation is the basis of society.
I wonder if maybe it's that Ambedkar doesn't believe the social exists right until the separation is ended.
So. And a minor point for the sake of bringing to the words people.
At least some sociologists had not made sufficient use of the productively errant translation
of French philosophy anti-colonial anti-colonial thinkers made up for their oversight.
Take, for example, ambiguous analysis of Hindus and the want of public conscience content.
The question is why has the Hindu no conscience? There's only one answer to these questions.
If he does not feel any qualms of conscience and assaulting, looting and burning and other acts of atrocities against The Untouchables is because his
religion tells him that nothing is sin and which is done in defence of the social order.
As the Hindu law did not regard the untouchable of prison, Hinduism refused to engage him as a human being fit for comradeship.
This is, in other words, was implicit. Here is a lack of consciousness, which then leads to a lack of conscience.
The lack of a public conscience makes Hindu caste custom do so and able to possess
proper social consciousness rendered here in the recognition of shared humanity.
The reverse is also true as an example illustrates because caste Hindus are not conscious of their moral and social obligations to other humans.
They behave without conscience.
A society and picture, this is, I think, maybe what I'm trying to get at a society which if America is inherently democratic, so society,
the definition of a society is is democratic to something describing something then
good democratic society would be it relies on the unpredictability of association.
And I'm going to give this something. The trajectory goes back to someone like Oxon who is rewriting thinking about an open society.
And so it relies on the unpredictability of association, which promotes an intermingling.
The intermingling of consciousness is as an ever expanding kinship.
In contrast, caste restrictions of her inheritance necessarily relies on knowable genealogy
and predictable familial isolation cases because of experience and concludes,
virtue has become custodian, and morality has become caste bound.
A properly democratic consciousness as a set of anti hierarchical and anti hierarchical and interdependencies is a prerequisite,
then for the annihilation of caste and for society and for the social itself.
And Bitter offers a seemingly circular narrative for the production of anti authoritarian post-colonial politics.
Beatriz Annihilation of Caste requires the recognition of a contagious, loving commitment to others,
and in order to produce an egalitarian and interdependent society, we might say then Beatriz demands that societies as a descriptive claim,
come into awareness of themselves as a society, a normative claim, or, in other words,
that egalitarianism is only possible when a collective realises its obligation to itself as a collective and then acts accordingly.
But otherwise, the prerequisite for Bergdahl's conscious conscience is consciousness and the
prerequisite for him because shared consciousness is consciousness and both,
having now arrived at this decolonial sociological jumble and process of two might make the voice the way we might then return to early 20th
century sociology and mid-century anti-colonialism to reunite this talented relationship between the conscious and conscience as they play out,
not as a kind of implicit or hinted at in the early 20th century and as they play out in the band on one.
The scale for this imagination, I think, is necessarily universal,
whether its origins might be found in Pan-Africanism or customisation due to things that were occurring to them,
bodies of thought that were occurring simultaneously.
And you're describing a particular offence or a particular need for political community or gesturing.
In both cases, towards the universal. If you allow me a brief detour, I will want to trace a parallel trajectory for conscious and consciousness,
but together also here under obligation in the postcolonial world by focussing
on very briefly article one of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And if you typical article one is all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in the spirit of brotherhood.
Amongst the promises of liberty by birth, equality and dignity and rights,
fraternity and brotherhood, we once again find that curious word conscience.
I recall one was an especially contentious article.
What are the particular qualities with which a human is in doubt that makes it uniquely deserving of universal rights?
Many delegations to the draughting committee proposed religious or transcendental justifications.
The human one is that the human origins were divine, natural and made in God's image.
The delegate from China, PC Cheng, argued that these justifications were far from universal but actually quite provincial to Western Europe.
In response, he offered the word conscience as properly as a properly universal term to properly capture the basis on which a human is is a human.
Brilliant analysis Lydia Liu traces Cheng's proposed conscience to his awkward translation of two men mindedness from Chinese.
Cheng defended his word choice on the grounds that good a human being had to be constantly conscious of other men in his society.
He lived. Lewis corrected to a line James contends with his resistance to imperious Xu,
the imperious values of Western Europe that were to haunt the declaration. News analysis,
foreground the circuitous paths and recruiter's trajectories of both universalism
and translation seem clear as their intersection changed to mend mindedness.
And therefore, conscience is the product of King's life, work and political philosophy,
which amongst many different thinkers, but amongst them is an Emmy supervisor at Columbia, John Dewey.
You two men mindedness,
Jing's roughly translated counter to European universalism is paired with a justification drawn from the particular American sociological problem.
A human being was endowed with conscience on the grounds that he was conscious of being part of society.
James justification is thus a lengthy process of education was required for men and women
to realise the full value and obligations of the rights granted to them in the declaration.
It was only then that the stage had been achieved that those rights could be realised in practise.
So in some ways this is running alongside is a debate around the difference between rights and obligations.
Someone like Gandhi, who was asked to comment on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
rejected it out of hand because he thought there should be duties or obligations rather than rights.
But here I think a lot of delegations, Chang and many others were not thinking of these as separate,
whether one had one one got rights by virtue of being obligated to others.
And so in that operator on this axis of conscience and conscious being conjoined.
We've seen this before. A human is endowed with conscience.
And yet only receives that endorsement by becoming aware, conscious of his obligations to others.
The human on the basis of infinite commitments to others is never a singular being, but rather inherently plural to men.
Men a consciousness of the intertwined plurality of consciousness is and therefore a
consciousness of conscience is simultaneously the prerequisite for and ideal product of society.
On. Untethered from the limitations and colonial demands of the autonomous, human and human individual,
a decolonial consciousness would realise itself as multitudinous and erogenous,
held together by an intertwined assemblage of infinite shared obligations.
In other words, conscious, conscious, held together by conscience and conscience, held together by consciousness.
In other words, decolonial action began not by asserting autonomy, but by demanding collective and mutual reliance.
A proper postcolonial world would emerge not from independents, but rather glittering interdependence.
And is known for his so thank you for allowing me to.
We'll come back to a bigger picture was known for his lifelong commitment to liberty, equality and fraternity and Beatrice formulation.
Liberty and equality are subordinate to fraternity as a prerequisite for proper democracy.
And you'll call it, this is actually a information that is not unique to, for example, books only set out in the two choices of morality and religion.
Democracy for Ambedkar was more than a set of political institutions,
but rather a mode of sociality and sociability embittered, demented social democracy throughout his career.
But his famous formulation is an issue in the past. In an ideal society, there should be many interest consciously communicated,
consciously communicated and said it should be valid and free points of contact with other modes of association.
In other words, there must be social and osmosis. This is fraternity for which which is the only other name for democracy.
I could spend hours talking about social and osmosis, and I would be happy to,
but I will try to restrain myself in order to salvage this interpretation from being over determined by his supervisor.
We should focus on the full implications of paternity in the context of caste.
An ambiguous definition of democracy here and elsewhere aligns closer to Brooks's definition in two sources of morality and religion.
Democracy proclaims that Liberty proclaims liberty,
demands equality and reconciles these two hostile societies by reminding them that they are sisters and exerting their fraternity.
I love the king of the mess that I think is really interesting,
and it is indeed about the vaguely Republican idea of assisted living, but is more radically, I think, a claim of continuity.
At first glance, we can trace ambiguous argument about paternity as it asserts the fundamental sociability of humans after the annihilation of caste.
But on additional inspection. I think paternity as consanguinity reveals a different madness of the core of the system and therefore opens
up the possibility to thinking paternity differently and therefore laying the seeds of customisation.
Hunting annuity is a was a fundamental riddle of riddle of humanism, a strain of also that of Hinduism that in big trouble explicate in the 1950s.
In middle 18 money was madness or the explanation of the origin of mixed castes and bitter towards the caste system,
as described in the punishment, the choice he produces reveals indeed a badness of the alleged authorisation of the four vine system.
The trust is, I mean, the Detroit is actually comically said as in vitro shows money proliferation of mixed caste identities based on
a particular combination of the prisons assumed biological father and the prison's known biological mother.
How can there be four discrete castes? Invigorates when one assumes everyone has already been contaminated by blood from other castes?
If everyone is by virtue of the management, the mixed castes, how are we already not?
How are we all? Are they not linked?
For truly hereditary ness, consanguinity and kinship thus form the sociological, theological, biological roots of ambiguous critique.
So in other words, what's bigger than returns us once more to this mess?
This early 20th century mess with biology and psychology become continuous.
Content, contagion contamination and containment ability.
These are the grounds on which both sociological and theological and biological analysis line an ambiguous critique.
Situated between John Dewey and William Jones, there's these two human sciences very wildly away from the of human subject,
relinquishing its sovereign status to a much more messy, messier, porous media and fundable of cell biology.
The mixing of blood and initiation of cells and the the the fundamental unknowability of hereditary belonging produce a much murkier,
illiberal subject whose wild since extensive wild contagion and an ability enhanced community cannot possibly sustain the requirements of caste.
This appears first as kinship for immigrant kinship and social isolation by forming a physical unity ambiguous.
Sociologist and religious Roberts and Smith on this point.
And by doing so, it makes a decisive shift from fraternity as a social concern to fraternity as a biological connexion.
This is a situation akin is a group of persons who live together whose life who say whose lives were so bound
up together and what must be called a physical unity that they can be treated as parts of one common life.
The members of Kindred looked on site of one kindred. It looked on themselves as one living for a single animated mass of blood, flesh and bones,
of which no member could be touched without all of the members suffering.
So ambiguous use of Smith's definition, which slides seamlessly between social description and biological metaphor,
is particularly illustrative of Victor's anti-Castro critique.
Kinship, therefore, becomes the combination of sociology and biology necessary to respond to rabbinical philology.
I want to point out that it is a sociologist borrowing into commitment or interest in borrowing metaphors and biology is not an accident,
but I think it reveals how relatively unconvinced early sociology was of the autonomy
of the individual human being or the exceptionnelle of the human as a unit of study.
And I think I want to kind of stumped it by by turning to it in lieu of a conclusion that
maybe perhaps a consideration of social affiliation that a man thinks is a biological fact.
But what he thinks is a sociological fact, it's ambiguous.
Citing a psychologist, Edward Bond, the study of which is a theological fact under ambiguous, promiscuous critique,
theology and biology and sociology become the grounds on which it is possible to argue for a new life,
be tethered to biology and fraternity, and that renders caste fundamentally unthinkable if caste has prevented the
formation of society and produces a sociology that prevents the formation of caste.
By combining late 19th century philology with early 20th sociology and with the help with a bridging hub of late 19th century biology,
ambiguous critique invents a political subject on the basis of the chaos of cell biology perpetually contagious,
heterogeneous and incapable of authorising, claiming any kind of autonomy of the human as a unit.
This Joshua Felix the subject would render caste unimaginable and therefore be the basis for a kind of interdependent, obligatory egalitarianism.
Allow me to suggest specifically at the level of society as a proper name for this kind of truly Atticus Practise and the Buddha and
his Dhamma and bigger offers hints for a theory of social physics objectivity made possible by a particular scientific injunction.
This is a long quote from the 19th century.
Scientists conceived that the universe was filled with indestructible atoms just as the 19th century was drawing to a close.
So J.J. Thompson and his followers began to hammer the atoms. Surprisingly enough, of the atoms began to break up into fragments.
They got broken into tiny particles, protons and electrons charged with positive and negative electricity, respectively.
The concept of a fixed, unalterable mass abandoned science for good in this century,
the universal belief is that matter is being annihilated at every instant.
So science has proved that the curse of the universe is grouping and disillusion and regrouping.
In other words, associate physics subject, having relinquished for seven tolerable status to the murkiness of contagion and break ability,
is then find yourself perpetually dissolving and regrouping and resolving and dissolving and regrouping with others.
In this reimagining of a kind of Buddhist convert, the annunciate is simultaneously more and less than a synaesthetic figure.
She does not possess the astronomy and sovereignty run up to consider relinquishing it in the same sense.
No subjects following 19th century cell biology and epidemiology can claim to hold autonomy over her self.
Knowing its beginnings and ends in a no subject can claim to know its individual location, its individual identification,
even if social isolation individual provided the benefit of recognition to some in the short term.
It was always at the expense of others, but this kinship actually offers the correct physical unit of society to exist in the first place.
Society rendered both literally and metaphorically biological, is the unit of proper political thinking.
By embracing vulnerability, born of a vulnerability and relinquishing the sovereign body to atoms that infinitely on group and regroup,
contaminate ability becomes the fundamental and foundational, irrevocable universal condition.
To the extent that this is a, I think,
the number of places where Ambedkar discusses this just an overview than they appear in his writings on Buddhism.
But this notion of the the delusion of self and the break ability, the infinite break ability of atoms and cells,
and then their relationship to blood and therefore fraternity and therefore society,
I think, gives us a line from a line of thinking that exceeds the boundaries of the normative political communities otherwise.
And Victor is not alone in imagining cellular breakdown as a replacement for a mass between
politics France tonight and his introduction to black skin white maps hints at a similar project.
How do we get out? I shall attempt a total licence, this morbid body.
I believe that the individual should tend to take on the universality inherent in the human condition,
lysis the disintegration of a song by the rupture of its boundaries.
We've tended to skip over this crucial in final opening prevarication that we've been most closely aligns with, including demand.
I want the world to recognise with me.
The open to a consciousness is therefore difficult to imagine that for lost final prayer or body or my body make of me,
a man who always questions is a request for a sovereign body that has the autonomy to ask questions is a
prayer for a body that leaves the self authorising sovereign subject perpetually open for interrogation?
Let us notice. Finally, the method minerals, finance laws, demand and prayer.
Why not the quite simple attempts to touch the other, to feel the other, to explain to the other myself,
to touch and to feel not in order to be contaminated, but in order to be comfortable in direct opposition to untouchability.
Such ability such orientation toward. Thank you.