Liberalism’s Double Standard: The Spivak ‘Pronunciation’ Controversy
The Spivak incident at JNU, India exposes liberal hypocrisy, showcasing elitism and discrimination masked as intellectual superiority.
A Public Spat at JNU, India
During a public lecture at JNU, Spivak repeatedly interrupted a young scholar, Anshul Kumar, to correct his pronunciation of W.E.B. Du Bois’s name. Kumar, who is the founding professor of a center for Brahmin studies, introduced himself as such and attempted to pose a question about Spivak’s middle-class claims. However, Spivak’s response was to chastise him over his mispronunciation, accusing him of not making the effort to pronounce Du Bois’s name correctly. This interaction quickly escalated, with Spivak implying that Kumar’s errors were a manifestation of upper-caste behavior, a particularly pointed criticism given the Indian context.
Hidden Assumptions and Misjudgments
What makes this incident even more poignant is the revelation that Kumar is not from a privileged background. Contrary to Spivak’s assumption, Kumar comes from a marginalized Dalit background and is the first graduate in his family. His struggle to reach his current academic position highlights the very barriers and prejudices that liberal thought purports to dismantle. Yet, in this instance, it was Spivak, a celebrated figure of liberal academia, who perpetuated an oppressive dynamic.
The Hypocrisy of Pronunciation Policing
This incident at JNU is not an isolated case. It reflects a broader pattern where the liberal elite, under the guise of cultural and intellectual superiority, often engage in behaviors that are exclusionary and discriminatory. Pronunciation policing, as seen in this case, is a subtle but potent form of asserting dominance and gatekeeping knowledge. Such actions reveal an undercurrent of elitism that contradicts the inclusive ideals that liberalism claims to champion.
Would This Happen in the West?
Notably, Spivak’s behavior raises the question: Would she have dared to do this in the United States or Europe, where mispronunciation is equally rampant? In these contexts, mispronunciations by Russians, French, or Chinese speakers, among others, are common and often overlooked, particularly given the complexities and nuances of English pronunciation. Moreover, the pronunciation of Du Bois’s name is not immediately obvious — it is not a matter of grammar but rather a specific historical and cultural preference. This inconsistency highlights a troubling double standard and suggests a form of academic elitism that is particularly egregious when practiced in a diverse and multilingual setting like India.
Liberalism’s Superficial Commitment to Equality
One of the core principles of liberalism is the belief in the equality of all individuals, regardless of their background. However, the behavior exhibited by Spivak suggests that this belief is sometimes superficial. Instead of fostering an environment of mutual respect and understanding, there is a tendency among some liberals to use their intellectual capital to belittle and exclude those they deem less knowledgeable or less refined.
Cultural Imperialism and Elitism
This hypocrisy is not limited to academia. In various spheres, liberals have been known to enforce a form of cultural imperialism, where their values and norms are seen as the benchmark. For instance, the push for linguistic balancing often disregards the cultural significance of local languages and dialects. Similarly, the advocacy for religious openness sometimes manifests as an intolerance towards traditional religious practices and beliefs that do not align with liberal ideals.
Recognizing and Rectifying Biases
The Spivak incident is reminiscent of other instances where liberalism’s veneer of tolerance has cracked under scrutiny. The treatment of rural, working-class communities by urban liberal elites often smacks of condescension and a lack of genuine understanding. The liberal media’s portrayal of certain groups can also be deeply problematic, reinforcing stereotypes and furthering social divides.
Conclusion: Vigilance Against Internal Discrimination and ‘Abuse’
To address these issues, there needs to be genuine introspection within the liberal community. Recognizing and rectifying these biases is crucial for liberalism to truly live up to its ideals of inclusivity and equality. Academics and intellectuals, in particular, must be wary of their positions of power and strive to create spaces where all voices, regardless of their pronunciation or background, are heard and respected.
The Spivak controversy at JNU serves as a stark reminder that the quest for a truly egalitarian society requires vigilance against all forms of discrimination, including those that originate from within the liberal camp. It is only through such vigilance that the promise of liberalism can be fulfilled, and the subaltern can indeed speak — and pronounce — without fear of retribution or ridicule.
