PTSD

Angst, Part II (or, how the seminar did not suck but did rock)

Well, the seminar is over. Actually it was over yesterday but I didn't want to write about it till now. For once in my life (but hopefully not the only time), it went rather well. I guess, borrowing the term from GenealogySpice, it even rocked. I had good questions which made me think about my project, I was calm (helped by no caffeine intake all day and especially by large, blue-inked scrawls of "calm" written on my hand…the combination with the "gypsy" shirt was probably unwise but no one commented on it, probably because I had written the words out in Nepali so I wouldn't seem to be in need of tranquilisers but more of a reminder to myself not to call anybody's remarks "absolute rubbish" like I did the last time. That sort of stuff does not go down too well).

Also, for long moments, I had the undivided attention of people on what I was saying. This was rather unnerving and I am unused to that (okay, unless the undivided attention is provided by a group of kids at the Zoo where I am getting ready to launch a criket (alive) into the spider’s web…I have never been sure whether the undivided attention then is for what I am saying or in anticipation of the moment when the struggling cricket lands on the web and is pounced upon by the 2-inch wide spider. Always v dramatic. I had nothing like that on hand for my talk yesterday and it still went well. Yes, so it rocked)

Anyway, the seminar was for two hours. Two hours (I may have mentioned this before). For the first 40 minutes, I presented my stuff and, after that, the floor (well, table) was open for discussion. I got some good questions, some I could not answer very well (and admitted I was still thinking of the issues raised). As I said, things were going well. Then, I had a RandomExpert raise his hand and say, "You are wrong. You are wrong to say terrorism is a concern in US-Nepal relations these days…" The conversation which followed went like this:

RandomExpert: You are wrong. You are misrepresenting the situation.
Me: OK. How?
RExpert: Everybody knows that the King is idiotic. He is like a feudal king. All the international community laughs at his actions. They think he is ridiculous.
Me: Who is this international community you are talking about? As I showed in my presentation, in public, in the international arena (which is what I am concerned with, for now) the US is supporting the King, as are India, China, Pakistan. Britain has suspended military arms but there was not much of British aid to start off with. And, since my paper is about US-Nepal relations and the US is publicly saying that Nepal has terrorists and even that ordinary Nepalis support the King's actions…
RExpert: You can't base your paper on lies. Everybody knows that the King is lying.
Me: You have still not clarified who everybody is [DanishSupervisor intervenes by saying to leave him out of the “everyone” since he does not have access to knowledge which tells him Nepalese King is lying].
RExpert: Talk to the security elite, talk to the middle-class Nepalis. You can't sit here and write about Nepal (ohhh…now I am not Nepali enough. It is that gypsy shirt, perhaps)
Me: True, that is why I focused on things I could write about. Public statements by the leaders and high-ranking officials of the countries (US and Nepal) in the international arena and in international media. I did not write about what the elites in Nepal think because I don't know what they think. They have not told me. I have not done any research with them. Unlike a lot of other work, I prefer to talk about things I know (slight dig which passed him by, I think)
RExpert: Well, what do you think? Do you think the King really thinks the Maoists are terrorists? You must know he is lying. What do Nepalese people you know think?
Me: (after the usual comment about my paper was to show Nepal was now positioning itself as an ally of the US on the war on terror, which it had not in the past, especially during the Cold War and not about what people thought)…I actually don't know if he is lying because he has not come and told me that. And the Nepalese people I know are not people whose opinions can be generalised from. They do not represent Nepal in the international arena. Neither do I. The people who is are the King, the ministers, Army officials. Same for the US: The US President, high-ranking officials in the international arena. The Nepalese King has not claimed in public that he is lying.
RExpert: You are doing a PR for the King.
Me: I reckon he is doing the job on his own
RExpert: But, by not talking about what the international community really thinks of the King, you are supporting his actions
Me: As I said, I don’t know how the international community thinks. Actually, I don't even know who these people you are talking about are.
RExpert: Well, if you want to do your PhD in such a way. Only looking at some part of a whole complex situation and making it seem so Black and White, terrorist and anti-terrorist…
Me: I agree the situation is complex but talking about things I have not researched or saying somebody is wrong because they did not look at the aspects of the problem which interest you is hardly scientific is it ? (in TUWSNBN setting, calling someone unscientific would probably mean they were using "qualitative" methodology. Here, it is refreshing that everybody (well, most of them) are using "qualitative" methodology and it is called science too. So, calling somebody unscientific is saying their work is pretty much at the muckracking tabloid journalism level :-)) Right now, you have said the international community thinks the King is ridiculous and a murderer without specifying where they said this or who they even are, you have said I did not represent the complete picture of the events in Nepal without saying how we, as social scientists, can ever show a complete picture of anything; You said everyone also knows the King is lying without telling me where this has been said (or, again, by whom). So, I am not sure how you did your PhD.

[at this point, the professors intervened. I have to admit, since I had prepared for questions of theory and causality and stuff, which did come up too, this part was ridiculously easy. Arguing with RandomExpert was like shooting fish in a barrel (though why do you shoot fish instead of using a fishing line?)]

The surprising thing here is the RandomExpert's refusal to even listen to what I said in the entire talk. I would have found it more useful if he had said something along the lines of "Look, dodgy rites and the passing on of the ceremonial sword (from previously murdered King) is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive authority derives from a mandate of the masses, not from some farcical takeover. I mean, if I went around saying I was king because some old geezer chucked some heavenly powers at me, they would have put me away " (with apologies to the MP team and using the Nepalese King's recent comments about the monarchy being linked to the Gods). But RandomExpert did not do that and by using "everyone knows", he pretty much ended up sounding disgruntled and annoyed :-)

The other professors, most of whom do not share my methodological orientation, were keen on pushing me on my standpoint. It was a bit of a challenge and it was also good fun and I enjoyed having to think over some of the issues in my paper. They listened. They might not have agreed but they listened, asked questions and helped me out with what needed to be clarified. So, yes, the seminar rocked.

Now back to panelling. Where the problems are many and varied but that is not a topic for today.

posted by Priya @ 7:31 AM