scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Ranu Samantrai

Bio: Ranu Samantrai is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Colonialism. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 17 citations.
Topics: Colonialism

Papers
More filters

Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argued that the mother tongue has as much to do with continuity in the construction of the Other as with community or individual rights, and argued for the importance of considering alternative language strategies, such as disinvention.
Abstract: This paper questions the essentialist status of the mother tongue as the cornerstone of language policy. One reason for doing so is the need for a constantly skeptical questioning that must be at the heart of any critical project. More specifically, it is important to raise questions about what we mean by "language" and what different concepts, ideologies, or discourses we mobilize by particular constructions of the term. The substance of the argument in this paper, however, is related to ways in which the mother tongue was frequently promoted as a strategy of colonial language policy. Viewed through the concepts of go vernmentality and protectionism, it can be argued that the mother tongue has as much to do with continuity in the construction of the Other as with community or individual rights. These ideas will be elaborated through a brief consideration of British language policy in Malaya and Hong Kong. I conclude by arguing for the importance of considering alternative language strategies, such as disinvention.

87 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
16 Jan 2020
TL;DR: The authors express their unease with one-sided invitations into the Northern mainstream, as well as with Southern critics' retreat into indigenous enclaves of organizational scholarship, and use this dichotomy to support their work.
Abstract: We express our unease with one-sided invitations into the Northern mainstream, as well as with Southern critics’ retreat into indigenous enclaves of organizational scholarship. We use this dichotom...

46 citations

DOI
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that race as the structuring principle and accepted reality of Singapore society since colonial days is so entrenched that it has been essentialised and institutionalised by the state as well as by the people in contemporary Singapore.
Abstract: In Singapore the state defines the parameters of ‘ethnic’ identity on the basis of the ideology of multiracialism, in which any particular ‘ethnic’ identity is subsumed under national identity and permitted expression in cultural and economic, but not political, terms. Multiracialism’s appeal for the state as well as for its citizens lies in its objective: social cohesion between and equality for the four officially recognized ‘racial’ groups. Nevertheless, from the viewpoint of the ‘Indian’ community, this thesis demonstrates how the multiple layers of meaning given to the doctrine and practice of multiracialism by various social actors and their interactions create tensions and contestations in reconciling ‘ethnic’ and national identity. Public expression of ‘ethnic’ politics is considered by the state as subversive towards the nation, although the state itself implements its ideology through a stringent regime of ‘racial’ management directed at every aspect of a Singaporean’s social, cultural, economic and political life. The thesis addresses important issues involving ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ identity, modes of ‘ethnic’ interaction and nation building in the multiethnic and globalised context of Singapore in general and in ‘Little India’ in particular. This area, though theoretically democratic in nature, is embedded in state-civil society power relations, with the state setting the agenda for ‘ethnic’ maintenance and identity. My research interviews demonstrate the dominating and hegemonic power of the state, its paternalistic governance, and its wide network of social control mechanisms organizing ‘ethnicity’ in Singapore. The historical decision, made firstly by the British colonial administration and thereafter perpetuated by the nation state, to make ‘race’ the basis of all social classification has had far-reaching consequences. With the postcolonial state wishing to be the sole authority over ‘ethnic’ practices and discourse, Singaporeans’ lives have been heavily conditioned by its impact, which I argue resembles to some extent the ‘divide and rule’ policy of the colonial regime. ‘Race’ as the structuring principle and accepted reality of Singapore society since colonial days is so entrenched that it has been essentialised and institutionalised by the state as well as by the people in contemporary Singapore. The terms ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are used interchangeably and synonymously in daily usage, though “race” is preferred by political leaders, academics and the population at large. I will argue that with ‘race’ as the reference point ethnic communities that migrated from China,

26 citations