Social Conrtrrrctionr of Self 5

In a subsequent section, I attempt to relate the Hindu, Buddhist, Marxist,

and feminist approaches to self with their critiques of the dominant, modern,
Western constructions of self. These approaches are siffrlifi~ararl~ diffcrenr
from one another, yet also complementary. Moreover, each approach con-
tributes to the development of a more adequate analysis of self in areas
where rhe others are undeveloped or reveal deficiencies,
Another section follows in which I delineate several respects in which
one can speak of a commonality of humanity, but a commonality with a re-
syect for diffcrcnces, Through a series of fragmented points, 1 suggest that
much recent scholarship may have gone too far in insisting on the primacy
of cultural diversity and differences in our constructions of self. But such
discussions of the commona1;ty of humankind tend to be on a rather ab-
stract level of analysis. We must reafGrm and strengthen our profound sense
of commonality while at the same time recognizing that different concepts
of sdf reflect changing historical and cultural conditions, aILowiq no sge-
cific concept of self to claim exclusive, eternal, ahistoric, universal, objective
truth.
In the concluding section, 1 dili~inguishbct-ween the two aims dcvelopcd
in this chapter: the major aim of presenting a variety of critiques of a domi-
nant, modern Western approach to "the self"; and a second, less developed
aim of offering some suggestions as to what altcrnativc ltpproach or direc-
tion might be taken in providing a more adequate approach to self.

Texts, Contexts, and Interpretation

During my research in India in 3992, the most interesfing challenges to my
m e m p t to relate Hindu, Buddhist, Marxist, and feminist crkiquw concmned
the nature of texts, contexts, and interpretation. For example, an economist
in Calcutta claimed that "the ideas of the Bhagavad-Gita should be analyzed
on their own terms," as differeneiated from attempts to conrsxtualize them.
And a philosopher at Banaras Hindu University forcefully argued that I was
"totally confused," that I was mixing texts that had nothing to d o with each
otbex: "T"h Gita," he said, "has nothing to d o with feminist gerspeceives.
. . . We know what the Buddha was thinking from the original Pali texts."
These criticisms reflected traditional philosophical and scholarly approaches
to texts that I once accepted.
To the same criticisms I responded by asking "Which Bhagavad-Gita!"
The contemplative monistic text of Shankara Vedanta philosophy! The
nletayhysicalIy dualistic text of Sankhy a philosophy? Thc emotionally
charged, devotional, theistic, bhakti text! The action-oriented karma yoga
text of Mohandas Gandhi 'c The various twentieth-century, nationalistic
readings of the test? The Cira of two thuusmd ycars ago or of today ?The
text of various religious elites or of diverse masses of peasants! If the Gita