PRODUCTION JPENG

Ok people! This post is going to be a jot-pad for our ideas and what we are going to do. This can also be our discussion and suggestion forum whenever we cannot have a formal meeting in college. You people can give your opinions whenever you guys want, and keep us updated on what people in charge are upto even during holidays.

Let us make the most of ALL the resources we have and rock the college for one last time!!

Cheers!

-Satya

psycho prac--size weight illusion

psycho prac material-sodhi's attitude scale

television production notes

Deconstruction

Deconstruction

The very first thing u have to keep in mind is that deconstruction is a way of reading and not a theory. I will try not to define deconstruction as suggested by Derrida, because the minute we do so it becomes a system which can again be destabilized giving birth to newer systems.

Derrida’s deconstruction is largely based on Saussure’s and Levi’s Strauss’s theories. He says Saussure always gave more importance to spoken language than written language. Speech gets privileged over writing, because there is somebody present when we hear a speech but when we are reading something written, the writer is absent. Even in this context according to the rules of binary oppositions presence is given an upper hand over absence and in the same way speech is given more weightage than written language. Preference of speech and presence over writing and absence is an example of logocentrism. Logocentrism means word centeredness i.e. there are few words, so constructed that they carry more weightage itself and automatically becomes the centre ignoring the other units revolving around it. Eg. God, unconscious etc. An interesting example is a line from Genesis which says ‘and god said, “Let there be light”, and there was light’. Even god said which proves his presence and so there was light and darkness and he decided on which side would each go of the slash.

Secondly he attacks Levis Strauss’s theory of nature/culture which is again a binary opposition. Nature is something that is universal and innate whereas culture is specific and learned over time. Derrida highlights the loophole in this opposition giving example of word which are natural as well as culture like incest prohibition. Norms regarding having sex with very close blood relatives are universal as were as specifically made in certain cultures. Such things blur the slash between oppositions which challenges the whole concept of binary oppositions again.

Thus to simply put deconstruction is to critically read a text point out its loopholes and the slipperiness of the whole existing system.

Role of the centre

Centre is important for any kind of a structure and lending meaning to it. It holds all the units or members of the structure together to form a meaningful system. Even in binary oppositions both the sides show relative meaning pointing towards the presence of a centre. Some common centres in various metaphysical systems are like God, truth being, unconscious, essence. In other words Derrida says that these words representing structure basically performs two functions: one it is takes the credit for constructing the system and second it guarantees that all units will operate according to the rules. But at the same time it is also implied that centre itself is beyond the system and is not governed by the rules there. Center even prevents the units to move away from the structure or keep changing their positions. This makes it clear that all system include language works between two extreme poles that is: absolute, fixed, rigid, no play in contrast to constant shifting, complete movement and playfulness. Western philosophy has always preferred the rigid structure more than the free flowing ones.

But Derrida even points out that this belief of a rigid, constant system doesn’t hold good for philosophical systems.

There is excellent example proving this. Let’s take the scenario of a kindergarten classroom. The teacher is there centre there, in whose presence everything is in order and she dictates the class. And the minute she leaves there is complete anarchy and children start ‘playing’, making noise and they go crazy. Now Derrida emphasizes that this ‘playfulness’ in the absence of the centre is precisely required for literary language.

The second characteristic feature of the centre is its uniqueness i.e. no other unit of the structure is equivalent to it and it is not a part of the system. For example in the Puritan system of belief God is the centre of everything and, anything that happens in the world is because of him (credit or blame). But that doesn’t make him a part of our world nor any of the human equivalents to him. Thus nothing in the system is equivalent or can replace him. Again taking God as an example, he cannot be represented in our daily world; he doesn’t share a relation with a single unit in the system to form meaning in exchange, rather he lends meaning to the entire system. Thus Derrida concluded centre is a part of the structure but not really belongs to it. It ‘escapes structurality’; the centre itself cannot be governed or bounded by rules as it does. THUS CENTRE IS BOTH PARADOXICALLY, BOTH WITHIN THE STRUCTURE AND OUTSIDE IT. Thus the centre does not qualify as being the part of ‘the totality’ that is the structure but remains only as the centre.

Derrida also refer to the centre as ‘transcendental signified’ as the ultimate source of meaning, which is when paired with other signifiers in the system makes meaning, similar to Saussure’s idea of language and value, that units within a system form relations of exchange.

We are very excited when we get our new room; we decorate it with our choices of curtains, posters and customize it. But suddenly we realize that it is nothing more than a part of the whole building. Further we realize the roomness in our room which is because of the similar characteristics shared by all the rooms in the building. Then you tend to feel your room is not yours because you have decorated it or stay in it but because it is not any other room of the building this moment of realization is when the western philosophers understood that there is nothing as the absolute truth but it is a system, construct and structure.

Derrida says great thinkers like Freud, Nietzsche and Heidegger tried to construct systems without centre but failed and concludes that it is impossible to ‘speak out of the system’. For example when we are trying to challenge the centre of the language system, it will mean that no sign will have a specific meaning and they will function in wide range. But while explaining this we are using the word sign with an expectation that it has a definite meaning again referring back to the system which we were deconstructing. In Derrida’s word there is no syntax or lexicon which is foreign to the system.

So what is exactly deconstruction?

It is a way of reading which analyses the details of a text’s critical difference from itself. In other words deconstructive reading is when you identify the centre of a system, then see how it constructs its own realm of truth and then how ii contradicts itself. The basic idea behind deconstruction is to see what would happen to the structure if the centre is taken away from it.

To simply put it is a way of reading that looks for areas from where the structure can be shaken up and there is scope for more ambiguity in meaning and where the binary opposites tend to merge avoiding their pre decided places on either side of the slash (/).

Thus Derrida concludes it is impossible trying to shift from one centre to another without noticing that the centre, the transcendental signifier, is a concept which is playing just like everything else and is not the eternal truth.

Bricolage

Derrida claims that the centre is no longer the eternal truth but a construct.

According to Derrida and Strauss Bricolage is a method where we take various units from different systems, out of their context to make a new system with entirely new meaning, unaware of what the units were originally parts of. Person who does Bricolage is known as the bricoleur, he doesn’t care about the purity, stability or truth. It doesn’t worry about the coherence of words or ideas it uses. For example you talk about Oedipus complex to explain a son’s disrespect for his father, but you don’t know anything about psychoanalysis or Freud then you are a bricoleur. In Bricolage meaning is not fixed or eternal but rather it is something more situational and always shifting.

Thus it is a way of escaping the vicious cycle of making a new system with a new centre on the ruins of the deconstruction of earlier system. And making a system which prone to deconstruction. Bricolage makes a system without a centre thus with no concept of stability or truth. It also enhances the creativity and originality of the systems.

Western system has always preferred systems with complete stability although it knows that system exists between both the extremes of instability and stability. And this is not possible because we can deconstruct any system with rigid centre showing its own contradictions and instabilities.

Thus we need a language system with a centre so that in our ‘regular, day-to-day language’ when we communicate, we except everybody would understand the same meaning of the words that we mean, otherwise communication would end up impossible. But on the other hand we would even like to have fluidity, instabilities and playfulness when it comes to ‘literary language’ where same words will have different meanings for the aesthetics and pleasure of poetry and literature in general.

NOTE: Inputs are from Mr. Pinto’s class and Literary Theory: A guide for the perplexed by Mary Klages. The above essay is largely based on my understanding of Deconstruction and you are free to disagree with.

Selection

Performance Appraisal

Training

PPT on Stress

Leadership notes (industrial psychology)

Notice regarding notes

Dear Class,
The notes on leadership have been given to a few people in class, if you have not received them please get a photocopy of it for yourself from one of the following people who might have it,

Varsha, Harish, Megha, Anjali, Anne, Kruthika, Snigdha, Marina

All the best!

Industrial Psychology

work place aggression

Feminisms

Why feminisms?

Feminism is not a single theory it has various approaches from all the fields. It has literary, political, socio-cultural, post-structuralists, psychoanalyst, Marxist approaches. I will be discussing all these approaches in the essay and they are important even from the exam point of view. Conflicts in feminism also changed it to feminisms.

Feminism very simply put, is against the patriarchal society and not against men in particular. It is for liberation of women rights and their respectable position in the society.

Patriarchal structure of the society: The general understanding of the society that men are better and superior to women. For women home is the world and for men world is the home.

Gender is not solely dependent on the biological composition rather it as the intersecting point of history, race, society, nation, class etc. Even religion has a great role to the play in deciding gender roles and stereotypes. Like the 3 main gods Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh are male and Laxmi is seen pressing Vishnu’s leg.

There are three kinds of writing:

Female writings: Writings by female writers

Female writings according to Elaine Showalter: It is located 1920 onwards and refers to writings originally written by women expressing their emotions and feelings and narrating their experiences. Eg. Virginia Wolf

Feminine writings: Writings which have feminine characteristics like a very sentimental tone. It can be written by a men or women.

Feminine writings according to Elaine Showalter: It is located during 1820 to 1880 and refers to imitation of male writing. Eg. Emily Bronte

Feminist writings: These are the writings claiming equal right and position for women in the society. It is not necessarily against men but definitely against the patriarchal society. (To fight the gender bias)

Feminist writings according to Elaine Showalter: It is located during 1880 to 1920 and refers to an age of protest. During this are all the feminist writings were protesting against the patriarchal society or the male writers included in the canon. Eg. Charlotte Perkinson’s yellow wallpaper.

Simone De Beauvoir, author of “The Second Sex” written in 1949 came up with the line: ‘One is not born a woman, but rather becomes a woman’. Her main idea was to liberalize the woman, but in the process of doing so she universalizes the concept of suppression. She also brought the concept of existentialism. It means there are no pre-oriented human natures, it is the freedom and responsibility of each person to create him or herself as a self governing individual. She takes this route for the posed questions in her book.

She uses this argument of existentialism even to answer Hegel’s concept of being which states, each conscious being enters into a struggle for recognition with the other and concludes that he or she is the ‘essential self’ and rest are the ‘non-essential others’ and how in today’s patriarchal society women are considered the non-essential others, men being the essential self. Why always men are the speakers and women are spoken about? Why women and their beauty is always the subject of poetry? Why women are only passive bodies and men are the active thinkers?

Now this raise questions and ideas like roles given to a woman are not natural, it is all because of social conditioning which is naturalized over time, then what is woman in reality, where is her being and identity?

Effeminate

This talks about how we are used to a patriarchal language. There is a he in she, his in history, man in woman, only Bachelor’s and master’s degree for both girls and boys etc. how can women fight with such a male oriented for their rights and freedom. Then should we resort to silence, but silence is often misinterpreted as acceptance. Then the only possible was out is to very consciously opt for a more neutral language which is neither male nor female oriented.

Literary approach taken by woman to fight for their rights made many woman authors write on the suppressions and problems faced by them. Earlier, even when woman were writing, their works were classified under diaries, letters or sentimental fictions and were not included in the canon. But the scenario changed a lot during the waves of feminisms. Mary Wollstone Craft in her book ‘Vindication of rights of women’ also posed rebellious questions like only why should women give birth to children etc. Betty Friedan wrote ‘The feminine mystique’ (1963). She stressed on “equal pay for equal work”. She starts an organization called NOW i.e. National Organization of Women. Elaine Showalter author of ‘A literature of their own’ talks about ‘gynocriticim’. She points out that women have only been seen as readers and not as writers. Her second argument is even if women are considered as writers they are never credited with the post of critics as it needs intelligence and it is assumed, women rely more on experience. It’s time that these assumptions are given way and women are accepted as writers and critics. It also includes writings of Simone De Beauvoir, Luce Irigarary, Judith Butler which have been discussed in other sections of this essay.

There is psychoanalytic view to feminism which says that according to Lacan this gender identification is formed in the symbolic stage i.e. from 6 to 18 months and it is done through the structure of language that we develop the sense of gender. According to Freud male is essential because he has (present) a phallic and in women the same is absent which makes them non-essential. This also throws light on the concept of binary oppositions like presence and absence (of the phallic); essential and non-essential where one is superior to the other. Freud also pointed out that “Anatomy is Destiny” i.e. our biological sex decides how we think and shapes our life. Feminist psychoanalysts discarding Freud’s view says that anatomy does not really affect our psychotic functions. Whereas some other feminists argue anatomy does influences our mind but we cannot categorize it as superior or inferior. The post-structuralists questioned the humanist theory of author being the original creator then how gender shapes our language? And they take Lacanian view into consideration for answering these arguments.

Acc to post-structuralists: Meaning is fascist in nature i.e. any kind of meaning is an idea constructed by the people in authority. E.g. caste structure. Secondly there is no meaning or meaning is arbitrary in nature. For every meaning there is a contradictory understanding or multiple meaning...... hence what is arguable is right. Example: Classmate which has a different meaning as we understand and something else when understood as class and mate separately. Hence as Derrida said ”Neither God, Nor Master”, to defy hierarchy and power structure. Post structuralists also take context sensitivity into account.

There is also a political approach to feminism. Anything that has set rules, theories laws are political in nature. In the same way even feminism has political interventions.

Difference between post structuralism (ps) and structuralism(S).

Ps is about nothing concrete and operates in philosophical way. It takes a sceptical route look at the depth unlike progress by structuralists.

Structuralists say that language constitutes reality and ps looks deeper into it thinking how it has affected us in education, politics etc. We have to see reality thru the lens of language which will be distorted, coz the lens can be convex or concave.

S is factual, scientific where as ps can be playful with the scope of subjectivity. Example eccentric can be spelled as ex-centric by ps. Character of joker in dark knight is another example of the playfulness of ps.

Ps will question any kind of truth .rule and norm acknowledging plural understandings or views of the above 3.

There is a difference between history which is chronological and talks about events (singular opinion) and genealogy which can takes any route, upsetting our sense of time and explains concept. Genealogy is a tool of ps.

Simone De Beauvoir also pointed out that how the institution of marriage is economically exploitive and brings in sexual inequality. Women working after marriage are not well appreciated even if they are capable and are vehemently made economically dependent on their husbands. Not only so social structures are so designed that women are also emotionally dependent. Men-men relationships as friends, colleagues are always encouraged where as women-men relationships are preferred over women-women relationships. In other words institution of marriage perpetuates female oppression where marriage assigns biased gender roles.

We need to realize that it is not only about happiness but liberty. We all are socially conditioned and thus function within these decided boundaries. It is important for women to transcend from the sense of body and beauty. We all are immanated but have to aim for transcendence.

Conflicts in Feminisms

Equality vs difference: Feminists advocating for equality would say men and women should be assumed equal in all aspects of life and thus be given equal rights, pay etc. but some feminist argue that there are obvious differences between men and women which should be accepted. But these differences do not make one superior than the other. Their respective differences should be respected. Using same yardsticks to compare men and women would be unfair. For eg if men have speed women have grace.

Cultural feminism vs post gender feminism: Cultural feminists say patriarchy is not natural but a socially and culturally constructed idea. Judith Butler (post structuralist gender theorist) author of ‘Gender Trouble’ deals with the idea that nothing is fixed, not even gender. Why we only consider sex organs to mark the difference between both the genders and not take eye, nose, and hands as the markers of similarity. It is only because we consider heterosexual normal we channel our ideas in this particular fashion.

Feminism national vs international: this argument is based on whether feminist problems should be seen at national or international level. But today both these ideas are not used. Generalization of problem over nation is not practical as women of different regions face different problems. The problem of physical abuse that a Dalit woman is facing is not the same that of an urban woman, who is under the pressure to make a perfect balance her work and household. Thus today feminism movements are very ethnic specific and at local and regional levels.

Essence vs fluidity: Feminists tend to argue that there in womanness in all women that should be respected. It is unique to her, a woman’s body tends to influence the way she thinks and functions like motherhood. We take the help of Derrida’s ‘differance’ which says we know things because of their difference with other things and this difference helps the object to make its essence.. Whereas few others say gender is socially constructed and thus the idea of gender changes with society. Luce Irigaray’s author of ‘This sex which is not one’ arguments are based on the sexual organs of both the genders. She says male sex organ is individualistic and so is he where as a female sex organ is bi in nature which makes her more concerned about others and thus she can bond well with other people. Even Judith Butler supports the point that gender is fluid and highlights the politics of gendering. Genders is just an performance where you exhibit your gender characteristics.

Marxist feminism: In our patriarchal society all the social concerns involves men and only value their ideas and decisions. They revolve around and are led by men. Thus feminists took this area of concern. Marxist feminist stands at the intersecting point of class and gender. They also deal with issues such as economic suppression, problems and inequality in workplace, why often men are given the higher posts in any organization and so on. Later ever Marxism incorporates female sensitivities. Bama’s Sangati is a feminist Dalit writing including three aspects class, caste and gender.

Note: Inputs from P.K. sir's classes on feminisms.

Humanist literary theory

This essay is a mixture of both the text as well as class room understandings in a simple way. Hope it will be of a great help.

Humanism in broad philosophical terms, is a world view that rejects anything supernatural as an explanation for existing phenomenon i.e., world is not governed by god, divine spirit but that which can be observed with our senses and can be explained by human investigation and thoughts.

Therefore observation and deduction are sufficient means for understanding, without reference to any kind of divine or extra-human power about how the world works and how things happen.

Humanist belief questions the ideals and works to understand where these ideals have come from. They have human values and concerns as the central focus of life and thought. And because they replace idea of god to idea of human mind they are sometimes called as ‘secular humanism.’

There are innumerable debates and arguments on to what humanism is?, whether it is good or bad.... let us see some of the arguments in light of PLATO and ARISTOTLE.

Why and what is literature in general?

For Plato (427-347 BCE) treats literature as the ways through which cultural knowledge was passed on from generation to generation. And hence having no distinction between types of stories be it history, fiction etc.

But Aristotle identifies characteristics of various forms of literature and then develops systematic categories through which to classify these forms, like if drama is a form of literature, properties in that can be tragedy, comedy, or sentimental comedy so on.

To pass on the cultural knowledge, Plato says human capacity-reason-is the most desirable and superior form of thought, the preferable means. Therefore emotions are considered as the inferior ways of conveying culture to Plato. Quite like wise truth is preferred over art because art evokes emotions which are inferior.

But Aristotle says it is not necessarily an inferior reproduction where as it is a process of putting the events of nature into medium that improves on or completes nature.

Is literature a form of escapism or helping us to understand more and to move towards the perfect world from imperfect world or vice versa?

Should literature be scrutinized as it attempts to fade line b/w fiction and reality and hence giving bad and wrong values?

Plato insisted that reality/ truth resided in forms that were eternal and unchanging, rather than in the chaotic and ever-shifting material world where human beings lived.

 The world we perceive with our physical senses-the material world-  is a copy of the ideal world which is more perfect, and never change and hence their static condition makes it eternal. Therefore it is considered as source of all things that exist in our human material world. Because they are copies of ideal world, they are necessarily less perfect than their originals. Art represents material perceivable world, which Plato called ‘nature’. And hence artistic world becomes copies of the copy and so away from the truth. Therefore artists are also twice removed from the world of truth to Plato.

For Aristotle, truth/ reality doesn’t reside in a static eternal world of perfect ideal forms, reality is the ever changing world of appearances and perception.

Art is not necessarily an imitation or reproduction of nature for Aristotle. So it is not inferior reproduction but a process of putting the events of nature into a medium to complete the nature.  Art doesn’t lie, according to Aristotle but tells the truth in a different way than rational deduction. Art is not necessarily the binary opposite of reason, and thus threatening to logic and rationality.

 For Aristotle, a form exists only in the concrete examples of that form, not in some external ideal abstraction. Things we perceive in this world exist according to ordered principles which we can discover (just as scientific observations and rules). Truth resides in discovering the rules and principles that govern how things work and take on meaning in our material world (by using those things we know more about them). Literature imposes a particular kind of narrative order on events, so that what is described in words has a beginning, a middle, and a end. They give a meaning to nature.

Should literature be encourage or discouraged?

 And hence for Plato, artists evoke emotions which are potentially dangerous and disruptive to the process of logic and rationality. Art is a double threat to the world since it is a copy of a copy and also evokes emotions. So Plato worried that art and artists might threaten social order, because they might distract citizens from the pursuit of the eternal truths which were the only unfailing source of goodness. Literature is important but needs to be regulated or supervised, because it has a powerful effect on its readers or audience.

He says all forms of art are ruinous, unless as an antidote they possess the knowledge of the true nature of the originals. Therefore art, literary art like poetry etc tells lies, influence in irrational ways.

 For Aristotle, art and literature are positive social forces; evokes emotions to reason the piece of work. It creates order and system, and helps people to find pleasure in the representation of an understandable and meaningful reality.

He also says, art doesn’t lie but approaches truth in a different way. Artists do not imitate or copy nature. An artist recreates it. This ability to create gives artists a more important role in Aristotelian world unlike dangerous in platonic world. Through this process it is easy to find similarities and differences (important aspect which we discussed earlier, we can differentiate b/w things like different animals, trees etc).

Which understanding of literature is the right way?

Plato s concern with the content of literature begins a tradition in literary theory and criticism and theory which focuses on the effect of it on its readers or audience. Moral or didactic criticism focuses solely on the content of the literature, asking whether its effect is good or bad, rather than paying attention on its values, and forms it comes in. Moral criticism argues that literature is so powerful a medium for arousing emotions that can be dangerous to ‘weak minded’ people- women and children.

 Aristotle, in contrast, is less interested in content but in forms (because different forms or uses reveal the truth about the thing). This gave rise to another genre of criticism namely aesthetic criticism, focusing largely on the form and unity of a work of art. It identifies the internal structure of a piece of work done.

Critics in 20^th -21^st centuries, follow one of the strands above. Structuralism and Post-structuralism are influenced by Plato’s ideas and Formalism by Aristotle’s ideas on large.

                                                           ***

Indian literature in translation course plan

Sanskrit Drama- Introduction

Introduction to Sanskrit Drama

Sanskrit poetry can be generally classified into:

1) Drishya - which can be seen or enacted


2) Shravya - which can be heard (shloka)

So, all dramas are Drishya. 

In Sanskrit, drama is called rupaka and one-act plays are known as upa rupakas.

The 3 Elements of Rupakas are:

• Vastu or the plot of the play.
• Rasa or the 
• Neta or the hero.




The Plot may be divided into

The principal plot (adhikarik): It refers to the main characters and pervades throughout the story.

The sub-plot or the accessory plot (prasangik): It is an added information to the main plot. All except the hero are the characters of the sub-plot.

Subplot is again divided into 2 parts i.e. Prakara and Pataka. 

These are episodes written to hinder and develop the normal flow of the story. Pataka may be of considerable length extending till the end of the play where as Prakara is an incident of limited duration and no major characters are involved in it. Eg. In Shakuntala, Durvasa cursing Shakuntala is the Pataka and Shakuntala losing her ring is the Pataka.

The principal plot has Bija, Bindu, and the Karya. Literally, bija means the seed or the plot, bindu means the drop or the fall, and karya refers to the climax or the final issue.

The Bija, Bindu, Karya, Pataka and Prakara together are called the Arthaprakritis.

The source or derivation of the plot may be from the history or mythology, it may be fictious or the mixture of both. Shakuntala is of the third kind, a mixture of mythology and fiction.

There are 5 avasthas or stages of development of a dramatic plot:


• Aarambh or the beginning.

• Yatna or the effort (to bring out the rasa).

• Prapthyasha or the prospect.

• Niyatapti or the removal of obstacles.

• Phalagam which refers to obtaining the desired result.

These 5 avasthas have to be united by samdhis or junctures.

There are 5 samdhis:

• 
Mukh or the Protasis (Introduction)

• Pratimukh or the Epistasis - an effort or the yatna for the progress of the play's plot.

• Garba or the Catastatis - attainment or non-attainment of the end (Patakas   may end).
• 
Avamarsh or Peripeteia - it goes along with the niyatapti and it is a conscious effort to postpone the end.

• Nirvahan or Upasanha - catastrophe or the final fall of events.

There are 4 types of Neta in Sanskrit drama:

•       Dhirodaatta - the ideal neta, with all the 8 manly characteristics (Dushyant - in Abhigyana Shakuntalam).
•       Dhirolalitha - soft-spoken and good-looking but he is not very serious.
•       Dhiroshantha - peace-loving and patient.
•       Dhirodatta - Lacks one of the 8 manly characteristics (Ravana, Karan).

The 8 characteristics are:

•         Shobha or the handsome.
•        Bilaas or with a broad outlook and open thought.
•        Maadhurya or sweet in behaviour.
•        Gambhirya or combination of pride and strength
•        Dhairya or courageous.
•        Tejas or charismatic.
•        Laalitsya or humorous,fun and adorable.
•        Audharya or generous and magnanimous.

Then the plot has Pithmards, assistants to the characters. They should have inferior qualities than the hero. Nayika or the heroine should come in relation with the hero. Then there is the Vidushak who gives comic relief to the play.

The Rasa or the sentiment is the base of all Sanskrit plays. It arises theThe natural bhavas are called satvika and there are 8 satvika in all. From the 8 bhavas, there are 8 rasas. The permanent sentiment that is present throughout the play is called the sthai bhava. In actuality, there are 9 rasas or bhavas but the shantha bhava cannot be enacted on stage.

The 8 bhavas are:

          

         1 . Shringar (erotic)

         2. Hasya (humour)

         3. Karuna (pity)

         4. Veer (courage)

         5. Adhbhudh (wonder)

         6. Bhayanak (fearful)

         7. bhibatsya (disgust)

         8. Raudra (anger)

Alambana: This is the base of rasa, reference to person or things, to whom or which a sentiment arises.

Uddipana: what excites or enhances

Anubhava: outward manifestation of the internal feelings

Sattvika: natural bhavas

Every drama opens with a prelude or a prolouge call known as ' Nandi'. It is given either by the 'Sutradhar' (the play writer) , 'Stupaka' (manager) or the one of the main characters. 

Down points of a Sanskrit drama are:



1. It is very patronising and favouring males in nature.


2. The use of Sanskrit for the men of high caste and Prakrit for women and other lower caste people is very caste and gender discriminating.


3. There is no presence of violence, tragedy or comedy.




Formalism

Formalism

Formalism mainly started with two movements.

First movement was started by Edmund Husserl. The movement insisted on not seeing art and literature as a window to see the work rather look at the artistic piece itself, just like we would do to a painting. Give art its own value and not label it as a representation or mere copy of our world. This concept was followed by Russian Formalists namely Roman Jakobson etc.

Second movement was started by Benedetto Croce. He said that science is not the only truth in this world. There lot of other truths that literature can cover through its literary devices and science cannot. But that does not mean that what science cannot prove is false. This movement was followed by The American New Critics namely Cleanth Brooks etc.

Any formalist would concentrate only on the text, analyzing literature into its components, it’s literary devices, language, narratives and other literary techniques like euphemism, metaphor, onometapia, paradox etc. the text would be first divided into story (the content) and plot (the sequence in which the story is being narrated). They also distinguished language into literary (used for writing literature) and non-literary (generally used for normal interactions) languages. Thus Roman Jakobson rightly put it literature as organized violence on ordinary speech.

Literary evolution is a concept that is agreed by both formalists and non-formalist but both of them look at it differently. Non-formalists say literary evolution is obvious as the world is evolving and literature being a representation of it is also changing. But formalists argue that literary evolution is autonomous. It is evolving on its own and not as a reflection to the evolving world.

There is a strong historical and methodological link between structuralism and formalism. Roman Jackobson one of the major Roman formalists in 1920’s migrated to France and became a part of French structuralism in 1930 and 1940’s.

There are certain differences between Roman formalists and New American criticism. Roman formalists concentrated on modes of operation of the entire genre like novels and were more scientific in their methods where as American new critics used methods like close reading to explain the universal truths in the text and generally focused on individual work like poetries and use rather unscientific methods.

Intentional fallacy: While analyzing the text formalists don’t care about the author’s intention behind writing the statement. They only concentrate on the literal meaning of the sentences.

Affective fallacy: here the affect on the reader after reading the text is not taking into consideration as it doesn’t help in the analysis of text anyway, and the objective structure of the text is only important.

Thus American New Critics describes literary devices signifying universal meaning which was a direct attack on modern positivist science. Russian Formalists found a value-free mode of critical description for finding the literariness in literature.

Formalism springs from phenomenology by Edmund Husserl which sets out to analyse human consciousness as experienced in the lived world irrespective our prior suppositions through common sense or philosophy.