Sara Lidman’s second novel Hjortronlandet (1955) unfolds in the north of Sweden in the early 20th century. It describes the progress of modernity and the conflicting interests of an old local culture and a new more “civilised” one. The two cultures are constituted by different value systems and in the novel they are represented by two neighbour communities. In this essay I examine this cultural encounter out from a postcolonial perspective by looking at the definitions of We and Them and how the author in various ways transcends the boundaries between the two positions. In order to do that I have used Michail Bachtin’s theories on the chronotope, a literary unity comprising the aspects of both time and space which together includes an ethical-moral dimension. In this context, theories on local and universal values formulated by Dipesh Chakrabarty and Elleke Boehmer have proved useful. With the help of their definition of “time” as a non-linear and complex unity of the past and the present, I have tried to make visible new layers of meaning in Lidman’s novel. Moreover, I have examined the author’s ambivalent position, located in between centre and periphery. This position originates from the author’s personal experiences of leaving her home region for a modern urban life. This essay shows how Sara Lidman by different means illustrates the problems with the conventional definitions of We and Them, and how she out from her hybrid position is able to depict the representations of these positions as both complex and unstable.

<p>The present dissertation is a translation and analysis of the chapter on <i>anumāna</i> in Vallabha’s <i>Nyāyalīlāvatī,</i> based on certain theoretical considerations on cross-cultural translation and the understanding of tradition. Adopting a non-essentialized and non-historicist conceptualization of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya tradition, the work focuses on a reading of the <i>anumāna</i> chapter that is particularized and individualized. It further argues for a plurality of interpretative stances within the academic field of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya studies, on the grounds that the dominant stance has narrowed the scope of research. With reference to post-colonial theory, this dominant stance is understood in terms of a certain strategy called “mimetic translation”.</p><p>The study of the <i>anumāna</i> chapter consists of three main interpretational sections: translation, comments, and analysis. The translation and comments focus on understanding issues internal to the <i>Nyāyalīlāvatī. </i>The analysis focuses on a contextual interpretation insofar as the text is understood through reading other texts within the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya discourse. The analysis is further grounded in a concept of intertextuality in that it identifies themes, examples, and arguments appearing in other texts within the discourse. The analysis also identifies and discusses Cārvāka and Mīmāṁsaka arguments within the <i>anumāna</i> chapter.</p><p>Two important themes are discerned in the interpretation of the <i>anumāna</i> chapter: first, a differentiation between the apprehension of <i>vyāpti</i> and the warranting of this relation so as to make the apprehension suitable for a process of knowledge; second, that the sequential arrangement of the subject matter of the sections within the chapter, <i>vyāptigraha</i>, <i>upādhi</i>, <i>tarka</i>, and <i>parāmar</i>śa, reflects the process of coming to inferential knowledge.</p><p>The present work is a contribution to the understanding of the post-Udayana and pre-Gaṅgeśa Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya discourse on inferential knowledge and it is written in the hope of provoking more research on that particular period and discourse in the history of Indian philosophies.</p>

The present dissertation is a translation and analysis of the chapter on anumāna in Vallabha’s Nyāyalīlāvatī, based on certain theoretical considerations on cross-cultural translation and the understanding of tradition. Adopting a non-essentialized and non-historicist conceptualization of the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya tradition, the work focuses on a reading of the anumāna chapter that is particularized and individualized. It further argues for a plurality of interpretative stances within the academic field of Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya studies, on the grounds that the dominant stance has narrowed the scope of research. With reference to post-colonial theory, this dominant stance is understood in terms of a certain strategy called “mimetic translation”. The study of the anumāna chapter consists of three main interpretational sections: translation, comments, and analysis. The translation and comments focus on understanding issues internal to the Nyāyalīlāvatī. The analysis focuses on a contextual interpretation insofar as the text is understood through reading other texts within the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya discourse. The analysis is further grounded in a concept of intertextuality in that it identifies themes, examples, and arguments appearing in other texts within the discourse. The analysis also identifies and discusses Cārvāka and Mīmāṁsaka arguments within the anumāna chapter. Two important themes are discerned in the interpretation of the anumāna chapter: first, a differentiation between the apprehension of vyāpti and the warranting of this relation so as to make the apprehension suitable for a process of knowledge; second, that the sequential arrangement of the subject matter of the sections within the chapter, vyāptigraha, upādhi, tarka, and parāmarśa, reflects the process of coming to inferential knowledge. The present work is a contribution to the understanding of the post-Udayana and pre-Gaṅgeśa Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika/Navya-nyāya discourse on inferential knowledge and it is written in the hope of provoking more research on that particular period and discourse in the history of Indian philosophies.