Whose Culture is it? Contesting the Modern ism' by Adiga, for example—in which Kannada modernist criticism emerged, marks the eventual formation of its concerns. For F.R. Leavis, Eliot's influential contemporary, 'cultural health and prosperity' depended on an 'organic' community with shared interests. Political and social matters should be discussed, he contended, only by 'minds of real literary education', by people capable of exercising a sense 150 of discrimination and judgement. Leavis emphasized 'genuine personal response' as the only valid response to literature, and gave to literature, and by extension to literary criticism, the responsibility of 'controlling the whole range of personal and social experience' (see Raymond Williams, Culture and Society, 255). The anti-communism of the Kannada modernists found echoes in Leavis, who opposed the founding of the Open University, and saw the 'Marxizing decade' (the 1930s) and the eventual rise of the welfare state as leading to the destruction of culture and the spread of anarchy—of taste, feeling, intellect. In arguing for the removal of art from contemporary experience, Leavis (like his predecessors in the critical tradition) placed it firmly in the realm of the aesthetic, which Pierre Bourdieu has called 'the area par excellence of the denial of the social'. Thus we have the 'miracle of the unequal class distribution of the capacity of inspired encounters with works of art and high culture in general'. The 'aesthetic disposition' (which in Leavis becomes literary sensibility) that Bourdieu names as the 'most rigorously'—although tacitly—demanded term of entry into the area of legitimate culture' determines what is to be viewed as a work of art. A literary education, the preserve of a minority culture, ensures for Leavis tbat social disintegration will be healed, and the making whole of the individual mind will substitute for any large-scale social transformation. As I have been arguing, the full-fledged emergence of the 'individual' (best exemplified in the Kannada context by the modernist/existentialist writers), and the necessity of evaluation is one way of describing the 'field' of modernity. 16. For accounts of the turbulence of the period see Tharu and Lalitha (1993), Sen (1991) and Omvedt (1980). 17. 'Sahitya Parisaradalli Shreshtatheye Muhkya', in Srinivas 1990 C15, emphases and translation mine). 18. See the Afterword in Kuvempu, 1947 (35^44). REFERENCES Bourdieu, Pierre, "The Aristocracy of Culture', in Richard Collins et al. (eds.). Media, Culture, Society, Sage, London. Chandrasekhar, S., 1983, Samajika Hinneleyalli Mysooru Rajakeeya—Kelavu Olanotagalu 1881-1940, Ankana, Bangalore. Foucault, Michel, 1977, 'Nietzsche, Genealogy, History', in Donald F. Bouchard (ed.). Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, Comell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Gundappa, [1953; revised in 1956, 1969] fourth edition 1985, Samskriti, Kavyalaya, Mysore. Hettne, Bjom, 1978, The Political Economy of Indirect Rule: Mysore 1881-1947, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Monograph Series, Curzon Pree, London and Malmo. lyengar, Masti Venkatesa, 1924, Sahitya, Bangalore. Kuvempu, 1947, Shudra Tapasvi and Balidaana, Kavyalaya, Mysore. Manor, James, 1977, Political Change in an Indian State, Mysore 1917-1955, Australian National University Monographs in South Asia, No. 2, Manohar, New Delhi. Nagaraj, 1983, Amrutha matthu Garuda, Pustaka Chandana, Bangalore. Niranjana, Anupama, Madhavi, D.V.K. Murthy, Mysore. Niranjana, Tejaswini, 'Translation, Colonialism and the Rise of English', Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. XXV, No. 15, 773-79. Qmvedt, Gail, 1980, We Will Smash This Prison, Orient Longman, New Delhi. Padikkal, Shivarama, 1993, 'Inventing Modernity: The Emergence of the Novel', in Tejaswini Niranjana, Journal of Arts & Ideas