Archive for the ‘Social Development’ Category
Understanding symbols
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 16 July 2009
Posted in Information | Tagged: history, symbols | Leave a Comment »
The social conditioning of personal perception
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 14 July 2009
Yesterday in the subway I noticed something that set my thoughts racing: a young man with shoddy clothes, unkempt hair and bare feet. Bare feet, in the subway! My subconscious mind immediately sent out the usual signal: social outcast, avoid. However, a few seconds later my conscious memory kicked in, and completely changed the entire thought process: it said ‘why outcast?’. I suddenly remembered it was perfectly normal to see bare feet in India, at home and on the street. Bare feet could hardly make a social outcast there. And that realization led to the question of why my perception changed so dramatically, of what this dichotomy actually meant.
The non-universality of social norms
Social norms are a consequence of society, of the agglomeration of people under a common banner. Society is an entity that is made for and by the people that constitute it. It exists at the discretion, and for the benefit, of its people.
The Swastika on a Harappan seal: perceived as a symbol of human evolution
The people that constitute a society determine what it stands for, and where its bounds of propriety lie. As such, these bounds of propriety are liable to be different from people to people. Social norms, then, are liable to vary over time and space: what is deemed appropriate by the people of Australia today may be deemed inappropriate by the people of Angola tomorrow. Opinions and perception, then, that are based on social norms are bound to be non-universal in nature. Take the case of bare feet for instance: bare feet in Boston could get you branded as a social misfit, and yet in India the same bare feet would make a perfect social fit. Your perception of bare feet would itself be perceived dramatically differently on Indian soil in accordance with the norms prevailing there. Who, then, is a social misfit and where? The guy in Boston for walking around with bare feet, or you in India for holding an opinion that contradicts local mores?
The influence of norms on perception
Although our perceptions are supposed to arise from within us, it often happens that those perceptions are simply the manifestations of social influence. Take for instance the popular perception of the swastika. The swastika is perceived
The Swastika as the Nazi emblem: perceived as a symbol of racial segregation
in India as a symbol of evolution and progress, while in Europe, due to its Nazi connotations, it perceived as a symbol of racial segregation. Does this mean that one particular perception of the swastika is right while the other is wrong? The swastika symbol, after all, is simply just that: a symbol. It can be taken to mean whatever you want it to mean. Its perception should only be a result of individual thought, and yet it is obvious that its perception actually is a result of social thought. Indeed, would I be necessarily wrong in thinking of the swastika as something completely different: say as a symbol of the sea? Would that necessarily make me a weirdo?
The socially conditioned pathway of thought
I am fairly confident that, given a similar context, almost all my friends and acquaintances would have arrived at the same conclusion about the anonymous young man on the subway. I believe this because I believe that my thought process would not have been very different from most others’. And this itself is hardly surprising because, after all, my acquaintances all belong to the same society, and are exposed to the same social norms. As such, it is only natural that all of us have a certain common fundamental process of thought: of processing an observation into an interpretation into a conclusion. A thought pathway, so to speak.
Bare feet + unkempt hair + shoddy clothes = Social outcast -> Avoid
Designer shoes + immaculate hairdo + form-fitting clothes = High society -> Associate
Although we may find it difficult and inconvenient to accept, our thought processes are significantly influenced by the society that surrounds us. The social norms that envelope us determine not only our words and deeds, but also our perception of the words and deeds of others. For every conversation with every acquaintance, our subconscious mind automatically tends to fit our perceptions of others into pre-allocated stereotypes of humanity: good/bad, conservative/liberal, moral/immoral, etc. Instead of interpreting a phenomenon or utterance based on our own knowledge of intent and context, our subconscious mind tends to adopt the interpretation laid down in established social norms. In other words, our thoughts and perceptions are often the instinctive results of successful social conditioning.
The consequence of social conditioning
Money - it's what we've been inculcated to measure the worth of a man by. But how correct is this?
Social conditioning, says Wikipedia, is the process of inheriting tradition and cultural transmutation passed down through previous generations. It is, in essence, the process by which a society induces its inhabitants to adhere to a certain common code of thought. Since society is a creature of evolution, it is, by very definition, an entity that is continuously evolving. Norms and mores that are felt “appropriate” by a particular generation of a society are a direct result of the circumstances and contexts that that generation of people experienced. With time, these circumstances and contexts are guaranteed to change. Change in the norms and mores of society, are therefore, inevitable. Social conditioning, however, interferes in this process by dictating the scope and even applicability of change based on certain pre-determined standards. By fixing as constant the norms and mores, social conditioning essentially obstructs the process of evolution of society, thereby endangering its very survival.
Towards unfettered thinking
Social norms are essentially the crystallization of consensus-based societal opinion. They derive from the perceptions and thought processes of individuals sharing certain common fundamentals. Thus, the morals, norms and mores that the people of a society are expected to live by are a product of the collective conscience of the said people themselves. In other words, it is the people that determine what the norm is and isn’t. As a corollary to this, it can be inferred that each individual opinion and perception has a certain specific part to play in the shaping of social norms. Indeed, it can even be said that among the duties of an individual towards society is the duty to contribute to social opinion by developing, nurturing and deploying a unique individual opinion. And this can only arise as a result of an independent and unfettered application of personal perception and thought process.
Posted in Philosophy | Tagged: perception, social conditioning | Leave a Comment »
Truisms we always knew but never gave much thought to
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 29 June 2009
The title says it all.
- It will all come to pass. The biggest worries, the deepest fears and the overwhelming sense of hopelessness are all but transient. Life has a natural way of unfolding itself, of solving its own problems. No matter what happens, the Sun will rise and the Sun will set, and tomorrow will always be a brand new day.
- You feel life has been unfair to you? Look around you. Those people you read about living to die of starvation and disease are not characters in a poorly-acted play. They are real people.
- The life of news is negligibly short. The newest war and latest earthquake are completely inconsequential – they will not even register as minor blips on the timeline. Mankind has existed for millennia before us and will exist for millennia after.
- Man is an animal. He may be a civilized animal, but he is still an animal nonetheless. His senses of fundamental perception are sharper than his sense of thought. Instinct triumphs reason. Follow your intuition – it is more correct than you think.
- The limits of human knowledge are restrictively narrow. The capabilities of human perception are inherently limited – there are phenomena we can not even begin to perceive. Can knowledge explain why you were born where you were born?
- Man will tend to agglomerate under common identities. Alienation between identities is inevitable. Race and ethnicity are the most fundamental denominators of civilizational identity.
- Culture, religion and language are the foundational cornerstones of civilization. Without them no civilization can exist. To supplant them is to eliminate the civilization they sustain. They define who you are – they are part of your identity. Embrace them, nurture them, enrich them.
- War is inevitable, war is a necessity. It is a natural consequence of civilization. It defines the evolution of civilization. It enriches mankind in its own ways. It has always existed and it always will. It will not now disappear simply because we find it inconvenient.
- We were all born to serve the same purpose: to sustain, nurture and enrich civilization, to make the world a better place for our progeny so that they may do the same for theirs. We only differ in how we perceive this purpose, and how we set about reaching it.
- Death is inevitable. And with death dies fame, fortune, power and comfort. The only thing that lives on after you die is your consequence: what you did or did not do for society when alive. It is your consequence that will determine if you finish as just another anonymous also-lived, or as an Adolf Hitler or as a Winston Churchill.
- History will repeat itself. Every entity, every phenomenon has a track record that reveals its natural state; that entity or phenomenon will tend to follow its natural state. At an individual level, and at a collective level, what has happened in the past is likely to happen in the future. From the past, you can predict the future.
- What goes around will come around. The consequence you cause unto others will be caused unto you, sooner or later. This is Karma.
- The ultimate judge of a person is the principles he stands for. It is these principles that determine his conduct, his character and his inner thought process. There are only three fundamental human principles: liberty, equality and justice.
- There is no one in the world who cares as much about you as your mother. She will always be there for you, no matter what the cause, no matter what the consequence. To her, you are supreme. You are linked to her not by bonds of purpose, but by bonds of instinct. She is the reason you exist. The debt of gratitude you owe her can never be repaid.
- Truth is like an onion. For every layer you peel, there is another underneath. It is impossible for the human mind to attain absolute truth. What we perceive of as the truth is just that – a perception. There is no one who has seen absolute truth. The most authoritative pronouncement of the most knowledgeable person is still only his perception of the truth. It needs to be subject to individual scrutiny and independent judgement. And that includes this.
Posted in Information | Tagged: civilization, culture, life, thoughts | 3 Comments »
The incorrectness of political correctness
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 24 June 2009
There are no blacks in America. Neither are there any Indians or Chinese. According to the government of the US, there are only African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Indian-Americans. But who are these people? Are they a race? Or an ethnicity? How are these brand names determined?
Jihad is a call to introspection, so say the “experts” of theology. Despite its use throughout history as a call to something else – violence. The Islamic veil is a symbol of female emancipation. Despite its explicit and expressive intention of serving as a wall from the outside world, a cage to place the participant in. Is this reasoning reasonable? Or is it hypocrisy at its extreme?
Who is right, who is wrong? What is correct, what is not?
What is political correctness?
Any concept can be approached from multiple perspectives. And each perspective can be expected to lead to a unique opinion, not all synergistic. It is this fundamental nature of human evolution that has led, in perhaps Orwellian fashion, to the entire concept of political correctness. Political correctness arises from an attempt to homogenize, to regularize these varied opinions into one that is considered “appropriate”. The problem with this approach is that the definition of what exactly is “appropriate” is highly subjective, and that in the process of making it “appropriate” the opinion is shorn of its uniqueness and natural origins and hence devalued. Disregarding the concept of personal liberty, political correctness requires conformity and compliance to an authorized narrative. In essence, political correctness is glorified social engineering.
How relevant is political correctness?
I have always wondered, pondered over this simple question: who, or rather what, exactly are African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Indian-Americans, Irish-Americans etc? Obviously they are not races – there is the African race, the Caucasian race, the Indian, and the Oriental, but no African-American, Asian-American or Indian-American race. And they most certainly are not ethnicities. So what exactly are they? Obviously, the answer is that they are consequences of political correctness. They are names that are expected to represent these people as being distinct from those who are very-similar in all other aspects of studied anthropology, names that have been conjured up artifically, names that carry no natural meaning from the process of evolution. If these are names that are expected to be treated as anthropological nomenclature, what is the relevance of using them as such when it is clear that they are not anthropological nomenclature? Indeed, why would I want to be part of such futile absurdity?
Raising the bogey of political correctness
It is often held that the fundamental utility of political correctness is the notion of not offending someone or something. But this very notion predicates the foundation of political correctness on a concept that is highly subjective, for what is “offensive” to one may be perfectly acceptable to another. Given this, the standards used to determine the “correctness” of an opinion need to be so restrictive as to filter out anything that might cause offense to those who are quickest to feel offended. In other words, the criteria used to deem the propriety of an opinion are based not on the intention of the opinion-giver, but on the consequence it has on the opinion-receiver. All that is necessary to raise the bogey of political correctness, then, is the perception of having offended someone or something.
To cause offense, or to take offense?
I must not say that I believe Islam is an ideology of repression and regression. For, to do so would offend those who believe in the concept of Islam. For, to do so would immediately label my comments as being “inappropriate”. But how “inappropriate” are they really?
The opinion I have stated is the consequence of a personal thought process. A thought process that I believe is well-founded, reasonable and perfectly justified. The comment I have stated is an expression of that opinion. And being a free citizen of the world, I have a right to hold an opinion, and the liberty to express that opinion. The mere expression of my opinions could not possibly cause offense to someone, for, by very definition, my opinions are my own. If someone finds my opinions unacceptable, they are free to debate it, counter-opine it or simply ignore it. However, if someone were indeed to feel offended by my opinions, it is obvious that that is so not because I caused offense but because they chose to take offense.
Clash of liberties
It is true that just as I have the personal liberty to express an opinion, other people have an equal liberty to perceive that opinion as they see fit. However, when the expression of competing liberties are mutually antagonistic, the question arises of whose liberties take precedence.
The answer to this is fairly intuitive and dervies from the definition of liberty: that personal liberty is the unfettered expression of personal thought subject to the condition that this expression does not impinge upon the equal liberties of others. In this case, the statement of a particular opinion is simply an expression of a personal thought – it need have no impact on the liberties of others. On the other hand, when a person chooses to take offense over the expression of a particular opinion, the course of action he recommends, the redressal he seeks, is essentially an impingement on the liberties of the person who expressed those opinions. Hence, the liberties of the person taking offense over an opinion can not supercede the liberties of the person expressing that opinion.
Consider this: I could choose to take offense over the fact that I am expected to work to earn my pay, and you could choose to take offense over the fact that you are expected to patiently read this nonsense. Indeed, anyone could choose to take offense over anything. Where would it all end? Wouldn’t an unchecked spiral of taking offense lead to a total elimination of the concept of liberty?
The right perception of offense
If the mere expression of an opinion can not be considered to have caused offense, what can?
The answer to this lies in evaluating whether the perception of an offense is reasonable or not. For instance, had I taken a copy of the Quran and burnt it, it would have amounted to my causing offense to those who follow the tenets of Islam. This is because the action performed here would have been performed with the expression intention of showing disrespect to a particular tradition. To perceive an offense in this case would have been perfectly reasonable. However, I did not burn a copy of the Quran, for I had no such intention in the first place. All I did was to state my opinion, and if that opinion were to have offended someone, that perception of offense is an inherently unreasonable perception.
The key to perceiving an offense, then, is to judge its validity, its reasonableness.
Learnings
Given the fact the individual thought processes are liable to be contrastingly different, it is inevitable that an opinion that is acceptable to someone could be unacceptable to someone else. The existence of different individuals is guarantee of the existence of differing opinions. To attempt to homogenize them is essentially an exercise in futility. In fact, if political correctness is a concept born out of the notion of avoiding offense and offense is a perception that needs to be grounded in reasonableness, what is the need for political correctness anyway? Indeed, if opinions and actions were to be perceived on grounds of reasonableness, they could immediately and automatically be catogorized as appropriate and inappropriate, not in the subjective sense, as defined artificially by politically acceptable standards, but in the objective sense, as defined naturally by evolutionary morals and principles.
Posted in Principles | Tagged: culture, politics | 2 Comments »
Illusions of Global Peace
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 23 June 2009
The world seems to have learnt to live with certain constants: the customary expressions of collective insecurity under the garb of wariness of American “hegemony”, the equally customary “committments” to the exploration of “alternate” world orders by the wary (and varying) “friends” of the said hegemon, the cyclic waves of good-will and animosity between mutually distrustful neighbours, and the periodic (and one could almost say methodical) condemnations of “zionist conspiracies” to destabilize what one is expected to imagine to be an ocean of peace in the middle of an arc of inarable and inhospitable land known as the middle east. That in a world of shifting realities there are atleast such small mercies that can reliably be looked forward to is indeed remarkable; however, that the said small mercies show up to be protracting disputes in human relations is rather disheartening. Add to this the increasingly internecine doses of identity-based violence, inurement to which has become an unsurprising facet of daily life, and one is tempted to ask of oneself the question, “Is this the end of the road for the global peace honeymoon?”. But, then, perhaps the more pertinent question to ask is, “Does it even exist?”
There are those who would have us believe that the last century, indeed the last decade, has been a period of exponential growth in the scale of such conflict, acceptance of the same as an economically saleable commodity and indifference to the nature of human suffering such conflict must inevitably involve. There are those who attribute such “metamorphism” of the human psyche to increasing materialistic thought, declining religious faith and “moral decadence”. And then there are those who warn that an unchecked spiral of human conflict will eventually lead to comprehensive mutual extermination. Doomsday indeed.
The subtle yet compulsive penetration of socialist intellectualism is now so complete that it is has become a fashion statement to declare oneself as being aligned with the doves of “peace” rather than the perceived demons of practicality. To express support for arguably righteous instances of physical action is to invite the wrath of being labelled a “war-mongerer”, not to mention the all-too-liberal use of superlatives such as “extremist” and “fundamentalist”. Strident voices of “public opinion” seem increasingly capable of, and willing to, holding initiative subservient to inaction, and righteousness to otiosity. “Make peace”, we hear, is the mantra for the “educated”. And sometimes governments listen. And flounder.
They flounder in the face of agressive nations, of renegade “leaders”, and of militant ideologies. They flounder because their doctrine of compulsive “peace” has left them uneducated in the principles of realism, because their craving for “peace” has transported them to illusory paradise. They flounder because they fail to grasp the machinations of human psychology. And, worst of all, they flounder because they fail to realize ignorance is not always bliss.
New age goebbelsian propaganda would have us believe that conflict is only a manifestation of human greed, that its resolution must lie in a dialogue of “mutual respect”, and that munificence is incumbent on the high and mighty. It would seem to matter no whit to the propagandists that certain essentials of human existence imply the inevitability of conflict, that “mutual respect” can not be imposed and can only be self-earned, and that graceful munificence to the undeserving can only be interpreted as foolish extravagance.
Rightenousness is not a passcode to be uttered in the hushed undertones of ones private life, it is a concept to be lived by and demonstrated. And collective rightenousness does exist, and it is this that makes it incumbent upon soceity to acknowledge its boundaries and ensure defensive enforcement of the same. To fail to understand this is ineptitude, to fail to act on it is negligence.
That the natural development of race, culture and language must lead to identity-based alienation is inevitable, as is the desire to defend the same from unsavory external influences. That war and peace are both natural states of man is fact, for without peace war would be unsustainable, and without war peace would be unattainable.
Published earlier on Blogger, July 2007.
Posted in Principles | Tagged: world affairs | Leave a Comment »
Naxal shadow in forest India
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 22 June 2009
I can feel the fear. I can feel it in Ramiah’s hands, the twitching of his fingers, as he makes my tea, as if wishing he’d be left alone, his life to live. I can see it in his eyes, at one moment his gaze forlorn, uninterested, as if I weren’t there, the next moment pleading for me to stop asking questions. I can hear it in his voice, one moment clear and precise, the next melancholy, trailing, as if lost in a dreamland. I can see it in the eyes of the children – three of them – speaking in hushed tones, sizing me up – the outsider – full of distrust and suspicion. I can see it in the policemen, as they march on their beat, their heads dropping, their shoulders drooping – from the weight of their backpacks or the hopelessness of the exercise I can’t say. I can feel it in the heat, as the dry summer sun burns up my skin, and in the wind, as the dust kicks up all around and settles on my hair. I can feel the fear inside me.
I touch my shirt to my forehead, wiping off the trickling droplets of sweat before they fall onto my notepad and ruin my writing. Not that I have much to write. After all, there’s not much to write about. I look around, like a surveyor mapping out the terrain. Only, there’s nothing to map. Dry, barren, desolate. No farms, no rivers, no temples. No school, no clinic, no sign of Government. Not even a panchayat for the village. But then, this is not a village, this is just a settlement – a settlement in the Nallamalai Forest of Prakasam District in Andhra Pradesh. This is Kota. This is where I am.
I am at the only teashop in Kota. Correction, this is not a teashop – just the converted frontage of Ramiah’s house. And it is not even a house – just a hut with a thatched roof and a brick floor, a sign of relative affluence. Not surprising since Ramiah’s is probably the most profitable enterprise in town. He makes tea. Just as he has made for me. ‘Where do you get the tea from?’, I ask him. There’s something about this tea – it’s fresh, refreshing – or maybe it’s just that I’m tired.
‘From Cumbum’, he says. Cumbum is the nearest town of any decent size, more importantly it is the nearest town with a railway connection. ‘I go every week, I have to. I need to get other supplies as well. I can’t carry them all at once’. Makes sense – Kota is a good 60 km from Cumbum, and there’s no bus to this place either. From Cumbum you take the bus going to Pendur, get off at a village at Aikal, and walk the last 10km to Kota. It’s all uphill, so the walk gets tiring. I know, because that’s the way I came.
I came this morning, a couple of hours ago. Why? I don’t know. Maybe because I wanted to see what life was like in the Red Corridor. Maybe because I wanted to see if the flushing-out operations last year really did flush out the Naxals. Maybe because I seek adventure, a thrill to carry me through life. Or maybe because I just wanted to find something to write about – I need to pay my bills too, you see. I don’t really know, I don’t plan so much, I tend to do things on whims.
‘Do the police come every day?’, I ask, nodding towards the two policemen.
‘Every day, since the operations’. That would be about eight months ago, when the Greyhounds pushed the PWG out of the Nallamalai Forest. ‘They come right after noon, have lunch here, take a nap and then leave before the Sun goes down’.
That last bit, I can see, is not a convenience. It is a necessity. ‘What happens at night?’ It’s obvious, but I want to hear it from him.
That question seems to have flipped a switch in him. His eyes are no longer uninterested. His forehead wrinkles, his eyes narrow, filling up with an emotion I can’t exactly place – is it fear, or anger, or helplessness? ‘At night, they come’.
I nod. I’m not surprised, I would have been surprised if they didn’t. They – the People’s War Group – have run rampant here for as long as I can remember. As they have in many other parts of India. The Government says they are now present in 40% of the nation’s territory. They have their own courts, collect their own taxes, and enforce their own laws. A parallel government, in essence.
I need water. Ramiah gives me some. It’s a small clay cup, not very different from the ones you find on the trains these days. Laloo Prasad would have been proud. But it’s this heat – it’s a dry extreme heat that saps your energy. These mountains don’t help – they’re not tall enough. But what about the forest? I don’t see how it could be so hot in the middle of a forest, but to be honest this is outside the protected forest zone. I just wish there were a fan here.
But there are no fans in Kota. There is no electricity in Kota. No postal service, no telephone. As I said, no sign of governance. There is just one road – the others are all just mudpaths – but even that is disused. I guess the last time it was used was when the Greyhounds trundled in, in their APC’s last year. I wonder why the people haven’t used it as flooring for their homes – maybe they still have some niceties left in them.
Which makes me wonder why the streets are so empty. ‘Where is everyone?’, I ask.
‘Oh, they must be working in the fields’.
He’s lying. No one is working in the fields. No one is working in the fields because there are no fields to work in. There is no soil – it’s all irregular quartzite rock – and there is no water – the fissured rock lets no water percolate into the ground and the entire rain discharge runs off into the Gundlakamma river. There is no agriculture here – only porch gardens to grow the household’s vegetables, and to feed the chicken and goats. Certainly, there is no commerce here – you need to go to Cumbum to see any sign of that. No wonder then that this part of the Eastern Ghats is one of the most underpopulated regions of the country. There is no existence here, only subsistence.
But I don’t grudge him for that – he’s probably just embarrassed to admit that everyone is in their homes, not wanting to be seen with a stranger. That’s understandable – after all, no one wants to labeled a government informer and get shot. There can’t be too many people in Kota, I suppose they get by making the petty trinkets made from Terminalia trees, and selling them to the tourists at Cumbum Lake, much like others from the area. Or perhaps they find odd jobs in Cumbum that pay by the hour. Besides, there are hardly any working-age males in the area. They’ve all been taken, either by the naxals or by the police. Either that or they went willingly. What is one to do here anyway? This is one part of India everyone seems to have forgot. Everyone except the comrades.
As for Kota, the population here is probably around 500.” Probably”, because there are no government records. The last time they tried that, in 1991, the Census-taker was shot, his files burnt, and a photograph of his mutilated body sent to his family in Nandyal. No one came to take the Census in 2001.
‘What about the children, do they go to school?’
‘No’.
Of course not. You wouldn’t want your children to get shot for going to school, now would you?
I see the two policemen walk towards us. Perhaps it is time for lunch. We exchange pleasantries and they settle down to eat. They are from the Division HQ in Tirusavadi, about halfway between Cumbum and Aikal. The two constables, in this case Dhanakoti and Ahobalarao, are tasked with patrolling Kota and Pembur – about 3 km North of here. They’re just back from their beat in Pembur. Apparently, Division HQ sends out foot patrols to each settlement in this part of the Nallamalai. Somehow, their presence gives me comfort, although logic says that their bolt-action Lee-Enfields could be no match to the sophisticated automatics of the Maoists. It’s just psychological I suppose – a reminder of Government, a reminder that this is still India.
I get up to leave.
‘You going so soon?’, asks Dhanakoti. ‘Why don’t you stay for some time. You can come back with us in the evening’.
No thanks. I don’t intend to spend my day napping. I have things to do. ‘No, I want to go see Pembur’.
‘There’s nothing in Pembur’, this from Ramiah. ‘You’re just wasting your time.’
There’s nothing here either. The whole place is dead. ‘I would still like to go’.
Which is not to say I am going to go. News here travels fast, if you know what I mean. Perhaps I can expect a welcoming party in Pembur. Or perhaps I don’t intend to go to Pembur and I just want a safe walk back to civilization. I don’t really know, I tend to do things on whims.
‘Well, suit yourself. But don’t stay too late. You know why’.
I smile. I know why.
Posted in Information | Tagged: fiction, india | 1 Comment »
Religion: Purpose, Consequence and (Re) Definition
Posted by Ram Raghavan on 18 June 2009
Of all things that evoke a strong emotional reaction in people, there is perhaps none that evokes a reaction stronger than religion – a concept that, along with culture and language, has defined civilization since time immemorial. It is a concept that has conceived of, nurtured, and dissolved empires. A concept that has inspired people to great feats of inspiration as also despicable acts of destruction. A concept that induces reactions of blind faith as also abject disdain. A concept that receives no support from our rational thoughts but invokes strong reactions from our irrational. There are those who swear by the healing, benign effects of religion, of the purpose it brings to their lives, the clarity it brings to their thoughts. We hear of stories of survival, of miracles based purely on a concept of faith. And yet we know through history that the same religion has been the cause for the shedding of multitudes of human blood. What gives rise to this paradox? How can we understand the concept of religion better?
What is the purpose of religion?
Religion, as defined by Wikipedia, is an organized approach to spirituality. By attributing the experiences of a persons life to the influence of a higher power, or God, it gives the person a sense of meaning to life. Since the existence of this higher power can not be verified, by its very definition, religion is a concept that belongs to the realm of belief – you either believe in it or you do not. But then, for normal human life, it is true that most experiences can be attributed to outside the realm of belifef – to the realm of knowledge. For instance, if you’re walking on a street and a construction crane drops a block of concrete on you, you may tend to refer the event to the actions of God. However, the logical explanation for this event is that you walked into a construction zone, or the crane operator made a mistake or some such. If the experiences of life can indeed be explained inside the realm of knowledge, what, then, is the purpose of religion?
Religion is a tool that finds use when knowledge can not convincingly explain a particular event, circumstance or phenomenon. It is a bucket into which anything that can not be logically explained by humans is thrown. For instance, have you ever wondered why exactly you were born as the person you were? If you are white, why were you not born black? If you were born in Germany, why were you not born in Guinea? If you were born healthy, why were you not born unhealthy? Such questions, obviously, can not be answered convincingly within the realm of knowledge – mankind simply does not know enough to offer a convincing explanation for such phenomena. In such cases, it is logical for people to seek an alternative explanation, an explanation that is more convincing – that these phenomena are the result of actions of a higher power. Given the fact that this higher power belongs exclusively to the realm of belief, the explanations attributed to this power can be tagged as explanations of convenience. As true as this may be, it is also true that there exist no better alternative explanations. The purpose of religion, as a concept, then, is to ascribe those observations to the realm of belief which can not be attributed to the realm of knowledge.
What are the consequences of religion?
By claiming the unverifiable existence of a higher power – an entity whose form and scope are subjective – religion effectively influences man to accept and acknowledge the limits of his knowledge. By reminding him that his are not the only decisions that matter, religion offers a measure of sobriety, of humility to human existence. By reminding him that his actions are continually watched by a higher power, it influences him to think and act with propriety. Religion, by amplifying the scale of his insignificance in comparison to the higher power, intends to make the believer think beyond himself and towards the greater good.
Religion gives a person a sense inner peace – it allows him to let go of the material world surrounding and to focus on a spiritual world within. By concentrating his thoughts on a higher, imaginary plane it allows him to unshackle from the inconsequentialities of daily life. It gives him a sense of purpose – by reminding him that his time here is very short, and that there will remain all eternity to look back and evaluate, it drives him accomplish the maximum good in the minimum time. It gives a sense of identity – sharing a common belief system induces a minimum common thought process and creates a sense of bonding with his fellow people.
In this sense, sharing as they do a common ends, religion and spirituality are virtually identical. Where they differ is in the identification of a belief system as a religion.
What constitutes a religion?
All religions, by definition, are belief systems. All belief systems, however, are not necessarily religions. It is the failure to make this fundamental distinction that biases opinion concerning religion as a whole. A belief system (simply defined as a particular school of organized beliefs) can be a religion, a philosophy, or an ideology. A philosophy is the approach addressing fundamental matters of human existence using systematic and reason-based arguments i.e. it explains the unknown based on what is known. An ideology is a set of aims and ideas created by an individual or group of individuals that lays out a comprehensive vision for society by addressing every aspect of everyday life i.e. it is an all-encompassing set of rules that govern social conduct and thought.
Religion and ideology
To delve deeper, a religion is a system of thought shared by a community, a people, that is modified and refined by a large number of minds over an extended period of time – generations, centuries, millennia. It evolves from the collective consciousness of its people and is not limited by perspective to a particular geography or circumstance. It is not static and remains continually evolving throughout its existence. Since it arises from popular acceptance among its people, it requires no artificial protection or propagation – the existence of its people is guarantee of the existence of the concept. Since it is a system created by its consumers, it is inherently adaptable and flexible to their needs. It encourages creative thinking, critical reasoning and independent judgement, thereby enriching itself in the process.
On the other hand, an ideology is the distillation of the thought processes of an individual (or a group of individuals). It is based on the circumstances he (they) lived in, the experiences he went through and the judgements he drew from them. Consequently, it is inherently limited to the perspective of that individual and to the time that he lived in. The pronouncements it makes are, therefore, liable to be found inadequate, inapplicable or unacceptable to people who are separated by perspective and circumstance, and is liable to be made obsolete by the passage of time. As a result, in order to survive, the ideology must build within itself clauses to propound and propagate its judgements and to eliminate any challenges that may be posed to it. Further, since it is not a product of natural evolution, it needs to set itself at a competitive advantage w.r.t. other systems of thought in existence – by propounding the notion that it is all-knowing and immutable. For these reasons, it shuns creative thinking, critical reasoning and independent judgement, and necesstitates rigidity, conformity and compliance.
To summarize then, an ideology
- is based on the judgements of an individual
- is dependent on the perspective of that individual and the circumstances he faced at that point of time
- is not universally applicable and is subject to obsolescence over time
- contains clauses to ensure its propagation and survival
- requires conformity and compliance, and is intolerant to critical thinking and independent judgement
As a corollary, any belief system that obeys the above criteria is automatically an ideology. From this realization, it becomes clear that many belief systems (such as Buddhism, Islam etc.) currently being classified as religions are, in fact, ideologies.
The significance of this realization
This realization is significant inasmuch that it allows us to look at entire the concept of religion in a new light. By associating the inappropriate pronouncements and unacceptably bloody histories of certain belief systems to the realm of ideology (where they rightly belong), it allows us to realize that religion, in its true form, is a benign and beneficial concept. It helps us understand that religion is a process of thought that was intended to enrich human life, not to diminish it in any way. This realization helps us understand that religion is a process that is continuously evolving, not one that is frozen in time. That religion is complementary, not contradictory, to knowledge – it only attempts to fill those gaps that knowledge can not. That religion fosters humanity, humility, flexibility and creativity. That religion is an enabling guidebook, not a disabling rulebook.
Posted in Philosophy | Tagged: ideology, religion | Leave a Comment »
