I don’t know what "cultural relativism" means, but I became acquainted with this phrase yesterday when an anonymous visitor to my blog used it while commenting on my post ("Showing it like it is") of a few days ago. Thank you, anonymous visitor, for visiting and commenting on my blog. I would have enjoyed a dialogue, but alas, my blog only allows me to publish my words… and so, here are some more.
If you are a new visitor and find this puzzling, then let me explain: The anonymous comment on my blog was on account of a description "... you may witness an embarrassing scene: a white European or American woman sunbathing in her bikini, topless, and a gathering of Indian men hanging around, watching." And later, "… the shameless topless exhibitionism of the foreigner..."
Whether I fall into the trap of cultural relativism or not, I am embarrassed to see Indian men hanging around, watching topless women sunbathing. It’s an intrusion of privacy. So, the embarrassment is selfishly mine. I am ashamed that Indian men engage in such blatant voyeurism and, when I see this, I feel ashamed of being Indian.
Still, by Indian culture and law, topless sunbathing on Indian beaches is not permissible. If the woman had only looked around, she would have noticed this. If she had asked around, she would have found out what the culture and the law of the land is. Hence, the foreigner is an exhibitionist on Indian soil. And, through Indian eyes, yes, she is shamelessly exposing her body and femininity.
However, my blog was not about this at all. By using the "topless woman" description, I was merely trying to illustrate the naturalness of India which India offers its tourists… commenting on how Indian tourism has been able to retain this flavour of our country, undisturbed, in simple everyday scenes. I was merely presenting the "topless woman" to describe a commonplace happening, contrary to canned, artificial presentations that other countries offer their tourists.
And therein, I believe, lies India’s beauty. It’s not just in the landscape or the wildlife or the history or the culture or the people. It’s in the freedom India offers everyone. In a way, it’s cultural relativism of another kind. And, there is no yardstick to measure this. It can only be done through metaphors, and the "topless woman" was nothing more than that.
05 August 2005
03 August 2005
Pseudo-events
In his book, "The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America," published in 1961, Daniel Boorstin introduced the term "pseudo-event." A pseudo-event, he said, was a staged and scripted event that was a kind of counterfeit version of an actual happening. According to Boorstin, a pseudo-event is not intrinsically significant but is created in order to make news. For instance, a press conference called by a public relations firm on behalf of its client.
Sadly, most PR firms and university curricula shy away from discussing this topic. But, there are a few who do. Here are some excerpts from Professor Michael Turney’s class on the ‘Principles of Public Relations’ from the Northern Kentucky University:
Public relations practitioners routinely stage events and try to control the situations in which their clients and their publics interact so that their client is presented in the best possible light…
One of the most frequent and effective ways public relations practitioners control situations and the circumstances surrounding an organization's interactions with its publics is by conducting special events. Instead of waiting for happenstance to provide a situation in which the organization and its publics encounter one another and which may or may not turn out positively, they orchestrate a situation that occurs when the organization wants it to and proceeds in ways that favour the organization.
Public relations practitioners and their clients are enthusiastic and laudatory about special events. And, for the most part, the publics who participate in them are also fairly accepting, and sometimes highly appreciative, of them…
A pseudo-event is certainly not a popular term among public relations practitioners, especially those who frequently rely on special events to generate news coverage for their clients, but it is a perspective would-be practitioners need to be aware of and be prepared to address.
Sadly, most PR firms and university curricula shy away from discussing this topic. But, there are a few who do. Here are some excerpts from Professor Michael Turney’s class on the ‘Principles of Public Relations’ from the Northern Kentucky University:
Public relations practitioners routinely stage events and try to control the situations in which their clients and their publics interact so that their client is presented in the best possible light…
One of the most frequent and effective ways public relations practitioners control situations and the circumstances surrounding an organization's interactions with its publics is by conducting special events. Instead of waiting for happenstance to provide a situation in which the organization and its publics encounter one another and which may or may not turn out positively, they orchestrate a situation that occurs when the organization wants it to and proceeds in ways that favour the organization.
Public relations practitioners and their clients are enthusiastic and laudatory about special events. And, for the most part, the publics who participate in them are also fairly accepting, and sometimes highly appreciative, of them…
A pseudo-event is certainly not a popular term among public relations practitioners, especially those who frequently rely on special events to generate news coverage for their clients, but it is a perspective would-be practitioners need to be aware of and be prepared to address.
02 August 2005
Novelty news
Our demand for novelty and news seems to be at a height now. So much is our boredom that the newspapers have taken it upon themselves to entertain us… at no extra cost.
Take, for instance, the coverage of the recent rains and flooding in Mumbai. There was loss of life, property, damage and a lack of essential services… not to mention inconvenience to hundreds and thousands of people. In spite of that, some newspapers chose to present the lives of several public figures in the city on their pages – commenting on whether they received copies of their favourite newspapers in the morning, or whether they’ve had a bath in the last two days because of a water shortage in their homes.
Is this news relevant? Is this news of any consequence to the population at large – many of whom suffered during the rains? Can this be the state of our favourite newspapers – the ones we’ve grown up with? Wake up! There are some who feel this news is as important as their morning cup of tea. They enjoy the novelty of it – much more than they enjoy flooded city streets or stranded traffic or death. In fact, there is a portion of the population which gobbles up this news with alarming appetite. And, this population is on the increase.
I guess this kind of novelty news offers much more excitement than reality does. Sometimes, I even feel that the quantity of this novelty news is not enough for this population. So, the search for news is on… and the media are there, prowling around for novel ways to entertain us. Soon, to be well-informed by a newspaper or a television channel may be a difficult proposition for some of us.
Take, for instance, the coverage of the recent rains and flooding in Mumbai. There was loss of life, property, damage and a lack of essential services… not to mention inconvenience to hundreds and thousands of people. In spite of that, some newspapers chose to present the lives of several public figures in the city on their pages – commenting on whether they received copies of their favourite newspapers in the morning, or whether they’ve had a bath in the last two days because of a water shortage in their homes.
Is this news relevant? Is this news of any consequence to the population at large – many of whom suffered during the rains? Can this be the state of our favourite newspapers – the ones we’ve grown up with? Wake up! There are some who feel this news is as important as their morning cup of tea. They enjoy the novelty of it – much more than they enjoy flooded city streets or stranded traffic or death. In fact, there is a portion of the population which gobbles up this news with alarming appetite. And, this population is on the increase.
I guess this kind of novelty news offers much more excitement than reality does. Sometimes, I even feel that the quantity of this novelty news is not enough for this population. So, the search for news is on… and the media are there, prowling around for novel ways to entertain us. Soon, to be well-informed by a newspaper or a television channel may be a difficult proposition for some of us.
30 July 2005
Showing it like it is
If you travel to Goa and happen to stop by at one of the beaches there, you may witness an embarrassing scene: a white European or American woman sunbathing in her bikini, topless, and a gathering of Indian men hanging around, watching. There’s something real about this scene, no matter how revolting it is to our senses and our cultural values. And, that’s what I like about it.
I don’t mean the disgusting voyeurism of the Indian men; nor do I mean the shameless topless exhibitionism of the foreigner. I refer to the realism of it – something happening naturally before our eyes. Whether we like it or not, this is a slice of life from a beach in Goa, India. It is not staged; it is not scripted by the tourism department and enacted by paid artists for the tourists to see and enjoy.
However vile the scene is, it does not insulate tourists, like me, into an artificially-created environment, far removed from the reality of Goa. It is not a movie. It is Goa in full colour.
Compare this to the staged shows you see in other countries – actually paying ticket money to be entertained for a few hours. And, what do you get for it? An illusion created by lights, music, sound and commentary… with paid performers doing their bit to keep you entertained. You get a sleek artificially-created set of images replacing the authenticity of real life… which you ought to spend time seeing… on the streets or someplace else.
I can understand if the shows depicted historical events, where simulation and enactment play important roles. But in most cases, these shows are counterfeit versions of actual happenings, packaged for the tourists to see and enjoy.
So, here it is for you. Contemporary culture for the tourists in two basic forms: the awkward naturalness of the Indian experience; and the sleek package of paid entertainment. Which one would you choose for your next vacation?
I don’t mean the disgusting voyeurism of the Indian men; nor do I mean the shameless topless exhibitionism of the foreigner. I refer to the realism of it – something happening naturally before our eyes. Whether we like it or not, this is a slice of life from a beach in Goa, India. It is not staged; it is not scripted by the tourism department and enacted by paid artists for the tourists to see and enjoy.
However vile the scene is, it does not insulate tourists, like me, into an artificially-created environment, far removed from the reality of Goa. It is not a movie. It is Goa in full colour.
Compare this to the staged shows you see in other countries – actually paying ticket money to be entertained for a few hours. And, what do you get for it? An illusion created by lights, music, sound and commentary… with paid performers doing their bit to keep you entertained. You get a sleek artificially-created set of images replacing the authenticity of real life… which you ought to spend time seeing… on the streets or someplace else.
I can understand if the shows depicted historical events, where simulation and enactment play important roles. But in most cases, these shows are counterfeit versions of actual happenings, packaged for the tourists to see and enjoy.
So, here it is for you. Contemporary culture for the tourists in two basic forms: the awkward naturalness of the Indian experience; and the sleek package of paid entertainment. Which one would you choose for your next vacation?
29 July 2005
Counterfeit people
Bloggers happily consider themselves journalists. This goes much against the grain of old-school journalism which continues to stress the point that journalists are the original fact-finders, news-gatherers and reporters, not to mention editors of news; while bloggers are only commentators and/or reviewers of news. Journalists report real news, while bloggers simulate news stories.
Then, are bloggers really a tribe of counterfeit journalists? Do they ‘make news’ which really doesn’t exist? Is their writing fiction, as opposed to the clear nonfiction that journalists churn out everyday?
This distinction between journalists and bloggers had me thinking. Is this a unique phenomenon? Could there be another model or illustration in our lives from which we could draw a parallel? While these thoughts were crossing my mind back and forth, a friend happened to comment on a certain attractive model in Mumbai, who, of no great talent or genius, was seen in the celebrity pages of a leading publication on a continued basis. And he wondered why this was so. That’s what got me thinking about the distinction we make between heroes and celebrities.
If you’ve followed my blog through mid-June, discussing heroes and heroism in some detail, you would’ve learnt that heroes live for something bigger – willing to give up their lives for an ideal or a cause. They have values. They have morals. With celebrities, however, morality is of no consequence. Celebrities live for fame. It doesn’t matter what one’s claim to fame really is: heroism, achievement, good looks, talent or genius. So long fame is achieved, nothing else matters.
According to historian and author, Daniel Boorstin, a celebrity – roughly defined as a famous or well-publicised person – is "fabricated on purpose to satisfy our exaggerated expectation of human greatness… He is morally neutral... He is made by all of us who willingly read about him, who like to see him on television, who buy recordings of his voice, and talk about him to our friends. His relation to morality and even to reality is highly ambiguous."
Boorstin had defined celebrities as counterfeit people – whose identities are staged and scripted to create illusions that may not have any bearing on real life. However, he had added, celebrities do have a role to play from a socio-cultural perspective. They satisfy a human need: a need to leave the mundane and the drudgery of real life and escape into a world of fiction… a simulated world.
This had me thinking again. Are bloggers counterfeit people too? What role do they play in our lives – and in history from a socio-cultural perspective?
Then, are bloggers really a tribe of counterfeit journalists? Do they ‘make news’ which really doesn’t exist? Is their writing fiction, as opposed to the clear nonfiction that journalists churn out everyday?
This distinction between journalists and bloggers had me thinking. Is this a unique phenomenon? Could there be another model or illustration in our lives from which we could draw a parallel? While these thoughts were crossing my mind back and forth, a friend happened to comment on a certain attractive model in Mumbai, who, of no great talent or genius, was seen in the celebrity pages of a leading publication on a continued basis. And he wondered why this was so. That’s what got me thinking about the distinction we make between heroes and celebrities.
If you’ve followed my blog through mid-June, discussing heroes and heroism in some detail, you would’ve learnt that heroes live for something bigger – willing to give up their lives for an ideal or a cause. They have values. They have morals. With celebrities, however, morality is of no consequence. Celebrities live for fame. It doesn’t matter what one’s claim to fame really is: heroism, achievement, good looks, talent or genius. So long fame is achieved, nothing else matters.
According to historian and author, Daniel Boorstin, a celebrity – roughly defined as a famous or well-publicised person – is "fabricated on purpose to satisfy our exaggerated expectation of human greatness… He is morally neutral... He is made by all of us who willingly read about him, who like to see him on television, who buy recordings of his voice, and talk about him to our friends. His relation to morality and even to reality is highly ambiguous."
Boorstin had defined celebrities as counterfeit people – whose identities are staged and scripted to create illusions that may not have any bearing on real life. However, he had added, celebrities do have a role to play from a socio-cultural perspective. They satisfy a human need: a need to leave the mundane and the drudgery of real life and escape into a world of fiction… a simulated world.
This had me thinking again. Are bloggers counterfeit people too? What role do they play in our lives – and in history from a socio-cultural perspective?
26 July 2005
There is no news here
Why are you reading this blog? There is no news here.
This blog has been created by me using some free Web tools… and, believe it or not, some intellect and patience. The contents of this blog are my points of view on topics which interest me… seen and read recently or over the years… written, reported and published by many others… and presented here in, what I hope is an, easy-to-understand format.
There are no live reports of bombings or tsunamis here. No coverage of wars or train accidents. No news of political or sports events. Not even reviews of, or comments on, headlines from today’s newspapers. There is no, what you might say, editorial matter for you to chew on.
My blog is planned and planted by me. It is fabricated stuff. It has no connection to the reality outside this Websphere. Its raison d’etre is to engage you for a few minutes. Perhaps entertain you. Give you something to think about. For me, it’s nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you believe you’ve learnt something here, then you’ve been fooled. This is a blog. There is no news here. It’s all made up.
This blog has been created by me using some free Web tools… and, believe it or not, some intellect and patience. The contents of this blog are my points of view on topics which interest me… seen and read recently or over the years… written, reported and published by many others… and presented here in, what I hope is an, easy-to-understand format.
There are no live reports of bombings or tsunamis here. No coverage of wars or train accidents. No news of political or sports events. Not even reviews of, or comments on, headlines from today’s newspapers. There is no, what you might say, editorial matter for you to chew on.
My blog is planned and planted by me. It is fabricated stuff. It has no connection to the reality outside this Websphere. Its raison d’etre is to engage you for a few minutes. Perhaps entertain you. Give you something to think about. For me, it’s nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you believe you’ve learnt something here, then you’ve been fooled. This is a blog. There is no news here. It’s all made up.
25 July 2005
Making news
There has to be news in the morning papers. Otherwise, what’s the point?
When we pick up a copy of the newspaper in the morning, we expect to see news. We expect to read about – and see pictures of – something momentous that has happened around the world, between the time we got the last bit of news the night before and the next morning. We actually demand it from our newspapers. If there’s no news, there’s no point in reading the newspaper.
But, what if there was no news? What if nothing momentous happened around the world that required our attention first thing in the morning? Would the news reporters then not report news? Or, would they make some up to keep us happy… and keep their jobs in the process?
If nothing much happened around the world – no news to report for days or months together – would the newspapers, radios, TV channels have to fabricate news to please us? Would they give us unimportant bits of information because we demand it? Would they manipulate non-newsworthy facts to plan and plant stories in their publications – or stage shows on their channels – so we have something to read and watch?
After all, it would mean their survival. If there’s no one to read newspapers, there would be no advertising support for the newspapers. No revenues, no profits. Would the newspapers then resort to ‘making’ news? To ensure there is an audience – and, in turn, revenues and profits? Would the media then step in to create a parallel reality for us?
Whose interest is it anyway to ensure there is news in our lives everyday?
When we pick up a copy of the newspaper in the morning, we expect to see news. We expect to read about – and see pictures of – something momentous that has happened around the world, between the time we got the last bit of news the night before and the next morning. We actually demand it from our newspapers. If there’s no news, there’s no point in reading the newspaper.
But, what if there was no news? What if nothing momentous happened around the world that required our attention first thing in the morning? Would the news reporters then not report news? Or, would they make some up to keep us happy… and keep their jobs in the process?
If nothing much happened around the world – no news to report for days or months together – would the newspapers, radios, TV channels have to fabricate news to please us? Would they give us unimportant bits of information because we demand it? Would they manipulate non-newsworthy facts to plan and plant stories in their publications – or stage shows on their channels – so we have something to read and watch?
After all, it would mean their survival. If there’s no one to read newspapers, there would be no advertising support for the newspapers. No revenues, no profits. Would the newspapers then resort to ‘making’ news? To ensure there is an audience – and, in turn, revenues and profits? Would the media then step in to create a parallel reality for us?
Whose interest is it anyway to ensure there is news in our lives everyday?
24 July 2005
Junk or journalism
Bloggers seem to be taking a lot of flak from journalists. The bone of contention being, blogging is not journalism: Bloggers are not trained reporters. They don’t do the original fact finding and reporting as journalists do. They have no professional journalistic standards – their reports are not sieved through an editor for what’s good, what’s bad, and what’s significant. They don’t do the truth-telling which journalists do. They are unknown entities whose reputations cannot be trusted.
More than flak, these are serious accusations… categorising blogs as nothing more than junk. Going by some of the blogs I’ve read, I have to agree with these accusations. At least, to some degree. I wonder at some of the blogs I’ve read… finding them totally meaningless. Some of them are so personal and naïve that they actually make me feel foolish. Some don’t even have a sense of spelling or grammar. No way would I consider them as journalism.
Ours being a democracy, we have the right to say what we want… or publish our thoughts unhindered on the world wide web. Blogging is self-expression and everyone has a right to it… whether he or she is a trained journalist or not. Then again, Rebecca Blood has a point: “I have no desire to conform my weblog to journalistic standards, or to remake journalism in my image. I want to find ways to leverage the strengths of both worlds to the mutual benefit of both.”
Leaving aside facts such as many journalists are bloggers and many bloggers are some of the best journalists in the world, I really wonder why we are fighting in the very first place. How does it matter if bloggers aren’t journalists? Can’t there be a world where journalists and bloggers co-exist? Perhaps there’s room for both journalists and bloggers in this ever-expanding world of media.
Happily, there are voices on the world wide web which support my thoughts. In fact, they’ve been there much before me.
One of them, Scott Rosenberg, managing editor of Salon and a technology-aware writer, said it back in 2002: “The rise of blogs does not equal the death of professional journalism. The media world is not a zero-sum game. Increasingly, in fact, the Internet is turning it into a symbiotic ecosystem – in which the different parts feed off one another and the whole thing grows.”
Another is writer, blogger and Web philosopher Mitch Ratcliffe: “The point of innovation in media is to expand, not simply to displace, the voices that existed before.”
So, there is hope.
[Citation: PRESSthink, Jay Rosen]
More than flak, these are serious accusations… categorising blogs as nothing more than junk. Going by some of the blogs I’ve read, I have to agree with these accusations. At least, to some degree. I wonder at some of the blogs I’ve read… finding them totally meaningless. Some of them are so personal and naïve that they actually make me feel foolish. Some don’t even have a sense of spelling or grammar. No way would I consider them as journalism.
Ours being a democracy, we have the right to say what we want… or publish our thoughts unhindered on the world wide web. Blogging is self-expression and everyone has a right to it… whether he or she is a trained journalist or not. Then again, Rebecca Blood has a point: “I have no desire to conform my weblog to journalistic standards, or to remake journalism in my image. I want to find ways to leverage the strengths of both worlds to the mutual benefit of both.”
Leaving aside facts such as many journalists are bloggers and many bloggers are some of the best journalists in the world, I really wonder why we are fighting in the very first place. How does it matter if bloggers aren’t journalists? Can’t there be a world where journalists and bloggers co-exist? Perhaps there’s room for both journalists and bloggers in this ever-expanding world of media.
Happily, there are voices on the world wide web which support my thoughts. In fact, they’ve been there much before me.
One of them, Scott Rosenberg, managing editor of Salon and a technology-aware writer, said it back in 2002: “The rise of blogs does not equal the death of professional journalism. The media world is not a zero-sum game. Increasingly, in fact, the Internet is turning it into a symbiotic ecosystem – in which the different parts feed off one another and the whole thing grows.”
Another is writer, blogger and Web philosopher Mitch Ratcliffe: “The point of innovation in media is to expand, not simply to displace, the voices that existed before.”
So, there is hope.
[Citation: PRESSthink, Jay Rosen]
22 July 2005
It's a responsibility
I am not a media critic, nor an observer of journalism. I’m just trying to make sense of the world. The media interests me. Ever since it became a business – commercialising everything, from news to entertainment, bringing in new technology to increase reach and frequency – I got interested in it. And ever since I began blogging (only recently), it has taken on another form and almost engulfed me.
As a blogger, I’m now a part of the media. My blog is my editorial vehicle and I use it to publish my thoughts to whoever may read it – and comment on it. So now, I’ve become a writer, an editor, a publisher and an opinion leader of sorts. Naturally, my involvement with, and my ideas about, the media are changing.
I can publish my views on a right and a wrong for the world to read. I can give others the ability to see the difference between a right and a wrong by influencing them… No matter how right or wrong I am. Suddenly, my world has expanded. I’m excited by it… and a bit scared. Can I handle this responsibility?
I’m not sure if I can answer this question right away – or answer it at all. But, I realise that this change is happening not just to me, but all around me.
Interestingly, I’m not the only one who feels this. Much of what I’ve been thinking and talking about in the last couple of days has been the point of discussion around the world for a couple of years now. So, I turned to Rebecca Blood, the person who (correctly, whose writing) inspired me to start blogging a few months ago. Here is an article, "A Few Thoughts On Journalism and What Can Weblogs Do About It", from her weblog archives which deals with thoughts similar to mine.
Rebecca Blood’s article also connected me to Jay Rosen, professor of Journalism at New York University, and an article from his blog, "Brain Food for BloggerCon", which was a mind-opener.
As a blogger, I’m now a part of the media. My blog is my editorial vehicle and I use it to publish my thoughts to whoever may read it – and comment on it. So now, I’ve become a writer, an editor, a publisher and an opinion leader of sorts. Naturally, my involvement with, and my ideas about, the media are changing.
I can publish my views on a right and a wrong for the world to read. I can give others the ability to see the difference between a right and a wrong by influencing them… No matter how right or wrong I am. Suddenly, my world has expanded. I’m excited by it… and a bit scared. Can I handle this responsibility?
I’m not sure if I can answer this question right away – or answer it at all. But, I realise that this change is happening not just to me, but all around me.
Interestingly, I’m not the only one who feels this. Much of what I’ve been thinking and talking about in the last couple of days has been the point of discussion around the world for a couple of years now. So, I turned to Rebecca Blood, the person who (correctly, whose writing) inspired me to start blogging a few months ago. Here is an article, "A Few Thoughts On Journalism and What Can Weblogs Do About It", from her weblog archives which deals with thoughts similar to mine.
Rebecca Blood’s article also connected me to Jay Rosen, professor of Journalism at New York University, and an article from his blog, "Brain Food for BloggerCon", which was a mind-opener.
21 July 2005
Rise of the bloggers
The days of the editors with their op-ed pages ruling the world of public opinion are not as strong as they used to be. That domain now includes bloggers – with their ability to generate and encourage public dialogue. Bloggers have made news interactive… feeding the public, collecting feedback, and sharing. Today, opinion can come from anyone, from any direction. The newspaper’s one-to-many broadcast domain has been challenged by blogging’s many-to-many online space.
Technology has made a great contribution here. Telecommunications and the Internet with its many-to-many paradigm have entirely changed the function of broadcast media. Look at the options before us: Besides the press, television and radio, we have mobilephones, mobilephones with picture-taking ability, email, chat, websites, blogs.
With these tools, the power of opinion has shifted from the hands of the news servers (editors and journalists) to the news consumers (the public) themselves. The coverage of the tsunami disaster and the London bombing are testimony to this. Using easy-to-use Web publishing tools and Internet connection, as well as increasingly powerful mobile devices, the blogger has become an active participant in the creation and dissemination of news and information. And, of opinion.
This means the media has become more democratic – challenging the traditional models of news creation and delivery systems. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the days of the op-ed pages and the news editors are over. Newspaper editors – and their ideas – still have influence. But they don’t rule that domain anymore. Today, they share that space with bloggers.
Technology has made a great contribution here. Telecommunications and the Internet with its many-to-many paradigm have entirely changed the function of broadcast media. Look at the options before us: Besides the press, television and radio, we have mobilephones, mobilephones with picture-taking ability, email, chat, websites, blogs.
With these tools, the power of opinion has shifted from the hands of the news servers (editors and journalists) to the news consumers (the public) themselves. The coverage of the tsunami disaster and the London bombing are testimony to this. Using easy-to-use Web publishing tools and Internet connection, as well as increasingly powerful mobile devices, the blogger has become an active participant in the creation and dissemination of news and information. And, of opinion.
This means the media has become more democratic – challenging the traditional models of news creation and delivery systems. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that the days of the op-ed pages and the news editors are over. Newspaper editors – and their ideas – still have influence. But they don’t rule that domain anymore. Today, they share that space with bloggers.
19 July 2005
Media for profit
Sex and violence on TV and in movies. Provocative music videos, not just on TV, but also on large screens in shopping malls. Music lyrics replete with f****** expletives. What are the moral values of the men and women who control our TV, film and music industries? Ever wonder about that?
As if entertainment wasn’t enough, even news reporting is influenced by the media’s desire to make a profit. After all, most media outlets are owned by corporations whose primary interest is to make money for their shareholders. And, the corporates and other advertisers are pretty much lined up to ensure this happens. The question is: How much can we trust the entertainment and news media we are exposed to everyday?
According to FAIR’s "What’s Wrong With The News?" (see my post of 17 July), "Independent, aggressive and critical media are essential to an informed democracy. But mainstream media are increasingly cozy with the economic and political powers they should be watchdogging. Mergers in the news industry have accelerated, further limiting the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media. With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised."
The U.S. media outlets are not alone here. What about the Indian for-profit media conglomerates like the Times of India group or the STAR network in India? Is all of this happening in India as well?
If this thought is worrisome, here’s something (also from FAIR) even more scary: "Most of the income of for-profit media outlets comes not from their audiences, but from commercial advertisers who are interested in selling products to that audience. Although people sometimes defend commercial media by arguing that the market gives people what they want, the fact is that the most important transaction in the media marketplace – the only transaction, in the case of broadcast television and radio – does not involve media companies selling content to audiences, but rather media companies selling audiences to sponsors."
Guess that means the media has roped in you and me as well. One solution is to create your own medium – like this blog – tipping the balance of power to the content provider. But, that’s a pretty big job.
As if entertainment wasn’t enough, even news reporting is influenced by the media’s desire to make a profit. After all, most media outlets are owned by corporations whose primary interest is to make money for their shareholders. And, the corporates and other advertisers are pretty much lined up to ensure this happens. The question is: How much can we trust the entertainment and news media we are exposed to everyday?
According to FAIR’s "What’s Wrong With The News?" (see my post of 17 July), "Independent, aggressive and critical media are essential to an informed democracy. But mainstream media are increasingly cozy with the economic and political powers they should be watchdogging. Mergers in the news industry have accelerated, further limiting the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media. With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised."
The U.S. media outlets are not alone here. What about the Indian for-profit media conglomerates like the Times of India group or the STAR network in India? Is all of this happening in India as well?
If this thought is worrisome, here’s something (also from FAIR) even more scary: "Most of the income of for-profit media outlets comes not from their audiences, but from commercial advertisers who are interested in selling products to that audience. Although people sometimes defend commercial media by arguing that the market gives people what they want, the fact is that the most important transaction in the media marketplace – the only transaction, in the case of broadcast television and radio – does not involve media companies selling content to audiences, but rather media companies selling audiences to sponsors."
Guess that means the media has roped in you and me as well. One solution is to create your own medium – like this blog – tipping the balance of power to the content provider. But, that’s a pretty big job.
17 July 2005
What's wrong with the news?
Almost 40 years ago, Marshall McLuhan concluded, “the medium is the message.” In his famous book, Understanding Media, he talked at length about the effects media has on society and culture. He defined media as technological extensions of the body, including both the physical senses and the psychological dimension, and to the extent to which we depend on them.
He argued that, what’s important is not what we read in the newspapers or watch on TV (though that has its consequences), but rather that we read newspapers and watch TV. Because of our dependence on the media, the media is capable of imposing its own assumptions on our psyche.
If you think about it, most of what we know is actually second-hand knowledge – information and insight that we obtain from others. What we read in the newspapers or watch on TV, we actually believe to be true. But in most (if not in all) cases, the news is filtered and tuned by the media-source which disseminates it to us. It carries the media-source’s standpoint, and therefore, is not really an accurate report of the news.
For instance, BBC is anti-war, Fox is pro-Republican. Even sources inside Times of India, in Mumbai, tell me that the directive is not to carry ‘ugly’ news in their morning papers… to avoid upsetting their readers’ moods first thing in the morning. Strange, stupid or simply thoughtful, the news which emanates from these news channels is likely to carry their bias and not report news accurately. Is that fair to us?
So, who decides which news is accurate and whether it is fair to serve it to us the way these news channels feel it should be? In India, there doesn’t seem to be any recognized body or media watch group – private or government-sponsored – carrying this responsibility. However, in the U.S. there are several media watch groups. One such is Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, or FAIR. According to their website:
“FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.”
It may not be everything, but it’s a start. Wonder when India will catch up.
He argued that, what’s important is not what we read in the newspapers or watch on TV (though that has its consequences), but rather that we read newspapers and watch TV. Because of our dependence on the media, the media is capable of imposing its own assumptions on our psyche.
If you think about it, most of what we know is actually second-hand knowledge – information and insight that we obtain from others. What we read in the newspapers or watch on TV, we actually believe to be true. But in most (if not in all) cases, the news is filtered and tuned by the media-source which disseminates it to us. It carries the media-source’s standpoint, and therefore, is not really an accurate report of the news.
For instance, BBC is anti-war, Fox is pro-Republican. Even sources inside Times of India, in Mumbai, tell me that the directive is not to carry ‘ugly’ news in their morning papers… to avoid upsetting their readers’ moods first thing in the morning. Strange, stupid or simply thoughtful, the news which emanates from these news channels is likely to carry their bias and not report news accurately. Is that fair to us?
So, who decides which news is accurate and whether it is fair to serve it to us the way these news channels feel it should be? In India, there doesn’t seem to be any recognized body or media watch group – private or government-sponsored – carrying this responsibility. However, in the U.S. there are several media watch groups. One such is Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, or FAIR. According to their website:
“FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.”
It may not be everything, but it’s a start. Wonder when India will catch up.
16 July 2005
Culture jamming
“The really important battle of the future might not be over race or gender or the environment, and it certainly wouldn’t be that old left/right opposition. What it might be, instead, [is a] fight to control the culture.”
These words from Kalle Lasn are profound in today’s world, even in India. Lasn, editor of Adbusters magazine (http://www.adbusters.org), founder of Media Foundation and Powershift Advertising Agency, is out to change the world. And, given a little media space and time, he just might do it.
Lasn’s work is a fight against corporate control, not only of politics, but also of our hearts and minds. He and his fellow adbusters make no bones about their mission: “to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the twenty-first century.” Is he nuts! How does he intend to achieve this?
Lasn lays out his strategy in his book “Culture Jam: How to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Binge – And Why We Must”. In the book he describes in detail how we can go about ‘uncooling’ brands, ‘demarketing’ fashions, and breaking free of our ‘media trance’. A ‘culture jammer’ himself, he has launched social marketing campaigns and won several international awards.
“We’ve been reduced to spectators, consumers,” he says. “We’re just supposed to listen and watch, and then to buy… The mass media keep us in a trance by dispensing a kind of Huxleyan ‘soma’ that drives us to conform and consume: to buy the best cars, to wear the trendiest fashions, to be ‘cool’… We’ve been so deeply manipulated; our emotions, personalities, and core values have become programmed.”
What’s Lasn’s answer to this mind control by the media? He uses ‘culture jamming’, a term he picked up from an audio-collage band Negativland, to jam signals that put us ‘in this trance’ in the first place. Culture jamming creates cognitive dissonance, disseminating seeds of truth to people as a sort of wake-up call.
Over the years, Lasn and Adbusters have produced dozens of spoof ads – print subvertisements and TV uncommercials. I’ve seen some of them. One shows a male model holding out the elastic waistband of his underwear to peer down at his genitals, with the caption “Obsession for Men”. In another, a battered child is seen through a vodka bottle, with the caption “Wipe That Smirkoff”.
Adbusters, described by its editors as an “ecological magazine”, is dedicated to examining the relationship between human beings and their physical and mental environments. “We want folks to get mad about corporate disinformation, injustices in the global economy, and any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons.”
Can you beat that?
These words from Kalle Lasn are profound in today’s world, even in India. Lasn, editor of Adbusters magazine (http://www.adbusters.org), founder of Media Foundation and Powershift Advertising Agency, is out to change the world. And, given a little media space and time, he just might do it.
Lasn’s work is a fight against corporate control, not only of politics, but also of our hearts and minds. He and his fellow adbusters make no bones about their mission: “to topple existing power structures and forge a major shift in the way we will live in the twenty-first century.” Is he nuts! How does he intend to achieve this?
Lasn lays out his strategy in his book “Culture Jam: How to Reverse America’s Suicidal Consumer Binge – And Why We Must”. In the book he describes in detail how we can go about ‘uncooling’ brands, ‘demarketing’ fashions, and breaking free of our ‘media trance’. A ‘culture jammer’ himself, he has launched social marketing campaigns and won several international awards.
“We’ve been reduced to spectators, consumers,” he says. “We’re just supposed to listen and watch, and then to buy… The mass media keep us in a trance by dispensing a kind of Huxleyan ‘soma’ that drives us to conform and consume: to buy the best cars, to wear the trendiest fashions, to be ‘cool’… We’ve been so deeply manipulated; our emotions, personalities, and core values have become programmed.”
What’s Lasn’s answer to this mind control by the media? He uses ‘culture jamming’, a term he picked up from an audio-collage band Negativland, to jam signals that put us ‘in this trance’ in the first place. Culture jamming creates cognitive dissonance, disseminating seeds of truth to people as a sort of wake-up call.
Over the years, Lasn and Adbusters have produced dozens of spoof ads – print subvertisements and TV uncommercials. I’ve seen some of them. One shows a male model holding out the elastic waistband of his underwear to peer down at his genitals, with the caption “Obsession for Men”. In another, a battered child is seen through a vodka bottle, with the caption “Wipe That Smirkoff”.
Adbusters, described by its editors as an “ecological magazine”, is dedicated to examining the relationship between human beings and their physical and mental environments. “We want folks to get mad about corporate disinformation, injustices in the global economy, and any industry that pollutes our physical or mental commons.”
Can you beat that?
15 July 2005
Can trust be nurtured via media?
While working on a project for the Ministry of Tourism, I ran into some shameful comments on the Indian tourism industry. Tourists returning from India commented negatively on the glossy ads and brochures which were used to sell India as a tourist destination. The tourists not only decried India’s lack of infrastructure to support tourism, but also spoke disparagingly about the sites and services. They said it was bad public relations.
One tourist commented, "They showed us a picture of the Taj Mahal with descriptions of crystal clear blue waters flowing by, and all we got to see is a dirty grey river flowing next to it." Another remarked, "They said, in India, the guest is God; but believe me, their cabs are god-awful." A third tourist talked about a visit to a temple which was described on the Internet as "the perfect place for meditation… but an actual visit revealed a coterie of touts asking for money, squabbling auto-rickshaw drivers and beggars."
This tourism episode is not a stray example. And, these responses from angry tourists are not uncommon. There’s a bigger discussion here. Everyday we are exposed to advertising messages which promise us the world, only to leave us in the lurch in the most trying moments. Haven’t you fallen for that TV commercial or that print ad which promised ‘more car per car’? Only it turned out to be more car trouble per car… after you bought it. As it stands, few advertising messages measure up to customer trust.
Once again, this advertising message about ‘more car per car’ has not been singled out for criticism, but only to illustrate a point. The point being, both advertisers and the media carry a responsibility of trust – a trust between a brand, a via media and a customer. This trust ought to be nurtured – not wasted, nor eroded or destroyed. Advertisers know that the media is a powerful tool in the process of communication and building trust. They should think about how well the content of their messages responds to customer demand for honesty and impartiality.
Perhaps then, we’ll be able to market our country as a superior travel destination to the outside world, without any feelings of shame.
One tourist commented, "They showed us a picture of the Taj Mahal with descriptions of crystal clear blue waters flowing by, and all we got to see is a dirty grey river flowing next to it." Another remarked, "They said, in India, the guest is God; but believe me, their cabs are god-awful." A third tourist talked about a visit to a temple which was described on the Internet as "the perfect place for meditation… but an actual visit revealed a coterie of touts asking for money, squabbling auto-rickshaw drivers and beggars."
This tourism episode is not a stray example. And, these responses from angry tourists are not uncommon. There’s a bigger discussion here. Everyday we are exposed to advertising messages which promise us the world, only to leave us in the lurch in the most trying moments. Haven’t you fallen for that TV commercial or that print ad which promised ‘more car per car’? Only it turned out to be more car trouble per car… after you bought it. As it stands, few advertising messages measure up to customer trust.
Once again, this advertising message about ‘more car per car’ has not been singled out for criticism, but only to illustrate a point. The point being, both advertisers and the media carry a responsibility of trust – a trust between a brand, a via media and a customer. This trust ought to be nurtured – not wasted, nor eroded or destroyed. Advertisers know that the media is a powerful tool in the process of communication and building trust. They should think about how well the content of their messages responds to customer demand for honesty and impartiality.
Perhaps then, we’ll be able to market our country as a superior travel destination to the outside world, without any feelings of shame.
14 July 2005
Staying Alive
[No, this is not about a hit song by the Bee Gees… it’s much more.]
There is a serious concern that our youth are growing up in an environment saturated with exploitative messages, many of which are concocted for marketing reasons. And that, this generation of youngsters neither has the maturity, nor the ability to make distinctions between the good and the bad messages they are exposed to. Thereby, endangering their minds and their future.
However, while talking to some of these youngsters, I gathered that they don’t feel there is a problem at all. They don’t feel that advertising messages are evil, or that there’s some kind of invasion on their sensibilities, or that there’s a breakdown of morals, or that culture and society have taken a nose-dive. On the contrary, these youngsters feel that the global media and the advertisers are actually doing a lot of good for society.
In an echo of similar voices I had heard before, these youngsters pointed out to me that, in India, as in many Asian and African countries, there is a discomfort with sexuality – that accurate (and they emphasised the word ‘accurate’) information on this subject is scarce. That taboos on sexuality impede open communication – particularly between children and parents. For teenagers, as the desire for sexual knowledge is strong, they have to rely on TV, books, films, the Internet and each other.
Other topics such as personal relationships, religion, war, the environment, racial discrimination, and technology were top-of-mind as well. These youngsters felt that the media can explain and involve the youth in such universal topics and help deal with emotions, understanding and responsibility. And, contrary to endangering minds as their parents believed, these youngsters were certain that the media can actually build them. And, build a better world.
On taking a cue from these youngsters, I surfed on the Internet and discovered The 2002 MTV Staying Alive Campaign – an MTV global campaign on HIV/AIDS prevention. And, on reading about it, was amazed at how this campaign was implemented, although I cannot comment on its success. I’ve provided a brief description of this campaign below:
The 2002 Staying Alive campaign was the largest, most ambitious HIV/AIDS media effort ever attempted, reaching a potential of almost 800 million homes, 64 percent of total television households worldwide. The campaign was aired in nearly 100 countries, including 44 of the 50 countries most affected by HIV/AIDS…
The 2002 campaign primarily targeted young people with access to television, but it expanded the reach of the programming by adapting it for radio stations, the Internet, and other types of activities in selected countries. The campaign had three goals: to increase awareness of HIV/AIDS and encourage prevention behavior, to reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination, and to empower youth to take action…
The analysis provided further evidence that a global youth culture exists and can be reached by cross-cultural messages…
I was quite taken in by the Indian youth’s enthusiasm for global media and its benefits. But I was also saddened to find that universal topics such as poverty, hunger, illiteracy and health (which are serious issues in India and the world) were not top-of-mind for them… even when Live8 concerts had cornered the global media in the last couple of weeks.
I guess there’s more work to be done.
There is a serious concern that our youth are growing up in an environment saturated with exploitative messages, many of which are concocted for marketing reasons. And that, this generation of youngsters neither has the maturity, nor the ability to make distinctions between the good and the bad messages they are exposed to. Thereby, endangering their minds and their future.
However, while talking to some of these youngsters, I gathered that they don’t feel there is a problem at all. They don’t feel that advertising messages are evil, or that there’s some kind of invasion on their sensibilities, or that there’s a breakdown of morals, or that culture and society have taken a nose-dive. On the contrary, these youngsters feel that the global media and the advertisers are actually doing a lot of good for society.
In an echo of similar voices I had heard before, these youngsters pointed out to me that, in India, as in many Asian and African countries, there is a discomfort with sexuality – that accurate (and they emphasised the word ‘accurate’) information on this subject is scarce. That taboos on sexuality impede open communication – particularly between children and parents. For teenagers, as the desire for sexual knowledge is strong, they have to rely on TV, books, films, the Internet and each other.
Other topics such as personal relationships, religion, war, the environment, racial discrimination, and technology were top-of-mind as well. These youngsters felt that the media can explain and involve the youth in such universal topics and help deal with emotions, understanding and responsibility. And, contrary to endangering minds as their parents believed, these youngsters were certain that the media can actually build them. And, build a better world.
On taking a cue from these youngsters, I surfed on the Internet and discovered The 2002 MTV Staying Alive Campaign – an MTV global campaign on HIV/AIDS prevention. And, on reading about it, was amazed at how this campaign was implemented, although I cannot comment on its success. I’ve provided a brief description of this campaign below:
The 2002 Staying Alive campaign was the largest, most ambitious HIV/AIDS media effort ever attempted, reaching a potential of almost 800 million homes, 64 percent of total television households worldwide. The campaign was aired in nearly 100 countries, including 44 of the 50 countries most affected by HIV/AIDS…
The 2002 campaign primarily targeted young people with access to television, but it expanded the reach of the programming by adapting it for radio stations, the Internet, and other types of activities in selected countries. The campaign had three goals: to increase awareness of HIV/AIDS and encourage prevention behavior, to reduce HIV-related stigma and discrimination, and to empower youth to take action…
The analysis provided further evidence that a global youth culture exists and can be reached by cross-cultural messages…
I was quite taken in by the Indian youth’s enthusiasm for global media and its benefits. But I was also saddened to find that universal topics such as poverty, hunger, illiteracy and health (which are serious issues in India and the world) were not top-of-mind for them… even when Live8 concerts had cornered the global media in the last couple of weeks.
I guess there’s more work to be done.
13 July 2005
The sweet spot
Grabbing a chunk of the youth mind and market is what many advertisers are putting their money on. From media channels like MTV to apparel brands like Levi’s to soft drinks like Coke to personal care products like Whisper Ultra to retail food chains like McDonald’s. Some advertisers just can’t get away from targeting this youth market.
Not just multinational brands like the ones I’ve mentioned, but local Indian brands are also in this fray. There are too many to name, but here are a few you would have heard about and seen: IT institutes like NIIT and Aptech, channels like B4U and Zoom, 2-wheelers like Bajaj Pulsar and TVS Scooty, apparel brands like Park Avenue and Wills Lifestyle, personal accessories like Titan Fast Track, and retail chains like Planet M, Barista and Café Coffee Day.
I’ve had the opportunity to work with some of these brands and I know for certain that their target is ideally between the ages of 18 and 24. Given a little leverage it extends between 16 and 28 years. It’s what’s called the demographic sweet spot (an American term for sure) – and advertisers want their campaigns to hit this strike zone. Here’s what an advertiser for a well-known youth brand had to say about the sweet spot (can’t name him, sorry):
“That is thought to be the age at which young people have a lot of disposable income and they’re also brand-sensitive. They haven’t quite made up their minds yet about from which brands they are going to spend the rest of their buying. And there’s a certain amount of research which suggests that, if you get the young person at that age when their minds are still unformed commercially, you can brand them, as it were, and then have their allegiance for the rest of their consuming lifetimes.”
And, there you have it.
Not just multinational brands like the ones I’ve mentioned, but local Indian brands are also in this fray. There are too many to name, but here are a few you would have heard about and seen: IT institutes like NIIT and Aptech, channels like B4U and Zoom, 2-wheelers like Bajaj Pulsar and TVS Scooty, apparel brands like Park Avenue and Wills Lifestyle, personal accessories like Titan Fast Track, and retail chains like Planet M, Barista and Café Coffee Day.
I’ve had the opportunity to work with some of these brands and I know for certain that their target is ideally between the ages of 18 and 24. Given a little leverage it extends between 16 and 28 years. It’s what’s called the demographic sweet spot (an American term for sure) – and advertisers want their campaigns to hit this strike zone. Here’s what an advertiser for a well-known youth brand had to say about the sweet spot (can’t name him, sorry):
“That is thought to be the age at which young people have a lot of disposable income and they’re also brand-sensitive. They haven’t quite made up their minds yet about from which brands they are going to spend the rest of their buying. And there’s a certain amount of research which suggests that, if you get the young person at that age when their minds are still unformed commercially, you can brand them, as it were, and then have their allegiance for the rest of their consuming lifetimes.”
And, there you have it.
11 July 2005
The media buy
Young people in urban India now have access to media that cater specifically to their tastes and preferences. They are no longer limited to the few newspapers, magazines and Doordarshan like their parents, but watch over 50 satellite television channels, skim through youth magazines and tabloids, surf the Internet, chat on ‘messengers’, and communicate with their friends through text as well as picture messages on their mobilephones.
Change is easier for them. They have less to unlearn when it comes to the old ways of doing things. They are quicker than their parents in handling new gadgets: anything from the TV remote to the DVD player to computers and mobilephones. They try out the latest in fashion and in cuisine. They know where the new shopping malls are and which movies are playing in the multiplexes.
They admire capitalism – which brings all this to them.
Naturally, the Indian youth are a target for the global media. Not only because they are at the cutting edge of fashion, technology and ideas; but also because many of them have substantial discretionary spending power. Today, the media are stretching themselves to tailor different kinds of products, programming and content to satisfy this audience: a new generation of sophisticated consumers… raring to go and spend.
The influence is Western, there’s no doubt about it – bringing with it a global culture. The Indian youth are assuming habits, styles of behaviour and dress which are replicas of their counterparts in Western countries. In fact, this process is also natural. “Youth are seen as the part of society that is most likely to engage in a process of cultural borrowing that is disruptive of the reproduction of traditional cultural practices,” explain Cara Heaven and Matthew Tubridy in a report by the International Youth Parliament on the impact of globalisation on young people, sponsored by Oxfam International.
Although global media have contributed to broadening the worldview and deepening the understanding of young people in India – creating awareness about poverty, literacy, environmental concerns, women’s rights, HIV, etc. – some fear that the Western media are promoting materialism to young people and serving to homogenise culture rather than celebrate the diversity which India is known for.
Will India follow this path set by global media? Will India choose her own course? Only time will tell.
Change is easier for them. They have less to unlearn when it comes to the old ways of doing things. They are quicker than their parents in handling new gadgets: anything from the TV remote to the DVD player to computers and mobilephones. They try out the latest in fashion and in cuisine. They know where the new shopping malls are and which movies are playing in the multiplexes.
They admire capitalism – which brings all this to them.
Naturally, the Indian youth are a target for the global media. Not only because they are at the cutting edge of fashion, technology and ideas; but also because many of them have substantial discretionary spending power. Today, the media are stretching themselves to tailor different kinds of products, programming and content to satisfy this audience: a new generation of sophisticated consumers… raring to go and spend.
The influence is Western, there’s no doubt about it – bringing with it a global culture. The Indian youth are assuming habits, styles of behaviour and dress which are replicas of their counterparts in Western countries. In fact, this process is also natural. “Youth are seen as the part of society that is most likely to engage in a process of cultural borrowing that is disruptive of the reproduction of traditional cultural practices,” explain Cara Heaven and Matthew Tubridy in a report by the International Youth Parliament on the impact of globalisation on young people, sponsored by Oxfam International.
Although global media have contributed to broadening the worldview and deepening the understanding of young people in India – creating awareness about poverty, literacy, environmental concerns, women’s rights, HIV, etc. – some fear that the Western media are promoting materialism to young people and serving to homogenise culture rather than celebrate the diversity which India is known for.
Will India follow this path set by global media? Will India choose her own course? Only time will tell.
09 July 2005
The best of both worlds
Although my last few posts have described a socio-cultural shift in the urban woman in India, prototyping the young in particular, this change has grown into a national phenomenon – and includes the male urban population as well. The fact that today’s youth are having an enormous impact on our culture and our economy is now undisputed – and may become a force to reckon with in the years to come.
Unlike their previous generation (which includes oldies like me), who have been somewhat insular and obedient, these teenagers and young adults today are confident, ambitious and technology-oriented. They are transformed by what they see on cable television and the Internet. They are more concerned with their career than their caste. They applaud free enterprise and the concept of making money.
They are perfectly happy wearing salwar-kameezes or trousers and a shirt, drinking lassi, then switching to jeans and T-shirts, drinking Coke or Pepsi, and watching MTV. They feel being Indian is a badge of honour, proudly participating in world music, fashion, literary and political circles. They proudly mix Indian values with Western packaging.
No matter how much their parents deride this behaviour, criticising the manipulative powers of advertising and the media, the youth today feel this international exposure has given them the power to adapt to Western influences – which they feel is just the right input in turning them into global citizens, giving them equality and freedom.
How long has this been going on? Have we been caught unawares by our own children? Interestingly, in an article in BusinessWeek going back almost six years to October 1999, Manjeet Kripalani gives us a fascinating commentary on this particular socio-cultural shift. Below, I’ve included excerpts from that article, but you can read it in entirety here:
This generational shift in attitudes is all the more important because this group is growing so rapidly. Some 47% of India's current 1 billion population is under the age of 20, and teenagers among them number about 160 million. Already, they wield $2.8 billion worth of discretionary income, and their families spend an additional $3.7 billion on them every year. By 2015, Indians under 20 will make up 55% of the population – and wield proportionately higher spending power…
As this group, with its more materialist, more globally informed opinions, comes into its own, sociologists predict India will gradually abandon the austere ways and restricted markets that have kept it an economic backwater. These youth will demand a more cosmopolitan society that is a full-fledged member of the global economy. They will start their own businesses and contribute to a more vibrant economy. They also are likely to demand more accountability from their politicians…
What the new generation does like is money. According to a survey conducted by Coca-Cola the primary ambition of young Indians from the smallest villages to the largest cities is to “become rich.” Young people hope to achieve this goal through enterprise and education…
That’s a big change. For years, the most highly regarded careers were in civil service, engineering, and medicine. Now, high-paying jobs in high tech and the media are where it’s at. Liberalisation has created a “new social contract in which making money is respectable,” says author [Gurcharan] Das. Young Indians endorse it heartily…
Tradition still dictates much of daily life. But progressive influences are everywhere. Take the tradition of arranged marriages, where parents chose children’s spouses, often without their consent. Now young people want to marry for love – but also want parents’ approval.
And, that’s how it is. Our children seem to be enjoying the best of both worlds.
Unlike their previous generation (which includes oldies like me), who have been somewhat insular and obedient, these teenagers and young adults today are confident, ambitious and technology-oriented. They are transformed by what they see on cable television and the Internet. They are more concerned with their career than their caste. They applaud free enterprise and the concept of making money.
They are perfectly happy wearing salwar-kameezes or trousers and a shirt, drinking lassi, then switching to jeans and T-shirts, drinking Coke or Pepsi, and watching MTV. They feel being Indian is a badge of honour, proudly participating in world music, fashion, literary and political circles. They proudly mix Indian values with Western packaging.
No matter how much their parents deride this behaviour, criticising the manipulative powers of advertising and the media, the youth today feel this international exposure has given them the power to adapt to Western influences – which they feel is just the right input in turning them into global citizens, giving them equality and freedom.
How long has this been going on? Have we been caught unawares by our own children? Interestingly, in an article in BusinessWeek going back almost six years to October 1999, Manjeet Kripalani gives us a fascinating commentary on this particular socio-cultural shift. Below, I’ve included excerpts from that article, but you can read it in entirety here:
This generational shift in attitudes is all the more important because this group is growing so rapidly. Some 47% of India's current 1 billion population is under the age of 20, and teenagers among them number about 160 million. Already, they wield $2.8 billion worth of discretionary income, and their families spend an additional $3.7 billion on them every year. By 2015, Indians under 20 will make up 55% of the population – and wield proportionately higher spending power…
As this group, with its more materialist, more globally informed opinions, comes into its own, sociologists predict India will gradually abandon the austere ways and restricted markets that have kept it an economic backwater. These youth will demand a more cosmopolitan society that is a full-fledged member of the global economy. They will start their own businesses and contribute to a more vibrant economy. They also are likely to demand more accountability from their politicians…
What the new generation does like is money. According to a survey conducted by Coca-Cola the primary ambition of young Indians from the smallest villages to the largest cities is to “become rich.” Young people hope to achieve this goal through enterprise and education…
That’s a big change. For years, the most highly regarded careers were in civil service, engineering, and medicine. Now, high-paying jobs in high tech and the media are where it’s at. Liberalisation has created a “new social contract in which making money is respectable,” says author [Gurcharan] Das. Young Indians endorse it heartily…
Tradition still dictates much of daily life. But progressive influences are everywhere. Take the tradition of arranged marriages, where parents chose children’s spouses, often without their consent. Now young people want to marry for love – but also want parents’ approval.
And, that’s how it is. Our children seem to be enjoying the best of both worlds.
08 July 2005
A generational issue
The title of this post is not mine. I’ve borrowed it, without permission, from an anonymous visitor to my blog whose comments to my last post carried this phrase. So, dear ‘anonymous’, thank you for visiting my blog and for your comments. Please forgive me for this open plagiarism. If you are reading this post now, then welcome to my blog.
I’m no trend-watcher, nor an anthropologist. And, although I’m not a social commentator by profession, I’ve become one – at least at an amateur level – by virtue of this blog. What gives me this confidence to comment on socio-cultural issues such as the one I wrote about two days ago? Nothing in particular, except that, as a marketing professional, I do keep an eye on changing consumer behaviour – some of which accurately reflect present-day socio-cultural patterns.
But, I’m not alone here. Even the media, including the Internet, post reports similar to the observations I’ve made. Youth Radio has a story here which will give you a glimpse of how young urban women feel today. Yes, the face of the young urban woman is certainly changing. And, we better take notice of it.
Moreover, in this case, the girls I spoke to categorically told me so. Of course, whether a sample of the size I interviewed is representative of the entire universe can always be debated. However, I do concede that suggesting a ‘downward spiral’ in the morals of these young urban women was judgemental. Hence, I apologise.
Perhaps, like my anonymous visitor commented, I suffer from ‘a generational issue’ that colours our thinking. Every generation comments negatively on the next generation, suggesting a downward spiral in standards, morals and cultural purity. As if, the value systems of our civilisations have always been on a decline. If this is true, I wonder how it was when civilisation began – or how it will be 1,000 years from now.
Still, I must clarify: My post of 6 July was not a comment focused on the downward spiral of morals of young urban women. Rather, it was a comment on the influence of advertising and media on these women… Leading to their attraction for – and affinity towards – a Western lifestyle… As if these young urban women were being brainwashed without their knowledge. That, I believe, is a matter of great concern.
I’m no trend-watcher, nor an anthropologist. And, although I’m not a social commentator by profession, I’ve become one – at least at an amateur level – by virtue of this blog. What gives me this confidence to comment on socio-cultural issues such as the one I wrote about two days ago? Nothing in particular, except that, as a marketing professional, I do keep an eye on changing consumer behaviour – some of which accurately reflect present-day socio-cultural patterns.
But, I’m not alone here. Even the media, including the Internet, post reports similar to the observations I’ve made. Youth Radio has a story here which will give you a glimpse of how young urban women feel today. Yes, the face of the young urban woman is certainly changing. And, we better take notice of it.
Moreover, in this case, the girls I spoke to categorically told me so. Of course, whether a sample of the size I interviewed is representative of the entire universe can always be debated. However, I do concede that suggesting a ‘downward spiral’ in the morals of these young urban women was judgemental. Hence, I apologise.
Perhaps, like my anonymous visitor commented, I suffer from ‘a generational issue’ that colours our thinking. Every generation comments negatively on the next generation, suggesting a downward spiral in standards, morals and cultural purity. As if, the value systems of our civilisations have always been on a decline. If this is true, I wonder how it was when civilisation began – or how it will be 1,000 years from now.
Still, I must clarify: My post of 6 July was not a comment focused on the downward spiral of morals of young urban women. Rather, it was a comment on the influence of advertising and media on these women… Leading to their attraction for – and affinity towards – a Western lifestyle… As if these young urban women were being brainwashed without their knowledge. That, I believe, is a matter of great concern.
06 July 2005
"We have a mind of our own."
Is there a downward spiral in the young urban female population, and society as a whole?
There’s a new dress-code ruling the young urban woman today: low-hung jeans, skimpy body-hugging tops, mostly unkempt hair, a sense of abandonment. Vocabulary is more explicit. Drinking and smoking on the rise. Sexual activity, more frequent. Who or what is responsible for this?
There’s a constant influx of messages, images and information on youth channels like MTV and Channel [V] which promote this new culture. Not just the music videos. The presentation format has a lot to contribute. And, the advertising as well. In fact, much of the advertising on satellite television is targeted at the urban youth, telling them “this is who you are… this is what you should be doing.”
As a generation, are these women asking for more explicit material? Or, are the brands and advertisers ‘pushing’ a culture of a different set of morals?
“I don’t think you can escape it... It’s very hard to escape all the advertising,” confessed a girl to me, sporting a pair of low-cut Levi’s, a pink top, Nike shoes and the latest Samsung mobilephone. Her friend, looking gorgeous in the trendiest upmarket labels, told me, “Ads don’t make me buy something… They’re more for name recognition.” Later, she added with confidence, “Ads don’t sell me a product, only the name… And whether I go out and buy that or not doesn’t really matter. What I do… It’s my own choice still.”
“Do you ever think that maybe it’s not your choice? That maybe you’re just being programmed in some way?” I asked.
“No, no way,” came the straight answer. “We’re independent girls… forward-thinking. We have a mind of our own.”
“But I can see that whatever you’re wearing now is a well-known brand… a brand that is constantly advertised,” I pursued. “Why don’t you buy something without a known brand name?”
“What’s the point,” another girl answered, who was quiet all this while. “There are so many branded products to choose from. Why should I buy something without a name?”
Good point.
“We can buy whatever we want to,” the first girl added. “Do things that our parents haven’t done.”
“And, isn’t that the way to go?” asked the gorgeous one. “People want to see new things.”
There’s a new dress-code ruling the young urban woman today: low-hung jeans, skimpy body-hugging tops, mostly unkempt hair, a sense of abandonment. Vocabulary is more explicit. Drinking and smoking on the rise. Sexual activity, more frequent. Who or what is responsible for this?
There’s a constant influx of messages, images and information on youth channels like MTV and Channel [V] which promote this new culture. Not just the music videos. The presentation format has a lot to contribute. And, the advertising as well. In fact, much of the advertising on satellite television is targeted at the urban youth, telling them “this is who you are… this is what you should be doing.”
As a generation, are these women asking for more explicit material? Or, are the brands and advertisers ‘pushing’ a culture of a different set of morals?
“I don’t think you can escape it... It’s very hard to escape all the advertising,” confessed a girl to me, sporting a pair of low-cut Levi’s, a pink top, Nike shoes and the latest Samsung mobilephone. Her friend, looking gorgeous in the trendiest upmarket labels, told me, “Ads don’t make me buy something… They’re more for name recognition.” Later, she added with confidence, “Ads don’t sell me a product, only the name… And whether I go out and buy that or not doesn’t really matter. What I do… It’s my own choice still.”
“Do you ever think that maybe it’s not your choice? That maybe you’re just being programmed in some way?” I asked.
“No, no way,” came the straight answer. “We’re independent girls… forward-thinking. We have a mind of our own.”
“But I can see that whatever you’re wearing now is a well-known brand… a brand that is constantly advertised,” I pursued. “Why don’t you buy something without a known brand name?”
“What’s the point,” another girl answered, who was quiet all this while. “There are so many branded products to choose from. Why should I buy something without a name?”
Good point.
“We can buy whatever we want to,” the first girl added. “Do things that our parents haven’t done.”
“And, isn’t that the way to go?” asked the gorgeous one. “People want to see new things.”
Of course. At least, I knew, my years in advertising and marketing hadn’t been wasted.
02 July 2005
Women and home
If you read my post yesterday, you would have got a glimpse of how women are changing in the workplace in India – and, in the process, changing India’s work culture. This change, happily, at least for women at large, has been so intrinsic to the woman’s role and self-worth, that it has entered and impacted the woman’s home as well.
For instance, it has given the woman a sense of choice. No longer does she feel the need to follow rules laid out by her parents or tradition – rather deciding to create a few rules of her own to improve her circumstances. The urban woman today weighs her options independently – like a man – or, at best, along with her peer group.
Choice of education or employment is one thing, choosing a life partner is another. Today, increasingly, women are getting married by personal choice rather than through arranged marriages. They are entering into inter-caste and inter-religion marriages by choosing their own partners, rather than relying on their parents’ whims or methods of selection and approval. Even what they consider “marriageable age” seems to have moved up the timeline to the 26-30 years of age group, sometimes even later, from the traditional concept of the bride under 25 years of age.
Still, women feel there is much room for improvement. Married women are conditioned by their parents and society to accept their roles as subordinates to their husbands, their home and their children. Women still find it difficult to shed their role as housewife or mother because “the primary duty of the woman is her home.” Married working women carry a dual responsibility of employee and housewife – rushing home to cook dinner for the waiting family.
Unmarried women are better off as their responsibilities at home are less binding. However, they still have to break through constraints against dress codes or socialising freely in the company of their own choice. Bringing home a male friend, for instance, is still considered taboo in most families. Sometimes, so is something as simple as speaking freely in an open forum. Parents – and brothers – at home may accept this show of independence, but what will the neighbours think?
Mind you, all of what I’ve described so far is really a reflection of women from the upper and upper-middle class urban families. The acceptance of modern, Western norms of behaviour in the Indian woman becomes less visible as you go down the socio-economic strata. In lower income groups it gets tougher for women to break through existing societal patterns. But times are changing, and we can all feel the waves catching up. Who knows what will happen next!
For instance, it has given the woman a sense of choice. No longer does she feel the need to follow rules laid out by her parents or tradition – rather deciding to create a few rules of her own to improve her circumstances. The urban woman today weighs her options independently – like a man – or, at best, along with her peer group.
Choice of education or employment is one thing, choosing a life partner is another. Today, increasingly, women are getting married by personal choice rather than through arranged marriages. They are entering into inter-caste and inter-religion marriages by choosing their own partners, rather than relying on their parents’ whims or methods of selection and approval. Even what they consider “marriageable age” seems to have moved up the timeline to the 26-30 years of age group, sometimes even later, from the traditional concept of the bride under 25 years of age.
Still, women feel there is much room for improvement. Married women are conditioned by their parents and society to accept their roles as subordinates to their husbands, their home and their children. Women still find it difficult to shed their role as housewife or mother because “the primary duty of the woman is her home.” Married working women carry a dual responsibility of employee and housewife – rushing home to cook dinner for the waiting family.
Unmarried women are better off as their responsibilities at home are less binding. However, they still have to break through constraints against dress codes or socialising freely in the company of their own choice. Bringing home a male friend, for instance, is still considered taboo in most families. Sometimes, so is something as simple as speaking freely in an open forum. Parents – and brothers – at home may accept this show of independence, but what will the neighbours think?
Mind you, all of what I’ve described so far is really a reflection of women from the upper and upper-middle class urban families. The acceptance of modern, Western norms of behaviour in the Indian woman becomes less visible as you go down the socio-economic strata. In lower income groups it gets tougher for women to break through existing societal patterns. But times are changing, and we can all feel the waves catching up. Who knows what will happen next!
01 July 2005
A new wave
There’s a change happening around us and it’s taking the country almost by storm. I noticed it first when I was in college, way back in the 1980’s, when I could feel the first waves. And today, I’m amazed at the progress it has made. It has to do with women – and it has a lot of men sitting up in their seats.
Women have become vocal, more assertive. And, though you may call me a MCP, in some cases, much to my dismay, aggressive. But, whatever I may say, the end-result is fantastic. More and more women are thinking on their feet. They are taking up academic and career-oriented programmes to seek employment. And, they are taking up jobs which were earlier in the hands of men.
The preference for traditional jobs like teaching or secretarial work has shifted to advertising, media, marketing, finance, human resources, information technology, and even sales – moving the women into the corporate world, which has always been the domain of men. Today, more women apply to and graduate from MBA programmes than ever before – entering the corporate world thereafter and increasing their share of the gender ratio in their respective organisations.
Not only that, women are entering their new professions as employees equal to men, moving away from traditional stereotyped roles and low-paid jobs. For these women, many of them first-generation earners, financial independence is a key motive to work. They work as well as their male counterparts, asking for equal pay plus privileges, and are forging ahead despite work and societal pressures.
What has brought this change? I really don’t know for sure, but I do have a pet theory: In the middle, upper-middle and upper class families, the father has been a supporter and a facilitator for this change for the past quarter of a century. He has given his daughters a sense of independence and self-worth – giving them a sort of nudge to become equal to the sons in the family… Watching his daughters’ progress with pride.
This may seem an anti-feminist point of view, but you can’t deny the fact that women in India are creating an identity – and a life-space – for themselves. And, there are many men who are cheering them on from their seats.
Women have become vocal, more assertive. And, though you may call me a MCP, in some cases, much to my dismay, aggressive. But, whatever I may say, the end-result is fantastic. More and more women are thinking on their feet. They are taking up academic and career-oriented programmes to seek employment. And, they are taking up jobs which were earlier in the hands of men.
The preference for traditional jobs like teaching or secretarial work has shifted to advertising, media, marketing, finance, human resources, information technology, and even sales – moving the women into the corporate world, which has always been the domain of men. Today, more women apply to and graduate from MBA programmes than ever before – entering the corporate world thereafter and increasing their share of the gender ratio in their respective organisations.
Not only that, women are entering their new professions as employees equal to men, moving away from traditional stereotyped roles and low-paid jobs. For these women, many of them first-generation earners, financial independence is a key motive to work. They work as well as their male counterparts, asking for equal pay plus privileges, and are forging ahead despite work and societal pressures.
What has brought this change? I really don’t know for sure, but I do have a pet theory: In the middle, upper-middle and upper class families, the father has been a supporter and a facilitator for this change for the past quarter of a century. He has given his daughters a sense of independence and self-worth – giving them a sort of nudge to become equal to the sons in the family… Watching his daughters’ progress with pride.
This may seem an anti-feminist point of view, but you can’t deny the fact that women in India are creating an identity – and a life-space – for themselves. And, there are many men who are cheering them on from their seats.
27 June 2005
The strength of women
What most impressed me about the group of women who took the law into their hands and killed a rapist in the premises of a court in Nagpur (see my post of 25 June), were two things: (i) they were women, and (ii) they were slum-dwelling women from a small town in India. Meaning, they were not educated and sophisticated women from an urban city like Mumbai or Delhi; nor were they spandex-wearing superheroes with special powers from comic books or movies.
The Nagpur incident was a far cry from what happened in a Mumbai train almost three years ago: A young mentally-challenged woman was raped in a compartment where over half a dozen men were seated. None of them raised an alarm or tried to get the rapist off the girl. Instead, they waited for their respective stations, got down and left. Only at the final station did someone report the rape to the police.
The Nagpur women were strong, positive and self-reliant – filling the roles of men. They were not superheroes of the Batman school; nor damsels in distress in a fairy tale. They were women with ordinary looks in their ordinary saris or salwar-kameezes. They were ordinary women who left their daily household chores to do something they believed in… to fight oppression.
Yes, a lot of questions arise: About the women’s own motives and actions, about justice, and about taking the law into their own hands. Four women were arrested on the spot. While voicing their frustration, one woman said, “The police is of no use... we thought enough was enough. Instead of dying slowly by swallowing such humiliation, we thought it is preferable to die once for all.”
What a thought! But, what does it mean to us urban sophisticates? Was there now a breed of strong competent women in India who were worthy of hero status? And, were they emerging from small towns to do the work of men and the judiciary system? As individuals, were they more conscious of justice and their self-worth than we were?
If heroism is about living according to heroic ideals and struggling with those ideals, if heroism means action and response to challenge, then these women from Nagpur have certainly proved their point.
According to Joseph Campbell and his interpretation of heroism from mythology (see my post of 18 June), “Heroes play a crucial role… Societies must have heroes to incarnate the society’s values." From what I understand, the whole point of heroes – whether from mythology or from fantasy – is that they are not limited by reality; and here, in a small town called Nagpur, we have not just one but an entire group of women living that reality for all of us.
The Nagpur incident was a far cry from what happened in a Mumbai train almost three years ago: A young mentally-challenged woman was raped in a compartment where over half a dozen men were seated. None of them raised an alarm or tried to get the rapist off the girl. Instead, they waited for their respective stations, got down and left. Only at the final station did someone report the rape to the police.
The Nagpur women were strong, positive and self-reliant – filling the roles of men. They were not superheroes of the Batman school; nor damsels in distress in a fairy tale. They were women with ordinary looks in their ordinary saris or salwar-kameezes. They were ordinary women who left their daily household chores to do something they believed in… to fight oppression.
Yes, a lot of questions arise: About the women’s own motives and actions, about justice, and about taking the law into their own hands. Four women were arrested on the spot. While voicing their frustration, one woman said, “The police is of no use... we thought enough was enough. Instead of dying slowly by swallowing such humiliation, we thought it is preferable to die once for all.”
What a thought! But, what does it mean to us urban sophisticates? Was there now a breed of strong competent women in India who were worthy of hero status? And, were they emerging from small towns to do the work of men and the judiciary system? As individuals, were they more conscious of justice and their self-worth than we were?
If heroism is about living according to heroic ideals and struggling with those ideals, if heroism means action and response to challenge, then these women from Nagpur have certainly proved their point.
According to Joseph Campbell and his interpretation of heroism from mythology (see my post of 18 June), “Heroes play a crucial role… Societies must have heroes to incarnate the society’s values." From what I understand, the whole point of heroes – whether from mythology or from fantasy – is that they are not limited by reality; and here, in a small town called Nagpur, we have not just one but an entire group of women living that reality for all of us.
25 June 2005
Home-grown vigilantism
Last year in Nagpur, women attacked, stabbed and stoned to death a rapist who they said was going to walk free from court. They had seen him do this before. According to the women, he had raped young girls and pregnant women and sent his henchmen to extort money.
In Mumbai, reading this bit of news, I cheered the women on. The rapist’s death would promote the goals of a just society, preventing him from raping again, and potentially deterring other rapists… protecting the sacredness of innocent human life.
In Virar, a suburb of Mumbai, an armed mob attacked a group of men who had robbed a house. Three of the robbers were beaten to death, even before the local police could act. In the following days, crowds roamed the streets, looking for alleged child kidnappers.
It was a serious display of vigilantism. In real life. And I rooted for the crowds yet again. The issue here was punishment. It was part of my notion of justice.
“Effective deterrence is the ultimate function behind the human passion for measured retributive justice. It is the reason why that passion evolved,” wrote evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson in their book HOMICIDE. “But our passion for evening the score has thus become an entity in its own right, an evolved aspect of the human mind. Our desire for justice fundamentally entails a desire for revenge.”
Vigilantism does not consider the usual democratic process of trial, defence and judgment. In countless dramas in real life, people take the law into their own hands and administer their own justice. Meanwhile, audiences – far removed from the consequences of vengeance – cheer these revenge-minded heroes. As I’ve described in the Nagpur and Virar episodes, the desire for and execution of justice, whether keeping with the law or not, is a common occurrence in everyday life.
In fact, this concept of justice and fair play isn’t new to us. In 1931, when Mahatma Gandhi and his followers organised the ‘Dandi March’, marching all the way from Ahmedabad to the sea coast at Dandi to defy the British on their Salt Tax law, they had taken the law into their own hands. How justified was the march to Dandi? No one really knows. The protest was symbolic and intended to remove the tax on the humble salt, which was a burden on the poor. It was a unique idea and caught the imagination of the world – and was widely reported in the national and international media.
Does vigilantism advance the cause of justice? Does it set it back? If justice is to contain a balance between crime and punishment, then should vigilantism be allowed to carry the appeal that it does? To be made popular by the media and the arts?
It’s a complex and unending debate. So, I’ll leave you with something to think about:
The next time a motorist cuts into your lane narrowly missing your car, or a pick-pocket steals your wallet on a bus or train and leaves you in distress, or your boss at work bullies you into doing something against your will – the next time a wrong is done to you and you seek revenge – stop a moment and think.
"The world has never lacked for horrifying examples; but I do not believe that these examples are meant to be used as justification for our own crimes. This perpetual justification empties the heart of all human feeling. The emptier our hearts become, the greater will be our crimes."
James Baldwin, “Fifth Avenue, Uptown: A Letter from Harlem,” Esquire, July 1960
Cited texts:
Dandi March in an era of violence and vigilantism
The philosophy of revenge
In Mumbai, reading this bit of news, I cheered the women on. The rapist’s death would promote the goals of a just society, preventing him from raping again, and potentially deterring other rapists… protecting the sacredness of innocent human life.
In Virar, a suburb of Mumbai, an armed mob attacked a group of men who had robbed a house. Three of the robbers were beaten to death, even before the local police could act. In the following days, crowds roamed the streets, looking for alleged child kidnappers.
It was a serious display of vigilantism. In real life. And I rooted for the crowds yet again. The issue here was punishment. It was part of my notion of justice.
“Effective deterrence is the ultimate function behind the human passion for measured retributive justice. It is the reason why that passion evolved,” wrote evolutionary psychologists Martin Daly and Margo Wilson in their book HOMICIDE. “But our passion for evening the score has thus become an entity in its own right, an evolved aspect of the human mind. Our desire for justice fundamentally entails a desire for revenge.”
Vigilantism does not consider the usual democratic process of trial, defence and judgment. In countless dramas in real life, people take the law into their own hands and administer their own justice. Meanwhile, audiences – far removed from the consequences of vengeance – cheer these revenge-minded heroes. As I’ve described in the Nagpur and Virar episodes, the desire for and execution of justice, whether keeping with the law or not, is a common occurrence in everyday life.
In fact, this concept of justice and fair play isn’t new to us. In 1931, when Mahatma Gandhi and his followers organised the ‘Dandi March’, marching all the way from Ahmedabad to the sea coast at Dandi to defy the British on their Salt Tax law, they had taken the law into their own hands. How justified was the march to Dandi? No one really knows. The protest was symbolic and intended to remove the tax on the humble salt, which was a burden on the poor. It was a unique idea and caught the imagination of the world – and was widely reported in the national and international media.
Does vigilantism advance the cause of justice? Does it set it back? If justice is to contain a balance between crime and punishment, then should vigilantism be allowed to carry the appeal that it does? To be made popular by the media and the arts?
It’s a complex and unending debate. So, I’ll leave you with something to think about:
The next time a motorist cuts into your lane narrowly missing your car, or a pick-pocket steals your wallet on a bus or train and leaves you in distress, or your boss at work bullies you into doing something against your will – the next time a wrong is done to you and you seek revenge – stop a moment and think.
"The world has never lacked for horrifying examples; but I do not believe that these examples are meant to be used as justification for our own crimes. This perpetual justification empties the heart of all human feeling. The emptier our hearts become, the greater will be our crimes."
James Baldwin, “Fifth Avenue, Uptown: A Letter from Harlem,” Esquire, July 1960
Cited texts:
Dandi March in an era of violence and vigilantism
The philosophy of revenge
23 June 2005
Batman and vigilantism
“It's not what’s in your heart that defines you, but what you do.”
(Batman in this year’s movie Batman Begins)
On the surface, Bruce Wayne is a handsome, glamorous, philanthropic, industrialist billionaire and somewhat of a playboy. He seems to have no worries, no problems. However, inside, he is still carrying the torch for his parents, who were killed in front of him in a random act of street violence. Years later, in his Batman alter-ego, he responds to crime by taking justice into his own hands. And so begins Batman’s vigilantism.
Are there then two identities to a superhero which need to be reconciled?
“This ambiguity is part of the appeal,” suggests Frank Miller, author of the 1986 novel The Dark Knight Returns, who recreates the Batman saga. Miller tells the story of how Batman “gets dragged back into the vigilante trade. The story is steeped in enormous distrust of authority, and the necessary outcome of this attitude is a straightforward endorsement of vigilantism.”
Nationmaster.com, in one of the best-researched accounts on Batman, reports that, in the original 1939 DC comics series which introduced Batman, the superhero was a violent avenger who left his foes more dead than not. Yet, the series was a runaway hit.
This report is validated by an NPR programme archived from June 2002: “As imagined by Bob Kane, the comics wonder boy who dreamed him up, Batman had violent crime in his blood. As a young boy, he had witnessed the murder of his parents. And unlike other conventionally good-vs-evil superheroes with more spectacular or otherworldly talents, Kane’s hero was always just a step away from criminal behaviour himself.”
These are the origins of our superhero. Yet, millions of people across the world, many of them children, marvel at Batman’s victories, glorifying his methods and motivation. The superhero credo – along with its vigilantism roots – are not only endorsed but actually praised by the whole world.
(Batman in this year’s movie Batman Begins)
On the surface, Bruce Wayne is a handsome, glamorous, philanthropic, industrialist billionaire and somewhat of a playboy. He seems to have no worries, no problems. However, inside, he is still carrying the torch for his parents, who were killed in front of him in a random act of street violence. Years later, in his Batman alter-ego, he responds to crime by taking justice into his own hands. And so begins Batman’s vigilantism.
Are there then two identities to a superhero which need to be reconciled?
“This ambiguity is part of the appeal,” suggests Frank Miller, author of the 1986 novel The Dark Knight Returns, who recreates the Batman saga. Miller tells the story of how Batman “gets dragged back into the vigilante trade. The story is steeped in enormous distrust of authority, and the necessary outcome of this attitude is a straightforward endorsement of vigilantism.”
Nationmaster.com, in one of the best-researched accounts on Batman, reports that, in the original 1939 DC comics series which introduced Batman, the superhero was a violent avenger who left his foes more dead than not. Yet, the series was a runaway hit.
This report is validated by an NPR programme archived from June 2002: “As imagined by Bob Kane, the comics wonder boy who dreamed him up, Batman had violent crime in his blood. As a young boy, he had witnessed the murder of his parents. And unlike other conventionally good-vs-evil superheroes with more spectacular or otherworldly talents, Kane’s hero was always just a step away from criminal behaviour himself.”
These are the origins of our superhero. Yet, millions of people across the world, many of them children, marvel at Batman’s victories, glorifying his methods and motivation. The superhero credo – along with its vigilantism roots – are not only endorsed but actually praised by the whole world.
22 June 2005
Not your usual Batman film
I’ve got to hand it to Christopher Nolan – the creator of the latest Batman film. Batman is almost human.
That’s what I like most about the film “Batman Begins”: It presents a psychological profile of the superhero – tracing his childhood, his fear of bats, his witnessing of his parents’ murder, his guilt for having survived it, his desire for revenge, his misguided sense of justice, his penance.
I’m not sure if Bob Kane (the creator of Batman) had conceived his superhero in this way, i.e. with a 360-degree view in mind, but in the film Batman Begins, writer David S Goyer and cowriter-director Christopher Nolan does a great job of bringing it all together. Although it is a make-believe world of what may have happened to Bruce Wayne – the man who became Batman the superhero – to me, it makes it all believable.
Batman Begins covers a lot of ground: the traumatised child, the young man seeking justice, his life as a criminal, the warrior-in-training, the rich playboy with a secret identity, and the superhero taking on a world of crime. It shows tough Christian Bale as Batman meting out justice by embracing the role of a vigilante – the only kink in the superhero’s character. But most of all, it shows our superhero’s fallibility as a cold-blooded executioner, without compromising on his reserve for fighting crime. I guess, there’s a human side to a superhero after all.
However, let me caution you: Batman Begins is nothing like the action-comedy-fun Batman films of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher you may have already seen. This is a serious film. It is dark and joyless. It is long – making it boring for those who expect to see an action film. And, for the simple-minded, the plot is complex and heavy-going.
In other words, Batman Begins is not your usual Batman film.
That’s what I like most about the film “Batman Begins”: It presents a psychological profile of the superhero – tracing his childhood, his fear of bats, his witnessing of his parents’ murder, his guilt for having survived it, his desire for revenge, his misguided sense of justice, his penance.
I’m not sure if Bob Kane (the creator of Batman) had conceived his superhero in this way, i.e. with a 360-degree view in mind, but in the film Batman Begins, writer David S Goyer and cowriter-director Christopher Nolan does a great job of bringing it all together. Although it is a make-believe world of what may have happened to Bruce Wayne – the man who became Batman the superhero – to me, it makes it all believable.
Batman Begins covers a lot of ground: the traumatised child, the young man seeking justice, his life as a criminal, the warrior-in-training, the rich playboy with a secret identity, and the superhero taking on a world of crime. It shows tough Christian Bale as Batman meting out justice by embracing the role of a vigilante – the only kink in the superhero’s character. But most of all, it shows our superhero’s fallibility as a cold-blooded executioner, without compromising on his reserve for fighting crime. I guess, there’s a human side to a superhero after all.
However, let me caution you: Batman Begins is nothing like the action-comedy-fun Batman films of Tim Burton or Joel Schumacher you may have already seen. This is a serious film. It is dark and joyless. It is long – making it boring for those who expect to see an action film. And, for the simple-minded, the plot is complex and heavy-going.
In other words, Batman Begins is not your usual Batman film.
21 June 2005
It's in the American culture
The superhero is really a figment of the American mind. It’s a piece of American psyche that – if we go by the number of Batman, Spiderman, X-Men, etc. films in recent years – has embedded itself permanently in the American culture. The superhero embodies the collective hopes and ideals of the American nation – fighting against evil forces (possessing weapons of mass destruction), which seem to have nothing better to do than attack America.
So, the superhero steps in with his no-nonsense kick-ass attitude. He takes matters into his own hands and gets into action… leaving behind broken bones, death and devastation. Entire cities are destroyed, fireballs the size of comets lighting up the hemisphere, while people run helter-skelter like headless chickens. No one can stop the superhero. He stops only when he’s done.
If you’ve seen this once, you’ve seen it a hundred times – in all superhero films coming out of Hollywood. Then, why do you go to see a superhero film?
According to William Indick, Ph D, in an article in Journal of Media Psychology, Fall 2004, “when we identify with the hero and vicariously experience his journey, we transcend our own private conscious existence and integrate a collective cultural archetype.” Can this be true? At least, Dr Indick thinks so. In fact, he assures us right in the beginning of his article, “This compound identification with the hero fulfills what Carl Jung called the ‘transcendent function’ of myth and dreams.”
So you see, Dr Indick is not alone in this belief. There are others before him. Carl Jung and Otto Rank to start with… Then Lord Fitzroy Raglan and Joseph Campbell. In his somewhat long but fascinating article on this subject titled “Classical Heroes In Modern Movies: Mythological Patterns of the Superhero” Dr Indick gives us a 70mm view of the origin of the concept of the superhero. The question is: Is this concept restricted to American culture alone?
So, the superhero steps in with his no-nonsense kick-ass attitude. He takes matters into his own hands and gets into action… leaving behind broken bones, death and devastation. Entire cities are destroyed, fireballs the size of comets lighting up the hemisphere, while people run helter-skelter like headless chickens. No one can stop the superhero. He stops only when he’s done.
If you’ve seen this once, you’ve seen it a hundred times – in all superhero films coming out of Hollywood. Then, why do you go to see a superhero film?
According to William Indick, Ph D, in an article in Journal of Media Psychology, Fall 2004, “when we identify with the hero and vicariously experience his journey, we transcend our own private conscious existence and integrate a collective cultural archetype.” Can this be true? At least, Dr Indick thinks so. In fact, he assures us right in the beginning of his article, “This compound identification with the hero fulfills what Carl Jung called the ‘transcendent function’ of myth and dreams.”
So you see, Dr Indick is not alone in this belief. There are others before him. Carl Jung and Otto Rank to start with… Then Lord Fitzroy Raglan and Joseph Campbell. In his somewhat long but fascinating article on this subject titled “Classical Heroes In Modern Movies: Mythological Patterns of the Superhero” Dr Indick gives us a 70mm view of the origin of the concept of the superhero. The question is: Is this concept restricted to American culture alone?
20 June 2005
Superhero: a generic profile
A superhero, as we know from our comic books, is noted for feats of courage and nobility. He (or she) has abilities beyond normal human beings. He has extraordinary powers – normally physical strength and/or one or a combination of the five human senses. He has mastered fighting and/or thinking skills. And, he usually uses some sort of advanced equipment – made by him or for him by a scientist.
A superhero is also an idealist. He believes in a world which is good – where peace and harmony reigns supreme – but seldom is. He believes in saving this troubled world from evil forces which torment it – sometimes risking his own life – without expecting a reward in return. He believes in a strict moral code which he follows relentlessly, sometimes to the frustration and desperation of others (particularly a girlfriend), and lapsing into the role of a vigilante in an attempt to instil order.
A superhero is also driven by motivation: anger, revenge, justice. Sometimes, even guilt. A childhood traumatic experience, inducing fear, or a calling from a previous birth have also played a part in motivating him. Whatever be the psychographic profile of your favourite superhero, you can’t deny that he takes his responsibility seriously: he’s someone you’d like to have around when things get out of hand. In short, a superhero gives hope.
A superhero also has a catchy name, like Batman or Spiderman, and a matching costume in the superhero’s favourite colour scheme, adorned with a personal logo, fancy gadgets and fighting weapons. Plus, a superhero has a secret identity which very few people around him know.
Most people, whether they’re acquainted with DC and Marvel comics or the recent spate of superhero movies, have their favourite superheroes. Some even want to become one. If you’d like to know which superhero character and costume you’d best fit in, why not try this superhero quiz that The Guardian put together? The result can be fun and interesting.
A superhero is also an idealist. He believes in a world which is good – where peace and harmony reigns supreme – but seldom is. He believes in saving this troubled world from evil forces which torment it – sometimes risking his own life – without expecting a reward in return. He believes in a strict moral code which he follows relentlessly, sometimes to the frustration and desperation of others (particularly a girlfriend), and lapsing into the role of a vigilante in an attempt to instil order.
A superhero is also driven by motivation: anger, revenge, justice. Sometimes, even guilt. A childhood traumatic experience, inducing fear, or a calling from a previous birth have also played a part in motivating him. Whatever be the psychographic profile of your favourite superhero, you can’t deny that he takes his responsibility seriously: he’s someone you’d like to have around when things get out of hand. In short, a superhero gives hope.
A superhero also has a catchy name, like Batman or Spiderman, and a matching costume in the superhero’s favourite colour scheme, adorned with a personal logo, fancy gadgets and fighting weapons. Plus, a superhero has a secret identity which very few people around him know.
Most people, whether they’re acquainted with DC and Marvel comics or the recent spate of superhero movies, have their favourite superheroes. Some even want to become one. If you’d like to know which superhero character and costume you’d best fit in, why not try this superhero quiz that The Guardian put together? The result can be fun and interesting.
18 June 2005
The myth of the hero
"A hero ventures forth from the world of common day into a region of supernatural wonder: fabulous forces are there encountered and a decisive victory is won: the hero comes back from this mysterious adventure with the power to bestow boons on his [/her] fellow [people]."
(Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 1949)
Around the time Ayn Rand was hard-coding her concept of the hero as a man of reason, a man of exceptional intellectual insight, whose only motivation in life was self-preservation, Joseph Campbell was exploring the concept of the hero from the point of view of myth and religion. Campbell studied the myths and cultures of communities around the world and created an outline of the hero, which he believed was repeated over and over in stories throughout history… irrespective of race or religion. He proposed that all stories were fundamentally the same story, which he named “the hero’s journey.”
Campbell’s myth of the hero, though not hard-coded like Rand’s, was based on the concept of the “archetype” proposed by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. Jung’s archetype was developed, in turn, from the pioneering work done by German anthropologist Adolph Bastian, who believed that myths from all over the world were built on the same “elementary ideas.” Jung named these elementary ideas archetypes, and used this concept to find meaning within the dreams and visions of his patients who were considered mentally ill.
How all of this ties in is in Jung’s proposition: “archetypes are not only the building blocks of the unconscious mind, but of a collective unconscious.” Jung believed that everyone in this world was born with the same basic subconscious model of what a “hero” is, and that’s why people who don’t even speak the same language can enjoy the same stories… the stories Campbell called the hero’s journey.
However, Campbell took this further by suggesting that, “while mythic structure is universal, myth itself must be kept fresh through reinterpretation. Every generation must recontextualize myth to suit their times, to create their own road map for how to fit best into the world.” So, if you’re wondering what all the fuss is about Spiderman or Batman or The Lord of the Rings, or those weird Pokemon characters your son is so crazy about, remember the words of Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung or Adolph Bastian. Or, better still, go out and see the movie “Batman Begins” – at least, that’s what I’m going to do this weekend.
(Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces, 1949)
Around the time Ayn Rand was hard-coding her concept of the hero as a man of reason, a man of exceptional intellectual insight, whose only motivation in life was self-preservation, Joseph Campbell was exploring the concept of the hero from the point of view of myth and religion. Campbell studied the myths and cultures of communities around the world and created an outline of the hero, which he believed was repeated over and over in stories throughout history… irrespective of race or religion. He proposed that all stories were fundamentally the same story, which he named “the hero’s journey.”
Campbell’s myth of the hero, though not hard-coded like Rand’s, was based on the concept of the “archetype” proposed by Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung. Jung’s archetype was developed, in turn, from the pioneering work done by German anthropologist Adolph Bastian, who believed that myths from all over the world were built on the same “elementary ideas.” Jung named these elementary ideas archetypes, and used this concept to find meaning within the dreams and visions of his patients who were considered mentally ill.
How all of this ties in is in Jung’s proposition: “archetypes are not only the building blocks of the unconscious mind, but of a collective unconscious.” Jung believed that everyone in this world was born with the same basic subconscious model of what a “hero” is, and that’s why people who don’t even speak the same language can enjoy the same stories… the stories Campbell called the hero’s journey.
However, Campbell took this further by suggesting that, “while mythic structure is universal, myth itself must be kept fresh through reinterpretation. Every generation must recontextualize myth to suit their times, to create their own road map for how to fit best into the world.” So, if you’re wondering what all the fuss is about Spiderman or Batman or The Lord of the Rings, or those weird Pokemon characters your son is so crazy about, remember the words of Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung or Adolph Bastian. Or, better still, go out and see the movie “Batman Begins” – at least, that’s what I’m going to do this weekend.
15 June 2005
Foundations of heroism
Whether you’ve been reading my previous posts or not, you must’ve figured out that to be a hero you need to give your life to something bigger than yourself: Either display an act of courage and save lives, which is the physical deed; or experience something superhuman and then come back with a message and share it with others, which is the spiritual deed. Then, according to a third philosophy based on Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, there’s the intellectual hero, fortified with the power of reason, ready to conquer the world.
Heroes seem to understand that something is missing from their consciousness. They struggle with it until they find what it is, claim it, and then share it… even if it leads to a tragic end for them. I’m sure many of us have experienced this in our lives; and this thought made me wonder if there is a hero hidden within all of us. Are we not all heroes in some way or the other?
Dr Andrew Bernstein, an Objectivist in his own right, doesn’t believe so. In fact, he proposes a quick reality check for us: “What, the first question must be, is the distinguishing essence of heroism? What characteristics must one possess to qualify as a hero?” In his essay “The Philosophical Foundations of Heroism” he presents, what I believe to be, one of the best studies of heroism.
Barring a few references to Hillary and Bill Clinton, even Hamlet, which I found rather foolish, the essay is really good. However, Dr Bernstein may have overemphasised the Randian presentation of an intellectual hero as a moral genius. Yes, moral character is an integral part of heroism; and so is intellect. But, I believe, one could be an intellectual hero without possessing any moral character whatsoever.
Heroes seem to understand that something is missing from their consciousness. They struggle with it until they find what it is, claim it, and then share it… even if it leads to a tragic end for them. I’m sure many of us have experienced this in our lives; and this thought made me wonder if there is a hero hidden within all of us. Are we not all heroes in some way or the other?
Dr Andrew Bernstein, an Objectivist in his own right, doesn’t believe so. In fact, he proposes a quick reality check for us: “What, the first question must be, is the distinguishing essence of heroism? What characteristics must one possess to qualify as a hero?” In his essay “The Philosophical Foundations of Heroism” he presents, what I believe to be, one of the best studies of heroism.
Barring a few references to Hillary and Bill Clinton, even Hamlet, which I found rather foolish, the essay is really good. However, Dr Bernstein may have overemphasised the Randian presentation of an intellectual hero as a moral genius. Yes, moral character is an integral part of heroism; and so is intellect. But, I believe, one could be an intellectual hero without possessing any moral character whatsoever.
13 June 2005
Heroes versus heroes
[No, this is not about Brazil versus Argentina in World Cup Football]
Traditionally, a hero has been defined as someone who has found or done something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience. A hero is someone who has given his life to something bigger than himself. Meaning, there’s a moral objective to heroism: usually saving people, or supporting an idea. To put it in a few words, a hero is someone who sacrifices himself for something of greater good to mankind and society.
Typically, the hero has been a person of superior skill and/or distinct physical prowess: the soldier-king is a prime example of this. In many myths, the hero has also been defined as a person of divine origin: a son or daughter of a god or deity. Traditionally, too, the hero has been seen as a man of the mind: a thinker/philosopher, a scientist, a spiritual leader. And, since the Industrial Revolution, the hero has been identified as a producer – from the technological/economic/business sense.
These heroes are the life-giving forces whose work makes possible human success, prosperity and happiness. And the stories we read are really the tales of what being a hero is all about.
The heroes in Ayn Rand’s stories, however, are a sharp contrast to all this. Except, perhaps, to include the producer-hero of the Industrial Revolution. Rand’s heroes have nothing to do with war or slaying of dragons or saving people; they are driven by reason, science, technology, economics and business. They have everything to do with the power of the mind of the modern man: therein lies his heroism.
Mind you, “the power of the mind” Rand refers to is not the Gautama Buddha nor the Plato variety that dominates our history and civilisation. Her philosophy of the hero is that of practical reality, of self-preservation, of reason. Hers is an intellectual hero, far advanced from the common man; a product of the best of modern civilisation. Hers is a hero whose rational potential is fully actualised. Hers is a hero whose life-giving force is his intellectual accomplishment.
Which one would you rather be?
Traditionally, a hero has been defined as someone who has found or done something beyond the normal range of achievement and experience. A hero is someone who has given his life to something bigger than himself. Meaning, there’s a moral objective to heroism: usually saving people, or supporting an idea. To put it in a few words, a hero is someone who sacrifices himself for something of greater good to mankind and society.
Typically, the hero has been a person of superior skill and/or distinct physical prowess: the soldier-king is a prime example of this. In many myths, the hero has also been defined as a person of divine origin: a son or daughter of a god or deity. Traditionally, too, the hero has been seen as a man of the mind: a thinker/philosopher, a scientist, a spiritual leader. And, since the Industrial Revolution, the hero has been identified as a producer – from the technological/economic/business sense.
These heroes are the life-giving forces whose work makes possible human success, prosperity and happiness. And the stories we read are really the tales of what being a hero is all about.
The heroes in Ayn Rand’s stories, however, are a sharp contrast to all this. Except, perhaps, to include the producer-hero of the Industrial Revolution. Rand’s heroes have nothing to do with war or slaying of dragons or saving people; they are driven by reason, science, technology, economics and business. They have everything to do with the power of the mind of the modern man: therein lies his heroism.
Mind you, “the power of the mind” Rand refers to is not the Gautama Buddha nor the Plato variety that dominates our history and civilisation. Her philosophy of the hero is that of practical reality, of self-preservation, of reason. Hers is an intellectual hero, far advanced from the common man; a product of the best of modern civilisation. Hers is a hero whose rational potential is fully actualised. Hers is a hero whose life-giving force is his intellectual accomplishment.
Which one would you rather be?
12 June 2005
Ayn again: celebrating 100 years
“An organism’s life is its standard of value. Whatever furthers its life is good and that which threatens it is evil… The nature of a living entity determines what it ought to do.” This is Dr Edward Younkins’ understanding of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, as expressed in his article in “The Individual” in 1999. Dr Younkins may be right – for the concept of “the individual” is in the forefront of every Ayn Rand novel and writing.
I had no clear vision of this when I read Ayn Rand. To me Rand stood for personal freedom, selfishness and capitalism, and these seemed almost Olympian in size in my teenage mind. Impressionable and with an imagination which needed curbing, I remember reading Night of January 16th, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in my high-school days, wallowing in lofty ideals like, “The man with a purpose is a man in control of his life.” Or, “Work and achievement are the highest goals in life.” Or, even better, “Sex is an expression of a man’s self-esteem, of his own self-value.”
Rand’s books had their own attraction, giving impressionable egos like mine a fillip they badly needed; and I’m sure, if I had come across a Playboy magazine then, it would have stirred things up just as much. So, imagine my surprise, when, more than 25 years later, on the internet, I discover an Ayn Rand interview by Playboy magazine dating back to 1964, discussing the very ideals I had to find after ransacking books and magazines at the British Council Library.
But, is there a male bias in all this? Did Rand write only for men, taking their egos to lofty heights? According to influential feminist writer Susan Brownmiller, Rand is “a traitor to her own sex.” And to Camille Paglia, Rand is “an intellectual prototype of her own bad self.” Yet, Rand had thousands of women students among her followers, and to this day, we find Nora Ephron (novelist and screenwriter) and Hillary Rodham Clinton as supporters of her philosophy.
What about the women in Rand’s novels? They defy conventions and are fiercely independent. And unapologetically sexual. Yet Rand also wrote that the nature of female desire was to seek worshipful domination by a heroic male. I couldn’t figure this one out. Was this a joke? Was Rand suggesting some sort of a sadomasochistic role for her women in preference to her male heroes? Controversies abound.
Who was Ayn Rand? What was her vision? When, like me, millions of high-school students enter her world with enthusiasm, are they entering an intellectual adventure of a fictional hero? Or, are they discovering a world much more potent than what we have ever dreamt of? While we celebrate the Ayn Rand Centenniel Year, maybe we’ll find some answers.
I had no clear vision of this when I read Ayn Rand. To me Rand stood for personal freedom, selfishness and capitalism, and these seemed almost Olympian in size in my teenage mind. Impressionable and with an imagination which needed curbing, I remember reading Night of January 16th, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in my high-school days, wallowing in lofty ideals like, “The man with a purpose is a man in control of his life.” Or, “Work and achievement are the highest goals in life.” Or, even better, “Sex is an expression of a man’s self-esteem, of his own self-value.”
Rand’s books had their own attraction, giving impressionable egos like mine a fillip they badly needed; and I’m sure, if I had come across a Playboy magazine then, it would have stirred things up just as much. So, imagine my surprise, when, more than 25 years later, on the internet, I discover an Ayn Rand interview by Playboy magazine dating back to 1964, discussing the very ideals I had to find after ransacking books and magazines at the British Council Library.
But, is there a male bias in all this? Did Rand write only for men, taking their egos to lofty heights? According to influential feminist writer Susan Brownmiller, Rand is “a traitor to her own sex.” And to Camille Paglia, Rand is “an intellectual prototype of her own bad self.” Yet, Rand had thousands of women students among her followers, and to this day, we find Nora Ephron (novelist and screenwriter) and Hillary Rodham Clinton as supporters of her philosophy.
What about the women in Rand’s novels? They defy conventions and are fiercely independent. And unapologetically sexual. Yet Rand also wrote that the nature of female desire was to seek worshipful domination by a heroic male. I couldn’t figure this one out. Was this a joke? Was Rand suggesting some sort of a sadomasochistic role for her women in preference to her male heroes? Controversies abound.
Who was Ayn Rand? What was her vision? When, like me, millions of high-school students enter her world with enthusiasm, are they entering an intellectual adventure of a fictional hero? Or, are they discovering a world much more potent than what we have ever dreamt of? While we celebrate the Ayn Rand Centenniel Year, maybe we’ll find some answers.
10 June 2005
Ayn Rand's Objectivism
Ayn Rand named her philosophy “Objectivism” and described it as a philosophy for living on earth. Objectivism is an integrated system of thought that defines the abstract principles by which a man must think and act if he is to live the life proper to man. Ayn Rand first portrayed her philosophy in the form of the heroes of her best-selling novels, The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957). She later expressed her philosophy in non-fiction form.
The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962:
“At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
3. “Man is an end in himself.”
4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency – to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them – requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot – nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute – facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man – every man – is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”
Copyright 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.; courtesy The Ayn Rand Institute
The following is a short description of Objectivism given by Ayn Rand in 1962:
“At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows:
1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism
If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.”
2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.”
3. “Man is an end in himself.”
4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency – to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them – requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot – nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.
My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:
Reality exists as an objective absolute – facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
Man – every man – is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.”
Copyright 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.; courtesy The Ayn Rand Institute
09 June 2005
Objectivism: A to Z
“My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
– Ayn Rand, author, Atlas Shrugged
“I couldn’t stand it anymore… I was 19 when I killed my stepfather who was constantly beating me and my mother.”
– Zhanna, 20 years old, serving her sentence at a women's prison in Zhalgashty, Kazakhstan
Like Zhanna, many women in the Zhalgashty prison are there for killing men – husbands, stepfathers, brothers – who abused them physically and mentally.
“Domestic violence remains a serious problem, against which the government has failed to take effective measures. Those who commit physical abuse rarely face criminal prosecution. The revitalization of old cultural traditions that call for women’s submissiveness to their husbands and the lack of legal tools have resulted in many local officials refusing to take violence against women seriously, often blaming the victims and blocking women’s attempts to escape brutality and violence in the household.
With little or no legal protection, women who are victims of domestic violence suffer doubly: at the hands of husbands who abuse them, and at the hands of society. As a result, many women become desperate and take matters into their own hands. And those who do usually end up in prisons.”
– Zuzanna Jezerska, Regional Project Manager, UNIFEM Public Awareness Campaign for Women’s Right to a Life Free of Violence
– Ayn Rand, author, Atlas Shrugged
“I couldn’t stand it anymore… I was 19 when I killed my stepfather who was constantly beating me and my mother.”
– Zhanna, 20 years old, serving her sentence at a women's prison in Zhalgashty, Kazakhstan
Like Zhanna, many women in the Zhalgashty prison are there for killing men – husbands, stepfathers, brothers – who abused them physically and mentally.
“Domestic violence remains a serious problem, against which the government has failed to take effective measures. Those who commit physical abuse rarely face criminal prosecution. The revitalization of old cultural traditions that call for women’s submissiveness to their husbands and the lack of legal tools have resulted in many local officials refusing to take violence against women seriously, often blaming the victims and blocking women’s attempts to escape brutality and violence in the household.
With little or no legal protection, women who are victims of domestic violence suffer doubly: at the hands of husbands who abuse them, and at the hands of society. As a result, many women become desperate and take matters into their own hands. And those who do usually end up in prisons.”
– Zuzanna Jezerska, Regional Project Manager, UNIFEM Public Awareness Campaign for Women’s Right to a Life Free of Violence
08 June 2005
Testimony of Dr Geeta Rao Gupta
“The most extreme form of male power is violence against women – and we now know that physical violence, the threat or fear of violence, and the fear of abandonment and destitution interact with other gender-based economic and social inequalities to significantly increase women’s vulnerability.
One in three women around the world has experienced violence in the intimate settings of their homes and within their marriages. We have fought for many years as an international development community towards the freedom from hunger, want, and disease – but somehow we forgot that what many women desperately need is the freedom from fear. Fear of violence and abuse regulates the behavioral choices of more women than we care to know. It regulates the behavior of women from a wide range of socioeconomic classes, ages, and geographical regions. And the costs of violence are borne by women themselves, their children, as well as the communities and economies in which they live.
A recent study conducted by ICRW in partnership with epidemiologists in India found that 40 percent of almost 10,000 women surveyed had experienced physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner at least once in their lives. Nearly two-thirds of those had experienced physical violence three or more times and half had experienced violence during pregnancy. In addition to physical injury, the study found that violence has both emotional and economic impacts on individuals and families. Women reported loss of motivation and energy, a decrease in productivity, with a high percentage having considered suicide. The economic costs were also found to be very high. A preliminary estimate indicates that a serious incidence of violence, leading to hospitalization or inability to work, results in the loss of 30 to 40 percent of the monthly income of rural households.”
– Dr Geeta Rao Gupta, President of International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus & Congressional Women's Caucus on 29 October 2003 [excerpt]
One in three women around the world has experienced violence in the intimate settings of their homes and within their marriages. We have fought for many years as an international development community towards the freedom from hunger, want, and disease – but somehow we forgot that what many women desperately need is the freedom from fear. Fear of violence and abuse regulates the behavioral choices of more women than we care to know. It regulates the behavior of women from a wide range of socioeconomic classes, ages, and geographical regions. And the costs of violence are borne by women themselves, their children, as well as the communities and economies in which they live.
A recent study conducted by ICRW in partnership with epidemiologists in India found that 40 percent of almost 10,000 women surveyed had experienced physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner at least once in their lives. Nearly two-thirds of those had experienced physical violence three or more times and half had experienced violence during pregnancy. In addition to physical injury, the study found that violence has both emotional and economic impacts on individuals and families. Women reported loss of motivation and energy, a decrease in productivity, with a high percentage having considered suicide. The economic costs were also found to be very high. A preliminary estimate indicates that a serious incidence of violence, leading to hospitalization or inability to work, results in the loss of 30 to 40 percent of the monthly income of rural households.”
– Dr Geeta Rao Gupta, President of International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus & Congressional Women's Caucus on 29 October 2003 [excerpt]
07 June 2005
Have we not evolved yet?
At The Penn Summit on Global Issues in Women’s Health, “Safe Womanhood in an Unsafe World” in end-April this year, it was felt that “Although women often provide the foundation for societal stability, their ability to contribute productively to the environments where they reside is often compromised by violence, a lack of rights, low social status, marginal health and limited decision-making about their lives and those of their children.” Can this be true?
A friend and fellow-blogger reports in his 4 June blog, “under the Sharia (the code of Islamic laws… and their convenient interpretations) women rape victims can be put to death – for having slept with strangers. Mass rape carried out as ethnic cleansing in Sudan’s stricken Darfur region has largely gone unreported. Victims are afraid to testify and face the wrath of Sudan’s strict Shariat laws.”
Across the globe from Africa, Janice Asher, clinical director of women’s health at University of Pennsylvania’s Student Health Service, suggests that there is a tendency to think that rape or sexual assault only happens to “other people” or “uneducated people”. Yet, every year, she sees some of the best, brightest and richest students of an Ivy League university like uPenn walk into her clinic as rape victims. In her reality, Ms Asher says, before the year is through “at least one-quarter [of the female students] will have had sex against their will.”
Around the time delegates discussed “Safe Womanhood in an Unsafe World” in the ambient atmosphere of a conference hall at The Penn Summit, in Mumbai, a drunk police constable raped a teenage girl in the early hours of the evening close to a walking thoroughfare. In New Delhi, our capital, there are reports of rape everyday, in spite of the fact that most rapes are not reported.
Who gets raped? According to an article, New Delhi – the rape capital of India?, “Everyone from little girls to grandmothers. Age is no barrier… Rapes happen across the social strata in India.” Why do women get raped? Why do men rape? Why are women afraid to report being raped? The answers can be many… ranging from foolishness to frightening.
I guess there are sociological as well as psychological issues involved here. Even cultural predispositions. But, what about the “becoming human” aspect of our evolution I blogged about last Sunday? About intellect controlling instincts? About displaying behaviour disciplined by intellect… which is a hallmark of our civilisation. Have we not evolved to that extent yet?
A friend and fellow-blogger reports in his 4 June blog, “under the Sharia (the code of Islamic laws… and their convenient interpretations) women rape victims can be put to death – for having slept with strangers. Mass rape carried out as ethnic cleansing in Sudan’s stricken Darfur region has largely gone unreported. Victims are afraid to testify and face the wrath of Sudan’s strict Shariat laws.”
Across the globe from Africa, Janice Asher, clinical director of women’s health at University of Pennsylvania’s Student Health Service, suggests that there is a tendency to think that rape or sexual assault only happens to “other people” or “uneducated people”. Yet, every year, she sees some of the best, brightest and richest students of an Ivy League university like uPenn walk into her clinic as rape victims. In her reality, Ms Asher says, before the year is through “at least one-quarter [of the female students] will have had sex against their will.”
Around the time delegates discussed “Safe Womanhood in an Unsafe World” in the ambient atmosphere of a conference hall at The Penn Summit, in Mumbai, a drunk police constable raped a teenage girl in the early hours of the evening close to a walking thoroughfare. In New Delhi, our capital, there are reports of rape everyday, in spite of the fact that most rapes are not reported.
Who gets raped? According to an article, New Delhi – the rape capital of India?, “Everyone from little girls to grandmothers. Age is no barrier… Rapes happen across the social strata in India.” Why do women get raped? Why do men rape? Why are women afraid to report being raped? The answers can be many… ranging from foolishness to frightening.
I guess there are sociological as well as psychological issues involved here. Even cultural predispositions. But, what about the “becoming human” aspect of our evolution I blogged about last Sunday? About intellect controlling instincts? About displaying behaviour disciplined by intellect… which is a hallmark of our civilisation. Have we not evolved to that extent yet?
05 June 2005
Becoming human
According to the theory of human evolution, our social drives developed long before we developed intellectually. Which means, these social drives – like mother-love, compassion, cooperation, curiosity, inventiveness and competitiveness – are instinctive; not intellectual.
“Not intellectual” means they cannot be modified through education – i.e. by presentation of knowledge for future assimilation and use. Yet, the principle of “survival of the fittest”, which is clearly evident in our evolution and in our behaviour, suggests we can modify our behaviour to suit the need of the hour… slowly growing (evolving) into a smarter (higher order) animal.
Does this mean the intellect developed as a “control” over instincts to provide adaptable behaviour? If so, it means that control – or self-control – is a major differentiating factor between us humans and lower order animals (i.e. those who apply only instinct to their behavioural decisions).
This also means "control" is an important measure of our human-ness (being human). The more control we have over our instincts, the more human we become. The more we display behaviour disciplined by intellect, the more human we become. Sounds reasonable, right?
“Becoming Human” is an interactive documentary on the human evolution created by Arizona State University’s Institute of Human Origins. In it, Dr David C Johanson, a leading paleo-anthropologist, guides us through four million years of human evolution in a beautiful easy-to-understand presentation. Take a look; you may find some of the answers here.
“Not intellectual” means they cannot be modified through education – i.e. by presentation of knowledge for future assimilation and use. Yet, the principle of “survival of the fittest”, which is clearly evident in our evolution and in our behaviour, suggests we can modify our behaviour to suit the need of the hour… slowly growing (evolving) into a smarter (higher order) animal.
Does this mean the intellect developed as a “control” over instincts to provide adaptable behaviour? If so, it means that control – or self-control – is a major differentiating factor between us humans and lower order animals (i.e. those who apply only instinct to their behavioural decisions).
This also means "control" is an important measure of our human-ness (being human). The more control we have over our instincts, the more human we become. The more we display behaviour disciplined by intellect, the more human we become. Sounds reasonable, right?
“Becoming Human” is an interactive documentary on the human evolution created by Arizona State University’s Institute of Human Origins. In it, Dr David C Johanson, a leading paleo-anthropologist, guides us through four million years of human evolution in a beautiful easy-to-understand presentation. Take a look; you may find some of the answers here.
04 June 2005
Stepping out
Where would we be today if our ancestors, and in turn their ancestors, did not survive the Ice Ages or their predators? In fact, not only did they survive, they actually prospered, bringing in cultural developments over thousands of years.
We may have evolved from primates and other apes, but the most fascinating differentiating aspect of the human race has been our ability to adapt to environmental changes and move on to build civilisations. Obviously, this didn’t happen overnight, but took tens of thousands of years. You can find out more about this part of our history by reading a charming book, “After The Ice: A Global Human History, 20000-5000 BC,” by Professor Steven Mithen of The University of Reading.
In “After The Ice”, Prof Mithen takes us through 15,000 years of human history in a magical time-travel. He creates a time-traveller, John Lubbock, who goes around the globe, observing, exploring and recording human history. Prof Mithen blends in Lubbock’s explorations with his own explanations based on archaeological, anthropological and scientific facts… giving us an engaging account of how humans evolved from hunter-gatherers to farmers to domesticators of animals to village builders… resulting in urban civilisations of today.
It’s a make-believe world, and “After The Ice” almost reads like a novel, but Prof Mithen’s supporting facts make this a compelling work of non-fiction. You can read a review of this book on American Scientist Online. Or better still, if you’re curious, why not read an account of our ancestors’ migration from Africa in Steven Mithen’s own words in “Stepping Out” (PDF version)?
We may have evolved from primates and other apes, but the most fascinating differentiating aspect of the human race has been our ability to adapt to environmental changes and move on to build civilisations. Obviously, this didn’t happen overnight, but took tens of thousands of years. You can find out more about this part of our history by reading a charming book, “After The Ice: A Global Human History, 20000-5000 BC,” by Professor Steven Mithen of The University of Reading.
In “After The Ice”, Prof Mithen takes us through 15,000 years of human history in a magical time-travel. He creates a time-traveller, John Lubbock, who goes around the globe, observing, exploring and recording human history. Prof Mithen blends in Lubbock’s explorations with his own explanations based on archaeological, anthropological and scientific facts… giving us an engaging account of how humans evolved from hunter-gatherers to farmers to domesticators of animals to village builders… resulting in urban civilisations of today.
It’s a make-believe world, and “After The Ice” almost reads like a novel, but Prof Mithen’s supporting facts make this a compelling work of non-fiction. You can read a review of this book on American Scientist Online. Or better still, if you’re curious, why not read an account of our ancestors’ migration from Africa in Steven Mithen’s own words in “Stepping Out” (PDF version)?
03 June 2005
Life, the universe, and our place in it
“The essence of life is what sages and poets throughout the ages have called the breath of life.” That’s Fritjof Capra’s response to the question, ‘what is the nature of life?’ in an interview with Patricia Hemminger for Science & Spirit.
Prof Capra, an eminent physicist and systems theorist, author and founder of the Center for Ecoliteracy, believes we need to look at the universe and life from a holistic point of view, rather than proposing traditional mechanistic models in an attempt to quantify everything. While talking about the natural environment – what he calls ‘the web of life’ – he suggests that, to understand life, we need to see it from an ecological perspective.
Explaining the basic fact that no living organism can exist in isolation, he feels “we need to focus on processes and we need to focus on relationships between the components of living organisms to capture the essence of life.” In his vision, human beings are actually a part of a larger living system.
Prof Capra’s vision is greatly influenced by the Gaia Theory, which proposes that the Earth itself is a single self-regulating biological entity. Of course, the scientific community is not entirely convinced about this, and many scientists argue that the Gaia Theory is more mystical than scientific in nature.
Whatever be the controversy, some things seem to be clear: that life and the physical environment significantly influence one another. And, “as far as humans are concerned we are, biologically speaking, animals and we evolved from the other mammals through primates and the great apes. And so we are part of a whole chain of evolution and the whole web of life.”
Prof Capra, an eminent physicist and systems theorist, author and founder of the Center for Ecoliteracy, believes we need to look at the universe and life from a holistic point of view, rather than proposing traditional mechanistic models in an attempt to quantify everything. While talking about the natural environment – what he calls ‘the web of life’ – he suggests that, to understand life, we need to see it from an ecological perspective.
Explaining the basic fact that no living organism can exist in isolation, he feels “we need to focus on processes and we need to focus on relationships between the components of living organisms to capture the essence of life.” In his vision, human beings are actually a part of a larger living system.
Prof Capra’s vision is greatly influenced by the Gaia Theory, which proposes that the Earth itself is a single self-regulating biological entity. Of course, the scientific community is not entirely convinced about this, and many scientists argue that the Gaia Theory is more mystical than scientific in nature.
Whatever be the controversy, some things seem to be clear: that life and the physical environment significantly influence one another. And, “as far as humans are concerned we are, biologically speaking, animals and we evolved from the other mammals through primates and the great apes. And so we are part of a whole chain of evolution and the whole web of life.”
02 June 2005
Spirituality and science
What happens if we conduct research in spirituality while applying the scientific method? Can we find a model of spirituality which agrees with science? Can scientific inquiry lead us to the same transcendent knowledge that the world’s spiritual traditions speak of?
In a wonderful and thought-provoking article, “Advaita and Science”, Dr Nitin Trasi introduces us to the doctrine of advaita and says: “Interestingly, we can. Not only that, if we delve a little further, we will find that all the mystics and sages have been pointing to this very same philosophy from time immemorial.”
However, eminent economist E F Schumacher may have believed otherwise. In an interview to Fritjof Capra, physicist and author of books like The Tao of Physics and Uncommon Wisdom, Prof Schumacher said: “We have to be very careful to avoid head-on confrontation… I don't believe at all that physics can help us in solving our problems today.”
Fritjof Capra met E F Schumacher in 1977 (shortly before Schumacher’s death) and narrated the essence of this meeting in his book Uncommon Wisdom. Today, thanks to “What Is Enlightenment” magazine, you can read an account of this interview – also wonderful and thought-provoking – in “Encounter at the Edge of the New Paradigm.”
In a wonderful and thought-provoking article, “Advaita and Science”, Dr Nitin Trasi introduces us to the doctrine of advaita and says: “Interestingly, we can. Not only that, if we delve a little further, we will find that all the mystics and sages have been pointing to this very same philosophy from time immemorial.”
However, eminent economist E F Schumacher may have believed otherwise. In an interview to Fritjof Capra, physicist and author of books like The Tao of Physics and Uncommon Wisdom, Prof Schumacher said: “We have to be very careful to avoid head-on confrontation… I don't believe at all that physics can help us in solving our problems today.”
Fritjof Capra met E F Schumacher in 1977 (shortly before Schumacher’s death) and narrated the essence of this meeting in his book Uncommon Wisdom. Today, thanks to “What Is Enlightenment” magazine, you can read an account of this interview – also wonderful and thought-provoking – in “Encounter at the Edge of the New Paradigm.”
01 June 2005
A striking new picture of "reality"
In spirituality, there are many points of view offering meaningful explanations of “reality” to the common man. Some of these explanations cross over into the realm of science, as science itself has had to cross over into spirituality whenever it has tried to expand its boundaries.
The truth of the matter seems to be that, there is a connection; but no one knows for sure when, where, why or how it happens. In an article going back almost ten years, “Science & Spirituality: Bridging The Gap”, Shahriar Shahriari presents a lucid discussion on this subject, bringing together science, the supernatural, and spirituality.
Mr Shahriari’s point of view is based on the theory of “the holographic nature of reality”, which really is the result of the combined work done by London physicist David Bohm and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram. Apparently, after much scientific investigation, both Bohm and Pribram have arrived at the conclusion that the universe is more like a hologram, where every part (of the hologram) contains all the information processed by the whole. They feel “the whole contained in every part” nature of the hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organisation and order. In fact, this understanding may help us solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science – and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.
In a fascinating (but somewhat lengthy) article, “Spirituality and Science: The Holographic Universe”, Michael Talbot narrates the story of Bohm and Pribram: “The most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm’s theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is ‘there’ is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist.”
Connecting the holographic theory to spirituality, Mr Talbot explains, “As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really ‘receivers’ floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmorgify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the super hologram.”
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm’s and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm.
The truth of the matter seems to be that, there is a connection; but no one knows for sure when, where, why or how it happens. In an article going back almost ten years, “Science & Spirituality: Bridging The Gap”, Shahriar Shahriari presents a lucid discussion on this subject, bringing together science, the supernatural, and spirituality.
Mr Shahriari’s point of view is based on the theory of “the holographic nature of reality”, which really is the result of the combined work done by London physicist David Bohm and Stanford neurophysiologist Karl Pribram. Apparently, after much scientific investigation, both Bohm and Pribram have arrived at the conclusion that the universe is more like a hologram, where every part (of the hologram) contains all the information processed by the whole. They feel “the whole contained in every part” nature of the hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organisation and order. In fact, this understanding may help us solve some mysteries that have never before been explainable by science – and even establish the paranormal as a part of nature.
In a fascinating (but somewhat lengthy) article, “Spirituality and Science: The Holographic Universe”, Michael Talbot narrates the story of Bohm and Pribram: “The most mind-boggling aspect of Pribram’s holographic model of the brain is what happens when it is put together with Bohm’s theory. For if the concreteness of the world is but a secondary reality and what is ‘there’ is actually a holographic blur of frequencies, and if the brain is also a hologram and only selects some of the frequencies out of this blur and mathematically transforms them into sensory perceptions, what becomes of objective reality? Put quite simply, it ceases to exist.”
Connecting the holographic theory to spirituality, Mr Talbot explains, “As the religions of the East have long upheld, the material world is maya, an illusion, and although we may think we are physical beings moving through a physical world, this too is an illusion. We are really ‘receivers’ floating through a kaleidoscopic sea of frequency, and what we extract from this sea and transmorgify into physical reality is but one channel from many extracted out of the super hologram.”
This striking new picture of reality, the synthesis of Bohm’s and Pribram's views, has come to be called the holographic paradigm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
