Of Passion in writing

Yesterday, at the fag end of a drinking session, a dear friend lamented that postings on my blog were sans ‘passion’. They were too “balanced” or “politically correct”. I tried to reason with him but his refrain was that “the person writing [the blog] is more interesting than the writings” (I felt flattered!). I don’t know whether to take his counsel seriously and splash my blog with inanities that pass as interesting conversation or to stick to my ponderous style in writing short essays on my blog.

Most of us are good conversationalists. We can discuss a plethora of topics with ease. We have opinion about everything and we seldom hesitate to thrust it on others. We may lack consistency in our arguments; we may lack due insight on a subject; we may be throwing logic to winds while arguing our point, but it doesn’t prevent us from believing that ours is the most cogent and perspicacious view-point. We try to mask the shallowness of our knowledge by putting forth our point passionately. The lack of logical appeal in our arguments is more than compensated by our vociferous assertions. Thus we carry on with our prattle, all the while nurturing the delusion that we are rational and thinking persons.

Now, I am ok with all this sham when participating in small talk. But when expressing myself in writing, especially when it is in public domain, I’m a bit conscious. I deliberately purge my postings of missionary zeal. When writing my main objective is not to impress or incite but to present an objective analysis/argument in the best possible manner I am capable of. At the same time, I am aware of my limitations as a writer, and know I’ll never be able to match Hemingway’s lucidity. Mine is an humble attempt to share my thinking framework, howsoever naïve and flawed it may be, with others.

Hence, my dear friend, my blog will continue to lack passionate appeal but it will never be blinkered and myopic---at least this much you can be assured of.

Mob mentality

The word mob has been derived from Latin root, mobile vulgus, ‘excitable crowd’. In modern times this word has come to be associated with "a disorderly or riotous crowd of people ... bent on or engaged in lawless violence." (Random House) In recent times there have been increasing incidences of mob-violence around the globe--- be it the student agitation in France or the Muslim around the globe protesting against the publishing of derogatory cartoons hurting their religious belief or the Nepalese demanding restoration of democracy or the anti-WTO protests in HK last year or the rampage caused by Late Raj Kumar’s fans in Bangalore after his demise. All these and many more similar incidents are indicative of a deep-rooted malaise afflicting human mind which finds a vent in such senseless mob-frenzy. Psychologists and sociologists may try to ‘deconstruct’ mob-mentality, and bring forth fancy theories explaining it, but the fact is that so far no one has been able to find a solution to it. The rich and the poor, the educated and the uneducated, the religious and the heretics have been seen to exhibit wanton and reckless behavior when part of a mob.

But Random House offers a secondary definition of mob as "the common people; the masses; populace or multitude”. And it is not as if we do not have examples to support this definition of mob. Gandhiji’s Satyagrahas involved thousands of volunteers but none resorted to violent means despite provocations by the British; Narmada Bachao Andolan activists have been holding peaceful agitation for a fairly long period; many a large religious procession across the world are carried out peacefully.

So, it is not as if mob is always a negative force in a society. It is only when a mob is rudderless in the absence of an effective leadership, or when a small group within a mob plays miscreant, that the herd mentality replaces individual rationality. How to isolate this group within a mob, and tackle it lawfully is a challenge before all of us. We cannot absolve ourselves of the responsibility by saying "I don't care", "It doesn't matter to me". Who knows tomorrow we or a loved one may be the victim of a rampaging mob? And nothing could be worse if the state decides to take away our right to assemble in the name of curbing mob frenzy. Just imagine how scary such a situation would be? Better we ask ourselves these questions and not derive vicarious pleasure when a city/a nation & its denizens or a particular group are branded as mob crazy.

Mind & Matter

Thinkers, both eastern and western, have long argued about which one is supreme---mind or matter. The proponents on either side of the debate have passionately argued their case with analytical and speculative arguments. Still the ‘matter’ is far from being resolved.

Sir Bernard Williams, late English philosopher, argues that “we identify more closely with our bodies than our minds”. To test our intuitions about the self, he says, let’s assume an imaginary scenario. We are at the mercy of a mad scientist who has planned to give us intense physical torture the next day. In a moment of generosity, the scientist gives us the option of wiping our memories and replaces it with those of Napoleon. If memory is the seat of self, then we would have nothing to fear for the next day’s torture. However, how many of us would really buy this argument? It is crystal clear to us that despite memory-replacement experiment, we would still suffer from the pain inflicted by the scientist.

Take another example. We have all seen the famous ‘transporter’ machines in Star Trek, which supposedly take a person apart atom by atom and create him/her anew in a different place. But if such a machine is possible then it means that our memories survive bodily disintegration, which amounts to death. Is it not a scientific validation of transmigration of soul?

Now, it’s another thing that many of us who oppose euthanasia (calling it a form of suicide) are in a way condoning it by approving of the Star Trek’s concept of ‘transportation’. A far-fetched logic, but cannot be overlooked.

Institutions: Their Role in shaping societies

Yesterday, Prof. Lall gave a lecture on Institutions, their relevance to a nation's prosperity and why some of them are critical in the overall progress of societies. Since all activities---economic, political, social, etc., involve human interaction therefore it is pertinent to have set of rules which can "structure incentives in human exchange". It is in setting these incentives that societies differ. Hence the differential performance of nations.

Setting up institutions entails costs---of formulating, of monitoring and of enforcing them. Again, various organizations within a society compete with one another to have institutions/rules favoring activities that help them fulfill their objectives. Since not all organizations (within the political, educational, social or economic gamut) share a common set of objectives, there is bound to be friction within them. Institutions help minimize this friction, since it cannot be eliminated, keeping in mind the socio-economic interests of the society at large. An important point to bear in mind is that "institutions provide a stable and not necessarily efficient structure to human interactions".

Institutions and organizations have a symbiotic relationship and influence each other's evolution. Both in turn are affected by the prevalent norms in a society. It's another thing that institutions work towards changing the acceptable norms by changing the incentives. For eg., attitude towards slavery, women, untouchables, homosexuals, et al are the offshoots of institutional intervention.

But what is most puzzling is that why institutions don't follow the Darwinian principles of evolution? It's quite logical to think that inferior institutions ought to give way to better ones, albeit, in an incremental manner. But the economic historical data does not support this fact. May be it has to do with the norms, beliefs and culture evolved in a particular society over a period of time. Douglass C. North, the '93 Nobel prize winner, who has done seminal work in the field of Economic Performance through Time says, "Societies that get 'stuck' embody belief systems and institutions that fail to confront and solve new problems of societal complexity."

As societies around the globe grapple with the complexities arising out of "complex interplay between institutions, technology, and demography in the overall process of economic change," it necessitates an analytical understanding of the way economies evolve through time.

Ref.:
Prof. Lall's lecture notes
http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1993/north-lecture.html

What is Success

To laugh often and much;
To win the respect of intelligent people
and the affection of children;
To earn the appreciation of honest critics
and endure the betrayal of false friends;
To appreciate beauty;
To find the best in others;
To leave the world a bit better,
Whether by a healthy child, a garden patch
or a redeemed social condition,
To know even one life has breathed
easier because you have lived;
This is to have succeeded.

The above definition of success by the immortal American philosopher, Emerson, has left an indelible impression on my mind. I would be happy if at the sunset of my life I would have come somewhere near his definition.

The way we describe success has undergone tremendous change in the past few years. I've no grudge against the present yardsticks about success and failure, materialistic and ephemeral as they turn out to be, but I do not subscribe to them. That's it.

This blog is an attempt on my part to reach out to like-minded people. Those who believe in the simplicity of conduct despite complexity of thoughts. Those who acknowledge the supremacy of spirit over matter. Those who do not feel circumscribed by 'the human bondage' of their earthly existence but do feel the palpable undercurrents of love in various relationships. Those who know that a meaningful existence is not possible in vacuum but in relation to those around us.