I Write, Therefore I am : Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
Book: The White Tiger: A Novel
This rambunctious story of contemporary India shows how religion
doesn't create morality, and money doesn't solve every problem--but a
person can get what he wants out of life by eavesdropping on the right
conversations.
Introducing a major literary talent, "The White Tiger" offers a story
of coruscating wit, blistering suspense, and questionable morality,
told by the most volatile, captivating, and utterly inimitable
narrator that this millennium has yet seen.
Balram Halwai is a complicated man. Servant. Philosopher.
Entrepreneur. Murderer. Over the course of seven nights, by the
scattered light of a preposterous chandelier, Balram tells us the
terrible and transfixing story of how he came to be a success in life
-- having nothing but his own wits to help him along.
Born in the dark heart of India, Balram gets a break when he is hired
as a driver for his village's wealthiest man, two house Pomeranians
(Puddles and Cuddles), and the rich man's (very unlucky) son. From
behind the wheel of their Honda City car, Balram's new world is a
revelation. While his peers flip through the pages of "Murder
Weekly" ("Love -- Rape -- Revenge "), barter for girls, drink liquor
(Thunderbolt), and perpetuate the Great Rooster Coop of Indian
society, Balram watches his employers bribe foreign ministers for tax
breaks, barter for girls, drink liquor (single-malt whiskey), and play
their own role in the Rooster Coop. Balram learns how to siphon gas,
deal with corrupt mechanics, and refill and resell Johnnie Walker
Black Label bottles (all but one). He also finds a way out of the Coop
that no one else inside it can perceive.
Balram's eyes penetrate India as few outsiders can: the cockroaches
and the call centers; the prostitutes and the worshippers; the ancient
and Internet cultures; the water buffalo and, trapped in so many kinds
of cages that escape is (almost) impossible, the white tiger. And with
a charisma asundeniable as it is unexpected, Balram teaches us that
religion doesn't create virtue, and money doesn't solve every problem
-- but decency can still be found in a corrupt world, and you can get
what you want out of life if you eavesdrop on the right conversations.
Sold in sixteen countries around the world, "The White Tiger" recalls
"The Death of Vishnu" and "Bangkok 8" in ambition, scope, and
narrative genius, with a mischief and personality all its own. Amoral,
irreverent, deeply endearing, and utterly contemporary, this novel is
an international publishing sensation -- and a startling, provocative
debut.
Purchase Similar Books
The White Tiger
by Aravind AdigaRs 759
Rs. 584
Tigre Blanco = The White Tiger
by Aravind Adiga, Sa...Rs 1244
Rs. 945
Between The Assassinations
by Aravind AdigaRs 295
Rs. 260
Between The Assassinations
by Aravind AdigaRs 1301
Rs. 989
Tiger Tiger
by Max WhiteRs 1840
Rs. 1398
Tiger Tiger
by Max WhiteRs 2653
Rs. 2016
White Tiger
by Tamora Pierce, Ti...Rs 812
Rs. 617
The White TigerRs 1896
Rs. 1403
Book Reviews of The White Tiger: A Novel
The White Tiger
Review by Abdul Latif Bhadravathi
Aravind Adiga has written a very incisive and at times controversial
book. The story revolves around TWO INDIAS we are witnessing; an
affluent India, and an India that is beset by common problems that
plague underdeveloped and developing countries. The glitz and shine we
see is confined to a very select areas and by seeing few flyovers,
neon lights and massive malls one cannot delusionary feel that India
has arrived and at par with western countries. we still have poverty,
disease, unemployment, homelessness and other social evils that
constitute majority India.
Critics have been at Adiga's throat saying he sold India to claim
Booker and their claim rings hollow. Whoe world is aware of what we
are and we dont need Adiga to reveal anything new.
In short Adiga has addressed real issues and given the fact that this
is his maiden effort, he has written admirably well.
Impressive
Review by DhirajKumar D.Dalvi
Truly impressive ....... i really enjoyed while reading The White
Tiger. Hats of to you Arvind Adiga...
Balram breaks out of his cage in Adiga's The White Tiger
Review by Dr. AJ Sebastian sdb
Review Article
Balram breaks out of his cage
in Aravind Adiga’s The White Tiger
Dr. A.J. Sebastian sdb
Reader & Head, Department of English
Nagaland University, Kohima
e-mail: ajse...@hotmail.com
Aravid Adiga bagged the Man Booker Prize 2008 for his debut novel The
White Tiger, set in the backdrop of the economic boom in India that
has ushered in a great chasm between the haves and have-nots. As Adiga
himself has said: "Well, this is the reality for a lot of Indian
people and it's important that it gets written about, rather than just
hearing about the 5% of people in my country who are doing well. …At a
time when India is going through great changes and, with China, is
likely to inherit the world from the west, it is important that
writers like me try to highlight the brutal injustices of
society” (Jeffries).
Balram Halwai, who never had an identity of his own, uses any means
necessary to fulfill his dream of making money. He becomes a
megalomaniac who murders his boss and confesses his rising to be an
entrepreneur in the call centre hub of Bangalore. He calls his life’s
story ‘The Autobiography of a Half-Baked Indian.’ (TWT 10).
This paper attempts to trace the metaphor of the Rooster Coop in which
Balram is trapped and the way he breaks out to freedom being a ‘white
tiger.”
The novel is written in the epistolary form as a seven-part letter to
the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao “From the Desk of ‘The White Tiger’/ A
Thinking Man / And an entrepreneur / Living in the world’s centre of
technology and outsourcing/ Electronic City Phase 1 (just off Hosur
Main Road/ Bangalore/ India,”(TWT 3) in which Balram confesses his
guilt and his ambition – his emergence from the world of "Darkness" to
the world of “Light” of the cities which is a world of servants and
masters: from brutal poverty and deprivation to successful
entrepreneurship. His cynicism and deep rooted-immoral ways are
dangerous trends leading to anarchy in our society. The novel exposes
Indian democracy, injustice and entrepreneurship.
The novel is a social commentary and a study of injustice and power in
the form of a class struggle in India that depicts the anti-hero
Balram representing the downtrodden sections of the Indian society
juxtaposed against the rich. “The White Tiger protagonist exposes the
rot in the three pillars of modern India - democracy, enterprise and
justice – reducing them to the tired clichés of a faltering nation.…
that the West is holding The White Tiger as a mirror to us. It is
telling us that India is not shining and, despite its claims of a
booming economy, it is still “the near-heart of darkness”, which it
has been since time immemorial” (Saxena 9).
As Adiga says: “The novel is written in "voice"—in Balram's voice—and
not in mine. Some of the things that he's confused by or angry about
are changes in India that I approve of; … Some of the other things
he's unhappy about—like corruption—are easier for me to identify with.
When talking to many men whom I met in India, I found a sense of rage,
often suppressed for years and years, that would burst out when they
finally met someone they could talk to… Balram's anger is not an anger
that the reader should participate in entirely—it can seem at times
like the rage you might feel if you were in Balram's place—but at
other times you should feel troubled by it, certainly” (DiMartino).
The story unfolds the way Balram breaks out to his new found freedom
from a caged life of misery through crime and cunning. This is a
reflection of contemporary India, calling attention to social justice
in the wake of economic prosperity. It is a novel about the emerging
new India which is pivoted on the great divide between the haves and
have-nots with moral implications.
Deirdre Donahue labels The White Tiger an angry novel about injustice
and power “But Tiger isn't about race or caste in India. It's about
the vast economic inequality between the poor and the wealthy elite.
The narrator is an Indian entrepreneur detailing his rise to power.
His India is a merciless, corrupt Darwinian jungle where only the
ruthless survive”(Donahue).
Adiga depicts his protagonist as “…he's talking out into the night, in
his isolated room. He has to tell his story to someone, but he can't
ever do so because it's a terrible story. …today, it is the man from
China, which is India's alter-ego in so many ways. Indians today are
absolutely obsessed with the Chinese, and keep comparing themselves to
China out of a belief that the future of the world lies with India and
China.” (DiMartino).
Adiga’s first hand meeting the poor of India inspired him to create
his protagonist: “Many of the Indians I met while I traveled through
India blended into Balram; but the character is ultimately of my own
invention. I wanted to depict someone from India's underclass—which is
perhaps 400 million strong—and which has largely missed out on the
economic boom, and which remains invisible in most films and books
coming out of India… someone whose moral character seems to change by
the minute—trustworthy one minute, but untrustworthy the next—who
would embody the moral contradictions of life in today's India. I'm
glad you point out that he is a hustler—which he is!—one of the
frustrations of writing a book like this is that so many critics seem
to think that Balram's views are meant to be taken
objectively!” (DiMartino).
Summing up the Booker jury’s decision Michael Portillo commented: "The
novel undertakes the extraordinarily difficult task of gaining and
holding the reader's sympathy for a thoroughgoing villain. The book
gains from dealing with pressing social issues and significant global
developments with astonishing humour." (Porttillo). The novel is a
witty parable of India's changing society, yet there is also much to
ponder (Rushby).
The novel is centred on the crime Balram commits and he goes on to
recounts how he became an entrepreneur coming into the ‘Light’ of
prosperity. Born in a tiny hell-hole called Laxmangarh in northern
India, his impoverished parents merely called him 'munna' -- 'boy' and
they raised him in the world of darkness of their extreme poverty.
While at school, Balram was spotted by the inspector of schools who
offered to get a scholarship for his education:
You, young man, are an intelligent, honest, vivacious fellow in this
crowd of thugs and idiots. In any jungle, what is the rarest of
animals – the creature that comes along only once in a generation?’
I thought about it and said:
‘The white tiger.’
‘That’s what you are, in this jungle’ (TWT 35).
Balram considers himself "half-baked" as he was deprived of schooling
like most children of his age group in India. His parents preferred
him to work in a teashop, however one of the feudal lords took him to
Delhi, where he began to experience the world of light. He learned
driving and was employed as a chauffeur by Mr. Ashok at Dhanbad.
While in Delhi Balram experiences the two kinds of India with those
who are eaten, and those who eat, prey and predators. Balram decides
he wants to be an eater, someone with a big belly, and the novel
tracks the way in which this ambition plays out (Walters).
The key metaphor in the novel is of the Rooster Coop. Balram is caged
like the chickens in the rooster coop. He, being a white tiger, has to
break out of the cage to freedom.
Go to Old Delhi ...and look at the way they keep chickens there in the
market. Hundreds of pale hens and brightly coloured roosters, stuffed
tightly into wire-mesh cages...They see the organs of their brothers
lying around them. They know they're next. Yet they do not rebel. They
do not try to get out of the coop. The very same thing is done with
human beings in this country (TWT 173-4).
Balram decides to become a big-bellied man, by resorting to corrupt
ways he has learnt through bribery, crime, disregarding all civilized
ways of life. His violent bid for freedom is shocking. Is he made just
another thug in India’s urban jungle or a revolutionary and idealist ?
(Turpin). Adiga “strikes a fine balance between the sociology of the
wretched place he has chosen as home and the twisted humanism of the
outcast” (Prasannarajan). Balram breaks away slowly from his family
which is contrary to the Indian tradition where loyalty to ones family
upholds moral principles. Through his criminal drive Balram becomes a
businessman and runs a car service for the call centres in Bangalore.
Balram’s commentary is replete with Irony, paradox, and anger that run
like a poison throughout every page (Andrew). “Above all, it’s a
vision of a society of people complicit in their own servitude: to
paraphrase Balram, they are roosters guarding the coop, aware they’re
for the chop, yet unwilling to escape. Ultimately, the tiger refuses
to stay caged. Balram’s violent bid for freedom is
shocking” (Turpin).
The protagonist confirms that the trustworthiness of servants is the
basis of the entire Indian economy. This is a paradox and a mystery of
India.
Because Indians are the world’s most honest people… No. It’s because
99.9 per cent of us are caught in the Rooster coop just like those
poor guys in the poultry market. The Rooster Coop doesn’t always work
with miniscule sums of money. Don’t test your chauffeur with a rupee
coin or two - he may well steal that much. But leave a million dollars
in front of a servant and he won’t touch a penny… Masters trust their
servants with diamonds in this country!...Why doesn’t that servant
take the suitcase full of diamonds? He is no Gandhi, he’s human, he’s
you and me. But he’s in the rooster Coop…Here in India we have no
dictatorship. No secret police. That’s because we have the coop. Never
before in human history have so few owed so much to to so many, Mr.
Jiabao. A handful of men in this country have trained the remaining
99.9 per cent – as strong, as talented, as intelligent in every way –
to exist in perpetual servitude… can a man break out of the coop? …the
Indian family, is the reason we are trapped and tied to the coop….only
a man who is prepared to see his family destroyed – hunted, beaten,
and burned alive by masters – can break out of the coop. That would
take no normal human being, but a freak, a pervert of nature (TWT
175-7).
Balram shows his perverted psychopathic nature by deciding to break
out of the coop betraying his family and society. He has to suffer
humiliation in the hands of his masters with ever increasing menial
duties which climaxes in his being blackmailed when Ashoke’s wife
Pinky kills a man in drunken driving. He was forced to sign a
statement accepting full responsibility for the accident:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN,
I, Balram Hawai, son of Vikram Halwai, of Laxmangarh village in the
district of Gaya, do make the following statement of my own free will
and intention:
That I drove the car that hit an unidentified person, or persons, or
person and objects, on the night of January 23rd of this year. That I
then panicked and refused to fulfil my obligations to the injured
party or parties by taking them to the nearest hospital emergency
ward. That there were no other occupants of the car at the time of the
accident. That I was alone in the car, and alone responsible for all
that happened.
I swear by almighty God that I make this statement under no duress and
under instruction from no one (TWT 168).
He has to suppress his embittered feelings being confined to the
Rooster Coop. He cannot go contrary to his master’s bidding. He is
falsely implicated and forced to accept responsibility for a crime he
has not committed. A remorse filled Pinky madam leaves Mr. Ashok for
good in the middle of the night pushing a fat envelope with cash into
Balram’s hands. From then on, he has to play the wife-substitute for
Mr. Ashok. He has to oversee his master’s every need as he turns to
heavy drinking. Left to control his master, Balram begins to awaken
from his reverie in the Rooster Coop. Having been a witness to all of
Ashoke’s corrupt practices and gambling with money to buy politicians,
to kill and to loot, Balram decides to steal and kill. Adiga delves
deep into his subconscious like the stream of consciousness
novelists:
Go on, just look at the red bag, Balram – that’s not stealing, is it?
I shook my head.
And even you were to steal it, Balram, it wouldn’t be stealing.
How so? I looked at the creature in the mirror.
See- Mr. Ashok is giving money to all these politicians in Delhi so
that they will excuse him from the tax he has to pay. And who owns
that tax, in the end? Who but the ordinary people of this country –
you! (244).
Balram knew his boss had collected a total of Rs.700,000/- stuffed
into the red bag. That was sufficient money for him to begin a new
life with a house of his own, a motorbike and a small shop. He hatched
the murder plan in quick succession:
I touched the magnetic stickers of the goddess Kali for luck, then
opened the glove compartment. There it was – the broken bottle, with
its claws of glass. ‘There’s something off with the wheel, sir. Just
give me a couple of minutes.’… There was soggy black mud everywhere.
Picking my way over mud and rainwater, I squatted near the left rear
wheel… ‘Sir, will you step out, there is a problem.’… The wheel, sir.
I’ll need your help. It’s stuck in the mud’ (281-2).
Adiga probes further into the mind of Balram like an expert
psychologist and finds him in perfect mental state, determined to
execute his plans with precision:
He was still wriggling – his body was moving as far from me as it
could. I’m losing him, I thought, and this forced me to do something I
knew I would hate myself for, even years later. I really didn’t want
to do this – I really didn’t want him to think, even in the two or
three minutes he had left to live, that I was that kind of a driver –
the one that resorts to blackmailing his master – but he had left me
no option:… I got down on my knees and hid behind the car… He got down
on his knees. I rose over him, holding the bottle held behind my back
with a bent arm… I rammed the bottle down. The glass ate his bone. I
rammed it three times into the crown of his skull, smashing through to
his brains….The stunned body fell into the mud. A hissing sound came
out of its lips, like wind escaping from a tyre (284-5).
He was not fully satisfied with the crime. He feared his recovery and
the consequences would be fatal – police case and the terrible
destruction of his family. So turning the body around and stamping his
knees on its chest, he pierced the neck “and his lifeblood spurted
into my eyes. I was blind. I was a free man” (286).
He is free at last out of the Rooster Coop. But the run for his new-
found life begins for Balram. He is on the run to make his dream come
true. A peep into the level of poverty into which millions of his
fellow Indians are plunged is imperative for a proper assessment of
the criminal and the gravity of his crime.
Statistics show how poverty is on the rise in India: i) 4 in every 10
Indian children are malnourished according to a UN report. ii) India
Ranks a lowly 66 out of 88 countries in the Global Hunger Index 2008.
The report says India has more hungry people – more than 200 million –
than any other country in the world. iii) One third of the world’s
poor live in India, according to the latest poverty estimates from the
World Bank. Based on its new threshold of poverty - $ 1.25 a day – the
number of poor people has gone up from 421 million in 1981 to 456
million in 2005. iv) India ranks 128 out of 177 countries in the UN’s
Human Development Index…. Aravid Adiga’s story of a rickshawallah’s
move from the “darkness” of rural India to the “light” of urban
Gurgaon reminds us of the harsh facts behind the fiction (Raaj 9).
Adiga speaks out his mind why he wrote the novel: “… I want to
challenge this idea that India is the world’s greatest democracy. It
may be so in an objective sense, but on the ground, the poor have such
little power… I wanted something that would provoke and annoy people …
The servant-master system implies two things: One is that the servants
are far poorer than the rich—a servant has no possibility of ever
catching up to the master. And secondly, he has access to the master—
the master’s money, the master’s physical person. Yet crime rates in
India are very low… What is stopping a poor man from taking to the
crime that occurs in Venezuela or South Africa? You need two things
[for crime to occur]—a divide and a conscious ideology of resentment.
We don’t have resentment in India. The poor just assume that the rich
are a fact of life. For them, getting angry at the rich is like
getting angry at the heat…But I think we’re seeing what I believe is a
class-based resentment for the first time…” (Sawhney).
Injustice and inequality has always been around us and we get used to
it. How long can it go on? Social discontent and violence has been on
the rise. What Adiga highlights is the ever widening gap between the
rich and the poor and the economic system that lets a small minority
to prosper at the expense of the majority. “At a time when India is
going through great changes and, with China, is likely to inherit the
world from the west, it is important that writers like me try to
highlight the brutal injustices of society… the great divide.” (Raaj
9).
Commenting on a servant’s viewpoint in the novel, Adiga writes: “It is
his subjective views, which are pretty depressing. There are also two
crimes that he commits: he robs, and he kills, and by no means do I
expect a reader to sympathize with both the crimes. He’s not meant to
be a figure whose views you should accept entirely. There’s evidence
within the novel that the system is more flexible than Balram
suggests, and it is breaking down faster than he claims. And within
the story I hope that there’s evidence of servants cheating the
masters systematically...to suggest a person’s capacity for evil or
vice is to grant them respect—is to acknowledge their capacity for
volition and freedom of choice” (Sawhney).
When he plans meticulously how to snatch Ashok’s huge money bag, he
gets out of his Rooster Coop and takes a plunge into the
entrepreneur’s world. He never gives up the fight for survival like
the freak white tiger. While visiting the National zoo in Delhi he
tells Dharam: “Let animals live like animals; let humans live like
humans. That’s my whole philosophy in a sentence” (TWT 276). When he
chanced to see the white tiger in the enclosure, he began his musings:
“…Not any kind of tiger. The creature that gets born only once every
generation in the jungle. I watched him walk behind the bamboo bars…
He was hypnotizing himself by walking like this – that was the only
way he could tolerate this cage….The tiger’s eyes met my eyes, like my
master’s eyes have met mine in the mirror of the car. All at once, the
tiger vanished… My knees began to shake; I felt light” (276-7).
This sequence is central to the Rooster Coop metaphor. It is like the
epiphanic experience of Stephen Dedalus in James Joyce’s A Portrait of
the Artist as a Young Man, where he makes his flight of fancy: “… a
hawklike man flying sunward above the sea, a prophecy of the end he
had been born to serve and had been following through the mists of
childhood and boyhood, a symbol of the artist forging anew in his
workshop out of the sluggish matter of the earth a new soaring
impalpable imperishable being?… His heart trembled in an ecstasy of
fear and his soul was in flight” (Joyce 154).
It is the experience of being hypnotized by the tiger that energizes
the criminal in him to be blood thirsty and take law into his own
hands. The more he is educated, he becomes more corrupt, and the
reader’s sympathy for the psychopath never dwindles.
Such crimes are taking place in our cities. Recently it was reported
that workers at a car parts factory near Delhi murdered the chief
executive after they were laid off. “It rattled a lot of people,” says
Adiga. “That kind of incident used to be highly unlikely. Now it is
much more likely” (Times Online).
Neel Mukherjee in his review “Exposing the real India,” examines the
'economic miracle' in the background of “a very large majority lives
in abject, shocking poverty, that the gap between the rich and the
poor is a vast, unbridgeable, ever-growing chasm, and that social
redistribution policies are either unenforceable or have
failed?” (Mukherjee).
The Rooster Coop continues to exist like a never ending oppressive
system. “The rooster Coop was doing its work. Servants have to keep
other servants from becoming innovators, experimenters, or
entrepreneurs…The coop is guarded from the inside” (TWT 194). As
Andrew Holgate opines, “Rather than encouraging freedom and
"enterprise," everything in this system -- landlords, family,
education, politics -- seems designed specifically to suppress
them” (Holgate).
Balram escaping from the Coop, is a servant turned villain and a
murderer who becomes a self-proclaimed entrepreneur who calls himself
"I'm tomorrow" (TWT 6). He subscribes to a philosophy of future with
hope. As he awaits to board a train he gets on to a weight machine
which represents for him “final alarm bell of the Rooster Coop. The
sirens of the coop were ringing - its wheels turning – its red lights
flashing! A rooster was escaping from the coop! A hand was thrust out
– I was picked up by the neck and shoved back into the coop. I picked
the chit up and re-read it”(248). His subconscious kept haunting him
of his escape from the coop of his past oppression. Moving from train
to train he keep his track untraceable by the law enforcing agencies
who had advertised his pictures as a wanted man.
Life in Bangalore has to be that of a fugitive as “White Tiger keeps
no friends. It’s too dangerous” ( 302). But he has to keep in touch
with the world of the road and the pavement where he received his
education to freedom. Speaking of the socialist leaders in Bangalore
on whom people placed their hope of revolution.
Keep your ears open in Bangalore – in any city or town in India – and
you will hear stirrings, rumours, threats of insurrection. Men sit
under lampposts at night and read. Men huddle together and discuss and
point fingers to the heavens. One night, will they all join together –
will they destroy the Rooster coop? …Maybe once in a hundred years
there is a revolution that frees the poor (303).
Sitting in his comfortable office as an entrepreneur living in the
world’s centre of technology and outsourcing, Balram is confident that
he will not be caught by law enforcing agents as he has stepped out of
the coop of his past.
I think the Rooster coop needs people like me to break out of it. It
needs masters like Mr. Ashok – who, for all his numerous virtues, was
not much of a master – to be weeded out, and exceptional servants like
me to to replace them…I am one of those who cannot be caught in India…
I’ve made it! I’ve broken out of the coop!...I’ll never say I made a
mistake that night in Delhi when I slit my master’s throat. I’ll say
it was all worthwhile to know, just for a day, just for an hour, just
for a minute, what it means not to be a servant (TWT 320-1).
In portraying the character of Balram, Adiga has excelled in
projecting a typical psychopath / sociopath, our society can churn
out. In “Behavioural Traits of Psychopaths”, Jennifer Copley points
out: “While most people’s actions are guided by a number of factors,
such as the desire to avoid hurting other people, the psychopath
selects a course of action based on only one factor—what can he get
out of it. This cold-blooded mode of reasoning enables the psychopath
to commit acts that most people’s consciences would not
allow” ( Copley). Psychopaths are also known as sociopaths who are
manipulative, deceitful, impulsive lacking self-restraint, and
inclined to take risks. They are “Callous, deceitful, reckless,
guiltless …. The psychopath understands the wishes and concerns of
others; he simply does not care…. The psychopath believes that rules
and morals are for other, weaker people who obey because they fear
punishment” (Adams) . . . All these traits are found in Balram who
goes about heroically planning his heinous crimes.
The novel exposes the ferociousness of the man who after bloodletting
through murder will turn out to be a man-eater himself. What
guarantees if he will not commit murders for reasons of rivalry in his
entrepreneurial world of cut throat competition. Revenge murder is no
solution to bring about social justice. Subscribing to his principle
of taking law into his own hands, will lead only to anarchy and
escalation of violence, as W.B. Yeats points out in “The Second
Coming,” in the background of Russian revolution as well as the Irish
troubles:
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity (Yeats 1700).
Excessive economic inequalities and unwarranted delay in applying the
remedies for them are often the causes of such dissention. Besides,
quest for power and total disregard for human rights helps escalate
violence and strife among men. There is need for organizations that
promote peace among men. Remedial measures have to be taken by
Government and law makers to prevent rampant corruption and oppression
of the downtrodden. Let not the law of the jungle prevail as Adiga has
proven through his protagonist. Mere anarchy and chaos will prevail if
an evil is hatched to counter another evil.
There are some Indians who wonder if the award was given to The White
Tiger to mar the face of India in the international arena as she is
becoming a global economic power. Is the West exposing our poverty and
unrest to hurt our national pride? Such fears are baseless as Adiga
has brought out a fable with superb mingling of his observation.
Though several critics have raised eyebrows stating that Adiga has not
depicted the brave new India in a sufficiently glowing light, David
Godwin comes to his rescue saying, “It really isn’t the job of a
writer to be the ambassador for his country. A writer’s commitment is
to the truth as he sees it” (Roy 4). Manjula Padmanabhan, author and
playwright, is very critical of Adiga when she says that the book is
“a tedious, unfunny slog, …compelling, angry and darkly humourous… But
is this schoolboyish sneering the best that we can do? Is it enough to
paint an ugly picture and then suggest that the way out is to slit the
oppressor's throat and become an oppressor oneself?" (Padmanabhan).
Whatever be the critical appraisal, as Gurcharan Das would opine, “A
book should not be judged on the basis of whether it creates a
negative or positive picture of a country. It should be seen as a work
of art and judged on its literary merits” (Das).
However, The White Tiger should make every right thinking citizen to
read the signs of the times and be socially conscious of the rights
and duties of each one, irrespective of cast, creed or economic
status, to prevent create the types of Ashok and Balram in our
society.
-------
References
Adams, David B. “Sociopaths.” http://www.geocities.com/lycium7/psychopathy.html,
Downloaded on November 4, 2008.
Adiga, Aravind. The White Tiger. New delhi: HarperCollins Publishers,
2008.
(Abbreviated TWT).
Andrew, Holgate. “Review”. June 16, 2008. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/bn-
review/note.asp?note=17701793. downloaded on November 1, 2008.
Copley, Jennifer Behavioural Traits of Psychopaths.” July 30, 2008.
com/article.cfm/behavioural_traits_of_psychopaths, downloaded on
November 4, 2008.
Das, Gurcharan. Sunday Times of India, October 19, 2008, p.9.
DiMartino, Nick. “Interview with Aravind Adiga” October 6, 2008.
(http://universitybookstore.blogspot.com/2008/10/nick-interviews-
aravind- adiga.html). Downloaded on 19/10/08.
Donahue, Deirdre. “Review.” USA Today April4, 2008. Downloaded on
19/10/08.
(http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2008-04-23-roundup-debut-
novels_N.htm) Downloaded on 19/10/08.
Holgate, Andrew. “Review.”
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/bn-review/note.asp?note=17701793.
Downloaded on 19/10/08.
Jeffries, Stuart “Roars of anger”, The Guardian. October 16, 2008.
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/oct/16/booker-prize). Downloaded
on
19/10/08.
Joyce, James. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. Delhi: Surjeet
Publications, 1991.
Mukherjee, Neel. “ Exposing the real India.” The Telegraph. April 4,
2008.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/04/27/boadi127.xml.
Downloaded on 01/11/2008.
Padmanabhan, Manjula. The Outlook India.14 October 2008.
http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20081014&fname=Books&sid=188888.
Downloaded on 01/11/2008.
Porttillo, Michael. Oct. 15, 08. http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1146
Saxena, Shobhan, “Fact not Fiction”, Sunday Times of India, October
19, 2008, p.9.
Prasannarajan, S. India Today. 17/4/2008. http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?
option=com_ content&issueid=50&task=view&id=7128&Itemid=1. Downloaded
on
01/11/2008.
Raaj, Neelam. “Any Tears for the Aam Aadmi?”Sunday Times of India,
October 19,
2008, p.9.
Roy, Amit. Aravind Adiga wins ‘God’ of Agents.” The Telegraph. October
29, 2008, p.4.
Rushby, Kevin. The Guardian. April 19, 2008. http://books.guardian.co.uk/print/0,
333611710-110738,00.html. Downloaded on 11/10/08.
Sawhney, Hirish. “ India: A View from Below.” September, 2008.
http://www.brooklynrail.org/2008/09/express/india-a-view-from-below
Times Online . “News Review Interview, 19 October 2008.
(http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_ and_entertainment/
books/article4967568.ece. Downloaded on 21/10/08.
Turpin, Adrian. Financial Times. April 19, 2008.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/886f92c4-09c8-11dd-81bf - 0000779fd2ac.html.
Downloaded on 22/10/08.
Walters, Kerry. “Caught in the rooster coop”. May 27, 2008.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1PV1V1ICZXUE9/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#
R1PV1V1ICZXUE9. Downloaded on 23/10/08.
Yeats, W.B. “The Second Coming.” The Oxford Anthology of English
Literature Vol. II. Ed. Frank Kermode & John Hollander. Oxford. O.U.P,
1973.
Great novel
Review by Rohit VErma
pretty interesting book......but some times I found little shades of
Chetan bhagat narration in it.. overall a great book to read!!
White Tiger
Review by Shagun
Here it goes...
1. Overall good book, interesting packaging
2.I like the references made to the local hubs of New Delhi.
3. I especially agree to the Gurgaon structure and its nuances
Overall a good book for an average non indian resident or any one
who still thinks india is all about snake charmers. A good maiden
effort
but a little overhyped - but why not since the writer is a fellow
Indian
and we are proud of it...so bells and whistles...
Rating - Generous only because you got us the Bookers Prize 9/10 :)
The white tiger
Review by Saurabh Rohilla
the narrative style will suit for every kind of reader...i like
references to delhi places which seems corroborating the story
(line)..writing is like..."we make things simpler"...
Adiga - a real white tiger
Review by Gurneet Singh
This book is a very nice book if you want understand India from the
point of view of a poor person who makes it journey from darkness in
villages to the light in the city...
The style of narration is very nice which will suit every reader...
His views should really be appreciated as he speaks the bitter truth
about India in some places when he mentions the river ganga or
exploitation of the poor by the rich..
Over all an awesome book & a must read ...
the white tiger
Review by bhat R.
this is like one essay about indian caste system,politics,relegion,one
rupee,drinks,boobs,etc. adiga purposly write this for booker prize? I
dnt found any extra matter,but forigners by this, can understand what
this india? all will read this book and start think about india in
ugly way.adiga exposed the india as he saw,and because the prize same
exposed to the world.after reading this,anyone can tell dirty indian
people? to create suchthing purposly the prize was given?simple
language,narrative,anyone can read and understand.balaram like a
ditective ............
puerly white
Review by N.M.Anusha devi
The novel is excellent. It tells the reality that privails in
india.wonderful book to read and digest...
black spot on 'the white tiger'
Review by anala
The White Tiger is a good novel. Mr Adiga pointed out everything about
india i.e.he wrote about hindus,muslims, brahmins,
roads,films,animals,rivers,americans, japanees,poors ,rich peoples and
so on.But purposly?not written about cristians why?This shows what,one
can imagine,this is written according to direction of cristian?
Because in india everywhere converting hindu people into cristians .As
Balaram,the driver not pointed this. According to my view Mr. Aravind
is half baked cristian. Because he donated a huge amount out of BOOKER
PRIZE to one of the catholic institute!In India is it necessary to
kill any boss to become rich?whole novel becomes Mr. Adiga's view but
in Balaram's voice.He veiwed very minute particle and narrated clearly
Untitled
Review by Anonymous
The Oscar contender is eliciting protests as well as praise for its
portrayal of Mumbai s
Fantastic & Well written
Review by ANAND KAMAL
The WHITE TIGER, a face of Indian people, described so elegantly that
how a poor boy become an entrepreneur.
Well explanation of each and every aspect.. while reading you feel to
be in the character. HATS OFF to Arivand.
We all know this...!
Review by Vishal Deshmukh
The style of writing is good.Novel shows the dark side of indian cast
system,economic system and the particular attitude penitrated in
people belonging to particular community and the problem one face when
anted to do something different . The part in which 'Balram' speaks
with 'Dehli City' seems to have impact of the scene in the book 'The
Alchemist-By Paulo Coehelo' in which Santiago speaks with desert,wind
and the sun.
Writer narrated Dehli life as it is, corrupt politicians,accidents
caused by drunk rich people..and life of drivers of rich people..The
part is also intersting where 'Balram'
wants to sleep with a foreigner..n how the hotel manager and
prostitute cheat him...the feeling of 'Balram' that he can never live
a life like his master..
Over all the book is good to read...But we all know about it..there is
nothin different to knw about or it doesnt show anythng new...the same
picture we got in many movie..Life of drivers is well pictured in
madhur bahandarkar's 'Page-3' and 'Corporate'.
"ultimate performance by arvind"
Review by sunit verma
a real one after the midnights childdren.........must read.
"ultimate performance by arvind"
Review by sunit verma
a real one after the midnights childdren.........must read.
The White Tiger is based on life of Surya Dev Singh
Review by Aftab Ahmad
Arvind Adiga did not mentioned any where that the story is real and
based on Dhanbad most famous person and alleged coal mafia Surya Dev
Singh. Singh was a domestic help and later become hench man of a
wealthy politician BP Sinha. Later he over run him and took his empire
and proclaimed himself as a king of the coal capital of india. One who
are aware about the true story of Surya Dev Singh will not impressed
by the presentation of this novel although narration is very good.
Dhanbad is my home town and I am aware about the entire story. This
story is already narrated in the novels of Ilyas Ahmad Gaddi Novels
like Fire Area which is in Urdu language. A very good account on life
of Singh is written by Dhanbad's veteran journalist Brahma Dev Singh
Sharma in his Hindi book "Dhanbad Ateet Vartaman And Bhavishya".
www.aftab1.com
the white tiger
Review by manju
white tiger is very interesting book . it shows how the indians
peoples are . it includes so many contents to understandable. this can
change more peoples life
the real tiger
Review by thamizhpriya
the book white tiger contains indians culture.It shows how the
peoples are behaving in indian society. the white tiger is the most
relevent novel tin this world.
The Brown Parrot
Review by Pankaj Saksena
On 14th October 2008, the Booker Committee announced in London that
Aravind Adiga will get the Man Booker Prize for his debut novel, "The
White Tiger". The writer, Aravind Adiga claims in an interview:
"At a time, when India is going through great changes and ,with China,
is likely to inherit the world from the West, it is important that
writers like me try to highlight the brutal injustices of society", he
said, adding that the criticism by writers like Flaubert, Balzac &
Dickens in the 19th century helped England and France become better
societies.[1]
In a single breath, Adiga takes upon his young self, the huge
responsibility of highlighting all the "brutal injustices" of India,
while feeling proud enough to compare himself with Flaubert, Balzac
and Dickens.
One should be cautious while making self-comparisons with great
personalities. Dickens wrote about London & the English society as it
was, with no ideology to guide him. Almost all of his characters from
David Copperfield to Oliver Twist have an autobiographical ring.
Adiga, on the other hand, is thrice removed from the society and the
events he talks about in his book. Born in a metropolitan, Chennai,
educated in Australia, the UK, and the US, he has nothing in common
with his protagonist, Balram, who is a "low-caste" driver from Bihar.
But the un-authenticity of narration doesn"t bother Adiga. In fact, he
thinks it is quite a duty of a writer to go beyond his own experience;
to take a leap beyond reality; to plunge into pure fantasy. He
believes in writing by remote-sensing.
“I don"t think a novelist should just write about his own experience.
Yes, I am the son of a doctor. Yes, I had a rigorous formal education,
but for me the challenge as a novelist is to write about people who
aren"t anything like me.”[2]
Dickens" works are not a judgment on the English society. His
worldview evolves in his works. If we put them one over other,
chronologically, we can see the intellectual development of Dickens,
an observant mind becoming mature.
What we see in Adiga is not a natural evolution, but a sudden
ideological revelation. He is not trying to learn anything. He knows
it all. The ideas are pre-arranged. In the absence of cultural roots
he has an ideology to guide him. Secularism. Fantasy and remote-
sensing makes up for reality. Worn-out formula-writing makes up for
creativity. Adiga has hitched his wagon to a star. And in Indian
heavens, there is only one star. Secularism. It is the Ideology.
Flaubert, the other writer Adiga compares himself with, is as distant
from him as possible. Madame Bovary is a psychological drama of an
individual, and not a statement about the French society, while
Salambo is a purely artistic venture of recapturing a remote event of
history. If Adiga had read even a single work of Flaubert he wouldn"t
have compared him with any writer with a social agenda. It appears
that Adiga just threw some random names of writers while being
interviewed, without probably having read them.
Balzac is a different story. Again, Adiga has nothing in common with
Balzac in the style and the grasp of the subject matter. Balzac is
regarded as one of the founders of realism in European literature. So-
called progressive writers in India are fond of comparing themselves
with great realistic writers like Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gorky,
Dickens, Flaubert, Balzac etc as they think that Indian society is in
an eternal need of a Bolshevik style revolution. Taking realism as the
most abject form of self-denigration, Indian writers harp on the
"social injustices" of India and feel themselves to be in the proud
company of great writers.
On the level of language too, Adiga falls far too short. The style of
narration doesn"t match with the projected aim of the book to point
out the "brutal injustices" of Indian society. His style takes him
nearer to the post-modern writing, while his aim is as ambitious as of
a Communist ideologue. For this purpose Adiga inserts some of the most
famous secular slogans in Balram"s speeches but his style of narration
being post-modern is personal and individualistic.
Adiga betrays his ignorance of rural Indian society - not that he
knows urban India - at many points in the novel. For instance, he
asserts that many water buffalos can be bought in seven thousand
rupees. Let him purchase just one![3]
So according to Adiga, the salient features of India are: Every
traditional Indian village has a blue-movie (pornographic) theatre.[4]
No one can enter Indian malls without wearing shoes. Shoes are
compulsory.[5] No low-caste man can ever enter an Indian mall. Even if
he enters stealthily, he is then caught, beaten and publicly
humiliated.[6] In India, if an owner runs over a man with his car, his
driver has to go to jail instead.[7] If a servant steals anything,
then his entire family, back home, is ritually lynched to death.
(their women being repeatedly raped.)[8] Every Indian book stall sells
"rape magazines".[9] There are separate markets for servants.[10] In
Indian brothels, they take extra money from servants, called as
"Working-class surcharge".[11] Sadhus, are actually homosexual
hookers, who get paid to be buggered by foreigners.[12] A common Hindu
is worse than an Islamic terrorist.[13] Indian caste system is worse,
or at least as bad as the secret police of a totalitarian state.[14]
The last claim is the central theme of the novel. The caste system of
India is called the "Rooster Coop". Adiga compares the caste system
with the secret police of a totalitarian state. This comparison is
preposterous. Communism accounted for more than twenty million deaths
in USSR, sixty-five million in China, one million in Vietnam, two
million in North Korea, two million in Cambodia, one million in
Eastern Europe, 1.7 million in Africa, one and a half million in
Afghanistan and millions of others.[15] And all this in less than
seventy years! Does Indian caste system in its history of more than
five thousand years, has anything even remotely comparable to equal
this record?
The only place where he innovates is, in hurting the Hindu religious
sentiment. Thus, the polytheism of Hindus is mocked as,
“How quickly do you think you could kiss 36,000,004 arses?”[16]
Balram is called as the "sidekick" of Krishna.[17] The hero goes on to
murder his employers, who are earlier called as Ram & Sita! Lord
Krishna is called as a "chauffeur".[18] About, Kali, the Hindu
goddess:
“I looked at the magnetic stickers of goddess Kali with her skulls and
her long red tongue - I stuck my tongue out at the old witch. I
yawned.”[19]
Hanuman is called as the slave god of Hindus, an imposition which
still makes the low-caste slaves of the upper-caste.
“Do you know about Hanuman, sir? He was the faithful servant of the
god Rama, and we worship him in our temples because he is a shining
example of how to serve your masters with absolute fidelity, love and
devotion.. These are the kinds of gods they have foisted on us, Mr.
Jiabao. Understand, now, how hard it is for a man to win his freedom
in India.”[20]
In 1994 Christian missionary, father Augustine Kanjamala of Pune wrote
an article in Deccan Chronicle titled, "Replies to Arun Shourie". In
the article he wrote, "Harijans worship deities of lower rank, while
caste Hindus worship deities of higher rank. For instance, Hanuman is
worshipped by Harijans and Rama is worshipped by upper caste in the
same village.... Hanuman was the servant of Rama; Harijans are
servants of higher caste Hindus. A close affinity between their
hierarchy of gods and the hierarchy of society."[21]
Later, indefatigable Arun Shourie had a face-to-face debate with
father Kanjamal at Hyderabad. Arun Shourie said, "This is insinuation,
it is deliberate distortion.... I can assure you that Hanuman Ji is as
dear to high caste Hindus, as to low caste Hindu. If after two hundred
years of Christianity in India... this is your understanding of India,
much needs to be done.... But there is a question... Does the servant
and master relationship, high caste and low caste relationship also
apply to other Hindu gods? If not, then, how does your thesis stand?
Nandi is ridden by the Shiva. Is it that the low caste people are
asked to worship Nandi? And high caste should not worship Nandi? What
you have written in your article is a foolish thing to write."[22]
So in 1994, Arun Shourie systematically showed during the face-to-face
debate that this insinuation "is a foolish thing to write". But in
2008, we had another fool repeating the same missionary propaganda, of
course recycled as literature this time.
Aravind Adiga is in the line of a new breed of writers like Arundhati
Roy and Kiran Desai who being Christian or having sympathy with
Christianity, share a hatred of Hinduism and Hindu society. It is not
a coincidence but a deliberate act of the Booker committee to award
all the three. They have ignored really good novels from Pakistan.
Why? Because by awarding Pakistani writers, like Mohammed Hanif and
Mohsin Hamid, the Left will gain nothing in the bargain. You may call
it the Booker Scandal. This is how the alliance of Marxists and the
missionaries works against the Hindu society.
Writing a novel in India is neither an intellectual nor a spontaneous
venture. It is organized on the lines of the formula set by the
demands of secularism, seeded during the period of Independence
struggle and developed and codified during the Nehruvian era.
The literary establishment in India expects from a writer: a complete
submission to the Ideology, cramming all its popular slogans and
clichés; choosing a story and then fit all the "facts" in it; invent
facts to patch up the gaping holes; and put in as many features of the
formula as possible.
A writer is expected to follow the secular formula, which is to show
how Hinduism is inferior to other religions; how superstitious and
stupid Hindus are; how evil caste-system is; how vile Brahmins,
Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are and how suppressed Shudras are. Show how
violent Hindu mythology is, while the very word of Islam means peace.
Show that just like Islam and Christianity, Hinduism is also an import
in India, having no original claim. Make Hindu history in India as
short as possible. At the same time, extend the Christian and Islamic
claims on Indian soil as long back in history as possible. [23] Throw
in some exotic stories of widow burning, caste discrimination,
infanticide etc. to pepper this secular curry.
Do not, in any case, criticize Islam! Try to extol its virtues, and if
not possible just keep mum about its atrocities. Show how they are
extremely discriminated in every field such as education and
employment. Also, do not criticize Christianity and their violent
conversion activities.
Shift the focus of readers from primary problems like the Islamic
destruction of India to secondary problems like corruption, poverty,
population, unemployment etc.
This is the formula which guides every new book and every new writer
in India. There is no new voice, no new question, nothing new under
the sky. All has been discovered. Every question has been asked, every
answer has been given by the Formula, and every problem has been
solved by it. What remains to be done is to repeat the secular slogans
again and again. For this no tigers are required. Parrots are more
than enough for the job.
This formula has a history, which is very well portrayed by Dr. Ravi
Shanker Kapoor in his book More Equal than Others: A Study of the
Indian Left, 2000. [24] The literary establishment of India is guided
by the leftist intellectuals. All over the world, the Communists have
always infiltrated the institutions in order to influence the public
opinion. Giving these institutions a neutral veneer, they sell
Communist propaganda without letting the masses know the truth behind
it. They also fool some intellectuals in furthering their propaganda.
So Bengal Friends of the Soviet Union (BFOTSU) was created by the
blessings of Rabindranath Tagore.[25]
Most importantly the leftists have infiltrated all the literary, arts
and fine arts institutions in India. Thus pro-communist All India
Progressive Writers" Association (AIPWA) was formed in which eminent
people like Mulk Raj Anand, Munshi Premchand, Sarojini Naidu, Kirshan
Chander, KA Abbas, Shivdan Singh Chauhan, Ramananda Chatterjee and Ram
Bilas Sharma participated.[26] In the field of theater too, the
influence of the leftists was predominant. The Indian People"s Theater
Association (IPTA) is still very influential in India and continues to
shape the world-view of the youth.[27]
Novels in India, just like the Bollywood movies are produced according
to the guidelines dictated by the establishment. If a new writer
follows the secular formula, then his books will be bought by all the
schools, colleges, universities and most importantly, all the
libraries across the country. For a year or two he will be interviewed
by the media, invited to speak on the "problems" of India and their
"solutions". The "intellectual circles" of Delhi, Mumbai and Kolkata
will throw some parties for them where these writers will fume and
fret about the evils of Indian society. Pretty secure career.
Dr. Ravi Shanker Kapoor elaborates in another of his book How India"s
Intellectuals Spread Lies, 2007 [28] that the motive of all this
effort is to drill guilt into the hearts and minds of the Hindu
majority. So all the ills of Indian society are blamed on Hindus.
Adiga too indulges in guilt-mongering against Hindus. The Leftists
have been largely successful in their endeavors. Hindus have been
defensive.
The guilt pervades further, permeating the public debate, infecting
the body-politic, dominating the minds and hearts of those who matter.
[29] In India, more than half a century of guilt-mongering and other
Leftist tricks have created a climate of opinion in which Marxist lies
pass of as gospel truth.[30]
This is what Nobel Laureate, V S Naipaul resents when he comments
about Indian writing. Commenting on Nirad Chaudhari"s intellectual
incompetence, Naipaul says:
“Sixty years after Independence that problem is still there. India has
no autonomous intellectual life.”[31]
His words ring quite true in the context of Indian writers in general
and Adiga in particular. There is no autonomous intellectual life in
India. The literary concepts are dictated by the secular
establishment.
“No national literature has been created like this at such a remove,
where the books are published by people outside, judged by people
outside, and read to a large extent by people outside.”[32]
Yes! No national literature has ever been created in a foreign
language. In spite of tall claims and revolutionary agenda, the
paradox of Indian English writing remains. The paradox of a literature
divorced from its native language. Indian writers rarely speak and
never read or write in any of the Indian languages.
Most of the Indian writers who have won awards like Booker, no longer
live in India or have no connections with the rural India which they
claim to write about. They are rootless and hence their works lack
authenticity. More the rootlessness, more the arrogance. Thus
Arundhati Roy writes about the sexual attraction between zygotic
brother and sister; Kiran Desai talks about non-existent "Garwhali
Terrorism", but not about the existent Islamic or Naxalite terrorism;
and Adiga is worried about the pornographic theatre in Indian
villages.
Comparing Indian literature with Russian, Naipaul comments:
“In the nineteenth century, Dostoyevsky and Turgenev and Gogol and
Herzen lived for some time outside their native Russia; but they wrote
in Russian for Russian readers and (for all of them except Herzen)
Russia was where they were published and had their readers. Russia was
where their ideas fermented.”
Nineteenth-century Russian writing created an idea of the Russian
character and the Russian soul. There is no equivalent creation, or
the beginning of one, in Indian writing. India remains hidden. Indian
writers, to speak generally, seem to know only about their own
families, and their places of work. It is the Indian way of living and
consequently the Indian way of seeing. The rest of the country is
taken for granted, and seen superficially, as it was even by the young
Nehru.[33]
So true and so fitting on a writer like Adiga. The establishment
prefers imitation which is safe over innovation which can be
dangerous, ideology over reality, slogans and clichés over facts and
truth. An ideological world-view makes up for the ignorance of
history. A concern for the "brutal injustices" of India, makes up for
the lack of creative writing. Of course the "brutal injustices"
exclude Islamic terrorism and missionary activities.
No writer is recognized by the secular establishment if he doesn"t
confirm fully to the Formula. The mechanism which keeps the writer on
track can be best described by Adiga"s own metaphor for the caste-
system, the "Rooster Coop". This Rooster Coop is maintained by the
Formula, manned by their faithful "intellectuals". The Coop is full of
parrots who endlessly repeat the secular slogans. Once in a while if a
parrot takes courage to break out of the coop and sing a different
tune, he is immediately silenced by the intellectual community, Indian
media and academia. His name is tarnished, his reputation destroyed,
his positions in the Coop, lost. He is made to feel the fault of his
heretic ways and finally he is brought back to the fold. Almost all of
those who contribute to this mechanism are themselves the captives of
the Coop.
But as Adiga would have it, the Coop has a mechanism of its own. The
parrots imprisoned by this Coop help the Coop to remain intact. If one
of their fellow parrot ever tries to do some unparroty acts, then his
legs are pulled back by his own mates. Thus no one is ever allowed to
leave this Rooster Coop of Secularism. The system goes on. The Coop
remains intact. There are ever new parrots in the Coop, but all of
them keep parroting the old tune. Adiga is no different.
Poverty and corruption are made a fetish in Indian writing, as if they
are not secondary problem having some primary cause, but the basic
instinct of the Indian civilization. If a writer tries to probe the
primary problems then he is immediately labeled as anti-poor, fascist
and Hindu fundamentalist. The Coop is so strong that no insider is
able to see the truth. Only an outsider like Naipaul is able to
perceive the reality and express it courageously. Recognizing India as
a wounded civilization he goes back to medieval times to search for
the primary problems of India:
“There is a new kind of coming and going in the world these days.
Arabia, lucky again, has spread beyond its deserts. And India is again
at the periphery of this new Arabian world, as much as it had been in
the eight century, when the new religion of Islam spread in all
directions and the Arabs - led, it is said, by a seventeen year-old
boy - overran the Indian kingdom of Sind. That was only an episode,
the historians say. But Sind is not a part of India today; India has
shrunk since that Arab incursion. No civilization was so little
equipped to cope with the outside world; no country was so easily
raided and plundered, and learned so little from its disasters.”[34]
Naipaul goes beyond the immediate and the superficial. He goes beyond
poverty, unemployment and other clichés and finds the root of the
present Indian misery in its Islamic defeat during the middle ages.
“Its [India"s] independence has meant more than the going away of the
British; that the India to which Independence came was a land of far
older defeat; that the purely Indian past died a long time ago.”[35]
He thinks it is necessary to go beyond these secondary causes:
“An inquiry about India, even an inquiry about the Emergency has
quickly to go beyond the political. It has to be an inquiry about
Indian attitudes: it has to be an inquiry about the civilization
itself, as it is.”[36]
But these are untouchable subjects in the Rooster Coop of India. With
every new addition in the Secular Indian tradition, the writers become
even more confident of their worn-out formula.
Not surprisingly, Naipaul has this to say about Indian writers:
“The education of the new Indian writers - and nowadays some of them
have even been to writing schools - also gets in the way. It seems to
them they have the most enormous choice when, in imitation of the
successful people who have gone before, they settle down to do their
own book. They are not bursting with a wish to say anything. Nothing
is going to force itself out in its own way; they are guided in the
main by imitation.. This is where India begins to get lost.”[37]
Imitation is the hallmark of Indian formula-writing. Adiga is an
imitation of his predecessors like Arundhati Roy, who were an
imitation of writers like Mulk Raj Anand & Nirad Chaudhary, who in
turn were an imitation of yet others. a tradition of imitation going
back to the times of Lord Macaulay. In fact, he inaugurated this
tradition in India in his famous note to Lord Bentinck, the then
Governor-General of India - Minute of Education on India in February
1835:
“We must at present do our best to form a class who maybe interpreters
between us and the millions whom we govern; the class of persons,
Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in
morals and in intellect.”[38]
This defines Adiga"s intellectual ancestry. In many ways, Adiga"s book
is not different from "Untouchable" of Mulk Raj Anand, as artificial,
as superficial, as far from reality, as incapable of asking questions,
as faithful in following the intellectually bankrupt tradition of
Secularism.
Looking at the ruins of the Hindu kingdom Vijaynagar, at the hands of
Muslims, Naipaul reflects over the origin of the current intellectual
bankruptcy of India:
“I began to wonder about the intellectual depletion that must have
come to India with the invasions and conquests of the last thousand
years. What happened in Vijaynagar happened, in varying degrees, in
other parts of the country. In the north, ruin lies on ruin: Moslem
ruin on Hindu ruin. In the history books, in the accounts of wars and
conquests and plunder, the intellectual depletion passes unnoticed.
India absorbs and outlasts its conquerors, Indians say. But at
Vijaynagar, among the pilgrims, I wondered whether intellectually for
a thousand years India hadn"t always retreated before its conquerors
and whether, in its periods of apparent revival, Indian hadn"t only
been making itself archaic again, intellectually smaller, always
vulnerable.”
“The crisis of India is not only political or economic. The larger
crisis is of a wounded old civilization that has at last become aware
of its inadequacies and is without the intellectual means to move
ahead.”[39]
The imitation has seeped into the sub-conscious of Indian psyche, and
Indians are no longer aware of it. Thus Adiga thinks of himself as
pioneer in bringing out the problems of India, but he is just
parroting the secular slogans:
“The middle classes think of themselves still as victims of colonial
rule. But there is no point anymore in someone like me thinking of
myself as a victim of a colonial oppressor.”[40]
Commenting on India"s inability to judge, Naipaul says:
“India has no means of judging. India is hard and materialist. What it
knows best about Indian writers and books are their advances and their
prizes. There is little discussion about the substance of a book or
its literary quality or the point of view of the writer. Much keeps on
being said in the Indian press about Indian writing as an aspect of
the larger modern Indian success, but literary criticism is still
hardly known as an art. The most important judgments of an Indian book
continue to be imported.”[41]
Nothing else can be more representative of the intellectual bankruptcy
of rootless Indian writers, than the fact that they do not even
realize it. India is full of parrots, green, red, white, black, brown.
but none of them are conscious that they are actually parrots. Some
even think that they are tigers. Even white tigers!
References
1] http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/16adiga.htm October 16, 2008
2] Ibid.
3] Adiga, Aravid. 2008. The White Tiger, Harper Collins India, New
Delhi, p.236
4] Ibid. p.23
5] Ibid. p.148
6]Ibid. p.152
7] Ibid. p.309
8] Ibid. p.176-177
9] Ibid. p.149
10] Ibid. p.204
11] Ibid. p.232
12] Ibid. p.275
13] Ibid. p.293-294, 311
14] Ibid. p.175
15] Courtois, Stephane. The Black Book of Communism, Harvard
University Press, 1999, p.4
16] Adiga, Aravid. 2008. The White Tiger, Harper Collins India, New
Delhi, p.9
17] Ibid. p.14
18] Ibid. p.187
19] Ibid. p.156-157
20] Ibid. p.19
21] Arun Shourie and his Christian Critics, 1995, Voice of India, New
Delhi, p.45-46
22] Arun Shourie and his Christian Critics, 1995, Voice of India, New
Delhi, p.61-62
23] Adiga, Aravid. 2008. The White Tiger, Harper Collins India, New
Delhi, p.272. The theory used here is Aryan Invasion Theory, a tool
used by the British against Indians to keep them divided and to
justify their presence on the Indian soil, as the theory claims that
Aryans or the North Indians are also foreigners and came from Central
Asia to India around 1500 BC.
24] Kapoor, Ravi Shanker More Equal than Others: A Study of the Indian
Left, Vision Books, New Delhi, 2000
25] Ibid. p. 20
26] Ibid. p. 21
27] Ibid. p. 22
28] Kapoor, Ravi Shanker How India’s Intellectuals Spread Lies, Vision
Books, New Delhi, 2007
29] Ibid. p. 158
30] Ibid. p. 159
31] Naipaul V S, A Writer’s People, Picador India, 2007, p. 191
32] Ibid. p. 192
33] Ibid. p. 192-193
34] Naipaul V S, India: A Wounded Civilization, Penguin India, 1979,
p. 7
35] Ibid. p. 8
36] Ibid. p. 9
37] Naipaul V S, A Writer’s People, Picador India, 2007, p. 193
38] Macaulay, T B Minute of Education on India 2nd February 1835
39] Naipaul V S, India: A Wounded Civilization, Penguin India, 1979,
p. 17-18
40] http://www.rediff.com/news/2008/oct/16adiga.htm October 16, 2008
41] Naipaul V S, A Writer’s People, Picador India, 2007, p. 193-194
Banal Satire
Review by Tomichan Matheikal
The White Tiger does not deserve the Booker Prize. In fact, it is not
even a good work of literary fiction. It is banal satire trying to don
the garb of literature.
The only good thing about the novel is that the satire in it takes a
critical look at various facets of the social and political life in
India. The largest democracy in the world is a country without
adequate “drinking water, electricity, sewage system, public
transportation, sense of hygiene, discipline, courtesy, or
punctuality” [4]. But it has entrepreneurs, thousands and thousands of
them, who are going to make it an economic superpower, though these
entrepreneurs “are made from half-baked clay” [11].
The novel brings to light the “Darkness” of the emerging superpower
called India. Its river of emancipation, the Ganga, is a morass of
“faeces, straw, soggy parts of human bodies, buffalo carrion, and
seven different kinds of industrial acids” [15]. Its teachers are
thieves who steal the uniforms and lunches of their malnourished
students. The electoral promises made by its political leaders are
likely to end with the laying of foundation stones. It is a country
whose complex caste system of the olden days has given way to a system
of just two castes: Men with Big Bellies and Men with Small Bellies;
and “only two destinies: eat – or get eaten up” [64]. The elections
are rigged by powerful politicians in connivance with corrupt
officials and policemen. India is a country where the plaintiff will
become the accused if the real culprit is influential enough.
A good part of the novel is set in Delhi. The nation’s capital is
portrayed as “a crazy city” where colonies and houses are given
numbers that follow “no known system of logic.” All the roads in the
city have names, but no one seems to know those names. Moreover, the
people may mislead you if you ask for a particular road by its name.
“The main thing to know about Delhi is that the roads are good, and
the people are bad. The police are totally rotten. If they see you
without a seat belt, you’ll have to bribe them a hundred rupees” [124]
(emphasis in original).
Though in many places the novel reads like a tourist guide meant for
foreigners or like superficial journalese, the author succeeds in
satirising many of the vices commonly found in India. Where he
succeeds the best, the characters end up as caricatures. That’s why I
consider the novel as satire.
Yet Aravind Adiga is not a satirist. He thinks he is writing a serious
novel. He really thinks (or at least that’s how it comes across) that
the only way to survive in this messy state of affairs is to develop a
Big Belly and start swallowing those with Small Bellies. The most
glaring fault of the novel is precisely that: the absence of any deep
vision or imagination. Genuine satire can end with exposing the vices
and follies without necessarily presenting an alternative vision,
because the ridicule raised by satire is its curative tool. But a
novel with any pretension to being a work of serious literature has a
duty at least to hint at something deep, something sublime in the part
of the humanity presented in it.
The White Tiger is crowded with vicious characters. There is not even
one character that makes any deep impression on the reader. America-
returned Ashok is the only character who reveals a touch of goodness.
But he turns out to be a mere “Lamb” among the vicious wolves in
India. Eventually he too is drawn into the vortex of evil by the
politicians and their henchmen in Delhi. Ashok’s goodness acquired
from America cannot survive in wicked and filthy India! Is Adiga more
colonial than the colonists?
The protagonist of the novel is a semi-literate rustic who moves from
his hut in the village to a posh house as a driver, and then to Delhi.
He ‘grows up’ from being a Man with a Small Belly to one with a big
one, by committing a grotesque crime which is described luridly in the
novel. The author seems to justify the means employed by the
protagonist!
The novel also presents a ‘thesis’ (that’s almost how it reads) on
what the author calls the Rooster Coop [173-6]. The poor are compared
to the chickens huddled together in a butcher’s coop. The only means
of escape from that coop is implicitly presented as ruthless
violence.
No doubt, Adiga is presenting a world in which traditional moral
codes, religious teachings, social ethics or plain goodness are non-
existent or have become irrelevant. It is a world of ruthless
competition, not just for survival but for luxurious life. But shorn
of the depth in vision and imagination required of a literary writer,
the novel remains mere pulp fiction. That’s why I am surprised that it
won the Booker Prize. That’s also why I won’t recommend this novel to
anyone.
[The page numbers in brackets refer to the Harper Collins hardbound
edition.]
humphh....
Review by MJ
white tiger ///////// ////??????
huh.....i found it a black buk....
i mean .. it actually is a dark story...
lol...dunoo hw it gt d award n al......
u cn read it fr d hype it gt cos f d award...
bt else pure waste f time n money .. :(
THE WHITE TIGER
Review by Abdullah Khan
THE TIGER FROM THE LAND OF DARKNESS :The way Aravind Adiga entertains
in this booker-clinching page-turner absolves him of ‘all the sins’
which are supposedly committed by him as perceived by some of literary
critics, in his debut novel. The white tiger aka Balram Halwai is not
a typical at the bottom of the pyramid character from the land of
darkness. He is a revolutionary in some sense because he refuses to
accept his position what the pseudo-democratic society bestows upon
him.On the way to liberation what he does is a crime. Is Balram’s
crime bigger than other players of the story? Everybody ,from
politicians to bureaucrats , from feudal lords to hoi-polloi,at some
point of time commits a crime against the people who are at the lowest
level of pecking order. It hardly makes difference that sometime crime
is committed out of circumstantial compulsions.
The description of darker side of India will not be by liked by the
people who still (with full conviction )believe in ‘Shining India’ and
for whom the parameter of progress is limited to the SENSEX or NIFTY.
But for a person who is surviving on the one and half course meals,
SENSEX even at 30000 has no meaning. Anybody coming from the land of
darkness knows that the grim realities potrayed by Aravind in his
novel is not a figment of his imagination but it really exists. In
fact, it exists in even more perverse form.Yes, at times he is a
culprit of generlisations but that is forgiv”able” because for a
writer of fiction you can’t use the strict parameter of a social-
historian. Overall feel of the book is almost near to the reality
Awesome and Heart Touching
Review by Aniruddha Arondekar, 12th Science Student, Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra
Magnificent and truly Heart Touching Story. Must Read by all students.
Related News for The White Tiger: A Novel
Community Calendar (Northbrook Star - September 24, 2009)
Deadline for calendar items is two weeks in advance of the desired
publication date. Send information to: Community Calendar, Pioneer
Press, 3701 W. Lake Ave., Glenview, IL 60026; fax to (847) 486-7451 or
e-mail to glen...@pioneerlocal.com.
Learning never stops at community center (Gasparilla Gazette -
September 18, 2009)
Gazette Staff Report "Lifelong Learning at Boca Grande is gearing up
for another exciting year," said Darryl Keisling, the program and
administrative assistant for the Friends of the Boca Grande Community
Center. The 2008-2009 season was very successful with more than 350
people having registered for lectures and seminars.
Sunday Times launches richest short-story prize (Times Online -
September 13, 2009)
THE SUNDAY TIMES is today announcing its backing of a new literary
prize — the richest award for a single short story in Britain and
Ireland, worth £25,000 to the winning author.
Man Booker Prize shortlist announced (New Kerala - September 9, 2009)
London, September 9 : Nominees for this year's esteemed Man Booker
Prize for Fiction have been announced.
Booker shortlist includes AS Byatt (Guardian Unlimited - September 9,
2009)
• Hilary Mantel favourite for tale of Henry VIII's fixer • 132 entries
included works by eight former winners In a literary year widely
acknowledged as the most glittering in a generation, several big names
were shortlisted today for this year's Man Booker prize, with the
tantalising possibility raised of JM Coetzee becoming the first triple
winner or AS Byatt only the third double winner ...
Coetzee in running for Booker (Straits Times - September 9, 2009)
LONDON - SOUTH African author JM Coetzee is in the running for an
unprecedented third Booker Prize, after he was named on this year's
shortlist on Tuesday. Coetzee's fictionalised memoir Summertime will
be competing against the bookmakers' favourite Wolf Hall, by British
writer Hilary Mantel, an historical novel about King Henry VIII's
advisor Thomas Cromwell.
UPI NewsTrack Entertainment News (UPI - September 8, 2009)
MDA telethon raises $60.5 million ... Six authors nominated for Booker
Prize ... Jon says he despises Kate ... Janet planning VMA tribute to
Michael ... News from United Press International.
JM Coetzee in running for third Booker crown (AFP via Yahoo! News -
September 8, 2009)
South African author JM Coetzee is in the running for an unprecedented
third Booker Prize, after he was named on this year's shortlist on
Tuesday.
Six authors nominated for Booker Prize (UPI - September 8, 2009)
LONDON, Sept. 8 (UPI) -- Authors A.S. Byatt, J.M. Coetzee, Adam
Foulds, Hilary Mantel, Simon Mawer and Sarah Waters have been
nominated for Britain's Man Booker Prize for Fiction.
SA's Coetzee on Booker shortlist (BBC News - September 8, 2009)
Hilary Mantel, JM Coetzee and AS Byatt are in the running for this
year's Man Booker Prize for Fiction.
Book: The White Tiger: A Novel
Author: Aravind Adiga
ISBN: 1416562591
ISBN-13: 9781416562597, 978-1416562597
Binding: Hardcover
Publishing Date: 2008/04/22
Publisher: Simon & Schuster
Number of Pages: 276
Language: English
...and I am Sid Harth
bademiyansubhanallah
bademiyansubhanallah
bademiyansubhanallah
bademiyansubhanallah
White TigerBook Abstract by: Onam
Original Author: Arvinda Adiga
Summary rating: 5 stars (1 Ratings)
Visits : 211 words:900 Comments : 0
This is a story of an Indian village boy “ Munna”, born in the
typically deprived environment but having his own rules for the life.
The village, not having the basic amenities fortunately has a school
but it is also no more than the dried-taps and electricity-less poles.
The teachers, awaiting there salaries from years grab all the students
incentives sent by government. Munna, having an inclination to learn
and grow is given the name “ White Tiger” by a school-inspector
describing him being the only royal creature in this jungle of
students and teachers.
He has to leave his school to earn money for the family- a combined
family with all extended uncles-aunts, mostly fighting with each
other. The family is big enough but it is only his father which shares
a bond of affection with him. His mother is no more.
Though he has been out of the school, his tendency to learn remains
and he starts learning the lessons of life while working at a tea
shop, his all earnings going to the grand-mother, who is the self-
imposed head of the joint-family.
After some years, he persuades his grand-mother to allow him to take
the driving classes and promises to give all his better earnings in
turn.
He learns driving and somehow manages a job with an affluent family.
The family is from his village and is very powerful in terms of money,
social status and squeezing out the lesser ones.
The family has 2 sons and the driver is required for the younger one –
Ashok, recently foreign returned.
Ashok is very kind to Munna, though his family is just opposite to the
servants. Munna is loyal to the family, for he knows his single
mistake may bring all his family to ruin. The author has very
appropriately compared this condition with a rooster-coop. The
roosters are compacted in the coop; butcher is sitting on their head,
killing them one by one. They can see there own brothers getting
slaughtered, but it is there destiny to live such life and wait for
there own turn.
Because of another political party coming to power, the family is in
risk of getting caught for some tax issues. The family manages to send
Ashok to Delhi to bribe the party members and keep the issue closed.
Ashok is accompanied by his wife “ Pinki” who wants to return to US,
and Munna as servant.
Initially Ashok hates the routine visits and bribing the ministers.
Pinki always cribs of the faulted systems and insists him to return to
US, but he is reluctant and makes all his effort to make Pinki happy
in other ways.
Munna is aghast to see the city life, though being a country boy he is
loyal to his master, unlikely to the other drivers.
One day during the late night, drunk Pinki asks to drive and crashes a
street-child to death. Munna, being a loyal servant acts very
intelligently to remove every trace of this accident.
The next day, the family arrives and takes Munna’s signature on a note
which specifies Munna as the only responsible person for the accident,
in case the accident is registered with police.
Munna is in panic to imagine the life in jail and then he comes to
know that the case has not been registered with police. He is relieved
but he has virtually experienced what it is being given a killer’s
name.
Soon after this incident, Pinki abandons Ashok. This makes Ashok
emotionally helpless.
After Pinki’s departure, Ashok starts turning to a typical city smart
boy and henceforth Munna follows his foot-steps.
Munna, basically being an ambitious boy starts thinking about his
future. He knows, being a white tiger, he cannot live a servant’s life
for long. Here, Ashok though gradually getting in tune with the city’s
dark side is emotionally weak, and Munna is aware of this fact.
Munna, already being experienced getting a killer’s name plans about
finishing Ashok and taking the ransom which he usually delivers.
Anyway the amount was to be given to the government as tax which
ultimately would have come to people like him, so he wouldn’t be
actually stealing the money but would be seizing money destined for
him.
But this means, his whole family in the village will be ruined by the
master.
Juggling between the two thoughts, finally he decides for his own
life. The family is anyway not living a life of human beings, and
living like a servant is worse than dying.
One day, he commits the crime and moves to another part of country.
Already well acquainted with the loop-holes of system and how to
tackle with them, he starts his own cab agency.
Today Ashok Sharma (Munna) is a successful entrepreneur, keeping his
employees happy, keeping the customers, police and the system happy,
and finally keeping himself happy.
Now he is his own master, flying high in the sky without any forced
bonds of family and society.
But still he keeps an eye on the ground for he knows when the loop-
holes may turn against him and he has to fall down
Published: March 16, 2009
Bibliography: White Tiger by Arvinda Adiga
bademiyansubhanallah
The White Tiger
by dinu on January 10, 2009
The White Tiger speaks about India, in a way no one else will. I said
no one else will and not no one else can’t. I will tell you why. It’s
because most of us can describe India as White Tiger does, but we will
not.
We try to hide the India that is still filled with poor people and
malnourished kids. We try to hide the India of religious tensions,
economic and social divides. We love the India that shines, the next
super power, and then we forget India in “the darkness”
Read The White Tiger, because he speaks for us, he speaks about what
we love to hide inside us. It’s a secret that every Indian carry with
him.
The Readers Block !!
Seems like I am almost back on track, leaving the readers block behind
….. so, more suggestions please, more books please !!
http://books-life-n-more.blogspot.com/2008/11/white-tiger-book-review.html
03 November, 2008
The White Tiger - A Book Review
Posted by Smita at Monday, November 03, 2008
The White Tiger is the story & journey of a nameless boy.
It is his journey from Laxmangarh hereto referred as “The Dark Side”
to Dhanbad, Delhi and finally Bangalore.
Did I say nameless? Well he is called Munna which is an endearment and
it means ‘boy’. It can’t surely be termed as a name???
As Munna himself tells his teacher who will later name him Balram,
“that’s all I’ve got sir, my mom was sick and my father has no time to
name me”.
Balram had to drop out of school to earn money so that his cousin
could be married respectfully. He works his way through a tea shop and
dreams of being something more. His ambition makes him a driver and
eventually moves to Delhi with his foreign returned ‘saab’ who in a
way spoils him.
The book talks about how life is for the people living on the darker
side. It's about people who spend ages to make ends meet but still
reach no where.
Balram is their voice and the book is the view of emerging/ growing
India from the point of view of people for whom the India is still the
same. They are still poor and crushed under the so called socio-
economic strata.
To break through this stratum you either have to be immensely lucky &
have a godfather or you have to find your own Godfather within you.
And it is the later that Balram does, he doesn’t runaway from the
thought of murdering his boss. But whether he does it or not, is to be
read,
The book is written in the form of a letter which Balram writes to an
imaginary Chinese Prime Minister. Why he writes this is beyond me but
what he writes is truth.
And that is the best part of the book. The way author has written
about the Dark side keeps you glued. We all know that this side
exists; people are below poverty line and would be ready to do
anything for a better life. But we chose to ignore it & believe that
India is Shinning.
The book is extremely readable and in few & simple words the author
hits the right notes. Sample these excerpts
“I am India’s most faithful voter, and I still have not seen the
inside of a voting booth.”
One Simple line but says so much about our so called democratic voting
system.
“He had one of those either/ or faces that all great Indian
politicians have. This face says that it is now at peace – and you can
be at peace too if you follow the owner of that face. But the same
face can also say, with a little twitch of its features, that it has
known the opposite of peace: and it can make this other fate yours
too, if it so wishes.”
Though the subject material could be termed heavy, I mean who would
want to read more about corrupt politicians, businessman, the nexus
between them and poor people. I mean this is like old story. But the
book is good because of the way it is written. It keeps you glued
because
1- It is not preachy
2- It is well written
3- It is just a story not a socio political statement. Though the
readers have full liberty to take it the way they want to.
The book has it share of flaws as well. After a point Balram’s journey
from Delhi to Bangalore looks too easy and so does his growth as an
entrepreneur. But if you see in totality then the book is worth a read
and more.
Does it deserve the Booker Prize???
Am no judge of that but when I started reading the book I forgot the
fact that it has won the prize because I was able to read the book
unlike my previous experience.
I’ll go for 4/5 for the book, do read it.
In fact last week when I was on a holiday I got hold of this hindi
newspaper “Nav Bharat Times” with an editorial by Shri. Khushwant
Singh. He felt that Adiga had presented just one side of India and
Delhi in particular. He felt that India is not about darkness in fact
we as a country have grown a lot and that should have been written
about.
Now, this is a point which I have seen many a people making.
I just wonder isn’t a novel all about story telling? If the author
chooses to write a story of a under privileged boy then we shouldn’t
be expecting him to talk about the growth. Come on the boy who can’t
have a meal a day can not say that India is shinning. They do build
malls and condos but they still share a tent behind the construction
site.
The bitter truth is that this dark side of India does exist. The side
where a common commuter can be lynched to death, a side where trains
are robbed off taps, knobs and even pipes, a side does exist where hit
and run cases happen even now.
This is a story and the author is not here to make a socio economic
statement. He is here to tell a story and he does it well.
In fact his second book (which is actually his 1st book) “Between
Assassinations” is releasing on 16th November. And like last time he
is no where seen in publicity.
chhotemianinshallah
The Satanic Verses
Written by Jessica Patel
Saturday, 29 November 2003
Salman Rushdie begins his novel with the sentence "To be born again,
first you must die." No other sentence epitomizes The Satanic Verses
as the above. A Jungian Interpretation by Jessica Patel
Salman Rushdie begins his novel with the sentence "To be born again,
first you must die" (Rushdie, 3). No other sentence epitomizes The
Satanic Verses as the above. Indeed, in the cases of Gibreel Farishta
and Saladin Chamcha, their resurrection from the Bostan did more than
give them life, it forced them to unearth their unconscious selves,
something they had never done before. For clarification, the
unconscious is:
...That portion of the psyche which is outside conscious awareness.
The unconscious expresses itself in dreams, fantasies, obsessive
preoccupations, slips of the tongue and accidents of all kinds. Jung
distinguishes two layers of the unconscious: the personal unconscious
derived from one's own experience, and the collective unconscious
containing the universal patterns and images called archetypes.
(Sharp, glossary).
Needless to say, both Farishta and Chamcha had much buried in their
respective unconsciouses. Farishta's unconscious began to surface when
he ate the unclean pigs, forbidden to all Muslims, after his near
death experience (p. 30). Farishta began having dreams so torturing
that he dreaded sleep, as evidenced by his constant babbling to stay
awake on the hijacked Bostan (p. 82-83).
Farishta's dreams had the once famous actor cast in the lead role of
the Archangel Gibreel, tireless preacher of reincarnation. While one
normally would not find it unusual for an actor who has played
religious roles his whole life to be having religious dreams, this
time it had special meaning. The Archangel Gibreel was Farishta's
shadow, that
. . . unconscious part of the personality containing characteristics
and weaknesses which one's self- esteem will not permit one to
recognize as one's own. It is generally the first layer of the
unconscious to be encountered in psychological analysis and is
personified in dreams by dark and dubious figures of the same sex as
the dreamer (Sharp, glossary).
The Archangel appearing to Gibreel in his dreams was because of his
losing his faith and eating the forbidden pork. Gibreel's unconscious
was telling him that he was a Muslim, and he better start acting like
one, or risk eternal torment for not doing so.
Gibreel's unconscious was still more complicated than this. It also
contained the destroyer angel Azraeel, who uses a trumpet that blows
fire to end the world. This Azraeel was a very minor part of his
personality, only coming out near the end of the novel to kill some
pimps (p. 460).
More important was the actual Ismail Najmuddin, the forgotten man who
became Gibreel Farishta when he started acting in films. Even though
Gibreel turned into a full- fledged philanderer when he became India's
biggest movie star, he was not always such a cold-hearted person. In
his younger days, he was in fact "endowed with a larger-than-usual
capacity for love, without a single person on earth to offer it
to" (Rushdie, 24). But with his phenomenal success in films, the women
started throwing themselves at him and he began a succession of
frivolous, petty affairs. "The avalanche of sex in which Gibreel
Farishta was trapped managed to bury his greatest talent so deep that
it might easily have been lost forever, his talent, that is, for
loving genuinely, deeply and without holding back, the rare and
delicate gift which he had never been able to employ" (Rushdie, 25).
Only when he met and fell hopelessly in love with Alleluia Cone did
that talent finally come out for the first time. In addition to that
incredible ability of all-encompassing love, Gibreel's unconscious
also contained an incredible ability not to be proud of: jealousy.
This jealousy manifested itself whenever there was even a thought of
Allie with another man. He ranted and raved over cartoons sent to
Allie by an admirer (p. 317-318) and nearly killed Jumpy Joshi when he
illogically thought Allie wanted to be impregnated by the martial arts
instructor (p. 430).
Even Rushdie admits that Gibreel did not know of his own capacity for
envy:
. . . his overweening possessiveness and jealousy, of which he himself
had been wholly unaware, owing to his never previously having thought
of a woman as a treasure that had to be guarded at all costs against
the piratical hordes who would naturally be trying to purloin her. . .
(Rushdie, 315).
In the end, this jealousy cost him his relationship with Allie as he
believed Saladin's "little satanic verses" to be true and consequently
mutilated all of Allie's precious Mt. Everest momentos before leaving
her (p. 446). Unfortunately, it also cost Sisodia and Allie their
lives, as Gibreel killed them both because he couldn't get the little
satanic verses out of his mind (p. 544-545). Unable to live with
himself anymore, Gibreel committed suicide (p. 546). Where did all of
this jealousy come from? Part of it came from his sickness, diagnosed
as paranoid schizophrenia (p. 338). Yet it also came from the fact
that not being able to find or express his "talent" for love his
entire adult life until he met Allie, he was extremely possessive of
it because he didn't want to lose it. By unconsciously repressing love
(because he never loved anyone before Allie), he was also repressing
jealousy. If it had been expressed earlier and appropriately dealt
with, it could have prevented Gibreel from reacting so violently to
Allie and the little satanic verses when he came in contact with them
in the future.
Yet for all of Gibreel's faults, that talent for love was expressed
when he saved Saladin's life in the fire (p. 468). Despite learning
that Saladin was behind the voices that were driving him insane,
Gibreel picked him up out of the burning Shaandaar Cafe and rescued
him. As Rushdie appropriately put it, ". . . love had shown that it
could exert a humanizing power as great as that of hatred, that virtue
could transform men as well as vice" (Rushdie, 540).
By letting his unconscious quality of love show at that very important
moment, Gibreel proved that:
Nobody can fall so low unless he has a great depth. If such a thing
can happen to a man, it challenges his best and highest on the other
side; that is to say, this depth corresponds to a potential height,
and the blackest darkness to a hidden light (Jung, Basler Nachrichten,
1946).
By saving Saladin's, his enemy's life, Gibreel attained that potential
height. Gibreel was not the only one with an unconscious side. While
reading The Satanic Verses, even I had a hard time in figuring out
Saladin's shadow. Is Saladin's shadow the Indian Salahuddin
Chamchawalla he left behind when he came to Ellowen Deeowen in 1961 or
was it the devil-like figure that he became after his fall? I surmise
that Saladin's shadow was definitely his Indian side. It is because of
the suppression of his heritage that Saladin became the devil
incarnated.
One of the first examples of Saladin's unconscious showing itself were
his slips of the tongue on the plane to India. He found his "...
speech unaccountably metamorphosed into the Bombay lilt he had so
diligently (and so long ago!) unmade" (Rushdie, 34). As Jung said in
Answer to Job, "The unconscious mind of man sees correctly even when
conscious reason is blind and impotent" (Jung, Psychology and
Religion: West and East, 608). Though Saladin's conscious considered
this trip to India a business trip, his unconscious knew that he was
truly returning home.
Another example of this was Saladin's reaction to finding his best
friend, Jumpy Joshi, was sleeping with his wife:
'Damn all Indians,' he cried into the muffling bedclothes, his fists
punching at frilly-edged pillowcases from Harrods in Buenos Aires so
fiercely that the fifty-year old fabric was ripped to shreds. 'What
the hell. The vulgarity of it, the sod it sod it indelicacy. What the
hell. That bastard, those bastards, their lack of bastard
taste' (Rushdie, 137).
It was at this exact moment that the police arrived to arrest him.
Saladin had rebuffed his heritage his whole life, but by finally
damning all Indians as if he wasn't one, that was the final straw. It
seems that this ultimate rejection was the beginning of all of his
troubles with the police. As Jung said in Psychology and Alchemy, "We
know that the mask of the unconscious is not rigid-it reflects the
face we turn towards it. Hostility lends it a threatening aspect,
friendliness softens its features" (Jung, Psychology and Alchemy, 29)
You see, Saladin turned a hostile face towards his unconscious, trying
to separate himself from what he really was, an Indian. It started
with "Englishizing" his name from the Indian "Salahuddin Chamchawalla"
to the more pronounceable "Saladin Chamcha" and was an ongoing process
as he sought to fulfill his goal of becoming a proper Englishman. Even
after becoming the devil incarnate and being forced to hide in an
attic, Saladin continued to wonder why all of this had happened to
him:
Had he not pursued his own idea of the good, sought to become that
which he most admired, dedicated himself with a will bordering on
obsession to the conquest of Englishness? Had he not worked hard,
avoided trouble, striven to become new? Assiduity, fastidiousness,
moderation, restraint, self- reliance, probity, family life: what did
these add up to if not a moral code? . . What mean small-mindedness
was this, to cast him back into the bosom of his people, from whom
he'd felt so distant for so long! - Here thoughts of Zeeny Vakil
welled up, and guiltily, nervously, he forced them down again. His
heart kicked him violently, and he sat up, doubled over, gasped for
breath. . . (Rushdie 256-257).
Consider Jung's remarks in Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious:
Observance of customs and laws can very easily be a cloak for a lie so
subtle that our fellow human beings are unable to detect it. It may
help us to escape all criticism, we may even be able to deceive
ourselves in the belief of our obvious righteousness. But deep down,
below the surface of the average man's conscience, he hears a voice
whispering, 'There is something not right,' no matter how much his
rightness is supported by public opinion or by the moral code (Jung,
Archetypes of the Collective Unconscious, p. 80).
Saladin was trying to consciously reason out why he had become the
devil while he refused to see the truth. He thought that he was good
when he was trying to become as British as possible and was
inadvertently supported by his very English wife and very English
occupation (as a respectable actor). In truth, he was really going
against his unconscious, his Indian heritage. In this case, the voice
whispering "there is something not right" was his heart pumping
furiously, telling him to stop being such an anglophile.
His unconscious side was repressing more than his Indianness, however.
In that quest to be the proper Englishman, Saladin chose to bottle up
all of the rage he had inside himself. Instead of expressing it
immediately as you Americans would, he kept his anger to himself until
he became the devil. Once his goatlike body was fully formed, he
stomped around and spewed sulfurous smoke from his nose (p. 276). He
couldn't hide his sexuality anymore either (possibly repressed because
of molestation as a child (p. 38)) as his new body was always sporting
an enormous erection (p. 157). All of these emotions finally had a way
of asserting themselves when Saladin no longer had a human body to
hide them with.
Because he tried to bury all of these unconscious thoughts and deny
who he really was, he suffered probably his worst torture at the hands
of policemen in the Black Maria (p. 157-164). The policemen he
encountered in the Black Maria exhibited classic symptoms of
projection. Projection is "a natural process whereby an unconscious
quality, characteristic, or talent of one's own is perceived and
reacted to in an outer person or thing" (Sharp, glossary).
Though from all appearances the police officers were completely
British, their last names told a different story. Stein, Novak, and
Bruno were far from Anglo-Saxon names, as Saladin himself noted (p.
163). By calling Saladin a "packy" (p. 157), a derogatory term for an
Indian, the police officers were actually scapegoating their own
inadequate feelings about being British (and not having proper English
surnames) onto him, a supposed illegal alien. Officer Novak
acrimoniously describing himself as being from Weybridge, where the
very British Beatles also were from (p. 163), proved he in fact was
insecure in his own identity.
As Jung says in Archaic Man:
We still attribute to the other fellow all the evil and inferior
qualities that we do not like to recognize in ourselves, and therefore
have to criticize and attack him, when all that has happened is that
an inferior "soul" has emigrated from one person to another. The world
is still full of betes noires and scapegoats, just as it formerly
teemed with witches and werewolves (Jung, Civilization in Transition,
130)
Instead of coming to terms with their own inferiorities and resolving
them, Novak and the other officers chose to project their negative
feelings about themselves onto Saladin by making fun of him and
beating the living daylights out of him.
Saladin was a "projector," too. One example is when Saladin vents his
anger about being turned into the devil onto Gibreel, the man he
believes is the cause of all his trouble. When Saladin finds out that
Gibreel not only lied about being on the Bostan, but had also resumed
a normal life while he was languishing in an attic, Saladin's horns
shrunk just a little bit (p. 273). An even greater example of his
projection occurred when Saladin became "human" again:
When Mishal, Hanif, and Pinkwalla ventured into the clubroom several
hours later, they observed a scene of frightful devastation, table
sent flying, chairs broken in half, and, of course, every
waxwork . . . melted like tigers into butter; and at the centre of the
carnage, sleeping like a baby, no mythological creature at all, no
iconic Thing of horns and hellsbreath, but Mr. Saladin Chamcha
himself, apparently restored to his old shape, mother-naked but of
entirely human aspect and proportions, humanized - is there any option
but to conclude? - by the fearsome concentrations of his hate
(Rushdie, 294).
By projecting all of the anger that he had for Gibreel onto the life-
size figures of Club Hot Wax, Saladin finally became human again,
after months of sheer torture. It should be noted that while Saladin
had capitulated to being a devil-like figure forever (choosing
Lucretius over Ovid, p. 288),
Chamcha was becoming more and more goatlike, growing thick, long hair
over his body while developing a swishing tail. But when Saladin
finally decided to act upon the man he believed was the root of all
his torment, and not just resign to his present state, that is when he
became normal again.
Yet Saladin wasn't satisfied with being human again. He had an urge
for revenge so strong that he couldn't deny it. Consider Jung's
observation in Return to a Simple Life, "The healthy man does not
torture others-generally it is the tortured who turn into
torturers" (Jung, Return to a Simple Life, 10). Even though Saladin
wasn't a vindictive man before, "It is a fact that cannot be denied:
the wickedness of others becomes our own wickedness because it kindles
something evil in our own hearts" (Jung, After the Catastrophe, 413).
By betraying him in Rosa Diamond's home and compounding it by
resuming a normal life, Saladin felt Gibreel hadn't suffered after the
fall from the Bostan as he himself had.
To remedy this situation, Saladin chose the left path, a.k.a. the
sinister path:
What Saladin Chamcha understood that day was that he had been living
in a state of phoney peace, that the change in him (or: within him)
when he fell from the sky; no matter how assiduously he attempted to
re-create his old existence, this was, he now saw, a fact that could
not be unmade. He seemed to see a road before him, forking to left and
right. Closing his eyes, settling back against taxicab upholstery, he
chose the left-hand path (Rushdie, 418-419).
From this point on, Saladin wholeheartedly tries to drive Gibreel mad.
By convincing Gibreel that he was his friend and his silence at Rosa
Diamond's was in the past, Gibreel began confiding in Saladin about
the intimate details of his sex life with Allie. Saladin in turn uses
the knowledge of those conversations to recite the "little satanic
verses" (p. 444-446) to Allie and Gibreel over the phone.
In this case, both parties made the mistake of trusting each other:
Just as we tend to assume that the world is as we see it, we naively
suppose that people are as we imagine them to be. In this latter case,
unfortunately, there is no scientific test that would prove the
discrepancy between perception and reality. Although the possibility
of gross deception is infinitely greater here than in our perception
of the physical world, we still go on naively projecting our own
psychology into our fellow human beings. In this way everyone creates
for himself a series of more or less imaginary relationships based
essentially on projection (Jung, The Structure and Dynamics of the
Psyche, 507).
The problem in this case was assumption. Saladin assumed that after
their bonding on the plane, Gibreel would speak up for him when the
police came to get him. Gibreel assumed that he was telling the
personal details of his life to a friend who would keep it
confidential. Both made the mistake of projecting their own attitudes
on the other. Unfortunately for them, these misassumptions had grave
consequences. Saladin suffered immensely as his body was metamorphosed
into a goat which stomached (and I literally mean "stomached") brutal
torture at the hands of cruel policemen. As sad as this was, Gibreel
ended up with an even worse fate, his own suicide.
Saladin finally attains his peace at the end of the novel when he
returns to India for his father's impending death. He finally made up
with his father after twenty years of silence and even made up with
Zeeny, after only a few months of silence. Saladin ultimately did
listen to his unconscious, realized he was an Indian meant to live in
India, and lived happily.
In effect, Saladin comes to term with his shadow. By finally accepting
his country and culture, Salahuddin became a truly happy person, for
the first time in his life.
Undefeated (an, it appeared, unattached), Zeeny's reentry into his
life completed the process of renewal, of regeneration, that had been
the most surprising and paradoxical product of his father's terminal
illness. His old English life, its bizarreries, its evils, now seemed
very remote, even irrelevant, like his truncated stage-name. 'About
time,' Zeeny approved when he told her of his return to Salahuddin.
'Now you can stop acting at last.' Yes, this looked like the start of
a new phase. . . (Rushdie, 534).
As Jung remarked in The Meaning of Psychology for Modern Man, "And yet
the attainment of consciousness was the most precious fruit of the
tree of knowledge, the magical weapon which gave man victory over the
earth, and which we hope will give him a still greater victory over
himself" (Jung, Civilization in Transition, 289).
At the age of 40, Salahuddin finally found the fruit of consciousness.
Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses as he approached his fortieth
birthday, a momentous perhaps tumultuous time in anyone's life. To
Rushdie and others approaching forty, Jung had these words:
Wholly unprepared, we embark upon the second half of life. Or are
there perhaps colleges for forty-year-olds which prepare them for
their coming life and its demands as the ordinary colleges introduce
our young people to a knowledge of the world? No, thoroughly
unprepared we take the step into the afternoon of life; worse still,
we take this step with the false assumption that our truths and ideals
will serve us as hitherto. But we cannot live the afternoon of life
according to the programme of life's morning; for what was great in
the morning will be little at evening, and what in the morning was
true will at evening have become a lie (Jung, The Structure and
Dynamics of the Psyche, 784).
Copyright 1997 Jessica Patel. All rights reserved.
Direct correspondence to Jessica Patel at: jesp...@eden.rutgers.edu
The Satanic Verses, Rushdie, Salman Viking Penguin, Inc New York NY
USA
chhotemianinshallah
Salman Rushdie. The Religion Of Celebrity
Written by John Fraim
Wednesday, 26 November 2003
A strobe-light procession of events and a constantly shifting
narrative perspective conspire to constantly change the "ground
beneath" the reader's feet in the opening chapter of Salman Rushie's
new book The Ground Beneath Her Feet.
(Holt, 1999)
Commentary by John Fraim
from
I N S I G H T S
Symbolic Perspectives On Popular Culture
May 12, 1999 | Number 16 | Sonoma County California
The GreatHouse Company
The meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside in
the unseen, enveloping the tale which could only bring it out as a
glow brings out a haze.
Joseph Conrad, Heart of Darkness
As we retreat from religion, our ancient opiate, there are bound to be
withdrawal symptoms of this Apsaran variety. The habit of worship is
not easily broken. In the museums, the rooms with icons are crowded."
Salman Rushdie, The Ground Beneath Her Feet
A strobe-light procession of events and a constantly shifting
narrative perspective conspire to constantly change the "ground
beneath" the reader's feet in the opening chapter of Salman Rushie's
new book The Ground Beneath Her Feet. The legendary musician Vina
awakens from a nightmare. "On St.Valentine's Day, 1989, the last day
of her life, the legendary popular singer Vina Apsara woke sobbing
from a dream of human sacrifice in which she had been the intended
victim." Vina has played a concert in the city of Guadalajara, Mexico
and picked up a young man named Raúl Páramo for the night.
Her dream nightmare becomes a real nightmare with the dawn of the new
day. She sees Raúl dying in bed next to her from a drug overdose. "She
had been perspiring heavily and the sodden bed sheets stank of the
meaningless misery of the nocturnal encounter. Raúl Páramo was
unconscious, white-lipped, and his body was galvanized, every few
moments, by spasms which Vina recognized as being identical to her own
dream writhings."
Her old friend, a paparazzi photographer named Rai, finds Vina in this
state and the two of them fly by helicopter to the home of the wealthy
tequila baron Don Ángel Cruz who is holding a banquet in her honor.
During the banquet there is a great earthquake which brings an almost
apocalyptic destruction to the town and the great plantation of Don
Ángel Cruz.
The Dominance Of Narrative Context
The events and action of the opening pages possess the surreal
signature style of south American writers like Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
Yet it is the narrative context containing them that creates a true
subtextual earthquake destroying the reader's footing and safe
distance from the story. This strange narrative voice hovers over the
story like the helicopter that takes Rai and Vina to the estate of Don
Ángel Cruz. It remains a little above like the stinging insects which
attack Rai, ready to swarm unexpectedly in new directions with the
speed of a camera flash. The narrative voice seems a symbol for the
ever present paparazzi hovering on the perimeter of celebrity just
outside the flash of the camera.
It is the circumstance of most paparazzi to catch only brief glimpses
of their photographic prey from great distances with telephoto lenses
or through the bullet-proof window protection of celebrity. But Rai
has known Vina since their childhood in Bombay, India and is much more
than an ordinary member of the paparazzi press. Over the years the two
have been on and off again lovers. Rai therefore possesses that
unusual perspective of both creator and actor in a story,
simultaneously inside and outside of it.
Is the story being told in the narrative voice of the first or third
person? One is uncertain which voice is "on watch" at the helm of the
book from page to page. This uncertainty, narrator as captain and crew
member, shifts the water under a boat at sea in a manner similar to
how an earthquake moves the ground beneath the feet of those on land.
In this sense, Rai is much like Fitzgerald's Nick Carroway in The
Great Gatsby. On a trip to the New York apartment of Myrtle Wilson and
Tom Buchanan Nick observes:
"I wanted to get out and walk eastward toward the park through the
soft twilight, but each time I tried to go I became entangled in some
wild, strident argument which pulled me back, as if with ropes, into
my chair. Yet high over the city our line of yellow windows must have
contributed their share of human secrecy to the casual watcher in the
darkening streets, and I was him too, looking up and wondering. I was
within and without, simultaneously enchanted and repelled by the
inexhaustible variety of life."
Like Carroway, Rai is the "casual watcher" both "within and without,
simultaneously." Part of this ability stems from Fitzgerald and
Rushdie's technique but technique in great art has a strong
relationship to character. Fitzgerald's Carroway tells the reader at
the beginning of Gatsby that he has been privy to the secrets of many
men brought about by his ability to suspend judgment. In a similar
way, Rai tells the reader that he also has this ability to move with
invisibility because he is able to make himself "psychically" small.
The omnipotent "all seeing eye" of the third person narrator can be
sensed in the first paragraph of Rushdie's new novel. Rai knows what
has happened outside his direct observation. He was not with Vina when
she awoke from her horrible dream yet he somehow knows of Vina's dream
and her feelings. Yes, Vina may have related some of this to Rai but
there is too much editorial in the narrative to fully believe this
happened. The details of Rai's description of Vina as "perspiring
heavily" on "sodden" bedheets which "stank of the meaningless misery
of the nocturnal encounter" is not the descriptive flourishings
someone in Vina's state of mind would offer up.
Rushdie And 20th Century Narrative Experiments
With the changing narrative voice between omnipotence and impotence,
Rai continues a long tradition of the shifting inside/outside
narrator. As Marlowe observed in Heart of Darkness, the meaning of a
story was not on the inside but on the outside. This view suggests the
path to meaning is through the consideration of both the inside and
outside architecture of a story.
First developed by Conrad, extended and explored by Conrad disciple
Fitzgerald, it eventually became part of a new tradition of modern
writing and a core component in the literary arsenal of famous writers
like Virginia Woolf (To The Lighthouse), Thomas Wolfe (Face of a
Nation) and James Joyce (Ulysses). This narrative style has gone under
various labels, stream-of-consciousness being one of the more popular
designations. But now, at the end of the 20th century, it seems to
transgress literature to infiltrate other realms of culture like
psychoanalysis where patient merges with therapist. In fact it seems
to be a background cultural muzak mirroring a hypertext world where
internet surfers are simultaneously narrator and subject of
narrative.
The earthquake of the first chapter carries on the symbolic narrative
trend of leading 20th century fiction which constantly shifts our
point of reference in relation to the story being told. It also works
as extended symbol for modern life reminding us we all dwell close to
fault lines subject to the constantly shifting ground beneath our
feet.
The Beginning of a Journey
Great journeys often begin with subtle changes and tiny Burma-Shave
type signs which come and go with the swiftness of a tropical breeze.
Unlike the Titanic leaving port to whistles blowing and champagne
spewing, journeys often start with a slow, fearful type of walk into a
wilderness frontier. A toe is quietly dipped into the water rather
than a John Wayne type of hero charging full-speed ahead to confront
the Indians.
And so Marlowe's journey in Conrad's Heart of Darkness starts with the
subtleness of a meeting on a quiet, deserted street. The guardians of
the Marlowe's "gate" to his journey are not large, beer-hall bouncers
but rather two old ladies who silently knit.
"Two women, one fat and the other slim, sat on straw-bottomed chairs,
knitting black wool. The slim one got up and walked straight at me -
still knitting with down-cast eyes - and only just as I begin to think
of getting out of her way, as you would for a somnambulist, stood
still, and looked up. Her dress was as plain as an umbrella-cover, and
she turned around without a word and preceded me into a waiting room.
I gave my name, and looked about."
In the opening chapter of Rushdie's new book, there is also the subtle
signs that a great journey is about to begin. It seems paradoxical
that the journey starts on the final day of Vina's life, the day she
awakes from the terrible dream. A beginning of one journey starts at
an end of another. Yet paradox has been the road to truth in Rushdie's
eastern culture and the start of a new journey at the end of another
one suggests the eastern cyclic perspective of life. As Rai observes,
"Aristaeus, who brought death, also brought life, a little like Lord
Shiva back home. Not just a dancer, but Creator and Destroyer, both."
Another paradox (at least for western readers) is that the journey is
not one forward into the future but rather back into the past. Like
starting one journey at the end of another, this also counters the
direction of western journeys which so often possess a jet-boat type
of rush towards the future rather than a cruise-ship examination of
the islands of past memory. With this retrospective approach, Rushdie
seems to suggest that exploration of past memory as a basis for
creating a new future has value in a post-modern world.
But there is a fear in Rai of embarking on his voyage of remembrance.
And indeed a questioning of language as fuel for the journey. Rai
ponders the dilemma before setting out on his voyage into memory. "So
I stand at the gate of the inferno of language, there's a barking dog
and a ferryman waiting and a coin under my tongue for the fare." What
boat is the "ferryman" about to take him on? The "death boat"
traveling west or a boat to a new meaning of life for Rai? It is
difficult to know in the opening chapter. But it is not difficult to
feel a great journey about to begin.
The Perpetual Exile
Rai is not only outside the story he relates but also outside western
culture which contains this story. Rai the photographer is Rushdie the
writer, a person in perpetual exile from his eastern homeland of
India. Rai looks in at modern western culture from the outside,
inventing a story he has never lived, speculating on its core events
like rock-n-roll or its key cultural icons like celebrities. In
effect, Rai symbolizes a type of photographic "eye" of our tabloid
culture, pressed against the thick, protective glass of the celebrity
limousine, trying to get a brief glimpse of the occupant inside.
We are all like Rai and Rushie in some ways - perpetual exiles from a
homeland of past memory brought about by a growing collective amnesia
and a full speed race into the future. This is what gives Rai and
Vina's story such power. It is one man's story yet it is also the
story of many. Rushdie seems to be saying that the overall road to a
new type of understanding is by seeing the context rather than the
content of life. It is waking to an awareness that we are looking in
and through when we should be looking out and above. It is the
content, held up as a god of the western world for so long, which has
ultimately let us down. It's substance of information has created
confusion more than understanding. The result has been an increasingly
thick "data smog" of increased content which hangs over life like real
smog hangs over Los Angeles on hot, windless summer days.
Pisces To Aquarius
In speculating on a new context of understanding, using narrative
voice in an attempt to "practice what he preaches," Rushdie opens his
story up to the consideration of larger symbolic issues. They are
issues that go beyond the literary narrative of the 20th century,
cultural trends of the digital era or even narrative perspective in
the western world. These larger issues of symbolism concern the change
of astrological signs from Pisces to Aquarius, a change we are
currently moving through. Pisces is symbolized by the fish and
Aquarius by the water carrier. The symbolism is one between inside and
outside, contained and container, context and content. The Pisces fish
is contained within water while the water carrier Aquarius is outside
this water and not contained within it. The eon cycle therefore
represents a change from being controlled by the container to being
outside the container. Carl Jung addressed these concerns in Aion -
one of his last and strangest books. The Pisces fish symbolizes the
psyche and Jung suggests in Aion that the two eons will have a
different relationship to the psyche. The emerging symbolic struggle
is to move out of the surrounding context so that it becomes content
to carry. To move from a fish to a water carrier.
Does the narrative shenanigans of Rushdie symbolize this astrological
change? Is it an attempt to move from context to a carrier of a former
context? Is the unique narrative voice Rushdie uses, as well as that
used by other famous writers of the 20th century, themselves symbols
of the larger astrological fireworks? These are larger questions posed
at the beginning Rai's journey.
The Devil Goddess Vina
The unusual narrative technique providing the rocking boat context of
the story may have larger symbolic implications found in hypertext
culture or even the change of distant star patterns. Yet it is the
story of the legendary Vina Apsara around which the narrative hovers,
like a moth around a yellow porch light, like bees around honey.
(Interestingly, the first chapter is titled "The Keeper of Bees") Is
she a goddess or a type of she-devil, an ancient siren whose hypnotic
persona has led to the destruction of men and empires? The question is
important because Vina is a symbol for our celebrity-obsessed modern
world which is still in the process of working out the answer to this
question.
In the opening of the book, it is important to see that Vina has not
just stumbled on to some "groupie" from her concert like Cher picking
up a new "Boy Toy." Vina seems more like Anne Rice's vampire Lestat
choosing a victim. Vina in fact seems a type of supernatural creature
whose terrible beauty has killed Raúl Páramo. It is as if Raúl has
looked into the face of the ancient Medusa and it is this fateful
look, not the drug overdose, which has killed him.
Yes, Vina had "surrendered" herself to Raúl. But she also "selected
him more or less at random from the backstage throng" waiting to be
selected by her. As Rai says, "She had picked him like a flower and
now she wanted him between her teeth, she had ordered him like a take-
home meal and now she alarmed him by the ferocity of her appetites."
And it is Rai who seems caught in the storm of Vina's duality. Yes,
there is a narrative duality between inside and outside, first and
third person. But there is also a duality in Vina and Rai's feelings
about Vina. Like Fitzgerald's Nick Carroway, Rai seems both
"simultaneously enchanted and repelled" by Vina's life pondering "How
was it that so explosive, even amoral, a woman came to be seen as an
emblem, an ideal, by more than half the population of the world?
Because she was no angel, let me tell you that..." Yet the fact that
Vina was no angel is a great part of her power. As Rai notes, "We
always did prefer our iconic figures injured, stuck full of arrows or
crucified upside down." Like those who gaze at the tabloid paparazzi
photos of celebrities and read National Enquirer stories, Rai observes
we need our heroes "flayed and naked" and "want to watch their beauty
crumble slowly and to observe their narcissistic grief."
Within the raging winds of the great storm which was Vina's life, an
earthquake and death on the same day, Rai sets out on his voyage of
discovery. In many ways it is a voyage to the peaceful "eye" at the
center of the great storm of Vina's life. As Rai says, "maybe she can
find a sort of peace here, on the page, in this underworld of ink and
lies, that respite which was denied her by life." Within the first
chapter, Rai presents a convincing case for embarking on this journey
and for the reader coming along to learn something perhaps very
different and new about life.
But like any great journey with lofty goals, there is a tentativeness
and doubt in Rai's mind about his journey. Is that old narrative
device of just words and language still adequate in a new hypertext
age? Only a story of magnificent proportions might again breathe life
into this dying art form. It is by facing this question and standing
"at the gate of the inferno of language" that Rai sets out to tell us
about Vina. It may be a magnificent story but at its heart it is a
love story Rai begins to tell us.
© 1999 - John Fraim
Note: Thanks to the Vancouver, B.C. based January Magazine and Editor
Linda Richards for putting the first chapter of The Ground Beneath Her
Feet on the web.
www.januarymagazine.com/features/rushdie.html.
www.januarymagazine.com/ (January Magazine)
INSIGHTS is a free publication sent regularly to a list composed of
leading ...
◦Film Companies
◦Advertising Firms
◦PR Firms
◦Business Leaders
◦University Professors
◦Business Publications
◦Internet Entrepreneurs
◦Market Research & Public Opinion Firms
◦Business & Coummunication Organizations
Comments? Someone we should include on our email list?
Please send to us at ... jfr...@neteze.com
John Fraim is President of GreatHouse Company a research, consulting
and publishing firm centered around the symbolism of popular culture.
His articles have been published in a number of leading publications.
His book Spirit Catcher won the 1997 Small Press Award for best
biography. His email is jfr...@neteze.com. Visit the CyberBeacon Café
at http://sites.netscape.net/fraimjohn/homepage
Sid Harth
Marshall McLuhan. The Medium and the Light: Reflections on
Religion
Written by John Fraim
Wednesday, 26 November 2003
One of the greatest intellectual voyages of the twentieth century
began with the study of an obscure but vigorous Elizabethan
pamphleteer named Thomas Nashe. Edited By Eric McLuhan and Jacek
Szklarek (Toronto: Stoddart, 1999)
Reviewed by John Fraim
One of the greatest intellectual voyages of the twentieth century
began with the study of an obscure but vigorous Elizabethan
pamphleteer named Thomas Nashe. It was the 1930s, the world was in the
middle of a great depression and a young man in his mid-twenties named
Marshall McLuhan was at Cambridge University working on his Ph.D
thesis centered around Nashe.
The choice of Nashe for his Ph.D thesis provided a "small target" for
his growing intellectual power. It almost seemed too small and
unimportant to qualify as the target for a Cambridge Ph.D thesis.
Outside a relatively small circle of people, Nashe is an anonymous
footnote buried beneath layers of history. Born in Lowestoft, England
in 1561, and educated at Cambridge, Nashe became one of the university
wits. Arriving in London in 1588 he wrote for the stage and the press
and in 1589 published The Anatomie of Absurditie and the Preface to
Robert Greene's Menaphon.
Nashe was also employed by the Church of England to answer the attacks
made on it by a group of Puritan writers collectively known as Martin
Marprelate. Under the pen name of Pasquil, Nashe responded with
satiric pamphlets like An Almond for a Parrat (1590). He also took
part in a violent literary controversy against the poet Gabriel Harvey
and his brother Richard Harvey, who had been extremely critical of the
writings of Nashe and his friend Robert Greene. The church, though,
saw little value in Nashe and Harvey's works and in June 1599 banned
their books.
McLuhan originally intended to write about the differences between
Nashe and Harvey. But soon McLuhan came to see Nashe and Harvey as
symbols for something much greater than the petty battles they were
engaged in during their time. As Mcluhan's son Eric notes, to his
father they "were the latest combatants in a struggle that had been
going on, by then, for over 1500 years and which for hundreds of years
more showed no signs of abating."
McLuhan located this struggle in the famous Trivium of Western
intellectual tradition which compressed all knowledge into three
streams: rhetoric (communication), dialectic (philosophy and logic),
and grammar (literature). Although knowledge about the Trivium has
faded in our contemporary world, its three branches serve as the
foundation of the elementary school process based around teaching
grammar (in grades K-6 and ages 4-11), logic (in grades 7-9 and ages
12-14) and rhetoric (in grades 10-12 and ages 15-18).
McLuhan's studies of the Trivium began with the Greek and Roman
educational systems, went through the Middle Ages and ended with James
Joyce in the twentieth century. It began with Cicero in Augustan Rome
and ran to Nashe in Elizabethan England and concerned itself with the
key debates between great universities such as Cambridge, Oxford and
Paris.
While many others had undertaken the study of philosophy and
literature, it was McLuhan's unique insight to place this study into a
type of triumvirate context by considering the relationships between
the three disciplines of the Trivium. As Eric McLuhan suggests, his
father saw the Trivium "as a set of Siamese triplets." Considered from
this viewpoint, the overall perspective of the Trivium changes
enormously as well as the developments within each of its three
branches.
Thomas Nashe fit into the Trivium scheme because he represented the
age-old claims of grammar (allied with rhetoric) for dominance of the
Trivium. Against this claim was the rival claim of dominance by
dialectical reformers represented by Gabriel Harvey.
The eventual Cambridge Ph.D thesis of McLuhan on Nashe and the Trivium
was one of the most learned papers that Cambridge had ever seen. It
also served as a type of "embarkation point" for McLuhan's study of
media theory placing it in an overriding religious context.
Yet this religious perspective served more as a hidden subtext to
McLuhan's work in media, remaining in the background like the set of a
movie rather than out in front of the "cameras" like a leading actor.
In a sense, the religious subtext was McLuhan's personal "medium"
while the particular "messages" were contained in his books and
lectures. This religious perspective was seldom addressed in singular
works but rather strewn over a half-century like scattered Tarot cards
which were pieces to some great puzzle. The pieces were in the form of
letters, essays and interviews - in effect, much "offstage" ponderings
and reflections behind his more public persona.
These pieces have recently been collected and published in The Medium
and the Light (Toronto: Stoddart, 1999) edited by his son Eric McLuhan
and Roman Catholic priest Jacek Szklarek. While most of the material
has been published in one way or another, this is the first time they
have been drawn together. As Eric McLuhan notes, his father had long
thought about pulling these pieces together and making a book of them.
Appearing for the first time in English, are the four conversations
with Pierre Babin recorded between 1974 and 1977.
In some ways, the materials in the book serve as a background to
McLuhan's eventual conversion to Catholicism. Yet, as interesting and
important as McLuhan's conversion to Catholicism might be, The Medium
and the Light is really about far more than one influential
individual's conversion to the Catholic religion. Rather its real
subject is more about an awakening rather than a conversion. The
awakening was to a faith in percepts over concepts, and yes, an early
discovery that "truth" and "light" is to be found in the
acknowledgment of the surrounding "medium" of life rather than in the
analysis of the "messages" and concepts inside this life. In effect,
McLuhan never set out to understand the idea of religion but to admit
particular feelings he had.
It was the admission of these feelings, not the attempt to understand
them, that led to his conversion and his ultimately his great
discoveries in media. For McLuhan, Catholicism was not the great
churches and the grand liturgies. It never was contained in that great
Emerald City Dorothy set out to find in the Wizard of Oz. Rather it
was the fleeting shadow of something only glimpsed at in the fading
twilight hours of the day. An awareness rather than a particular shape
inside this awareness. It allowed him to relate to media in a new way,
not as contents within an environment but rather as the environment
itself.
For McLuhan, concepts that stood in the way of knowledge. He once
wrote his friend Jim Taylor, editor of The United Church Observer, "I
do not think of God as a concept, but as an immediate and ever-present
fact -an occasion for continuous dialogue...I don't think concepts
have any relevance in religion. Analogy is not a concept. It is a
resonance. It is inclusive. It is the cognitive process itself."
Analogical awareness, McLuhan observed, "begins in the senses and is
derailed by concepts or ideas." Faith is a mode of perception, a sense
like sight or hearing or touch and as real and actual as these.
While the battle between idea and feeling was a relatively settled
personal issue for McLuhan, he knew that it was not a settled one for
the great mass of humanity bringing about a continuing battle of
religion with other branches of the Trivium for dominance of
historical periods. The dynamics of this battle came to seen by
McLuhan as one of the key problems of the modern condition.
This battle underlies one of the most interesting themes which emerge
from The Medium and the Light as McLuhan speculates on the future of
religion. In a March 27, 1970 interview with Hubert Hoskins in The
Listener, he offered some observations on the possible future of
Christianity from a media perspective:
"Christianity definitely supports the idea of a private, independent
metaphysical substance of the self. Where technologies supply no
cultural basis for this individual, then Christianity is in for
trouble. When you have a new tribal culture confronting an
individualist religion, there is trouble."
The relevance to our modern electric world is obvious. Christianity
arose during a linear, visual technology which encouraged privacy. Yet
the dominant medium today is the non-linear and auditory one of
electricity. As he often noted, the electronic medium makes the world
into one great tribal village where privacy (of early Christianity) is
no longer possible. In a letter to Alexis de Beauregard (5/11/72) he
wrote "If the private person is an artifact, then it becomes criminal
to perpetuate him technologically in the electronic age."
Towards the end of his life, McLuhan pushed this speculation even
further. In "Tomorrow's Church: Fourth Conversation With Pierre
Babin" (1977) he made the following startling observation:
"In a certain way, I also think that this could be the time of the
Antichrist. When electricity allows for the simultaneity of all
information for every human being, it is Lucifer's moment. He is the
greatest electrical engineer. Technically speaking, the age in which
we live is certainly favourable to an Antichrist. Just think: each
person can instantly be tuned to a 'new Christ' and mistake him for
the real Christ."
The crucial thing needed in this critical period, is not the ability
to see a new concept but rather to feel a particular "frequency." As
McLuhan notes in the final paragraph of The Medium and the Light, "At
such times it becomes crucial to hear properly and to tune yourself to
the right frequency."
The ability to listen rather than look for the answers to life, goes
back to those early years in McLuhan's life when he listened to his
heart at the beginning of his journey through life rather than looked
with his mind. To be sure, it was one of the greatest minds of this
century but it was always a mind tuned to the frequency of life rather
than a mind which tried to change this frequency.
While the collective mass is caught up today in the old trance of
visual images in a non-visual time, the "frequency" of Marshall
McLuhan resonates with a message more urgent than ever. Is it a tiny
little radio station broadcasting to no one or will a new generation
"tune" in to hear and feel rather than see? Only time will tell but at
least we have a brilliant number of "behind the scenes" speculations
in The Medium and the Light.
In this sense, these speculatons serve more as a testament to the
potential in each one of us rather than as a road map to a particular
destination. Will we ever realize the possibility that "truth" has
already arrived on earth and that we don't know this because we keep
looking for it with our eyes rather than feeling for it with our
hearts?
© 1999 - John Fraim
Sid Harth
The Secrets Of Harry Potter
Written by Gail A. Grynbaum
Wednesday, 26 November 2003
The four Harry Potter books that have recently taken the American
publishing industry by storm are part of a projected seven-volume
British fairy tale series about magic, individuation, and the mundus
imaginalis. Reviewed by Gail A. Grynbaum
J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone ,New York,
Scholastic Press, 1997.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, New York, Scholastic Press,
1999.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, New York, Scholastic Press,
1999.
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, New York, Scholastic Press, 2000.
This article was originally published in the San Francisco Jung
Institute Library Journal: Reviews From a Jungian Perspective of
Books, Films and Culture, Volume 19, Number 4, 2001, pp 17-48. It is
reprinted here with the expressed permission of the Editor.
THE SORCERER'S APPRENTICESHIP
The four Harry Potter books that have recently taken the American
publishing industry by storm are part of a projected seven-volume
British fairy tale series about magic, individuation, and the mundus
imaginalis. They record the coming of age of an intuitive boy, in
which the traditional young hero's journey is woven through an
unfamiliar hermetic world, engaging masters of liminality and wizardly
sophistication in the effort to balance the forces of good and evil.
Recently, a friend and I were discussing the world-wide, across-age,
Harry Potter phenomenon, and how it has occasioned a rise of reading
zest in kids, especially boys. He had asked his 10 year old son Sam—
previously an avid nonreader—what made him such a Harry Potter
devotee. Sam's quick response was "he takes me to another world." That
J.K. Rowling has been able to tap into even men's longing for the
world of the imagination adds to the secret mystique of the Harry
Potter series and its universal appeal.
These tales were categorized by the publishing industry as children's
books. But as friends and colleagues began to talk about them, I
became intrigued. Upon entry into the world of Harry Potter, I was
soon enchanted, caught up like so many of us in the alive, visceral
experience of reading. The real surprise for me, as an analytical
psychotherapist, was the psychological and symbolic depth that
emanated from the images in the books. The more I focused on their
alchemical, dreamlike images, the greater was their capacity to
release psychological energy. This was an alchemical reading
experience, a revelation of secrets and strata previously reserved to
the contemplation of the woodcuts in Jung's essays on alchemy or to
the Jungian analysis of dreams.
For the uninitiated, Harry Potter is the boy hero of the tales, a
recently enrolled student at the Hogwarts School for Witchcraft and
Wizardry. When he was an infant, the boy's parents, both great
wizards, were killed by a dark sorcerer, Lord Voldemort. Orphaned,
Harry was forced to live with cruel "Muggle" (non-wizard) relatives
until he was informed of his heritage and transported to Hogwarts.
There he is finally able to realize his native gifts through a
sorcerer's apprenticeship under the tutelage of Headmaster Dumbledore.
At school, Harry goes through his Training with two new friends,
Hermione Granger, a soror mystica who is also a lively, challenging
presence, and Ron Weasley, a good brother figure. There is also a
student foe, Draco Malfoy. These four young people, each with a
distinct and developing personality, must cope with the tutelage of
the colorful adult characters, such as Headmaster Albus Dumbledore,
Rubeus Hagrid, Professor Minerva McGonagall, as well as the sinister
Lord Voldemort, and a few ghosts and pets. Hogwarts is evidently more
than a school for wizards; it is the crucible for the development of
Harry's capacity to become a contemporary shaman.
J.K. Rowling has said that she plans to write a total of seven
volumes, each book intended to contain Harry's initiatory ordeals over
a single academic year, ending with High School. The number seven is
an apt one to mirror a shaman's journey; seven is frequently used in
fairy tales and spiritual/religious texts to refer to the completion
of a cycle that symbolizes dynamic wholeness. In ancient Egypt seven,
which analytical psychologist's today think of as signifying
initiation, was the symbol of eternal life. What Harry is undergoing
in the course of these books is nothing else but the development of
the ability of a mediumistic nature to survive in two worlds.
The magical parallel world that seems as if it is just "on the other
side" of the everyday world is the environment in which the stories
unfold, once they get fully underway at Hogwarts. The tales have the
internal consistency of a dream atmosphere, in which each detail is
allowed both to speak for itself and to become a signpost towards
another level. The universe spun by Rowling, the Scottish woman new to
authorship, resembles "The Dreaming" of the Australian Aboriginals and
yet never quite loses its connection with the British dayworld of tea,
sports, and competition.
Fortunately the same language is spoken on both sides of the imaginal
divide, although Rowling developed a new vocabulary to enable
characters to describe experiences that were foreign to dayworld
"Muggles." The author introduced enough of a lexicon that one
dedicated fan has developed a Harry Potter website, called the
"Encyclopaedia Potteratica." Rowling has said that her neologisms came
to her in the manner that she imagines colors must emerge from the
palette of an Impressionist painter trying to capture a landscape on
canvas: the hue is called forth by what is already there. (Diane Rehm
Show, October 20, 1999, National Public Radio)
To move into the Hogwarts setting, Harry and the other students must
shift into another reality. Harry and his fellow initiates come to
London's King Cross Station and must cross through an invisible
barrier leading to a secret platform, number nine and three-quarters,
to catch the Hogwarts Express. The "non-Muggle" world of Hogwarts is
one where pictures and paintings are animated, brooms fly, time is
three dimensional, animals speak, owls are the mail carriers, and
people can transform themselves into animals. The threshold between
the Muggle and Hogwarts worlds is via the Leaky Cauldron cafe, which
is located on Knockturn Alley and Diagon Alley; visitors, in other
words, need to move "nocturnally" and "diagonally" into this imaginal
space.
In his studies of the archetypes energizing the collective
unconscious, C.G. Jung found that the individuation journey is
reflected in the "operations" of alchemical processes and the dynamic
motifs of mythology and fairy tales. Rowling's ingenious use of
details and themes from these sources establishes the contemporary
symbolic environment in which the characters undergo their ordeals.
Three archetypal themes that have emerged from her tale so far are:
the Orphan, the Vampire, and the Resilient Young Masculine. These
forces speak to us as we read the Harry Potter stories, and they
provide the key to Harry's particular pattern of initiatory
individuation.
In his adventures, Harry's primary task is to learn the skills that
will enable him to navigate between worlds, whether these be conceived
as Muggle and Wizard, student and teacher, upper and lower, or inner
and outer. As his Pilgrim's Progress proceeds, he must draw upon the
resources implied by the figures of Orphan, Vampire, and Resilient
Young Masculine.
THE ALCHEMY OF THE ORPHAN
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, the enchanting first volume, is
bathed in alchemical operations and symbolism. In Great Britain, the
title was more properly, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, (it
was changed for the American audience to the "Sorcerer's Stone.")
Rowling simmers her characters and plot in a medieval retort that
provides the perfect magical medium in which to initiate Harry's
individuation process. In each of the books the three worlds of images
described in alchemy, the black (nigredo,) the white (albedo,) and the
red (rubedo) are present and form an essential part of the mood and
energy of the plots.
The first book limns the container and the key elements that will
undergo the varied alchemical processes. The story is about a search
for an alchemical Philosopher's Stone that is both literal and
metaphoric. From the first step into the tale the reader feels the
tension of opposing forces— love and abuse, community and orphan. As
if embodying the transcendent function itself, Harry must find a way
to survive and grow beyond the collision of opposites in his life.
As an infant Harry was wounded by Lord Voldemort during the murderous
slaughter of his famous wizard parents, Lily and James Potter. A
lightning-bolt scar on his tiny forehead was the only visible mark
from the attack. Voldemort was said to have lost his powers and
vanished after his effort to kill Harry failed. However, whenever evil
is nearby, Harry experiences a terrifying, painful pull inside the
remaining scar, as though he is being energetically drawn away from
the upper world.
The thunderbolt, mythically symbolic of the spark of life and
enlightenment was hurled by Zeus down to earth as a dramatic symbol of
that god's dual capacity for creation and destruction. Harry's wound
was the first evidence of a shamanic calling as well as the
battleground between enormous conflicting forces within his young body
and psyche. Increasingly in the stories, Harry's private experience of
the opposites representing good and evil becomes reflected in the
external struggles.
Harry's parents, with an aura of King and Queen, are a profound absent
presence; their actual absence aches in their son's unconscious and
they appear to him in dreams, visions, and visitations. Their names,
James and Lily, carry mythological symbolism. St. James was the patron
saint of alchemists and physicians. According to Spanish legend, St.
James defeated Hermes in battle and took charge of his secret
knowledge. (Alexander Roob, Alchemy & Mysticism: The Hermetic Museum,
Koln, Taschen, 1997, p. 700) The lily represents heavenly purity, a
promise of immortality and salvation, and in medieval iconography was
seen as a symbol for the Virgin Mary. ( J.E. Cirlot, A Dictionary of
Symbols, New York, Dorset Press, 1971, p. 189)
Harry's early orphan life was spent alone in a cupboard under the
stairs. The hero-child is nearly always portrayed as abandoned in
myths and fairy tales, but Marie-Louise Von Franz cautions in The
Interpretation of Fairy Tales, that we should not interpret this
through the lens of personal neurosis of the abused and neglected
child we have all come to know so well from the lore of psychotherapy,
but leave it in an archetypal context to mine for deeper meaning. That
is, "namely that the new God of our time is always to be found in the
ignored and deeply unconscious corner of the psyche (the birth of
Christ in a stable.)" ( Rev. edition, Boston, Shambhala, 1996, p.
viii)
Nevertheless, Harry's cruel step-family kept him in miserable
deprivation, and the boy often felt consumed with anger and
frustration. On the other hand, the endurance of a painful and
isolated childhood helped forge his (and many readers) character. As
Edward Edinger says, in reference to one of the key alchemical
operations, "The fire of calcinatio is a purging, whitening fire. It
acts on the black stuff, the nigredo....Psychologically... development
will be promoted by the frustration of pleasure and
power...." (Anatomy of the Psyche, Alchemical Symbolism in
Psychotherapy, La Salle, Illinois, Open Court, 1985, pp. 26, 27)
Harry grows up as a spirited yet lonely boy who, like many orphans and
other alienated children, fantasizes about being rescued by someone
special who will recognize him for his true value. It isn't just
unruly hair, physical incoordination, or broken glasses that set him
apart from others. Early on, Harry notices he has unusual talents,
such as an ability to talk to snakes at the zoo, that position him
uncomfortably between two worlds. He later learns that this linguistic
gift was passed to him in the clash with Voldemort.
On the boy's eleventh birthday, Rubeus Hagrid, a messenger from the
wizards, arrives with news that Harry is to come to Hogwarts School of
Witchcraft and Wizardry for the next stage of his Training. In
preparation for Hogwarts, Harry has to shop for his school supplies
and, most importantly, a wand. In the magic shop, the wand that is to
be his, chooses him. It is made from one of a pair of feathers from a
phoenix tail; the other tail feather from the same bird is said to
have gone into Voldemort's wand, the very wand that gave Harry the
defining head scar.
Harry's instincts quicken as he absorbs into his body the energetic
connection to the dark side represented by the link between these two
wands and their owners. As he becomes conscious of carrying this
connection, he feels his skin prickle with fear. Harry has received
yet another signal of his liminal position between the thrusts of the
two worlds. He must find a way to straddle yet penetrate these two
opposites. The phoenix is the mythological bird known for periodic
destruction and re-creation.
The boy is anxious since he knows that because of his heritage, many
expect great deeds from him, even though he still lacks knowledge
about wizardry. Hagrid looks at him and says, with words that nod
towards the primal appeal of these stories: "Don' you worry Harry.
You'll learn fast enough. Everyone starts at the beginning at
Hogwarts, you'll be just fine. Just be yerself." (Sorcerer's Stone, p.
86)
With leaden legs, Harry boards the Hogwarts Express train to School.
The story unfolds with his movement towards the magical world. In one
of the best scenes, Harry gets introduced to the wizard ancestor world
by his new friend Ron via "animated" collectible cards. Figures like
medieval French alchemists Nicolas and Perenelle Flamel, Arthurian
fairy Morgana, Swiss alchemist Paracelsus and Arthurian magician
Merlin add their energy to the metaphysical alembic being established.
The archetypal images come alive as we read.
The characters begin to cook together and the environment reflects the
blackening descent into the seat of the unconscious. The train spirals
from rolling plains into deep woods, carved by twisting rivers under a
dark purple sky. The train arrives at Hogwarts Castle which sits high
atop a mountain next to a black lake. Hogwarts is the image of the
secure new home, "the place where soul and Self meet, the Home that is
the heart of the new order." (Marion Woodman, The Ravaged Bridegroom,
Toronto, Inner City Books, 1990, p. 205)
QUIDDITCH PLAYER OF THE SOUL
The students arrive and are faced with their first rite of passage. As
in the alchemical operation of separatio, the youths are sorted by an
enchanted, speaking hat. When placed on their head, the hat directs
them to one of four Houses where they will live, each House known for
a particular wizardly virtue: Bravery, Loyalty, Wisdom, and Cunning.
The conical hat seems to represent the young peoples' orientation
towards new ideas and world view. Harry is chosen for the "brave"
Gryffindor House, although the Sorting Hat recognizes his dual nature,
saying he would also do well in the "cunning" Slytherin House, known
for producing dark wizards.
Harry begins his training with classes in History of Magic, Charms,
Transfiguration, Potions, and Broom Flying. He is truly a whiz on the
broomstick and is quickly selected for the most important position
(the Seeker) on Gryffindor House's Quidditch team. For the first time
in his life, Harry is valued for his instincts, and athletic in the
exercise of them. The ecstatic experience of Quidditch is the leap
into Harry's shamanic training.
Quidditch, a fast game with three balls and played on flying
broomsticks, resembles a cross between cricket and basketball. The
Seeker needs to catch the third ball, a small gold one with tiny
fluttering silver wings which is called the Golden Snitch. The arduous
effort to catch the elusive golden ball is much like the individuation
journey to find the Philosopher's Stone in alchemy and makes the
Snitch the most important ball of the game. Like a Mayan warrior on
the ball courts, Harry knows he is involved in a sacred act. We watch
him become a Quidditch player of the soul.
In the air, on his Nimbus 2000 broom, this intuitive boy with his
eager body finds his true home. He is an ambitious and hard working
adept. Harry's studies take him to varied levels: through hidden
tunnels, up in the air, or down watery pipes. When nooks and crannies
get too dark, he waves his trusty wand and calls out for "Lumos,"
light. Sometimes he moves with the invisibility cloak that once
belonged to his father, and at other times he place-shifts with the
help of transporting "floo" powder. Harry embodies resilience in
learning the skills necessary to move with agility through the strata.
The relationship of the trio of school friends, Harry, Ron, and
Hermione, is vital to each of them, and they spend their time talking,
arguing, and exploring together. They express their feelings of
elation, isolation, fear, anger, and tenderness to each other.
Although not competitive, they challenge each other. This related two
boy, one girl family is a poignant central attraction of the series in
these alienated times, a reminder to many readers who have felt alone
since early childhood, of the lost archetype of comradeship.
J.K. Rowling says that she modeled Hermione on herself at eleven.
Hermione has been an outsider most of her life, since she was a witch
with unrecognized special talents raised in a Muggle family; at
Hogwarts she initially overcompensates by studying all the time. She
is certainly self-reliant, the smartest and highest achieving student,
organized, focused, and filled with integrity. Perhaps this girl with
sparkling, disciplined intellect, who is hard driving even though she
lives in a liminal zone, has the name "Hermione" because it is the
female form of "Hermes." In each of the books, Hermione is repeatedly
the truth-sleuth, comfortable in the library, who finds the clue that
makes sense of the mystery at hand. She is always the one standing at
a crossroads pointing the way.
In The Sorcerer's Stone, Hermione researches the name Nicolas Flamel
and discovers that he is an alchemist, over 600 years old and
Professor Dumbledore's colleague. Flamel, it turns out, possesses the
only Philosopher's Stone in existence; this Stone has the dual
capacity to transform base metals into gold and to produce the Elixir
of Life which gives the drinker immortality (viz Flamel's own
longevity). The trio of friends learn that the Stone is hidden in the
Castle.
Hermione is able to stand up for her beliefs to Harry and Ron and is
not as prankish or immature as the boys. The two boys value her keen
insights and persistence. She also has a close mentor relationship
with Quidditch-loving Assistant Headmistress Minerva McGonagall. As
the books progress, Hermione becomes more relaxed and emotionally
expressive.
One of Harry's early psychological tasks is to encounter and reflect
on the loss of his parents and to suffer his consequent identity as
orphan, survivor, and savior. One night while looking into a magical
mirror he sees his entire family, like guardian spirits, waving at
him. He feels a "powerful kind of ache inside him, half joy, half
terrible sadness." (Sorcerer's Stone, p. 209) Professor Albus
Dumbledore comes out of the shadows of the room. The silver-bearded
elder, who oversees Harry's training, tells the youth that the mirror
shows the deep, most desperate desire of the heart but it does not
give truth or knowledge; Harry must not dwell on his yearnings and
forget to live. He must put his energy into his life.
This in alchemical terms, is a "whitening," an albedo time of
reflection and discovery of the positive side of a dark fate for
Harry. It is also a time to experience the transformative power of
Hermes-Mercury, the trickster companion of souls to the underworld,
protector of travelers, and the master of legerdemain. "The trickster
is ideally suited to be an agent of transformation because he/she
carries both sides of a split in the psyche. The trickster is evil and
good, loving and hateful, male and female, and thus holds the
opposites together while also keeping them differentiated." (Donald E.
Kalsched, The Inner World of Trauma, London, Routledge, 1996, p. 189)
It is time for Harry to learn more about the trickster, and author
Rowling's lesson plan for him calls for greater involvement with the
mercurial Rubeus Hagrid, the giant, black-bearded, unpredictable yet
endearing Keeper of Keys at Hogwarts. This inhabitant of liminal space
is Master Wizard Albus Dumbledore's special messenger. Hagrid has a
way of getting embroiled with the incarnations of Lord Voldemort and
plays a pivotal role as he weaves close to conscious and unconscious
spaces stirring the energies together and agitating Harry to greater
depths and steeper edges.
THE VAMPIRE AND PSYCHIC POSSESSION
Each encounter that Harry has with Voldemort or one of his avatars
becomes darker. In the Forbidden Forest with Hagrid, Harry suddenly
comes upon a horrific scene of a cloaked figure with blood dripping
from its mouth, leaning over an open wound on the dead body of a
gleaming white unicorn. It is drinking the animal's blood. Harry is
rescued by a centaur who tells him that Lord Voldemort is nearby and,
thirsting for immortality, is after the Stone. Von Franz, in
Archetypal Dimensions of the Psyche, says that anyone who earns the
gratitude of animals, or whom they help for any reason, invariably
wins out....It is psychologically of the utmost importance, because it
means that in the conflict between good and evil the decisive factor
is our animal instinct or animal soul; anyone who has it with him is
victorious.... (Boston, Shambhala, 1994, p. 89)
Killing a unicorn is a desperate vampiric measure since the unicorn is
a sacred creature. As the centaur says:
Only one who has nothing to lose, and everything to gain, would commit
such a crime. The blood of the unicorn will keep you alive, even if
you are an inch from death, but at a terrible price. You have slain
something pure and defenseless to save yourself, and you will have a
half-life, a cursed life, from the moment the blood touches your lips.
(Sorcerer's Stone,p. 258)
In alchemy, the unicorn symbolizes the path to the Philosopher's gold.
The vampire myth is like a deep vein that pulses through the Potter
stories. The vampire as an archetypal motif and image has been present
in many cultures throughout the world for over 3000 years. The
character of Voldemort here represents the dark demonic energy that
thrusts Harry towards his spirals of initiations. Like Lord Voldemort,
the Vampire, is foremost a dehumanized shapeshifter who although
appearing in a variety of guises, has the primal urge to suck the
blood, soul and libido of others to revivify himself. His frightening
visage communicates an overpowering doom and depressive despair. Harry
is terrified that if Voldemort gets the Stone he will come back to
power. He decides he must fight him. Ron and Hermione worry that Harry
will be expelled. But Harry operates out of a far deeper level of
fear:
don't you understand?... I [have to get the Stone] If I get caught
before I can get to the Stone, well, I'll have to go back to the
Dursleys and wait for Voldemort to find me there, it's only dying a
bit later than I would have, because I'm never going over to the Dark
Side! (p. 270)
Descending into the sinuous bowels of the School through a series of
traps set by different teachers to protect the Stone, the three
friends figure out how to navigate the dangers, each time passing
through another door. Harry goes into the last dark chamber alone,
knowing he must face the danger ahead. Inside he encounters his
Defense against Dark Arts teacher, who declares that he has allowed
his body to become possessed by Voldemort so they can get the Stone.
Afterwards, he and Voldemort plan to kill Harry. The teacher
confesses: "Lord Voldemort showed me...there is no good or evil, there
is only power." (p. 291) As the teacher removes his hat and turns his
back to the boy, Harry is face-to-face with a monstrous, chalky, snake-
like visage: Voldemort. He hisses
See what I have become?...Mere shadow and vapor...I have form only
when I can share another's body...but there have always been those
willing to let me into their hearts and minds....once I have the
Elixir of Life, I will be able to create a body of my own.... (p.293)
Like a vampire, he needs another body on which to feed. Harry feels
the heat of his rage and terror rise. The "man with the two faces"
tries to strangle Harry. The emboldened boy fights back, seeing how
the creature can't touch him without receiving scalding burns. In a
power coniunctio of conflicting passions, both desperately fight for
their lives, and suddenly Harry blacks out. This is the alchemical
rubedo stage of his journey, in which libido, heat, and opposing
elements melt together to form the Gold of the boy's ripened
consciousness. This is the moment of death for the old attitude of
helplessness in the orphan, and a birth of the new seasoned strength
of the Initiate. Harry revives. Headmaster Dumbledore has rescued him
and explains that the creature couldn't touch Harry without getting
burned.
Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot
understand, it is love. ...to have been loved so deeply, even though
the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever.
It is in your very skin.... It was agony to touch a person marked by
something so good." (p. 299)
Like Merlin who trained the orphan King Arthur, Dumbledore is a master
wizard overseeing Harry's training. Helping Harry to move through the
doorways into deeper chambers of his growth, Dumbledore is the
alchemist who maintains the perfect balance of temperature and
pressure in his adept's retort. Dumbledore doesn't under or over-
manage Harry's training; he keeps the youth on edge to encourage the
development of his self-reliance and skills. Understanding more about
the sacrifices in his past, Harry develops a special relationship with
this wise "Headmaster" and grows in his understanding of the real
nature of the Elixir of Life.
The second volume in the series, Harry Potter and the Chamber of
Secrets, takes the reader into yet deeper layers of the archetypal
themes of the Orphan and Vampire. The Dickensian Dursley stepfamily
return as characters and continue to treat him as though his magical
powers were a disgusting anomaly. The outsider experience of personal
isolation, the xenophobic threat of "the foreigner," and the
projection of the shadow are all viscerally portrayed in this volume.
A notion of elitist superiority was hinted at in The Sorcerer's Stone,
in comments by Slytherin Draco Malfoy to Harry such as "You'll soon
find out some wizarding families are much better than others..." (p.
108) By now the whispers have turned to threats. When Harry returns to
School there is a growing movement led by the Slytherins to intimidate
all the Hogwarts students who were born into "impure" Muggle families.
They are considered to be "Mudbloods."
The sense of danger is everywhere. A puzzling force is loose and
attacks students by turning them into stone; they are being petrified.
Harry hears a horrifying, bone chilling voice that seeps out of the
walls saying "Come...come to me...Let me rip you....Let me tear
you...Let me kill you." (Chamber of Secrets, p. 120) And Harry is the
only one who can hear and understand it.
The curse of petrifaction weaves the Medusa myth into the fabric of
the story. "Medusa's eyes were so glaring that they turned to stone
whomever looked into them."(Jean Chevalier, Alain Gheerbrant,
Dictionary of Symbols, London, Penguin Books, 1994, p. 940) A highly
polished shield like a mirror, was used to kill her. The mirror allows
reflection, with the light of consciousness, on the unseen power in us
that is enlarged and projected onto another.
In a heightened state of anxiety, the students go to their History of
Magic class. Prodded by ever-curious Hermione, Professor Binns
describes how Hogwarts was established over one thousand years ago by
two wizards, Godric Gryffindor and Salazar Slytherin, and two witches,
Helga Hufflepuff and Rowena Ravenclaw. "They built the castle
together, far from prying Muggle eyes, for it was an age when magic
was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much
persecution." (Chamber of Secrets, p. 150)
We learn, along with the class, that an ideological controversy
developed between Slytherin and the others around "magical"
superiority. Slytherin wanted to restrict sorcery education to heirs
of pure-blood wizard families and to reject all students from mixed or
"Muggle" families. Ultimately, Slytherin left the school but before
his departure he built a secret chamber, which housed a horrific
serpent whose power only his true heir could unleash. It would then be
used to purge the school of all unworthy mudbloods. Somehow, the
Chamber of Secrets, last opened fifty years earlier, has been re-
opened. A new chapter in "Muggle cleansing" has arrived .
Harry realizes that he alone understands the special "voice" in the
walls because he can speak snake language. Apparently this linguistic
talent, one of the marks of a dark wizard, was one for which Salazar
Slytherin was famous. Like the phoenix feather on his wand, Harry once
again is reminded that he has one foot in the Darkness of the
underworld and the other in the Light of the upper world.
Harry finds the secret diary of Tom Riddle, a boy who was a student at
Hogwarts fifty years ago, when the Chamber was last opened. Riddle,
like Harry, came from "mixed" parentage and was an orphan. Riddle, who
hates his parents, is like a dark mirror image of Harry. The Riddle
boy brings Harry into his memory through the diary, to show him the
Hogwarts of fifty years earlier. This revenant tricks Harry into
believing that he is trustworthy. Rowling's four dimensional,
cyberspace-like use of time in this section is an imaginative move
into another reality.
Like the scapegoating and projection of evil throughout history, the
movement towards ethnic cleansing of Hogwarts gains momentum. Ron's
younger sister, Ginny, gets abducted into the Chamber. Harry and Ron
decide they must go and attempt her rescue.
Towards the climactic endings of each of her tales, Rowling uses
evocative body-based images, involving the senses, breathe, eyes, and
sound to heighten the mounting pace of the instinctual-archetypal
battle ahead. In this story, the boys descend into the dank catacombs
of the School. They pass a massive twenty-foot snakeskin shed by the
serpent and come to a solid wall on which two emerald-eyed entwined
snakes are carved—a horrific caduceus. Again, echoes of Harry's
initiatory ordeal are audible in the dark tunnels; the snakeskin that
is shed yearly recalls the process of death and rebirth.
Alone inside the darkened Chamber, Harry sees Ginny, nearly dead and
lying like a sacrifice, at the foot of a massive stone statue of
Salazar Slytherin. Then, he observes a black-haired boy whom Harry
recognizes as Tom Riddle. Riddle coolly reveals that he is the young
Lord Voldemort; while a student at Hogwarts fifty years ago he changed
his name to Voldemort and vowed to become the greatest Dark Wizard. He
preserved himself as a memory in his own diary and now has become
freed to be the rightful heir to Slytherin.
The cunning Riddle/Voldemort describes how lonely little Ginny, who
found the diary well before Harry, poured out her heart and soul into
its pages—and into Tom. He boasts how he was able to "charm" Ginny and
her soul happened to be exactly what I wanted....I grew stronger and
stronger on a diet of her deepest fears, her darkest secrets. I grew
powerful, far more powerful than little Miss Weasley. Powerful enough
to start feeding Miss Weasley a few of my secrets, to start pouring a
little of my soul back into her....[[She] daubed threatening messages
on the walls. She set the Serpent of Slytherin on four Mudbloods....
(p. 310)
In other words, this Hogwarts anima became possessed by a psychic
vampire, to whom she gave the goodness of her young soul while he
filled her with venomous hate, to become the poisonous soul of the
psychological catastrophe currently haunting Hogwarts.
This penetrating description of psyche/soma possession and projection
is one of the strongest and most chilling images in the book. It is
both a vision and physical sensation of a terror to which both
children and adults can relate. Ginny is the youngest sister of six
brothers in the Weasley family. She was lonely and fearful about
attending Hogwarts and used the secret Riddle diary to find
desperately needed connection. Her soul was ideal "bait" for his
hunger and his false responsiveness was seductive to her need to feel
visible.
The mythic vampire can exist only by exploiting others—it is a
parasitic beast that dies in isolation. The vampire archetype is
essentially the shape we give to a dark potential in all human
relations, an ominous shade that creeps over us when we feel (or
imagine) the absence of love and settle for exploitation. (Barbara E.
Hort, Unholy Hungers: Encountering the Psychic Vampire in Ourselves &
Others, Boston, Shambhala, 1996, p. 33)
Having hid in the moldy diary for fifty years, Riddle's unlived life
energy has distilled into pure Voldemort poison. The dark fury towards
his abandoning Muggle father fueled his determination to retaliate
against all Muggles. Unable to see his own self-hatred Riddle tells
Harry that annihilating Mudbloods no longer interests him; he only
wants to kill Harry.
Ginny and Harry, still inexperienced with recognizing and battling
evil are not yet strong enough to fight it on their own. They need
help. Unearthly music begins to flow into the Chamber, and, as it
grows louder, Harry feels his heart expanding and hair rising on his
head. Then he sees flames. A golden-beaked phoenix appears and flies
to Harry. As its golden claws land on Harry's shoulder, he recognizes
Dumbledore's pet, Fawkes. He is carrying the magical Sorting Hat. The
arrival of the Hat augurs the imminence of yet another process of
separating distinctions (the alchemical separatio.)
An infuriated Voldemort screams for the giant serpent to kill Harry.
The terrified boy shuts his eyes as the phoenix dives at the serpent
eyes, puncturing them with his golden beak. The red blood of death,
giving Harry life, spurts everywhere. Thrashing blindly, the snake
manages to bite Harry, impaling him with a poisonous fang. Amidst the
turmoil, the serpent sweeps the Sorting Hat to Harry, a ruby-handled
silver sword falls out, and Harry plunges it deeply into the reptile's
mouth and kills it.
These images of the serpent suggest a penetrating visceral connection
with the unconscious in its death dealing aspect. In killing the
serpent, Harry is a hero able to transform the evil eye of the snake
monster within, where monsters are created with "looks that kill."
Though not yet fully revealed in this story, Harry has internal mother
images of the loving spirit of Lily Potter and the cruel stepmother,
Petunia Dursley. In Symbols of Transformation, Jung wrote about the
relationship between the mother imago, the unconscious, and the
developing instinctual life of the son. In order not to fear life, the
boy needs to deliver himself from his unconscious mother complex:
The demands of the unconscious act at first like a paralyzing poison
on a man's energy and resourcefulness, so that it may well be compared
to the bite of a poisonous snake. Apparently, it is a hostile demon
who robs him of his energy, but in actual fact it is his own
unconscious whose alien tendencies are beginning to check the forward
striving of the conscious mind. (Collected Works, Vol. 20, p. 298-299,
par. 458)
As Harry pulls the fang from his arm, Fawkes flies to the adept who is
rapidly becoming weaker from blood loss and spreading poison. The bird
lays his head onto the wound and begins to cry thick tears. In alchemy
and homeopathy there is a relationship between the poison that kills
and the elixir that heals. The phoenix too, has a dual nature; it can
be a killing force but its' empathic pearly tears can transform it to
a healing remedy.
Young Voldemort begins a sarcastic eulogy for Harry but the youth
regains consciousness. Fawkes flies to the diary and drops it into
Harry's lap. As in killing a vampire, Harry grabs the serpent fang and
plunges it into the heart of the diary. There is a piercing scream,
ink spurts out of the diary, Voldemort writhes in agony on the floor,
and once again disappears.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
Most of the Hogwarts community refer to Voldemort as "He-Who-Must-Not-
Be-Named." Voldemort, who has been trying to seize power for eons, is
the personification of evil. The irreverent Harry, with Dumbledore's
encouragement, keeps naming him while others shudder. Such an
identification of him on the objective level is necessary to move
Harry's connection with him out of the realm of participation
mystique. To name means to separate, to halt the merger that occurs
when there is a projection. Harry's rebellious attitude is not just an
adolescent phase; it is critical in challenging the status quo. As the
youth learns about his own power, he is able to withdraw his
projections of power from Voldemort and locate his own.
The presence of the golden bird bearing the silver sword allows a new
transcendent force to appear. The death, an alchemical mortificatio,
of the serpent and then of Riddle/Voldemort, brings the young feminine
back into the fullness of life. Little Ginny, whose soul is extracted
back from the enigmatic sorcerer, emits a faint moan as she awakens
and begins to cry. She says "I d-didn't mean to—R-Riddle made me, he t-
took me over...." (Chamber of Secrets, p. 323).
Safely back, there is a postmortem of the events from the Chamber.
Harry asks Professor Dumbledore to explain the meaning behind the
Sorting Hat's statement from the first day at School when it said that
Harry could have done well in Slytherin or Gryffindor. He also wants
to know why is he able to speak snake language, if it is the mark of a
dark wizard. Dumbledore explains that when his mother died, Voldemort
transferred some of his powers over to Harry. The youth worries that
maybe he is of Slytherin, not Gryffindor. Dumbledore reminds him that
in the sorting process, Harry asked the Hat: "Please don't put me in
Slytherin." The Headmaster says that's what "makes you very different
from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly
are, far more than our abilities." (p. 333) He urges Harry to look
more carefully at the ruby-studded silver sword handle: Godric
Gryffindor, the name of the founder of his and his father's house, the
rival of Slytherin, is engraved on the sword in his hands. Harry used
his sword to separate from his shadowy projection.
In the Anatomy of the Psyche, Edward Edinger wrote:
Psychologically, the result of separatio by division into two is
awareness of the opposites. This is a crucial feature of emerging
consciousness....To the extent that the opposites remain unconscious
and unseparated, one lives in a state of participation mystique, which
means that one identifies with one side of a pair of opposites and
projects its contrary as an enemy. Space for consciousness to exist
appears between the opposites, which means that one becomes conscious
as one is able to contain and endure the opposites within. p. 187)
Harry will need a lifetime of training and support to use the blade
wisely as a tool of discernment and discrimination. In Volume Three,
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry is thirteen and
entering his third year at Hogwarts. This time he encounters still
darker aspects of the archetypal and magical world. Sophisticated
psychological concepts serve as carpets that move Harry and the reader
into profound realms of emotional experience. His parents become more
present in his consciousness.
As part of his development as a teenager and wizard, Harry's attitude
becomes increasingly rebellious. He is "talking back" to the Dursleys,
who say terrible things to him. Like many child abuse survivors, Harry
has learned to cope with torturous mental treatment. Although often
burning with rage, he tells himself not to respond and to stay focused
on his goals. An aunt insults him via his dead mother with "You see it
all the time with dogs. If there is something wrong with the bitch,
there'll be something wrong with the pup—" (p. 25) But he can no
longer keep body and mind split. He retaliates by making the relative
inflate like a giant balloon. Then he runs away to Hogwarts.
FACE-TO-FACE WITH DEATH
Out on the street at night, Harry panics that he'll get expelled as
punishment for performing magic as an underage wizard, away from
Hogwarts. The threat of expulsion is always in the orphan's mind when
he doesn't follow the established rules. As part of owning his
authority, Harry is more drawn to obey inner values that are more
compelling than any collective law. His anxiety is compounded when he
senses a massive black dog-like creature watching him.
The dog in most mythologies is seen as psychopomp. Dogs are
intermediaries and "stand at the gateway....they are guardians between
life and death, between known and unknown. They are an intuitive
bridge between conscious and unconscious, connectors to the psychoid
level of the psyche." (Woodman, The Ravaged Bridegroom, p. 195)
On his way back to Hogwarts, Harry learns that Sirius Black, an inmate
at the Azkaban wizard prison and purported supporter of Voldemort has
escaped. Black had once been a Hogwarts student and best friend of
Harry's dad. The wizard community fears that Black went insane in
prison and is hunting Harry to kill him. The Minister of Magic
arranges to have the Azkaban prison guards, called "Dementors,"
stationed outside of the School gates to watch for Black. The
Dementors appear as giant, rotted, black-cloaked figures. They are
among the foulest creatures that walk this earth. They infest the
darkest, filthiest places, they glory in decay and despair, they drain
peace, hope, and happiness out of the air around them....Get too near
a dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory will be sucked
out of you. If it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to
reduce you to something like itself...soul-less and evil. (p. 187)
The Dementors are magnetically attracted to positive emotions, like
starving beasts after their prey. These hellish embodiments of evil
overwhelm and dissociate their victims and then, reminiscent of
vampire lore, they deliver the final "kiss."
Harry has a strong physical reaction to his first encounter with a
Dementor on the Hogwarts Express. He collapses to the floor, feels as
though he is drowning in swirling icy water, and blacks out while
hearing screams inside his mind. Professor Remus Lupin, the new
Defense against the Dark Arts instructor, is in the same train
compartment and performs a curse against the soul-stealing dementors.
Like the garlic that wards off the vampire, the professor gives Harry
the remedy, chocolate (!), which rebalances his body.
Each time he is near a Dementor, the effect is more disabling. The
next meeting occurs during a Quidditch match when, from his
broomstick, he sees a giant silhouette of a dog on a cloud. He then
sees a mass of nearly a hundred Dementors below on the Quidditch
field. Again the frigid drowning sensation, but now it is accompanied
by hearing his mother's screams. "Not Harry, please no, take me, kill
me instead..." (p. 179) He faints, falls off his Nimbus 2000, and
lands on the ground. Some force bigger than Harry brought him down.
The image of the black dog on the cloud could be viewed as a
projection of Harry's fears of failure, abandonment and death. The
early childhood trauma is playing back in his mind and bewitching
tyrannical forces entrance him from within. Lying in the infirmary,
Harry can't understand his reaction to the Dementors. He feels crazy
and alone with his thoughts. He cannot grasp why he was hearing the
last moments of his mother's life and Lord Voldemort's laughter before
he murdered her. Like night vapors, horrible dream images seep into
his sleep.
Lupin explains that Dementor energy can possess a person, and it
effects Harry profoundly, not because of a weakness, but because those
with a greater history of trauma are more susceptible. "And the worst
has happened to you, Harry, [and] is enough to make anyone fall off
their broom. You have nothing to feel ashamed of." (p. 187)
Because of the Sirius Black danger Harry is not permitted to leave
Hogwarts to go on a school trip. He feels isolated. Friends sneak him
a magical "Marauders Map," designed long ago by former students
"Messrs. Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs, Purveyors of Aids to
Magical Mischief Makers," so he can sneak away from School for an
outing. In true daredevil adolescent style, Harry can't worry about
danger when adventure calls.
Successful in his escapade, he catches up with Ron and Hermione, and
they eavesdrop on Hogwarts faculty gossip. The teachers suspect Black
went over to the Dark Side and sacrificed the Potters as proof of his
loyalty to Voldemort. The faculty fear that although Voldemort is
weak, with his most ardent supporter he could rise again.
Harry is shaken by the news. Feeling conflicted by his desire to hear
his parents voices when he falls into the trauma bewitchment and his
simultaneous need to survive, he knows that when seized by dementor
energy he teeters on the edge of madness and death. He needs to become
empowered to save his life. Lupin agrees to mentor Harry. First he
will practice by using a "boggart." A boggart, explains Hermione, is
"a shape-shifter....It can take the shape of whatever it thinks will
frighten us the most..." (p. 133) It is an embodiment of terror, yet
powerless. The Charm that counters a boggart is a concentrated
humorous feeling that must be as strong as the fear, in order to
transform the negative energy. As in a homeopathic visualization, the
victim of the boggart must imagine himself in a paradoxical situation,
in order to dissipate the energy.
Next, Harry must learn the most powerful Dark Arts Defense against the
dementor, the Patronus Charm. It calls for his full concentration to
find his authoritive standpoint. The Charm conjures up a
Patronus...which is kind of an anti-dementor—a guardian that acts as a
shield between you and the dementor.... a positive force, a projection
of the very things that the dementor feeds upon—hope, happiness, the
desire to survive—but it cannot feel despair, as real human can, so
the dementors can't hurt it. (p.237) He utters the charm and on the
third try, an important number in fairy tales, he succeeds in stopping
the takeover of his spirit.
Harry, Hermione, and Ron finally meet up with Sirius Black who tells
them who it was that really killed James and Lily Potter. Sirius, also
the name for the "dog star," becomes a source of light and insight
about the death of the royal couple. But it's too late.
The Dementors start closing in. Harry musters up a Patronus Charm to
ward them off but lacks the power to repel the herd of one hundred. As
something begins to encircle him, miraculously the cold wave begins to
leave his body. Harry sees an animal, glowing in the moonlight. He
screwed up his eyes, trying to see what it was. It looked like a
horse. It was galloping silently away from him, across the black
surface of the lake. He saw it lower its head and charge the swarming
dementors.... They were gone. The Patronus turned. It was cantering
back towards Harry....It was a stag....Its hooves made no mark on the
soft ground as it stared at Harry with its large, silver eyes. Slowly
it bowed its antlered head. And Harry realized...'Prongs,' he
whispered....it vanished. (p. 411-12)
James Potter was a specially trained "animagi," a wizard who was able
to transform at will into an animal. His animal self is Prongs, a
stag. Sirius Black, also an animagi, can shift into Padfoot, the black
dog. They were two of the original Magical Marauders, the source of
the Map given to Harry. But James Potters' choice of the stag form to
preserve himself deserves comment. The stag has archaic symbolic links
to the Tree of Life due to the resemblance of its antlers to the
cyclic life of branches. It is also seen as the forerunner of daylight
or guide to the light of the Sun; it is a harbinger of supreme
consciousness. In alchemy the cervus fugitivus, the fugitive stag, is
often the name for the highly elusive, metamorphosing Spirit
Mercurius. (Mark Haeffner, Dictionary of Alchemy, London, Aquarian,
1991, p. 142) Jung said that "the secret of Merlin was carried on by
alchemy, primarily in the figure of Mercurius." ( C. G. Jung,
Memories, Dreams, Reflections, New York, Vintage Books, 1961, p. 228)
Like the shaman who aligns with special animals, Harry connects with
his father's animagi, animal spirit and it gives him new strength to
fight against the takeover and loss of his soul. A stunned Harry tells
Dumbledore that the Patronus couldn't have been his father, because
his father is dead.
You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us? You think that we
don't recall them more clearly than ever in times of great trouble?
You father is alive in you, Harry, and shows himself most plainly when
you have need of him. How else could you produce that particular
Patronus? Prongs rode again last night....You know Harry, in a way,
you did see you father last night....You found him in yourself. (p.
427-428)
Like the babe in the manger to whom the Magi brought their gifts,
Harry at Hogwarts is saved by the animagi. The chthonic encounter with
his paternal authority in his 13th year pushes Harry over a new
threshold of initiation.
A DIABOLIC CONJUNCTIO
Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire, the recently published fourth
volume of the series, is Rowling's olympic showcase for Harry and his
magical talents. In relation to what has come before, everything in
this 734 page magnum opus is more elaborated. Two major international
events, the Quidditch World Cup and the Triwizard Tournament, add
external pressures (and new imported contents) to the expanding
Hogwarts vessel. Surprise operations and plot twists crystallize
deeper courage as well as blacker magic. Although Harry's ostensible
goal through the maze of the three tasks set for him in this
installment of his initiation is the Goblet of Fire, even that, once
attained is but an auxiliary support on his way to the Holy Grail.
Making their developmental leap as fourteen year olds, Harry and
Hermione move though the story with heightened maturity and
understanding. While Harry does show interest in another girl (only to
become tongue-tied), he is mostly vigilant, concentrating on his need
to survive if his journey is to continue. His compassion and affection
has grown for Ron, and his integrity with rival Quidditch player
Cedric is inspiring.
Hermione, ever an anima and tutelary figure, wisely guides Harry while
confidently grappling with powerful energies of her own. She, too, is
learning compassion: she actively imagines ways of helping Harry as
well as the House Elves, the slaves traditionally assigned to wizards.
Most Hogwartians believe the Elves are happy with their lot, but
Hermione sees their need for liberation and civil rights. Her social
consciousness stems from a mixture of exquisite sensitivity to unfair
treatment and identification with a group that mirrors her own outcast
status, as a witch in a Muggle family. Her special psychic gifts feed
a thinking that is becoming a trusted road map for Harry.
The connection between Harry and Voldemort has been a leitmotif in the
series thus far. While the orphan and the dark magician are opposed
moral personalities, living on reverse sides of the mirror, in this
story their shared traits are becoming more obvious and provocative.
Both figures have Muggle heritage, are orphans who have been exiled,
are seen by others as saviors, and have wands with a tail feather
taken from Dumbledore's magical phoenix. The kinship between good and
evil is as palpable as the scar on Harry's forehead that throbs
whenever Lord Voldemort is near or contemplating murderous thoughts.
"Good qualities that are contrary to instinct cannot last, but neither
can evil when its one-sided demonism runs counter to instinct." (von
Franz, 1994, p. 89) Author Rowling compels us to participate in a
meditation on good and evil as two sides of the heroic coin.
Dark action jump-starts the tale: with a reverberating jolt, Harry
awakens from a nightmare in which he knows that Voldemort has returned
and that he and his servant Wormtail are plotting to kill him. Harry's
trust in his psychic abilities is growing and he accepts the reality
that the dream presents.
Throughout the tale, Voldemort, an extraverted intuitive schemer, is
shadowing the introverted intuitive Harry. As these two aspects of
intuition engage, the reality is shifting all over the narrative, as
new rooms open up in every direction and dimension. The dark force
becomes stronger as "Death Eater" Voldemort supporters appear with
black marks branded on their left forearms, openly pushing for ethnic
cleansing of the mixed-blood wizards. The history of family feuds
among generations of wizards, their closets filled with ghosts,
suddenly erupts into plain view. Political intrigues and power
struggles intensify at the Ministry of Magic as they are in denial
about Voldemort's return. Only Headmaster Dumbledore doesn't talk
about ending the encroaching evil; since he knows it will always
exist, he has the attitude that we need to see it, call it by name,
and meet it. He is conscious of his own shadow and does not distance
it by projecting it onto others. We are given an insight into the
source of such wisdom: Dumbledore has a magical apparatus, an enviable
"projective" device called the "Pensieve," into which he can siphon
out his overflow thoughts and memories into a vessel and reflect on
them in 3D form. Harry finds it by noticing a silvery patch of light
while waiting in the Professors office to tell him an ominous dream.
A shallow stone basin lay there, with odd carvings around the edge:
runes and symbols that Harry did not recognize. [It was filled with a
silvery liquid or gas moving like water or clouds, and Dumbledore says
to him] It becomes easier to spot patterns and links...when they are
in this form....Dumbledore placed his long hands on either side of the
Pensieve and swirled it, rather as a gold prospector would pan for
fragments of gold.... (Goblet of Fire, p. 583, 597)
Meanwhile the students at Hogwarts get a lesson in the morality of
magical power when they learn about casting spells including the three
"Unforgivable Curses" that should never be used against other humans.
The penalty for use is a Azkaban life sentence. The dark arts curses
are: Imperius, which gives total control over another and may be
reversed only by someone with great strength of character, Cruciatus
gives one the ability to torture another, and Avada Kedavra, gives a
wizard the power to kill another. Harry is the only person ever known
to have survived the death curse.
Finally all roads in Hogwarts converge on the Triwizard Tournament in
which four contestants will compete. There are three symbolic tasks
which involve a terrifying encounter with a Dragon whose egg must be
stolen, an icy plunge into the dark waters of Lake Hogwarts where the
competitor must retrieve what is most important to him, and a passage
through a maze in which the adept must concentrate on the essence of
everything he has learned in order to survive. Harry completes all
three tasks with the same unerring spirit of integrity that has
accompanied him in his wizardly eduction thus far—a relational,
intuitive, urgent way—never taking the traditional road to sensation
prowess of the conventional hero.
Ready to reach out to the Goblet of Fire prize, Harry is tricked. He
falls into a hellish fourth dimensional abyss and lands in a darkened
graveyard. A hooded man is carrying a bundle or a baby:
Harry had never seen anything less like a child. It was hairless and
scaly- looking, a dark, raw, reddish black. It arms and legs were thin
and feeble, and its face—no child alive ever had a face like that—flat
and snakelike, with gleaming red eyes. (Goblet of Fire, p. 640)
Harry quickly realizes that this demonic inversion of the divine child
is the living remains of Lord Voldemort. The Dark Lord has finally
trapped his Hogwarts student rival. Voldemort now makes his mercurial
plan clear which is to arrange to mix a brew of these remains of
himself, Harry and two additional substances to achieve a full
reincarnation. A huge steaming cauldron appears. The wizard submerges
his putrefied child remains in the alchemical bath as the first body
in a perverse coagulatio. Amidst bizarre magical chants the dark
trickster creates a diabolic conjunctio of something old (Voldemort's
father's bones,) something new (Harry's blood,) something borrowed
(his apprentice Wormtail's arm,) and something Blue (the color of the
poisonous water.) Like the Savior he believes himself to be, the
incarnated Voldemort has shifted shapes and rises out of the steaming
vapors. Alchemical Black Magic has created the demonic side of a dual-
natured tricksterish Mercury.
Unlike the royal marriage of the King and Queen in the Rosarium
Philosophorum "where love plays the decisive part," here power rules:
the egomaniacal Voldemort uses only himself and three dismembered
parts to transform into a red-eyed, murderous bridegroom. There is no
feminine partner, no bride. (Collected Works, Vol. 16, p 217, para
419) Surrounded by his Death Eater supporters, the revived Voldemort
arrogantly challenges Harry to a duel. He hands the youth's wand back
to him and begins casting a torturous Cruciatus spell in Harry's
direction. At first in his terror, Harry doesn't feel anything, no
words, no vision, as his mind slips blissfully away. But as he manages
to speak, Harry breaks the spell, and his Quidditch-trained body comes
alive. With twin-feathered wands, the two adversaries begin a
ferocious duel. The wand tips connect by a thread of golden light, and
Harry and Voldemort rise up into the air. Their wands vibrate wildly
to form a golden arched web of light between them.
The alchemical "sublimatio is an elevating process whereby a low
substance is translated into a higher form by an ascending
movement." (Edinger, 1985, p. 117) As Harry duels with this
incarnation of evil, psychologically he confronts his shadowy
projection and moves towards greater integration and wholeness. In the
heat of the battle, Harry actively concentrates the power he needs to
regain the advantage over Voldemort. Beads of light travel down his
wand towards Voldemort. Screams come from inside Voldemort's wand as
smokey ghosts of people he has slaughtered are regurgitated from its
tip. The victims call to Harry, encouraging him to keep fighting, hold
the connection, and to not let go. Finally, images of Harry's father
and then his mother come forth, eager to support him and tell him how
to escape. They distract Voldemort and Harry makes a run for it,
magically finding his way to Hogwarts. For the first time in such a
process he does not dissociate, fall into unconsciousness, or need
Dumbledore to save him. Harry stays present and uses his intuitive
powers to save himself.
The episode allows the readers to gain a better sense of Voldemort's
character. Propelled by compulsion and a vengeful vampiric nature, he
so desires blood from his foe that he cannot reflect on the meaning of
having received Harry's essence into himself, or on the significance
of using wands that are of the same core. He completely misses the
deeper connection between him and Harry. As in the earlier stories,
Voldemort gets taken by surprises that derive from his adversary's
essential similarity to him; he is a trickster tricked by his own
tricks. And so, instead of the Philosopher's Stone, he finds fool's
gold and the fleeting illusion of power.
But unconsciously there does seem to be a motivation in Voldemort
wanting to bring a piece of Harry into himself, as the filius regius
of alchemy, the royal son who will force him to connect with the light
of the Sun— and the new consciousness where masculine and feminine are
united. As we wonder how Harry's blood will affect Voldemort, we might
consider Donald Kalsched's discussion of Bluebeard in the fairy tale
who gave each of his wives an egg with the instruction to preserve it
at all costs and not to let any harm come to it....The egg is an image
of potential life—of the Self....The wife represents something he
wants....[That the] wizard has given the egg...to her suggests that
the wizard wants to be transformed also. Ultimately, the wizard wants
his inflated power to be seen through, which will force him to become
the human being that he wants to be instead of being the isolated
wizard.
On the other hand, Kalsched warns us:
It's as though the people who stand for wholeness and integration of
the opposites are a terrifying, devastating threat to people whose
psychic economies require projection. (Kalsched, interview by Anne
Malone, for www.CGJUNGPAGE.ORG, n.d.)
Of all the characters we have met in the series, Head Master
Dumbledore has attained the highest degree of psychological
integration. He is conscious of his shadow and his suffering and does
not need to project or demonize the dark characters (like the ex-Death
Eater and Potions teacher, Severus Snape or the residents of Slytherin
House.) He has, and encourages, a relationship with them. "Time is
short, and unless the few of us who know the truth do not stand
united, there is no hope for any of us....Differences of habit and
language are nothing at all if our aims are identical and our hearts
are open. (p. 712,723) However, Wizard Dumbledore knows from his past
experience the danger of Lord Voldemort whose only interest is Power.
HARRY POTTER AS A CONTEMPORARY SHAMAN
The global attraction to Harry Potter is due to many forces. Of
central importance is J.K. Rowling's unique and clear writing style.
She presents a modern fairy tale, replete with compelling archetypal
themes, about the ancient rites of initiation with an angle that stays
close to the reality of the actual child, yet also intersects with
core imaginal needs of the adult's inner child. Children and adults
read the books together. Rowling gives enough detail to establish
place and character, spins a terrific story, then plunges the reader
into a multi-dimensional imaginative world that glows with the best of
literature and cyberspace.
Nearly fifty years ago The Little Prince magically appeared from the
"other side" to Antoine de Saint-Exupery. Like Harry Potter, the book
touched into the archetypal world and attracted a diverse audience.
P.L. Travers, author of Mary Poppins, detected the three essentials
required by children's books. It is true in the most inward sense, it
offers no explanations, and it has a moral... 'what is essential is
invisible to the eye.'...she surmised that The Little Prince will
shine upon children with a sidewise gleam. It will strike them in some
place that is not the mind and glow there until the time comes for
them to comprehend it.(Program note. Exhibition of Saint-Exupery's
Manuscripts and Drawings for The Little Prince. The Morgan Library.
New York. June 2000)
As someone who is interested in the cultural unconscious and socio-
cultural trends, additional questions occur. What is the coincidence
of these particular archetypal characters in the Harry Potter stories
with the millennial timing of the books' release? What is it about the
conscious situation on the planet that may be compensated by this
story? The Harry Potter books have consistently held the top slots on
the New York Times Book Review Best Sellers List for two years, have
been translated into forty languages and published in one hundred
fifteen countries, in addition to being an unprecedented publishing
phenomenon.
Jung argued that when an archetype is activated in a group's
collective psyche, the images of its energy will appear in the group's
stories, myths, and folktales. He further believed that any story that
has spread across oceans and the millennia has done so only because it
speaks to a psychological experience that is common to us all.
(Hort,p. 6) The psychological climate in much of the rapidly changing
technological world is one of spiritual depletion, emotional
alienation and personal isolation. Perhaps one secret of Harry
Potter's success is that this story of a tribe of three kids who
struggle together and fight to defend their personal spirits from soul-
sucking demonic forces, is feeding a profound soul hunger in the
people around them. Harry and his friends represent a new image of
human cooperation and hope required for redemptive healing. Jung wrote
in Mysterium Coniunctionis:
The ultimate fate of every dogma is that it gradually becomes
soulless. Life wants to create new forms, and therefore, when a dogma
loses its vitality, it must perforce activate the archetype that has
always helped man to express the mystery of the soul....the psychic
archetype makes it possible for the divine figure to take form and
become accessible to understanding. (Collected Works, Vol. 14, p. 347,
par. 488)
The archetypal battle between the young Orphan and ancient Vampire is
the life and death struggle of opposites that allows for the birth of
a new divine figure. Harry Potter is an image of creative resilient
energy characterized by qualities that will be refined in the seven
volumes along the Hogwarts journey: emotional empathy, discernment,
compassion and empowerment.
The archetype of the Vampire has caught peoples imagination for
centuries. This dark theme powerfully connects the forces of doom in
the books, pointing to similar virulent features in the demonic faces
of Lord Voldemort, Tom Riddle, and the Dementors. All three are able
to possess their victims, are not truly embodied, and need the spirit
of their victim to survive. Harry on the other hand, lives in the link
between the two worlds of good and evil. Voldemort infected the boy
during the murder of his parents and his "bite" transfused some dark
wizard attributes into the infant. As Dumbledore tells him, it is his
choices, rather than his abilities, that will determine his future.
In The Problem of Evil in Fairy Tales, von Franz highlights wicked
figures that seem to personify evil because they are "especially
gruesome, taking the form of utter heartlessness...[the evildoer is
invulnerable] because his heart is not in his body." (Archetypal
Dimensions of the Psyche, Boston, Shambhala, 1997, p. 87 ) A Jungian
way of saying this is to insist that Harry must get to know his shadow
complex well, endure the forces within, so that he can consciously
follow the Griffin rather than blindly be bitten by the slithering
serpent from behind. Staying close to his retrieved instincts, his
heart, and valuing his feeling will be his life preservers.
The orphan belongs to the alchemical symbolism of separatio, since an
orphan is one who is separated out, unparented, out of connection, and
the one who must stand alone without being nursed. Jung's words on the
Stone in Bollingen were: "I am an orphan, alone; nevertheless I am
found everywhere. I am one, but opposed to myself. I am youth and old
man at one and the same time...." (Jung, 1961, p. 227). This standing
alone is part of the process of becoming an individual, and becoming
"individuated." Initiation is the period of aloneness, when one is
alone in the liminal space. (Joseph Henderson, M.D., Personal
Communication, February 23, 2000) In each book's climactic ending,
Harry is separated from his tribal group and must struggle alone. It
is during these most intense ordeals that an old aspect dissolves and
some new quality is formed in an alchemical coagulatio.
Ultimately, what is created inside of Harry is new psychic energy. He
is becoming the container for a new, emerging vision for the future.
Von Franz, in her seminal work, Puer Aeternus, writes of the youths
who have a "certain kind of spirituality which comes from a relatively
close contact with the collective unconscious...they do not like
conventional situations; they ask deep questions and go straight for
the truth.... "(Sigo Press, 1981,p. 4) Marion Woodman adds that this
type of authentic masculinity is interested in genuine empowerment
grounded in the instincts... Men and women have to honor this young
man in themselves.... the discovery of the creative masculine involves
dream sequences that swing from encounters with intense light or swift
winds to equally powerful encounters with chthonic passion. Woodman,
1990, p. 204)
The world's identification with the image of Harry Potter points to
the formation of a new archetype of the young masculine that is
distinct from established patriarchal values. This vibrant boy who has
been wounded by severe trauma, shows human scale emotions and values
doing the right thing, However, Harry becomes neither inflated by his
successes nor has the fantasy of immortality. He inhabits a
paradoxical alchemical world and unlike other magical boys, such as
Peter Pan and the Little Prince, he has been infected with evil and
must be mindful of that inoculation.
Harry's early relationships are appropriate for his stage of
adolescent development and have to do with strengthening his masculine
identity and authority. His feminine connections however, are
beginning to work on him, steering him from below. Glimpses of his
budding anima and unconscious relationship with the feminine are seen
in how wrenched he becomes when he hears the screams of his dead
mother, that sometimes he needs Hermione to act as a crossing guard
when he is unable to contain his wildness, and how Headmistress
McGonagall introduces him to his body and special physical abilities
when she chooses him for the Quidditch team.
Perhaps Harry Potter's fans constitute a generation across age lines
that feels somewhat orphaned and unprotected and along with Harry,
know the despair of spiritual emptiness and emotional starvation. It
is only because of his near death encounters with Voldemort and the
proximity to a force that can crush or devour, that Harry is forced to
find his true sources of spiritual power and strength. Therefore, he
represents embodiment and resilience in a world that represses the
spirit. Harry Potter is an inspiring vision of a contemporary Western
shaman with whom a hope lies that he will show us how to retrieve lost
soul.
At this mid-point in the book series, it has become evident that evil
is what harms life. What saves it? J.K. Rowling's answer throughout
these stories about the initiation of wizards, is an educated,
embodied intuition. The Animagi are the most gifted of the wizards and
have the ability to transfigure into animals. Rowling implies that
intuition is an animal instinct that can be brought out in the work of
shamanic education Harry is able to find at Hogwarts. Why does having
the animal instinct with one, incline one to good? Rowling is clear
that it pays to trust the self, and that the "self" is a progressive
undertaking of one's own personal power. Evil for her seems to be a
form of unconsciousness.
Consciousness, of the kind Harry is developing, leads to greater
integrity and compassion. This is an exciting urgent series for the
children of our time, who will be called upon as never before to open
themselves to their spiritual and somatic capacities if they are to
overcome the challenges placed in the way of their survival, in a
world so threatened by greed and the power drive as our own. If the
fallout of ego-chemistry is a melting ice cap on the North Pole,
perhaps J.K. Rowling's alchemy is the right antidote for our present
inability to listen to our true natures.
Gail A. Grynbaum RN, PhD, is a psychologist practicing in San
Francisco, a candidate in the analytic training program of the C.G.
Jung Institute of San Francisco, and a member of ASD. She has a long-
standing interest in Womens Psychology, Alchemy and Dreamwork.
Copyright ©2001 Gail Grynbaum
Sid Harth
Tolkien: Archetype and Word
Written by Patrick Grant
Thursday, 06 November 2003
The Lord of the Rings embodies an "inherent morality," as Tolkien
calls it, which derives largely from the traditions of Christian and
epic poetry.
The Lord of the Rings embodies an "inherent morality," [1] as Tolkien
calls it, which derives largely from the traditions of Christian and
epic poetry. Yet the trilogy is not explicitly religious, and is
neither allegorical nor doctrinal. Tolkien well knows that the
Dantesque form of Christian epic, wherein history effortlessly assumes
the framework of dogma, cannot be successfully imitated in post-
Romantic times. In Milton's Paradise Lost the sacramentalism
fundamental to Dante's vision is already transformed. The true center
of Milton's epic is a "paradise within," and the doctrinal framework
which supports the poem is idiosyncratic, as we discover from The
Christian Doctrine. For Milton, subjective experience, not a doctrinal
formula of words, is the key to faith, and Mediaeval "realism," which
assumes the participation of words in the extramental reality they
signify, is not part of the consciousness which produced Paradise
Lost.
What remain in Milton are, in generalized form, the great themes of
the Christian epic: first, and most important, that true heroism is
spiritual; also, that love is obedience and involves freedom; that
faith and hope are based on charity; that providence directs the
affairs of the world. The reader is repeatedly challenged to establish
an attitude to these issues, and the vast shifts of time and space—
heavenly, infernal, past, future, pre-lapsarian, post-lapsarian—are
means of pressing the challenge upon his attention. In no other
Christian poem does the real (inner) meaning so energetically parody
the canonical orthodoxies of the external form.
By the time of Blake (who, significantly, saw Milton as a noble spirit
except for his doctrine) the "paradise within" has found expression in
language even further removed than Milton's from canonical orthodoxy.
The Romantics primarily inherit Blake's vision, and so, basically,
does Tolkien, essentially a post-Romantic like his friends C.S. Lewis,
Owen Barfield, and Charles Williams. One consequence is that the
principles of Christian epic are experienced in Tolkien not explicitly
but as embodied themes, a map of values as in Paradise Lost, and
without the traditional dogmatic theology which Milton's great poem is
already in process of casting off. The trilogy is, significantly, set
in the essentially inner realm of Faery, close to the world of dream
and myth, where, Tolkien tells us, "primordial human desires " [2] are
met and interpreted.
The archetypal flavor of Tolkien's description of Faery, together with
his dream-like settings in Middle-earth, have readily evoked among
critics the language and mind of Jung, [3] and, in a historical
context, Jung is certainly a prime example in the twentieth century of
the "interiorization" of spiritual experience so characteristic of
post-Romantic religion. In this the psychoanalyst complements the
writer of fairy stories, and, because he faces similar problems in
similar language, Jung can also offer particular insights about the
structure of Tolkien's work. The Lord of the Rings can be read, with
surprising consistency, as an interior journey through the psyche as
Jung describes it, and archetypal structures in the trilogy will be a
central concern of this essay. Yet I wish to establish from the outset
that a purely Jungian approach has limitations, for Tolkien at all
times evaluates the archetypes, however implicitly, in light of the
literary conventions of Christian epic. The Word, in a Christian
sense, is a primary archetype which for Tolkien both spiritualizes and
revalidates for man the extramental world of history and material
extension. Only in carefully observed physical reality can the
subcreation of Faery achieve, for Tolkien, its real enchantment, and
open into the truth which he describes, in the old language, as
Eucharistic. [4] The great pains taken with the historical background
to Middle-earth are not without point. They save the book from
becoming allegory, or a thin fantasy of "interior space," and in his
"eucharistic" view of history and of the Word, Tolkien addresses again
the key problems of the Christian epic in modern times: the
possibilities of sacramentalism, and the relation of the archetypes of
inner vision to Christian ordinances and heroic themes.
I The Archetypes
The group of friends to whom Tolkien first read The Lord of the Rings,
the so-called Inklings, found Jung temperamentally attractive, though
they also regarded him with a certain suspicion. C.S. Lewis avows that
he is "enchanted" by Jung, and has, on occasion, "slipped into" a
Jungian manner of criticism. [5] He admits that Maud Bodkin, the
pioneer critic of Jungian archetypal patterns in literature, has
exerted considerable influence on him. [6] Owen Barfield praises Jung
for understanding the spiritual nature of consciousness and its
evolution: the Jungian "collective unconscious" and appeal to myth are
much-needed antidotes to twentieth century materialism which threatens
to make an object of man himself. [7] On the negative side, Lewis
thinks that Jung's explanation of "primordial images" itself awakens a
primordial image of the first water: Jung's limitation is that he uses
a myth to explain a myth. [8] Barfield feels, more important for this
argument, that in Jung the "Spiritual Hierarchies" [9] have withdrawn
from the world, and exist, interiorized, within the individual will
and too much cut off from the extramental world. It is important not
to put the words of Lewis and Barfield into Tolkien's mouth (he was
difficult to influence as a bandersnatch, according to Lewis), [10]
yet Tolkien at least shared the interests and temperament of his
friends. [11] Certainly, the reader of his essay on fairy stories
cannot easily avoid the Jungian flavor of several of Tolkien's key
theories. He describes Faery in relation to dream, stating that in
both "strange powers of the mind may be unlocked" (13). He talks of
the encounter in fairy stories with "certain primordial human
desires" (13), and claims the stories are "plainly not primarily
concerned with possibility, but with desirability" (40). He talks of a
"Cauldron of Story" which waits "for the great figures of Myth and
History" (29). These are added like fresh pieces to a stock which has
been simmering from the beginnings of story-telling, that is, of the
human mind itself. In the essay on Beowulf, Tolkien especially
appreciates the balance and "opposition of ends and beginnings, the
progress from youth to old age in the hero, and the satisfaction that
comes from perceiving the "rising and setting" [12] of a life.
We can easily enough feel here the typical Jungian insistence on dream
and fantasy, [13] the theory of a collective unconscious which (like
Tolkien's cauldron) contains archetypes stirred into activity by the
artist, and the theory of transformation in the individual psyche,
whereby beginnings and ends are balanced in a successful human life.
But more important, Tolkien's theory finds full embodiment in The Lord
of the Rings. The trilogy is set in Faery, in this case the imaginary
world of Middle-earth, at a time near the beginnings of man's
ascendancy in the history of the world. Middle-earth is often
dreamlike: a world of shifting contours and of magic, of nightmarish
fear and exquisite ethereal beauty. Helpful and treacherous animals
work for the powers of good and evil, and landscapes become sentient
embodiments of human fears and desires. It is a short step to the
appearance of nature spirits, like Tom Bombadil, or to the magic of
the Elves, and, as we move closer to those who possess more than human
wisdom and power, the contours of time and space themselves begin to
blur. Although controlled by the narrative art and by basic structural
oppositions such as those between light and dark, good and evil, the
story moves basically in a world where forms and images blend and flow
and interpenetrate, and where the eye of the beholder determines fear
and terror, beauty and glory. All this has the very quality of that
"interior space" [14] which Barfield names as Jung's special province.
For Jung, certainly, fairy stories and dreams are characteristically
inhabited by helpful and treacherous animals and monsters, and
landscapes, especially when they involve woods and mountains, are
favorite representations of the unconscious. [15] Jung also talks of a
common figure, the "vegetation numen," [16] king of the forest, who is
associated with wood and water in a manner which recalls Tom Bombadil.
Magic too is important, and Jung explains how "the concentration and
tension of psychic forces have something about them which always looks
like magic," [17] He stresses also a "contamination" of images, by
which he means a tendency to overflowing contours—"a melting down of
images." [18] This, says Jung, may look like distortion and can be
terrifying, but can also be a process of assimilation and a source of
great beauty and inspiration. His perception applies precisely to the
viewpoint technique of The Lord of the Rings: "The melting process is
therefore either something very bad or something highly desirable
according to the standpoint of the observer." [19] Jung also points to
certain characteristic formal elements in dreams and fairy stories,
such as "duality," "the opposition of light and dark," and "rotation
(circle, sphere)," [20] but insists that they should not be considered
apart from the complex flowing energy of the psyche. Moral choices are
not simply a matter of black or white. Jung stresses "the bewildering
play of antinomies" [21] which contribute to higher awareness. Good
may be produced by evil, and possibly lead to it. This process, which
Jung calls "enantiodromia," [22] is also of central importance in the
art of Tolkien: a broad opposition of light and dark, and of good and
evil, becomes confused in the trilogy as we enter the minds of
individuals in process of finding their way on the quest. Though
Gollum bates light and loves shade, Frodo's relation to Gollum is
extremely complex, and throughout the trilogy the minds of the men in
particular are continually ambivalent.
That Jung and Tolkien isolate such similar motifs from fairy stories,
dreams, fantasy, and myth, need hardly be surprising, but in The Lord
of the Rings the inner drama corresponds also with particular fidelity
to the details of the psychic process which Jung calls
"individuation." This is, basically, the "realization of the whole
man" [23] achieved in a balanced and fulfilled life when
"consciousness and the unconscious, are linked together in a living
relation." [24] The process involves a journey to the Self, which Jung
describes as "not only the center" of a person's psyche but also "the
circumference which embraces both conscious and unconscious." [25]
Characteristically, the Self is represented in dreams and mythology as
a mandala—a square within a circle, or circle within a square, or in
figures which are spherical or contain the idea of quaternity, [26]
representing wholeness.
Jung insists that individuation, or Selfhood, is not mere ego-
consciousness. [27] As the short-sighted ego responds to the demands
of inner growth, the way is indicated by representations of
archetypes, those primordial and recurring images in human experience
which express the basic structures of the psyche, and which become
increasingly numinous, impressive, and dangerous as they emerge from
the deeper levels of the unconscious. First, and nearest to the
surface, so that we can become aware of it by reflection, is the
shadow. The shadow is the "personal unconscious" and, among the
archetypes, is the "easiest to experience." [28] It represents the
elements which a person represses as incompatible with his chosen ideal
—"for instance, inferior traits of character and other incompatible
tendencies." [29] The shadow is ambiguous—it contains morally
reprehensible tendencies, but can also display good qualities, such as
normal instincts which have been repressed but "are needed by
consciousness." [30] In dreams, it is represented as a figure of the
same sex as the dreamer, and, in accord with its ambiguous status, may
be a threat which follows him, or a guide. It turns dangerous when
ignored or misunderstood. [31]
Further from consciousness is the anima/animus archetype. These are
representations of the feminine side of a man's unconscious, and the
masculine side of a woman's, respectively. The anima (the more
important for Tolkien) is, like the shadow, ambivalent. She is both
the nourishing and the destructive mother. [32] On the one hand, she
is Dante's Beatrice, the Virgin Mary, the Muses who inspire man to
create, the dream girl of popular fantasy and song. On the other hand
she is a witch, poisonous and malevolent, or a Siren who, however
beautiful, lures a man to his death and destruction. [33] For Jung,
"the animus and the anima should function as a bridge, or a door,
leading to the images of the collective unconscious." [34]
More profound, and often presented with the anima as friend or
protector is the archetype of the hero. He is often represented in a
dangerous situation or an a difficult quest, which "signifies the
potential anticipation of an individuation process which is
approaching wholeness." [35] The hero often has an aura about him of
the supernatural, which offsets his vulnerability, another essential
trait, for he is both semi-divine and child. "This paradox . . . runs
through his whole destiny like a red thread. He can cope with the
greatest perils, yet, in the end, something quite insignificant is his
undoing." [36] The hero archetype is often accompanied by strange and
numinous events: "dragons, helpful animals, and demons; also the Wise
Old Man . . . all things which in no way touch the boundaries of
everyday. The reason for this is that they have to do with the
realization of a part of the personality which has not yet come into
existence but is still in the process of becoming." [37]
The deepest archetype on the journey towards the Self is the figure
Jung mentions above in relation to the hero, namely the Old Wise Man,
a helpful figure who, "when the hero is in a hopeless and desperate
situation . . . can extricate him." [38] He is the magician, the Guru,
a personification of wisdom. He seems not to be bound with time, and
is strongly endowed with numinous power, for instance, of magic. Also,
"apart from his cleverness, wisdom, and insight, the old man" is
"notable for his moral qualities." [39] But he, like the other
archetypes, is also an ambivalent figure. He is like Merlin, [40] and
in him the enantiodromia of good and evil can appear most
paradoxically.
In The Lord of the Rings the theme of a quest involving a ring, symbol
of binding and wholeness which must be preserved from the powers of
darkness and evil by the powers of light and goodness, suggests the
beginnings of a typical journey towards individuation: the promise of
a "true conjunctio" which involves the threat of dissolution, or
"false conjunctio." Within the quest, Frodo, at the beginning, is
childlike, and must. endure the terrors of monsters, dragons, and the
underworld. Aragorn, his companion, who equally undergoes such trials,
is of strange and royal origins, protector of a noble lineage, and a
semi-divine figure with the magic power of healing. Frodo and Aragorn
represent different aspects of the hero—Frodo his childlikeness,
Aragorn his nobility and power, and each must support and learn from
the other. The Hobbit, for good reason, as we shall see, receives
foremost attention, and the story is in a special sense his. As it
proceeds, Frodo puts off more and more the childlike ways of the
Shire, and assumes the lineaments of heroism, acquiring, at the end, a
truly numinous quality. Moreover, as his understanding deepens, Frodo
moves through a process equivalent to Jung's individuation, which is
charted by the main action of the book. He encounters the shadow
(Gollum), anima (Galadriel), and Old Wise Man (Gandalf). Each
archetype has a good and bad side, the good leading to understanding
and fellowship, the bad to death, isolation, and the loss of identity
or Self. So Galadriel is opposed by Shelob, the heroes by the
Ringwraiths, and Gandalf by the evil magician Saruman. Gollum is, by
nature, ambivalent. He is the shadow, or personal unconscious, and we
will deal with him first.
At the beginning, Frodo does not realize his shadow personality, or
that he is being pursued by Gollum. He knows only a vague
uncomfortable feeling which increases as the story develops. As the
fellowship sets out for Lothlorien, Frodo feels "he had heard
something, or thought he had. As soon as the shadows had fallen about
them and the road behind was dim, he had heard again the quick patter
of feet." [41] The others do not notice. Soon after, Frodo is startled
by "a shadowy figure," which "slipped round the trunk of the tree and
vanished" (1,360). Again, he alone sees Gollum who has been pursuing
the ring, moving in the dark because he fears light.
Significantly, Gollum is of the same race and sex as Frodo, which, for
a shadow figure, is appropriate. He is a hobbit, fallen into the power
of the ring and debased to a froglike, emaciated, and underground
creature of primitive cunning and instinct. He is certainly a threat,
and one which Frodo must learn to acknowledge as representing a
certain potentiality in his own being. To ignore the shadow, as Jung
indicates, is to risk inflation of the ego. [42] The relationship
between Frodo and the repulsive Gollum therefore must become one of
mutual acknowledgment, even if disapproved by others. Sam, to his own
consternation, sees the peculiar link between the two: they "were in
some way akin and not alien: they could reach one another's
minds" (II, 225). So Frodo insists on unbinding Gollum and trusting
his promise, and the shadow, ever ambivalent, becomes a guide, though
without ceasing to be dangerous. Gollum leads Frodo first to Shelob's
lair, but also saves him at the last moment from a fatal inflation of
pride which would mean the destruction of the quest: "But for him,
Sam, I could not have destroyed the Ring. . . . So let us forgive
him!" (Ill, 225) .
Frodo has confronted Gollum before the party arrives at Lothlorien,
but only after the encounter with Galadriel can he bind and release
the shadow. The meeting with Galadriel is an overwhelming experience
for the entire company and not only for Frodo. Although she deals more
with him than with the others, she is not bound to Frodo in such a
particular way as Gollum. Her significance is less in terms of the
personal unconscious than the collective unconscious. She is a
striking representative of the anima, a figure which, Jung says, is
often "fairy like" or "Elfin," [43] and Galadriel is, indeed, an Elf.
She is also a bridge to the deeper elements of the psyche, and can
reveal hidden contents in the souls of the company. "None save Legolas
and Aragorn could long endure her glance" (1,372) as she shows to each
one the dangers of the quest and the personal weakness each brings to
it. In her mirror she shows to Frodo "parts of a great history in
which he had become involved" (1, 379), and he responds with awe and
terror. The numinous power characteristic of the anima almost
overwhelms him, so that he even offers her the ring. Galadriel replies
in words which clearly indicate the dangers of fixation on the anima,
and warns of the anima's destructive aspect:
You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you will
set up a Queen. And I shall not be dark, but beautiful and terrible as
the Morning and the Night. . . . All shall love me and despair!
(1,381).
Frodo instead must use Galadriel's knowledge and wisdom to further the
quest: she is a bridge to the darkness of Mordor, to which the hero
must still journey. So Frodo carries with him the influence of
Galadriel's fairy-like, timeless, and magically radiant beauty, and it
serves to protect him. Symbolically, she gives him a phial of light to
bear into the darkness. The light not only shows Frodo the way, but
helps him against the Ringwraiths, and, most important, enables him to
face Shelob.
If Galadriel is the anima in its beneficent aspect, Shelob the spider-
woman is the destructive anima who often poisons to kill. Gollum talks
of a mysterious "she" who may help him win back the ring, and he means
Shelob—"all living things were her food, and her vomit darkness" (II,
332). As Frodo meets her, he holds up the light: "'Galadriel!' he
called, and gathering his courage he lifted up the Phial once
more" (II, 330). Galadriel's light and Shelob's darkness, the
principles of life and death, of nourishment and destruction, contest
for Frodo who must meet them both—the anima in both aspects,
beneficent and malevolent.
Other anima figures throughout The Lord of the Rings present a similar
appeal to that of Galadriel. Mainly we think of Arwen, another Elf,
whose "loveliness in living thing Frodo had never seen before nor
imagined in his mind" (1, 239). She is destined to marry Aragorn, and
their Limon represents the "syzygy," [44] the ideal union of anima and
animus in which, says Jung, "they form a divine pair." [45] The Self
is often represented by the marriage of such a "divine, royal, or
otherwise distinguished couple." [46] Less fortunate than Arwen,
however, is Eowen, whose love for Aragorn cannot be reciprocated, with
the result that she becomes the victim of her own animus. When Aragorn
leaves her, as he must, Eowen becomes, in disguise, the warrior
Dernhelf, who "desired to have nothing, unless a brave death in
battle" (IV, 242). Eowen, in Jungian terms, is possessed by the
negative animus (often represented as a death-demon) [47] which in
this case drives her towards suicide. Such a possession often results,
says Jung, in "a transformation of personality" which "gives
prominence to those traits which are characteristic of the opposite
sex. [48] Only through the love of Faramir does Eowen change—"or else
at last she understood it. And suddenly her winter passed, and the sun
shone on her" (III, 243).
The heroic figures of The Lord of the Rings are, as we have said,
Aragorn and Frodo. One is a king in exile, preserver of a noble
lineage, who passes through the paths of the dead, fights a crucial
turn in the epic battle, and proclaims a new dispensation. The hero,
as Jung says, is a "greater man . . . semi-divine by nature," who
meets "dangerous adventures and ordeals," [49] and encounters the Old
Wise Man. Significantly, the numinous quality of the semi-divine hero
is not immediately obvious in Aragorn who appears first as the ranger
Strider, suspected by the party and by us. Only when we pass more
deeply into the quest do we learn of his noble lineage, of his destiny
and his power of healing. He grows in our minds in stature as he looks
into the magic palantir, passes through the paths of the dead, and is
received, finally, as king. Aragorn is very much the traditional quest
hero, but we observe him, primarily, from the outside.
Frodo, though his birth is peculiar among hobbits, is not a born hero
like Aragorn, and we observe him more fully from within, often sharing
his point of view. As the story opens, we find in Frodo the
vulnerability of the child which, according to Jung, often compensates
the hero's powers. But Frodo gradually develops away from his early
naiveté, from the diffident hobbit wondering why he was chosen and
thinking to destroy the ring with a hammer (1, 70). Growth into higher
consciousness is painful, yet, as Frodo carries the burden his power
increases, and as he passes through the dark experiences which lead to
the Council of Elrond, the numinous aura and magic of the hero
archetype adhere increasingly to him. He finds he can see more clearly
in the dark. In Galadriel's mirror he sees the depths of the history
in which he is involved, and becomes the bearer of the magic light
into the perilous realms. Slowly he acquires wisdom and a nobility
comparable to that of Aragorn, so that, as we accompany Frodo's
development and participate in it, we come to understand Aragorn
himself more fully. As the tale ends, Frodo has achieved a heroic
sanctity verging on the otherworldly.
The heroes throughout The Lord of the Rings are opposed by the
Ringwraiths. As each archetype has a negative aspect, so the hero,
says Jung, is especially threatened by dissolution "under the impact
of the collective forces of the psyche." The characteristic challenge
is from "the old, evil power of darkness" [50] which threatens to
overwhelm the hero and the self-identity he is striving to bring
about. The power of Sauron the Dark Lord is exactly such an old and
evil force, and in The Lord of the Rings his representatives, the
negative counterparts of the heroes, are the Black Riders. The menace
they present balances perfectly the power that emanates from the
heroic Aragorn, while their dissolution in Sauron's old and evil
darkness, representing the loss of Self, is indicated by the fact that
the black riders have no faces.
The heroes must resist such loss of Self and grow towards wisdom, a
spiritual quality represented by the profound archetype of the Old
Wise Man. He appears in the trilogy primarily as Gandalf. More
mysterious than the heroes, Gandalf's part in the quest is often
beyond the reach of the story, and his knowledge remains unfathomable.
When we first meet him, he seems more an old clown than a powerful
magician. The interpretation of wisdom as foolishness is a traditional
error of fools. In this case, it reflects the naiveté of the
comfortable hobbits: Gandalf's "fame in the Shire was due mainly to
his skill with fires, smokes, and lights. . . . To them he was just
one of the 'attractions' at the Party" (1, 33). But Gandalf, like
Aragorn, grows in stature as we, like Frodo, learn more about him. He
is continually ahead of the quest, exercising a strange, almost
providential control. He reproves Frodo for many mistakes, and seems
to know the whole story in detail, even though it happened in his
absence. "You seem to know a great deal already" (I, 231), says Frodo.
We do not question Gandalf's knowledge, but believe simply that its
source is beyond our ken.
Gandalf has a knack also for appearing when he is needed. At the ford
he sends a flood in the nick of time as Frodo's will fades. His wisdom
leads the armies to Mordor, and circumvents the trap set by the enemy
who possesses Frodo's clothes. His eagles rescue Frodo and Sam at the
last moment, and in the final episode of the story he makes sure
(though we do not know how he knows) that Merry and Pippin will
accompany Sam on his ride home, after Frodo departs for the Havens: "
'For it will be better to ride back three together than one alone'
" (III, 310). Here Gandalf provides, as he does throughout, for the
deeper need, and there is a touch of magic in his doing it.
For Jung, the Old Wise Man, as we have seen, appears especially when
the hero is in trouble: "In a situation where insight, understanding,
good advice, determination, planning, etc., are needed but cannot be
mustered on ones own resources." [51] He often, moreover, adopts "the
guise of a magician," [52] and is, essentially, a spirit archetype.
[53] Thus, the Old Man is sometimes represented by a " 'real' spirit,
namely, the ghost of one dead." [54] Tolkien, interestingly, has
described Gandalf as "an angel," [55] and we are to believe that he
really died in the struggle with Balrog, reappearing as Gandalf the
White, as embodied spirit, and a figure of great numinous power. Also,
the Old Wise Man "gives the necessary magical talisman," [56] which,
in Gandalfs case, is the ring itself.
The Old Man, however, has a wicked aspect too. Just as Galadriel has
her Shelob, and the heroes their Ringwraiths, so Gandalf has his
antitype, the magician Saruman. They meet on equal ground, and between
them the great struggle for self or dissolution of self is once again
fought: "Like, and yet unlike" (II, 183), says Girnii, pointedly, as
he observes the two at Isengard. Their contest is based on a symbolism
of light: Saruman is at first White, and Gandalf, as the lesser
magician, is gray. But Gandalf becomes white as Saruman falls to the
powers of darkness and his robes become multi-colored, "woven of all
colors, and if he moved they shimmered and changed hue so that the eye
was bewildered" (1, 272). Sarumans multi-colors, like the facelessness
of the riders, indicates a dissolution of identity. White is whole:
fragmented, it is also dissipated.
The final, and most elusive, archetype is that of the Self. Perhaps
Tolkiens trilogy as a work of art which is more than the sum of its
parts is the most satisfactory representation of this archetype, for
the whole meaning is activated within the reader, who alone can
experience its completeness. But the most effective mediator between
the ordinary reader and "whole" world of Middle-earth, the character
who is in the end closest to ourselves and who also must return to
ordinary life, is Sam Gamgee. Sam has become, in the process of the
story. Samwise, but he is less removed from ourselves than Frodo or
the other characters. As he leaves, Frodo says to Sam: "You will have
to be one and whole, for many years. You have so much to enjoy and to
be, and to do" (III, 309). The commendation of Sams wholeness, and the
directive to return to the ordinary world, bearing that wholeness with
him, is also a directive to the reader: ripeness is all. But such
wisdom as Sam achieves is not easily come by, as the entire book
indicates, and there is no case for critical denunciation of Tolkien
on the grounds that his hobbits are simplistic or escapist. The shire
is not a haven, and the burden of the tale is that there are no havens
in a world where evil is a reality. It you think you live in one, you
are probably naive like the early Frodo, and certainly vulnerable.
II The Word
The archetypal patterns which we have examined indicate the extent to
which the trilogy can be read as a contemporary exploration of the
"interior space" analyzed in such novel terms in this century by Jung.
Like Barfield and Lewis, however, Tolkien assumes a firmer stance
before the archetypes than Jung. Lewiss criticism, that Jung offers a
myth to explain a myth, can be met only by assertion: there is a myth
which is true, and fundamental. Following such a line of thought,
Tolkien insists that successful fairy stories give a glimpse of truth
which he describes as eucharistic. The typical "Eucatastroplie," the
"turn" at the end of a good fairy story, has the sudden effect of a
miraculous grace and gives a "fleeting glimpse of Joy," [57] a
momentary participation in the state that man most desires. This joy,
says Tolkien, is "a sudden glimpse of the underlying reality of
truth" (71). In this sense, the Christian story has "entered History
and the primary world," and in it the "desire and aspiration of sub-
creation has been raised to the fulfillment of Creation. The birth of
Christ is the eucatastrophe of Mans history. The Resurrection is the
eucatastrophe of the story of the Incarnation" (71-72). In Western
culture, the Christian story has thus contributed, and also
transformed, the Cauldron of Story which Tolkien has discussed earlier
in his essay. The basic Christian ingredient substantially alters the
flavor of the entire simmering stock.
There are two significant implications in Tolkiens theory. First, the
Christian influence on great poetry is profound, and particularly on
the epic, which addresses itself especially to the values by which men
should live. Tolkiens essay on Beowulf indicates his appreciation of
this fact. Second, the insistence on an ideal eucharistic
participation of the fantasy in the real world leads to a view of art
analogous to the Christian Incarnation of the Word. In the greatest
story, history and archetype interpenetrate. So in the fairy story,
which typically activates the archetypes, historical verisimilitude is
of the utmost importance. We must accept that the land of Faery is
"true" before it can fully affect us.
The Lord of the Rings, therefore, as a fairy story based on these
premises, is more than the inner psychodrama which a purely Jungian
interpretation suggests, in which outer object is offset by inner, and
in which a fairy tale typically depicts, as Jung says, "the
unconscious processes that compensate the Christian, conscious
situation." [58] For Tolkien, the fairy tale participates, if it is
good, in the Christian, conscious situation, and in the primary
archetype of the Word made Incarnate from which that Christian
consciousness derives. Tolkien faces, therefore, the crucial problem
for the Christian writer—the problem faced first by Milton in a modern
context—of formulating a vision in which Christian assertion, history,
and imagination can coinhere. For Tolkien, the "paradise within" must,
ideally, be raised to fulfillment in the primary world of history, and
this implies a sacramental, if non-doctrinal, view of reality. But it
does not imply any simple reversion to medievalism: Tolkien does not
write allegory, which assumes a corporate acceptance of dogmatic
formulae based on a "realist" epistemology. The morality of his story
is, as we have seen, implicit. His theory does, however, help to
explain the inordinate pains spent on the appendices, the background
history, the landscape, names, traditions, annals and the entire sense
of a "real world" of Middle-earth. History and the "primary world" are
more fully rendered in Tolkien than in Milton, and, essentially, they
mark the difference between a eucharistic and a non-sacramental view
of the world. Yet the great themes of the Christian epic, as we have
named them for Milton, remain implicit as a map of values in much the
same form in The Lord of the Rings as in Paradise Lost. First, and
most important, is the concept of Christian heroism, a spiritual
quality which depends on obedience rather than prowess or personal
power. Second, heroism is basic to the meaning of love. Third,
charity, or love, is the foundation of faith and hope. And last,
Providence directs the affairs of the world.
Tolkien first broaches the question of Christian heroism in the essay
on Beowulf and in the "ofermod" appendix to The Homecoming of
Beorhtnoth Beorhthelms Son. Echoing a tradition of Christian thought
as old as Augustines De Doctrina, Tolkien points out that Beowulfs
fame is "the noble pagans desire for the merited praise of the
noble." [59] Consequently, his "real trust was in his own might," [60]
and Beowulf does not understand heaven or true "fame" in the eyes of
God. This attitude leads only to excess, and drives Beowulf towards
chivalry by which, when he dies, he hopes to be remembered. The
possible ill consequences of such chivalry are also evident in
Beorhtnoth, "hero" of the Battle of Maldon. In allowing the invading
Northmen to cross the ford for a fair fight when they were in fact
trapped, Beorhtnoth "was chivalrous rather than strictly heroic." [61]
The most grievous consequence of his action was that he sacrificed
"all the men most dear to him" [62] in his own desire for glory. The
truly heroic situation, says Tolkien, was that of Beorhtnoths
soldiers. "In their situation heroism was superb. Their duty was
unimpaired by the error of their master." Consequently, "it is the
heroism of obedience and love not of pride or willfulness that is the
most heroic and the most moving." [63]
The Christian distinction between true and false heroism is thus
already at work in Beowulf and The Battle of Maldon, and certainly in
Miltons Paradise Lost true Christian heroism based on obedience is at
odds with mere glory won in deeds of arms. The feats of war in
Paradise Lost, especially the War in Heaven, are best read as a parody
of the futility of epic battles. The true heroism depends not on the
acclaim of men, but on the love of God, as Adam must discover. The
theme is central also in The Lord of the Rings, and it helps to
explain why we are closer to Frodo and Sam than to Aragorn. The
hobbits are more purely heroic, in that there is nothing chivalrous
about them, and their heroism of obedience burns brightest because it
is often without any hope of yielding renown or good name among men.
Aragorn, true, is heroic, but he is chivalrous as well, and his fame
is significantly reinforced by the acclaim of men. In total contrast
is Sam Gamgee, whose part is least publicly acclaimed of all, but who,
in the sense in which we are now using the word, is especially heroic.
His unfailing devotion to Frodo is exemplary, and here, again, Sam is
a key link in bringing the meaning of the book to the reader, the
everyman who admires great deeds but wonders what his own part might
be in important events which seem well enough wrought without him.
The spiritual interpretation of heroism is the most significant
Christian modification of the epic tradition, and contains in essence
the other motifs which we have named. Their presence in The Lord of
the Rings will therefore be indicated more briefly. First, if Tolkien
is careful to show his most moving moments of heroism in context of
obedience to transcendent principles, he is also careful to point out
that the most binding love derives directly from such obedience. The
marriages at the end of the trilogy are clearly possible because the
quest has been faithfully completed. Also, among the company, the
strongest fellowship develops from a shared dedication to the quest,
and obedience to directives from the higher sources of knowledge. The
ensuing fellowship is strong enough to break even the age-old enmities
between Dwarves and Elves, as displayed for instance by the intense
loyalty the Dwarf Girnii feels for the Elf Galadriel. The fellowship
breaks only when the bond of obedience is also broken, as it is by
Boromir, whose pride and lust for personal power are the epitome of
false heroism.
The love of Sam for Frodo is the most consistent, and the most heroic,
of all such relationships in the trilogy, and in it the ancillary
theme that love subsumes faith and hope, becomes plain. Though Frodo
does not waver in faith until the very last moment at the Cracks of
Doom, as he and Sam face the plain of Gorgoroth, Frodo loses hope: "I
am tired, weary, I havent a hope left" (III, 195). Soon after he
states, even more defeated: "I never hoped to get across. I cant see
any hope of it now" (III, 201). Finally, Frodos hope dissolves
entirely, and he tells Sam: "Lead me! As long as youve got any hope
left. Mine is gone" (III, 206). Gradually, Frodos physical power is
affected and Sam carries him on his back. The story is, at this point,
almost allegorical, as Sams charity sustains his masters hope and
faith. And there is no doubt about the contribution of Sams heroic
love to the success of the quest.
In the last resort, heroic obedience based on love of God and fellow
man must also involve faith in Gods providence, so that events which
may appear undeserved or random can be accepted as part of a greater
design. The wiser a man is, the more deeply he can see into that
design. So Gandalf, for example, knows that Frodo and Gollum may meet.
He also guesses that Aragorn has used the palantir, and his knowledge,
more than coincidence, depends on his perception of the design in
events. On the other hand, those characters who are less wise are more
at the mercy of unexplained events. Merry and Pippin, for example, do
not at all know that their "chance" meeting with the Ents is to cause
the offensive which overwhelms Isengard. Early in the story, we are
directed to the importance of the complex relations of chance and
providence by Frodos question to Tom Bombadil: "Was it just chance
that brought you at that moment?" Tom replies, enigmatically: "Just
chance brought me then, if chance you call it. It was no plan of mine,
though I was waiting for you" (1, 137). Examples could be multiplied,
but Tolkien plainly enough indicates throughout The Lord of the Rings
that on some profound level a traditional providence is at work in the
unfolding of events. And in a world where men must die, where there
are no havens, where the tragedy of exile is an enduring truth, the
sense, never full, always intermittent, of a providential design, is
also a glimpse of joy.
III Conclusion
This essay has been centrally concerned with the analogy between
Tolkien and Jung, but it is not simply an "archetypal" assessment of
The Lord of the Rings. That the trilogy seems to correspond so fully
to the Jungian classification certainly redounds to the mutual credit
of Tolkien the teller of tales that he should intuit the structure of
the psyche so well, and to Jung the analyst that he should classify so
accurately the elusive images of the poets. For both, man participates
in the spiritual traditions of his culture, and in a period of history
such as the present the Christian expression of such a participation
must be an especially private and "inner" one. Tolkien, in his theory,
is aware of this, and an explication of the trilogy in terms of Jung
provides some insights about the structure and dynamics of Tolkiens
epic of "interior space." Yet Tolkien believes that his "inner" world
partakes of spiritual truth which has found a special embodiment in
history: the Word, as Archetype, was made flesh. Consequently, Tolkien
insists on the "real" truth of Faerie, and his eucharistic
understanding of literature causes him, in The Lord of the Rings, to
expend great pains on the historical and linguistic background to
Middle-earth. We must believe that it is true, and its truth must
involve history, as well as the great themes deriving, in literature,
from the fundamentally important Christian story which is basic as
both archetype and history. We find the morality of the story not in
doctrinal formulations which are the staples of allegory, but in the
traditional and implicit motifs of Christian heroism, obedience,
charity, and providence. Just as, historically, the simmering stock in
the cauldron of story is substantially flavored by the Christian
ingredient, so are the archetypes in The Lord of the Rings
Patrick Grant, a specialist in Renaissance literature, teaches English
at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Footnotes
[1] J, R. R. Tolkien, "On Fairy Stories," The Tolkien Reader (New
York: Ballantine, 1966), p. 16.
[2] Ibid., p. 13.
[3] Many critics notice the point, though there is no systematic
analysis. See J. S. Ryan, Tolkien: Cult or Culture (Annidale, New
South Wales: Univ. of New England, 1969), ch. X, "Middle-Earth and the
Archetypes," pp. 153-61
[4] "Fairy Stories," pp. 14, 68.
[5] "Psycho-Analysis and Literary Criticism," ed. Walter Hooper,
Selected Literary Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1969), pp. 296, 297.
[6] Ibid. Also, "Hamlet: The Prince or the Poem," Selected Literary
Essays, p. 104.
[7] Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry (London: Faber, 1957),
pp. 133-34
[8] "Psycho-Analysis," p. 299.
[9] Romanticism Comes of Age (Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press,
1944), pp. 193, 202.
[10] Letter to Charles Moorman, 15 May, 1959, ed. W, H. Lewis, Letters
of C. S. Lewis (London: Geoffrey Bles, 1966), p. 287.
[11] There is a good deal of Barfield in "Fairy Stories," for instance
the passage on the emergence of adjectives, with the criticism of Max
Muller (p. 21), and the insistence on "Participation" (p. 23).
[12] "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," ed. Donald K. Fry, The
Beowulf Poet: A Collection of Critical Essays (New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1968), p. 34.
[13] Tolkien stresses more firmly than Jung the distinction between
fairy-story and dream: they are connected, but the story-teller is in
conscious control of his narrative. See "Fairy Stories," pp. 13-14.
[14] Romanticism Comes of Age, p. 193.
[15] "The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairy Tales," ed. Sir Herbert
Read, Michael Fordham, Gerhard Adier, trans. R. F. C. Hull, The
Collected Works of C. G. Jung. Vol. 9, pt. I, pp. 231, 233, 235.
[16] Ibid., p. 226.
[17] Ibid., p. 219.
[18] Mysterium Conjunctionis, Works, vol. 14, p. 325.
[19] .Ibid.
[20] "On the Nature of the Psyche," Works, Vol. 8, p. 203.
[21] "The Spirit in Fairy Tales," Works, Vol. 9, pt. I, p. 239.
[22] Ibid., p. 215.
[23] "On the Nature of Dreams," Works, Vol 8, p. 292. 24,
[24] Jolande Jacobi, The Psychology of C. G. Jung (London: Routledge,
1962), p. 102.
[25] Psychology and Alchemy, Works, Vol. 12, p. 41.
[26] Two Essays on Analytical Psychology, Works, Vol. 7, p. 175.
[27] "On the Nature of the Psyche," Works, vol. 8, p. 266.
[28] Aion, ed. Violet S. de Laszlo, Psyche and Symbol (New York:
Anchor 1958), p. 6.
[29] 29. "Conscious, Unconscious, and Individuation," Works, vol. 9,
pt. I, p. 285.
[30] Man and His Symbols, ed. C. G. Jung (New York: Dell, 1968), p.
178.
[31] Ibid., p. 182.
[32] Aion.p. II.
[33] Ibid., p. 14. See also Man and His Symbols, pp. 188-89.
[34] Memories, Dreams, and Reflections, trans. Richard and Clara
Winston (New York: Vintage, 1965), p. 392.
[35] "The Psychology of the Child Archetype," Works, Vol. 9, pt. I, p.
166.
[36] Ibid., p. 167.
[37] "On the Nature of Dreams," Works, vol. 8, p. 293.
[38] Works, vol. 9, pt. I, pp. 217-18.
[39] Ibid., p. 225.
[40] Ibid., p. 227.
[41] The Lord of the Rings (London: George Alien and Unwin, 1966), 1,
351. All further references are cited in the text.
[42] Psychology and Religion: West and East, Works, vol. II, p. 341.
[43] See Man and His Symbols, p. 191; Jacobi, The Psychology of C. G.
Jung, p. 117.
[44] Aioil, p. 9.
[45] Ibid., p. 20.
[46] Man and His Symbols, p. 216 .
[47] Ibid., p. 202.
[48] "Concerning Rebirth," Works, vol. 9, pt. I, p. 124.
[49] "On the Nature of Dreams," Works, vol. 8, p. 293.
[50] "Concerning Rebirth," Works, vol. 9, pt. I, pp. 146-47.
[51] "The Spirit in Fairy Tales," Works, vol. 9, pt. I, p. 216.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid., p. 217.
[54] Ibid., p. 215.
[55] Edmund Fuller, "The Lord of the Hobbits," ed. Neil D. Isaacs and
Rose A. Zimbardo, Tolkien and the Critics (Notre Dame: Univ. of Notre
Dame Press, 1968), p. 35.
[56] "The Spirit in Fairy Tales," Works, vol. 9, pt. I, p. 220.
[57] "Fairy Stories," p. 68.
[58] "The Spirit in Fairy Tales," Works, vol. 9, pt. I, p. 251.
[59] "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," p. 44.
[60] Ibid., p. 52.
[61] The Homecoming of Beorhtnoth Beorhthelms Son, in The Tolkien
Reader, p. 21
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid., p. 22.
Copyright of Cross Currents is the property of Association for
Religion & Intellectual Life and its content may not be copied without
the copyright holders express written permission except for the print
or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access.
This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.
Source: Cross Currents, Winter 1973, pp 365-380.
Sid Harth
Book Review: Dark Light of the Soul, by Kathryn Wood Madden
Written by Dennis Patrick Slattery, PhD
Wednesday, 06 May 2009
We run great risks when we ignore the spiritual and the divine in
psychotherapy, argues Kathryn Wood Madden in Dark Light of the Soul,
an exploration of the psychological journeys of Jacob Boehme and C.G.
Jung. Our thanks to the journal Quadrant and reviewer Dennis Patrick
Slattery for their kind permission to make this available online.
Dark Light of the Soul, by Kathryn Wood Madden
Reviewed by Dennis Patrick Slattery, PhD
Lindisfarne, 2008.
261 pages | $25.00
Originally published in Quadrant, XXXX, 2009. Made available by
permission. Click here to visit the Quadrant website.
One of many exciting qualities of Kathryn Madden’s new book is that it
is daring, bold and innovative. I say this because in her exploration
of the 17th century mystic writer, Jacob Boehme’s (1574-1624) Ungrund
and C.G. Jung’s (1875-1961) grasp of the Pleroma, she promotes a new
field of study, depth theology. Its archetypal space is Abyss; its
journey to it is through the underworld of psyche. No longer content
with reinforcing the split between psyche and spirit, she engages a
comparative reading of the two writers 1) to see where they found
common ground in the realm of spirit, and 2) what their thought
suggests about the formation of a spiritual psychology. The still
center around which this conversation largely takes place is the
images of “Other” and “Otherness” and the Abyss. Her work holds a
particular fascination for me in large measure because of my interest
in the possibility of a mystical psychology that engages both the
poetic and the mythic impulses of psyche in and through embodiment.
She begins early in her study by revealing that both Boehme and Jung
believed in a unitary reality underlying all psychic experience (2008,
p.18), an assertion she returns to repeatedly with different
inflections of how this is so. At the outset Madden has more than just
a series of ideas to compare in her study. Rather, she has a vision, a
new way of apprehending psyche through the teachings of depth
psychology and mystical experience that implicates as well the
psyche’s poetic impulse.
One of the author’s motives for choosing to compare and extend the
thought of Boehme and Jung is central to her study. Both of them took
intense and life-altering personal journeys into the depths of the
psyche, their own Odyssean Nekyias. Both experienced breakdowns of
what traditionally supported them (2008, p. 71). Boehme was persecuted
by orthodox theologians of the 17th century in Germany, while Jung
suffered a sustained dismantling of his sense of self that lasted 6
years. Both men felt that they were being called by a higher will to
pursue their respective visions. Further, each gave expression to his
individual journey to the Underworld through the terms Ungrund or
Abyss (Boehme) and Pleroma, symbol of nothingness and fullness (Jung)
(p.78). Madden realizes that both men experienced a “unitary reality,”
which prompted or compelled both of them to “create an enormous body
of work” (p.87).
According to the author, Boehme’s insight came initially through his
Lutheran tradition by means of what he called theogenesis. What makes
this such a radical idea is that it suggests, for Boehme that “it is
God himself who is brought into being from pre-being” (p. 92), which
grows directly from his own “inner journey” (p.92). For Jung, by
contrast, a comparable experience was the consequence of his extended
Nekyia, which was haunted by demons; but it is also the region where
is revealed the prima materia of one’s life work” (p. 93). One who has
the requisite courage, it is implied here, to journey that deep into
the unconscious, risks both the agony of dismemberment and the joys of
a treasure discovered. Jung would later, Madden asserts, call this
journey “individuation” (p. 94). Growing directly out of this
experience, the unitary reality that resides antecedent to psyche can
also be the origin of psychosis (p. 98). Both men were swallowed by
the whale and inhabited its belly for some time before being deposited
back on land. From their respective moments of return from the Abyss,
their deepest work began.
Madden’s punch line for her study follows quickly on the heels of the
above observation: “If, as I contend, a unitary reality underlies all
psychological experience, then as clinicians we ignore the ‘spiritual
realm and the divine’ at the risk of the total psychic health of those
in our care” (2008, p.99). It seems to me that all leads to this
observation and all emanates out from it. It is the hub of the spoked
wheel of her many and complex theses. The spokes that extend from this
center include mysticism, clinical practice, poetry, metaphysics,
theology, epistemology and depth psychology.
Another quality of her study that I found most fascinating and
convincing, if I step back a bit to survey the entire landscape, is
Madden’s insight that psyche is not the totality of our being; rather,
antecedent to psyche is another realm, just as the writers she
explores believed that beyond psyche was a nether region from which
consciousness arises: the A-byss, a region without ground, without
material reality, but in fact antecedent to matter and psyche. While
Jung in his autobiography is emphatic about “all that is comprehended
is in itself psychic, and to that extent we are hopelessly cooped up
in an exclusively psychic world” (1963, p. 352), Madden continues
quoting this same page in Memories, Dreams, Reflections (Ibid.) that
opens one up to another consideration:
Nevertheless, we have good reason to suppose that behind this veil
there exists the uncomprehended absolute object which affects and
influences us—and to suppose it even, or particularly, in the case of
psychic phenomena about which no verifiable statements can be made. (p.
352)
What lurks shimmering behind the veil, it seems to me, is what this
study of the soul’s dark light has as its concentrated focus.
For Boehme, according to Madden, the divine Sophia is what exists
“before being, before time” (2008, p. 117). Sophia is the analogue to
Jung’s Self or Self-field. Madden paraphrases Boehme’s insight that
“The forming Sophia out of the abyss, is God’s first creative act” (p.
117), what Boehme himself writes as “the true Divine Chaos, wherein
all things lie, namely, a Divine Imagination..." (Ibid., 2008, p.
117). Both Sophia and the Self-knowledge gained from entering and
descending into the abyss embody “a process of making unconscious into
the conscious, the ‘hidden treasure’ into the ‘known’” ( p. 127),
which is the primary act of the Transcendent Function. Perhaps then
the Divine Sophia is Boehme’s version of the same function Jung saw as
a necessity in the individuation process.
Madden is guided in her exploration of Jung’s Pleroma by his own
observation in 1932 that the second half of life seemed to reveal a
constant in all his patients: “... there has not been one whose
problems in the last resort was not that of finding a religious
outlook in life” (Madden, p. 144). Her argument is that such a quest
is also one of depth, of deepening one’s engagement with spirit in
matter, spirit as matter.
The two case studies that Madden relates from her own practice add a
very helpful and engaging story line, a psychic plot to her theories.
As a non-therapist, I found them immensely helpful to ground her
complex and rich discussion in the struggles of two women clients.
Both examples illustrate how painful it is for an individual to live
in a culture that moves almost exclusively and one-sidedly
horizontally to the neglect of verticality, to depth, to the symbolic
and to the transcendent, each of which adds richness of meaning to
human experience. The imagination yearns for more than distraction and
consumption.
The soul, she claims late in her study, yearns to return to the
“psychoid, archetypal layer of the collective unconscious as a deep
layer of existence in which a breakthrough experience of the numinous
points to a pre-differentiated reality” (2008, p. 241). This deep
desire in each of us comes with a cost of suffering into and through
what comprises the texture of our lives. Without this wounding,
however, Madden believes, a life may be only partially lived.
Inspired by her wisdom and moved by the contents of this study, I
wrote the following poem to synthesize for myself the power of her
insights.
Soul’s Dark Light
Do go gently into that
good night
where dark light awaits
humming across the outlines
of a Narcissus flower
streaming
on down the green leaves of
a beckoning bower—
The dark light of a soul’s shining
gaze
sees back in time to origins
of a unitary place.
Inside, the lotus springing forth
nourishes
by dark light, luminous tubers
its petals glowing a conscious
response
in the orbit of an idea
or a mirror that snags a spark
and sends it through a narrow
air hole
whirling towards a galaxy
from which it was composed.
Stay the dark light—walk in the forest
of a dark night
a gentle stroll
whose end path is an ancient memory
continually unfolding back into
itself.
Nowhere but through Gilead’s walls
will the haze of grandeur
see itself, its spark, the fire’s defiant seed
abundant in the milky swatch
of stars—
ceilings of a firmament
plump with joy’s nurturing speed.
I walk along the lip of
mystery outlining wounds that
compose the abyss of
a single
hour.
In it rests glowing embers
There—the entire
Milky Way.
Feb. 09.
Dennis Patrick Slattery, Ph.D. is Core Faculty Mythological Studies
Program at Pacifica Graduate Institute and also teaches in the Depth
Psychology program and holds the status of Distinguished Professor. He
earned his doctorate in Literature and Phenomenology. in the Institute
of Philosophic Studies, University of Dallas. Slattery is the author
or co-editor of 13 volumes, including three volumes of poetry. He is
the author of The Wounded Body: Remembering the Markings of Flesh
(SUNY Press, 2000); Grace in the Desert: Awakening to the Gifts of
Monastic Life (Jossey-Bass, 2002); with Lionel Corbett he has co-
edited Depth Psychology: Meditations in the Field (Daimon-Verlag 2003)
and Psychology at the Threshold (Pacifica Press, 2005); Harvesting
Darkness: Essays on Literature, Myth, Film and Culture (iUniverse,
2006); A Limbo Of Shards: Essays on Memory, Myth and Metaphor
(iUniverse, 2007); with Glen Slater he has co-edited Varieties of
Mythic Experience: Essays on Religion, Psyche and Culture (Daimon-
Verlag, 2008); with Jennifer Selig he has co-edited Educating with
Soul: Retrieving the Imagination of Teaching (Spring Journal Books,
2009).
Sid Harth
This Talk of Soul: What Does It Mean?
Written by Mary Stamper
Friday, 26 September 2008
In a review originally published in Round Table Review, Mary Stamper
considers the impact of The Logos of the Soul, a little-known work by
the late Jungian analyst Evangelos Christou (our thanks to Dolores
Brien for her editorial - and detective - work on this essay).
The soul, what it is and what it means, is as much a question in our
time for psychology as it has been for theology. This is due in large
measure to the work of C.G. Jung and more recently to the influence of
James Hillman’s archetypal psychology, which is sometimes referred to,
incorrectly or not, as “soul psychology.” Two books by Thomas Moore,
Care of the Soul and Soul Mates, have helped to make concern for the
soul from a psychological perspective even more widespread. In his
book The Soul’s Logical Life, Wolfgang Giegerich locates soul at the
very center of Jungian psychology. But what exactly is meant
psychologically by “soul?” Although it has many associations for us,
from the sentimental to the sublime, it is frustratingly difficult,
perhaps impossible, to define. In this article, the author gives us a
closer look at how James Hillman and Thomas Moore have employed this
term in their work. But to do this, she says, we need to look first at
the work of a little-known Jungian analyst, Evangelos Christou. --
Dolores Brien
James Hillman, along with his followers, claims to have "shifted the
focus of Jung's psychology from individuation to 'soul-making.''' How
does one "make soul"? What exactly is this soul that is being made?
The archetypal psychologists themselves prefer to elaborate on the
soul's manifestations rather than on what it is. Definitions taken
from theology only lead us astray. Hillman's writings frequently sing
the praises of the poets and the ancients for their exquisite
understanding of soul, yet we don’t, in turning to them, find much
clarity. Perhaps that is because, says Hillman, "the soul is a
deliberately ambiguous concept." Even Thomas Moore, who has done such
a marvelous job of illuminating Hillman's ideas, resists
conceptualizing the term soul:
It is impossible to define precisely what the soul is. Definition is
an intellectual enterprise anyway: the soul prefers to imagine. We
know intuitively that soul has to do with genuineness and depth, as
when we say certain music has soul or a remarkable person is soulful.
When you look closely at the image of soulfulness, you see that it is
tied to life in all its particulars—good food, satisfying
conversation, genuine friends, and experiences that stay in the memory
and touch the heart. Soul is revealed in attachment, love, and
community, as well as in retreat on behalf of inner communing and
intimacy. (Care of the Soul, xi-xii)
Reading this, one feels an instinctive and emotional connection to
what Moore is talking about, yet something remains unsatisfied. He
told us with what soul has to do and where it is revealed, but what is
it? How is one to distinguish it from other revelations?
What does the word soul mean when used in archetypal psychology? In
exploring this question, it should be stated, from the outset, that
Hillman does not consider the soul of theology to be wholly equivalent
or wholly dissimilar to the soul of psychology. This is evident from
his frequent references to St. Augustine, not only to distinguish the
psychological soul from the theological one but for theological
insights that help bolster his own ideas about soul.
To begin I will construct a conceptual skeleton from the work of the
little-known Jungian analyst Evangelos Christou. Then I will flesh out
the skeleton with more familiar works by Jung, Hillman, and others. In
my discussions of Hillman's writings, I do not wish to overlook the
fact that archetypal psychology began with Jung and that many of
Hillman's oft-repeated remarks can be traced directly or indirectly
back to Jung.
Evangelos Christou was a student of Wittgenstein and an analyst
trained in Zurich. He was convinced that in order for psychology to be
truly respected, not only must a definition of soul be spelled out,
but also a logic, a set of first principles by which the soul
operates, would have to be put forth. This logic would then become the
basis for a set of procedures and conventions to be followed by
psychologists when studying, speaking about, and treating the soul.
Christou unfortunately died in 1956, at barely thirty-four years of
age, but he left behind a manuscript that, under the editorship of
James Hillman, was published posthumously as The Logos of the Soul.
(Spring Publications, 1976) In the following passage from his
introduction, Hillman explains the problem:
The failure of psychotherapy to make clear its legitimacy has resulted
in psychologies which are bastard sciences and degenerate
philosophies. Psychotherapy has attempted to support its pedigree by
appropriating logics unsuited for investigating its area. As these
borrowed methods fail one by one, psychotherapy seems more and more
dubious—neither good physics, good philosophy, nor good religion.
Psychotherapists suffer from not being able to communicate about their
area of reality in a scientific manner. (Hillman, Introduction to The
Logos of the Soul)
The passion with which Christou writes throughout the book reveals a
man who felt he had a mission to lay down what he believed were the
conventions necessary to make psychology a field in its own right and
not just a branch of the social sciences or of medicine or philosophy
or religion and not a hybrid conglomeration of fragments of those
disciplines. Psychology as a science must emerge from the point of
view of its subject—soul.
Christou begins in familiar territory, showing that body and mind each
represent different orders of reality and explaining how each goes
about forming its particular perspective. Then he proceeds by
processes of elimination and analogy to distinguish a third order of
reality that is equal to neither that of the body nor that of the
mind, nor to the sum of the two. This third reality is that created by
the soul.
The reality of the body is constructed from sense perceptions, which
include emotions and physical sensations. What are accepted as "facts"
are limited to what can be observed through the five senses and their
mechanical extensions. Sensory reality exists in two dimensions: a
public one and a private one. Public reality is observable by multiple
parties, while private reality is, as the term implies, known only to
the experiencing party. Sense impressions confirm that the particular
reality which we say is "of body" exists; we have not, however,
defined body. Science, as we tend to practice it, relies almost
exclusively on sense data and particularly that of the publicly
observable sort. In fact, public observability is a criterion for
drawing a scientific conclusion. Because science also sees itself as
the great revealer of truth,
greater "reality status" is awarded to sense data in general and
publicly observable sense data in particular. In Christou's opinion,
this is to the detriment of psychology, for the soul, as we shall see
later on, does not construct its reality out of literal sense
impressions, and it cannot be observed only by the physical senses,
yet it is no less real. And psychology's business is to study soul.
Mind, on the other hand, builds its notion of reality via conception—
the creation of ideas. Christou includes in this category mathematical
propositions and conceptual formulation of wishes, motives, and
intentions. Ideas allow us to separate ourselves from physical
"facts." Without this idea-forming capacity, we would be puppets whose
strings would be worked by our sense impressions. The existence of a
conception affirms to us the reality of "mind" without our actually
defining what "mind" is. In a world bent on sequential logic, where
things have to have creators or causes, it is necessary to posit that
conceptions come from somewhere. Mind is the name that we give to that
somewhere from whence ideas come. It is a symbol for the conception
function. Conceptions, like sense perceptions, can be public or
private, and greater "reality value" is, likewise in this perspective,
given to ideas that can be arrived at by more than one person.
Philosophy is mind distilled to a very high degree.
A few more words about private reality. As we have seen above, some
private realities are of a conceptual nature, which Christou calls
mentoid, others belong to the realm of physical perception which he
calls physoid, and still others fit in neither category. Examples of
private realities that are neither physoid nor mentoid are dreams,
hallucinations, and visions. Christou calls these psychoid and
frequently refers to these private realities as an intermediate world.
(Note that the world of the soul itself and also the closely related
concept of "imagination" are sometimes referred to as "intermediate"
in the writings of those associated with the archetypal school.)
Now it is quite plain to us, however oblivious of it science and
philosophy may be, that the life experience cannot be sufficiently
represented by either the bodily perspective or the conceptual one and
not even by an aggregate of the two, even when both public and private
aspects are considered. That is left out is what Christou calls the
psychological experience. While admitting to the "stickiness" of the
term, he feels it is the best one for the purpose. And the soul is
seen analogically as the seat of psychological experience, just as the
body is the seat of sense perception and the mind that of conception.
"Soul" will never be defined beyond this, for it, like "mind", is not
an ontological reality, but a term created to fill a logical need.
Both are therefore best seen as symbols standing for the unknown
origin of a function.
What then, is “psychological experience”? It seems impossible to
define it concisely, and Christou doesn't really does come up with a
good definition of it. However, after many analogies and processes of
elimination, one gets a sense of what he means by it.
Psychology is neither about the body and its functions nor is it about
ideas and their interrelations and contents. . . Psychology concerns
it-self primarily with the soul. . . [T]he soul is not as
transcendental, nor as biological, as either metaphysics or science
would have us believe. On the one hand it is about life, about how
people think, feel, behave, their problems and their ways, not about
the organs and functions with which they do this. On the other hand,
it is also about spirit and the meaning of life to people and the
meanings are not exhausted by a history of ideas. (Christou, The Logos
of the Soul, 30)
So the soul is not about that aspect of ourselves that forms
conceptualizations or about that aspect that receives sense
perceptions. He further states that the soul is also not about the
private mentoid, physoid, or psychoid worlds either. Christou further
whittles away at the problem by making the following analogical
distinction:
The distinction between psychical states and psychological experience
which is analogous to the distinction between a physical object and
its sense data, a proposition and the sentence expressing it, is
nowhere made in modern psychology. (Logos of the Soul, 34)
This is a tricky distinction to verbalize, and, in fact, he takes
several chapters of analogy, examples, and logical gyrations to
clarify it. In short, psychical state is a very general term that
means what it sounds like it means—a state of mind, regardless of how
it was arrived at. Any psychical state then can be input to a
psychological experience. Moreover, no psychical state is guaranteed
to result in psychological experience. Furthermore, the fact that
something has been psychologically experienced can be expressed
through the mind, the body, or the private psychoid world.
According to this point of view, a person with a very rich fantasy
life may be very poor in actual value of psychological experience, and
it would not be amiss to say that he has a poor or weak soul;
conversely, a rich and deep soul may lead a very poor fantasy life.
Alternatively, a person who has led a most active outer life and has
had great success and much adventure need not necessarily be
considered as psychologically rich in corresponding values: the
quality and depth of his soul life may not have kept up with his outer
activities. Furthermore, a person who has spent his life in a cell may
have enriched and deepened his soul and this would not mean moreover
that he has spent his time accumulating fantasies or writing learned
treatises. (Logos of the Soul, 50-51)
Christou connects his thought concerning multiple orders of experience
to Jung's. He quotes Jung: "But we experience various effects: from
'outside' by way of the senses, from 'inside' by way of fantasy." It
is Jung's experience by way of fantasy that we are interested in here,
for this is our psychological experience. A sense experience or mental
experience can be re-experienced psychologically via fantasy. Another
reference Christou makes to Jung—"For the important thing is not to
interpret and understand the fantasies, but primarily to experience
them"—is proclaimed by Christou to be very much in support of his own
thoughts, but the connection is very tenuously expressed. Why Christou
approved of this statement so highly can probably be derived from
other relevant excerpts from Jung:
It often happens that the patient is quite satisfied with merely
registering a dream or fantasy, especially if he has pretensions to
aestheticism... Others try to understand with their brains only...
That they should also have a feeling-relationship to the contents of
the unconscious seems strange to them or even ridiculous. Intellectual
understanding and aestheticism both produce the deceptive, treacherous
sense of liberation and superiority which is liable to collapse if
feeling intervenes. Feeling always binds one to the reality and
meaning of symbolic contents, and these in turn impose binding
standards of ethical behavior from which aestheticism and
intellectualism are only too ready to emancipate themselves. (CW
16,493)
The meaning and value of these fantasies are revealed only through
their integration into the personality as a whole—that is to say, at
the moment when one is confronted not only with what they mean, but
also with their moral demands.
Where the principle of creative formulation predominates... This
tendency leads to the aesthetic problem of artistic formulation.
Where... the principle of understanding predominates... there is an
intense struggle to understand the meaning of the unconscious
product... The danger of the aesthetic tendency is overvaluation of
the formal or ‘artistic’ worth of the fantasy productions... The
danger of wanting to understand the meaning is overvaluation of the
content, which is subjected to intellectual analysis and
interpretation, so the essentially symbolic character is lost…What is
lacking…is its meaning and value for the subject. (CW 8 173-176)
If one assumes consistency between these passages from Jung and the
ones quoted by Christou, one can conclude that there is a type of
“experience” that is more than a mere encounter and not at all a
conceptual interpretation, and that there is a type of “meaning” that
is different from the mere elucidation of a concept. Perhaps it could
be said that to experience something psychologically is to come to
terms with its subjective implications, to meet it on a feeling level,
to be drawn into confrontation with it so much so that one feels no
choice but to admit that one now sees some aspect of oneself more
clearly. Thomas Moore associates soul with genuineness, with one’s
true nature. This further helps to delineate what we are looking for,
because it says that it is not sufficient to enter merely into an
intellectualizing analysis in terms of some conceptual system; here
one is up to one’s neck in blood, sweat, and tears, not explanations.
An additional word or two about the passages from Jung quoted above.
Jung distinguishes between intellectual understanding, aesthetic
experience, and the subjective meaning. He also distinguishes between
the realization of subjective meaning of something and the moral
demands made by it. It is my belief that Christou’s “psychological
experience” is equivalent to Jung’s realization of subjective meaning,
but does not include Jung’s moral and ethical requirements.
Psychological experience comes first, and one may or may not convert
it into Jung’s famous ethical/moral obligations.
The connection between soul and subjectivity seems to be confirmed in
Christou’s discussion of why the supposedly scientific principle of
separating the observer from the observed does not work well in
psychology. Psychological experience, he says, cannot be separated
from the experiencing subject and “is observable only if the observer
has participated in the event, that is to say, has registered the
event as experientially meaningful to him.” For one to stand outside
and impartial and to “observe” the psychological experience of another
and to conceptually reduce it to or interpret it as a series of
cognitive moves or stimulus response patterns distorts the soul’s
viewpoint. The soul is by definition subjective. Contrary to what
modern science would prescribe as the correct way to observe a
phenomenon, detached and uninvolved, Christou says that a
psychological phenomenon of the soul, can only be observed by
attachment and involvement and that the only true observer of a
psychological phenomenon can be the experiencer. Subjectivity is so
implicit in the psychological experience that the experience is its
own description; it cannot be adequately described in any so-called
objective language. This, I suspect, is partly why some find Hillman’s
writings so difficult; he attempts, through the common medium of the
English language, to describe the soul’s purely subjective
meanderings; to speak for it. The job is made doubly difficult because
the soul itself doesn’t really operate verbally. It, as Thomas Moore
says, prefers to imagine. Images are the soul’s “native language.”
Imagining the Soul
Now, against the backdrop of Christou and Jung, let us look at what
James Hillman, the founder of the archetypal school, has to say about
soul.
. . .[W]e are not dealing with something that can be defined; and
therefore soul is really not a concept, but a symbol. Symbols, as we
know, are not completely under our control, so that we are not able to
use the word in an unambiguous way, even though we take it to refer to
that unknown human factor which makes meaning possible, which turns
events into experiences, and which is communicated in love. The soul
is a deliberately ambiguous concept resisting all definition in the
same manner as do all ultimate symbols which provide the root
metaphors for the systems of human thought. “Matter” and “nature” and
“energy” have ultimately the same ambiguity; so too have “life,”
“health”, “justice” and “God,” which provide the symbolic sources for
the points of view we have already seen. (Hillman, Suicide and the
Soul, 46-47.)
Clearly, there is no contradiction with Christou in this passage. Soul
again is not an ontological entity, but a symbol for the place from
which meaning grows. The soul is a “root metaphor” here in Hillman’s
humanities-influenced language and a “first principle” in Christou’s
more philosophical style.
By soul I mean, first of all, a perspective rather than a substance, a
viewpoint toward things rather than a thing in itself. This
perspective is reflective; it mediates events and makes differences
between ourselves and everything that happens. Between us and events,
between the doer and the deed, there is a reflective moment—and soul-
making mean differentiating this middle ground . . .First, “soul”
refers to the deepening of events into experiences; second, the
significance soul makes possible, whether in love or in religious
concern, derives from its special relation with death. And third, by
“soul” I mean the imaginative possibilities of our natures, the
experiencing through reflective speculation, dream, image, and fantasy—
that mode which recognizes all realities as primarily symbolic or
metaphorical. (Hillman, Re-visioning Psychology, x.)
This excerpt goes a long way toward fleshing out Christou’s conceptual
scaffolding. Soul is a distinct way of viewing things, parallel to the
way body and mind are distinct points of view. The reflective moment
of which Hillman speaks can be unconscious, hence to make soul is to
make conscious the contents of these reflections, which can only be
subjective. Soul-making is to differentiate one’s subjectivity. The
symbolic or metaphorical viewpoint is what Jung says frees us from
“bondage to the nothing but,” what Christou says differentiates
between the mere registration of an event and having a psychological
experience of it, and what Hillman says is the antidote to the
cardinal sin of literalism.
Here Hillman brings up one of the most puzzling themes in archetypal
psychology, namely this relation between soul and death. Here death is
meant as a metaphor, not as the literal, physical event. For some
evidence that this can be the case, we can refer to his Dream and the
Underworld. To reach soul, says Hillman, we must put aside the
“shoulds” and “have-tos” of our everyday life, which is imaged as the
dayworld or the upperworld. By a parallel analogy, soul then becomes
the nightworld or the underworld. The underworld is traditionally
connected with death. Then by a more or less mathematical substitution
(quite common in Hillman’s writing), death and soul become connected
in all further writing, with the assumption made that we all know
why.
When I use the word death and bring it into connection with dreams, I
run the risk of being misunderstood grossly, since death to us tends
to mean exclusively gross death—physical, literal death. . .That love
and death could be metaphorical is difficult to understand. . . Death
is not the background to dreamwork, but soul is. Soul, if immortal,
has more to it than dying, and so dreams cannot be limited to
attendance upon death. The psychic perspective is focused not only on
death or about dying. Rather, it is a consciousness that stands on its
own legs only when we have put our dayworld notions to sleep. Death is
the most profoundly radical way of expressing this shift in
consciousness (Hillman, Dream and the Underworld, 64-66)
The “dayworld” notions that are put to sleep or that die include,
Hillman tells us in another context, “naïve realism, naturalism and
literal understanding.” This means the death of the notion that things
appear to the soul in the same way that they appear in everyday
contexts, that soul understands things in the same way that our egos
do.
The last point made about soul, that it refers to the imaginative
possibility in our nature, is a Pandora’s box. The obvious question
that comes to mind, “What are imagination, fantasy, and image?” It is
this aspect of Jung’s work that the archetypal school has amplified so
vigorously. It seems safe to say that all of Jung’s ideas on fantasy
and imagination apply here as well. Hillman says that he follows Jung
quite closely with respect to fantasy. As for the relationship between
soul and imagination, Edward Casey, in his book, Imagining: A
Phenomenological Study, says “imagining is the moving agent of soul,
its main motor and primary possibilizer.”
Very often, it sounds as if an equivalence is being set up between
soul-making and imagining—that to imagine is to make soul. However,
this turns out not to be exactly the case. Through the use of
metaphor, things get tangled up. In fact, while all soul-making is
imagining or the crafting of images, all imagining is not necessarily
soul-making. Imagination does not always have to be used in the
service of the soul or for soul-making purposes.
This crafting [of images] can take place in the concrete modes of the
artisan, a work of the hands, and with the morality of the hands. And
it can take place in sophisticated elaborations of reflection,
religion, relationships, social action, so long as these activities
are imagined from the perspective of soul, soul as uppermost concern.
(Italics mine.)
In other words, only when imagination is recognized as an engagement
at the borders of the human and a work in relationships with mythic
dominants can this articulation of images be considered a psycho-
poesis (David Miller) or soul-making. (Hillman, Archetypal Psychology,
27.)
But here is a dilemma: from where does imagination arise? From the
soul itself? From somewhere else? Can anyone really say? If
imagination arises from soul, if as Jung said, “image is psyche,” how
can imagination be used in a way that is not in the service of the soul
—that is not soul-making? Can the soul work against itself? In the
following discussion of multiplicity, we take up this question.
Soul and Multiplicity
Here it is necessary to avoid trouble before it starts. Soul is
ultimately seen on two levels. One is the individual level, where we
can speak of an internal multiplicity, where the so-called “heroic”
ego is only one of the voices, only one of a person’s many
subjectivities, (hence the phrase “relativization of the ego”). The
other is the external multiplicity or world soul, which is the old
notion that whatever occurs in the inner world of the individual human
being is replicated in parallel form among the masses. This latter
idea has been developed by the archetypalists as the anima mundi and
will not be discussed in detail here. I mention it because it is
impossible not to hint at it in this discussion.
Christou sees soul as a unifying principle. He chides the sciences and
humanities for proclaiming themselves all to be equally valid
expressions of one larger reality and then attempting to give voice to
that reality using the language of whatever discipline is the voice-
giver. Such an attempt at unification, he says, overlooks two things.
First, any such unifying principle presupposes that the unifying
principle, such as the soul, has is own language and is not borrowing
the language of one of the subcategories, here the sciences and
humanities. Second, he says that the unifying principle does not only
connect preexisting viewpoints (is posterior), but in fact exists
prior to those viewpoints. Science, philosophy, and mathematics,
therefore, all represent different colored glasses through which the
soul sees things. Hillman sometimes calls these different colored
glasses fantasies (“the fantasy of science,” “the fantasy of
opposites”).
There are many academic departments, as there are many faculties
within the human soul. Our house has many mansions and even more
windows; we perceive from a multiplicity of perspectives, ethical,
political, poetic. But the psychological perspective is supreme and
prior because the psyche is prior and must appear within every human
undertaking. The psychological viewpoint does not encroach upon other
fields, for it is there to begin with, even if most disciplines invent
methods that pretend to keep it out.
[P]sychology inherently assumes superiority over other disciplines,
because the psyche of which it is the advocate does indeed come
before any of is compartmental activities, departmentalized into arts,
sciences, or trades. These departments are each reflections of one or
another face of the psyche. In this sense, they each reflect psychic
premises at the foundation of their viewpoints and their knowledge.
But psychology cannot be one department among others, since the psyche
is not a separate branch of knowledge. The soul is less an object of
knowledge than it is a way of knowing the object, a way of knowing
knowledge itself. (Hillman, Revisioning Psychology, 130-131.)
Christou tells us that all psychical states (and viewpoints are
psychical states) can be experienced psychologically. To “know
knowledge,” that is, to be conscious of the “psychic premises at the
foundation” of our various systems of knowledge is to experience them
psychologically or to make soul of them. There is no escaping soul.
There is psychological meaning in everything, whether we talk
mathematics or music, biology, or belly dancing. To “make soul” is to
discover that meaning in the viewpoint; it is to uncover the psychic
premises behind the viewpoint. This is what Hillman means with his
repeated admonishments that one must find out what something
(anything) means to one’s soul.
This notion that soul comes first and out of soul comes all viewpoints
is also why it can be said that we are “in psyche” or “in soul” (here,
the terms soul and psyche are interchangeable) rather than the more
conventional notion that psyche is in us. Indeed the focus of the soul-
making of archetypal psychology is the differentiation and development
of the internal multiplicity. The various inner personalities are to
be deepened, developed, and individuated within imaginal space.
Now, here is the dilemma. If soul is prior and ego is relativized to
one voice among any in the internal multiplicity, ego must be part of
soul as well. How then can there be any use of imagination that is not
soul-making? If ego is seen as a symbol for a part of the soul that
sometimes speaks too loudly and acts to oppress the inner multiplicity
and also as a symbol for the one unified, consistent point of view
that arises when the inner multiple voices are squelched, then it is
clear that imagination could be used in the service of the ego. This
use of imagination would not be considered soul-making. Imagination,
however, that is soul-making could be considered a sort of
psychological “affirmative action” an advocate for the unheard voices
of the psychic “many.”
Is the term “soul” useful?
It seems that the term soul is, in fact, a very meaningful and useful
distinction. It isolates an aspect of reality that is distinctly
different from physical and conceptual realities and that must
therefore be treated as having a unique identity and no ever be
automatically assumed identical to the other two viewpoints.
It also seems that the difficulties people often experience with
reading the writings of the archetypal school are, in part, due to the
fact that it is our ego doing the reading, and, that we seek
conceptualizations in terms of how our ego sees things. The archetypal
school does not often conceptualize in these terms. It tries to
conceptualize instead, from the point of view of the soul, or more
accurately, from what the ego imagines to be the point of view of the
soul. And the complexity still increases because these
conceptualizations are expressed not in typical conceptual language
but in a metaphorical blend of logic and poetry that leaves many
readers scratching their heads. It isn’t really poetry, and although
it sounds intellectual, it certainly can’t be read like a textbook.
Familiar old words are used in new and creative ways. Even familiar
Jungian concepts are verbalize in such a way that they are not always
easily recognizable.
The unfortunate result is that much of it is inaccessible to many
people. Without a background in Jung, the task is even more
bewildering. But should writers representing the archetypal school
change their style? No, absolutely not. That would be to lose some
extraordinary expression. It helps some to read Hillman’s work in
chronological order because he does actually define things, but tends
to do it only once. All subsequent writing seems to be based upon
conventions laid down earlier. A knowledge of Jung, particularly his
writings on fantasy and on the general notion of archetypal energy, as
well as some familiarity with mythology, is useful. Also needed are
auxiliary works that explain how certain words are being used and how
some of the points of view have been derived.
Hillman’s resistance to nailing things down reminds me of an old
adage: “He who knows, does not tell, and he who tells, does not know.”
When things get “nailed down,” their potential to stimulate
imagination is curbed. The life is drained from the original imaginal
notion. But without some form of “nailing down” some of the most
creative writing in the field will remain the best kept secret of the
few, “the knowers “who do not tell.
This article appeared originally in two parts in The Round Table
Review, V. 2, No. 2 1994 and in V. 2, No. 3, 1995.
Mary Stamper is a computer/programmer analyst and has led seminars on
the work of Hillman and Christou.
Sid Harth
Myths of Reality
Written by John Fraim
Friday, 15 July 2005
Myths of Reality
By Simon Danser
(Alternative Albion, UK, 2005)
Review By John Fraim
www.symbolism.org
"The voyage of discovery is not in seeking new landscapes but in
having new eyes."
Marcel Proust
"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. It is the world that
has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth."
Morpheus
The Matrix (Wachowski Brothers)
In cultures like America where capitalism and consumerism have been
working the longest, those few elite in control have constantly
reinvented symbolism and mythology as methods for the growth,
maintenance and control of the ideological edifice.
Once symbols and myths served to create entertaining stories and
images for the young culture of capitalism to rally around. The
evidence of this early familiar and direct approach is contained in
thousands of print advertisements from the early decades of the 20th
century where the consumer is addressed by advertising in the form of
a friendly neighbor or product. The early years of symbolism and
mythology in creating American capitalism is recounted superbly in
books like "Captains of Consciousness" by Stuart Ewen and "Advertising
the American Dream" by Roland Marchand. In effect, these were the
years of when symbols and myths operated as friendly persuaders.
This method worked well for a number of decades in building a powerful
capitalistic ideology. However, by the 1950s, there was emerging a
suspicion among some consumers that there might be something a little
suspect, yes even sinister, behind all those smiling product faces and
happy families in the advertisements, and by now also, television
commercials. After all, it was the height of Freudian psychology and
cigars were not just cigars and people not what they appeared to be.
They might be communists or even aliens inside normal bodies. Films
like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and books like Vance Packard’s
"Hidden Persuaders" addressed these new suspicions of the populace
that there was more subliminal things going on in the symbols and
mythologies of capitalism than met the eye. The 50s were the years
where symbols and myths perpetuated capitalist ideology by now being
hidden persuaders.
Of course those few who suspected there were a lot of hidden things
going on in the symbols and myths of capitalism were right. But before
they could really track down their prey they were distracted by the
1960s and things like the Vietnam War, drugs, the Hippie Revolution,
television and a growing abundance of goods. And, at the same time,
advertising was becoming more and more sophisticated with the
application of psychology and the techniques of persuasion and
propaganda to its messages.
Any resemblance of a unified posse in the 60s tracking down the
symbols and myths behind the advertisements for capitalism was broken
in the 1970s with the emergence of that grand era of marketing
segmentation. On its face, the segmentation of American culture was
heralded as an era of unbounded freedom. The once monolithic mass
culture that one television show like the 50s "I Love Lucy" could
reach at one time was now shattered into hundreds of pieces with
developments like direct mail, niche magazines, product extensions and
the emergence of cable television.
Proponents of marketing segmentation claimed a new personalness of
products and a growing freedom of product choice. While their claims
were right there was a large price to pay for this. As the Annenberg
School’s Joseph Turow notes in "Breaking Up America," a momentous
shift began in the mid-70s when advertisers rejected mass marketing in
favor of more aggressive target marketing. The result was the "society
making media" (like the three TV networks) that had dominated for most
of the century was replaced with "segment making media" which
exploited differences between consumers. The new evolutionary
technique of symbols and myths to perpetuate capitalism had now
morphed into one of divide and conquer. There was the view of those in
control that some might be onto the tricks of advertising, that any
type of persuasion, friendly or hidden, was not enough as consumers
got increasingly savvy about methods of control.
In the 80s and 90s, segmentation continued to divide resistance under
the banner of freedom and the greatest production of products in
history. But more and more products started to look more and more the
same. As Bruce Springsteen commented during the 80s, 500 channels and
nothing on. Symbols and myths continued to evolve to keep just a
little ahead of those few in a (now) scattered posse of cultural
critics that continued to chase them down.
But just as symbols and myths that controlled the ideology of
capitalism continued to evolve for the times, so too did those who
went hunting them down. Even though there were only scattered bands
searching them down rather than any unified force against them, these
bands were getting smart and learning some of the tricks of symbols
and myths. A new evolutionary step was needed by symbols and myths to
keep a little ahead of the trackers and this was implemented in the
90s by a movement from the 70s and 80s divide and conquer technique to
the new (current) one of distract and disengage.
Elements of this new technique are in evidence everywhere if one will
indulge in a few moments of silence to witness them. But silence is
the enemy of the new technique of distraction. Replacing it is the
noise of constant talking head pundits giving two sides of every major
news happening. The focus is on inflating certain events (like the
Peterson and Jackson trials) totally out of proportion. Analogous to
the growing specialization of disciplines, the technique is to
distract from consideration of the big picture by a relentless 24/7
focus on increasingly smaller and smaller things. Celebrity lives
become the main concern of millions of Americans and ridiculous
reality TV shows sprout everywhere.
Like a great Narcissus fixated on its own image in the water, America
in the first years of the 21st century seems fixated on all the
symbols and myths which now manifest themselves in brands and
entertainment.
Americans move further into debt and fall further behind the other
nations of the world. They become increasingly distracted from global
concerns. In fact, Americans become so distracted from global
concerns, a wake up call book like Thomas Friedman’s "The World is
Flat" becomes a best seller. In the late 90s they would have never
needed a book like this but since the collapse of the dot.com bubble
it’s as if Americans have retreated into their own bubble.
* * *
There is good reason to suspect that the evolution of the use of
symbolism and mythology in an advanced capitalistic culture like
America … from their early appearance in the first decades of the 20th
century as friendly persuaders, to their mid-century role as hidden
persuaders, to their use in the 70s and 80s for a divide and conquer
segmentation, to their current use for distraction and disengagement …
will continue to appear in new forms and techniques and join with new
alliances.
One of the powerful alliances that advertising symbolism has made over
the years is with public relations. While there is still some
boundaries to distinguish advertising from areas like journalism, news
and entertainment, the boundaries between PR and these other areas are
quickly becoming non-existent.
But there is also good reason to suspect that the faithful old posse
of cultural critics that has been tracking them down over these years
will continue to tract them down somewhat similar to that relentless
mythical posse that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid could not
shake. The elite who control American culture by employing symbols and
myths in new ways have played out many of their tricks and one wonders
what is left after the current trick of distraction?
Might a new symbolism and mythology of fear be emerging in the post
9/11 era? A symbolism evidenced in movies like the Steven Speilberg’s
reworking of "War of the Worlds?" Or is it just another form of
distraction that distracts American interests from local communities
and the growing problems of the domestic American economy and tries to
place the nation’s attention in far away lands in the midst of diffuse
networks of terrorists? The early American symbols and myths of
capitalism inspired by offering versions of the "American dream." But
now have American symbols and myths been "redeployed" to rather
protect us from the "American nightmare?"
* * *
Hope persists for those few intent on eventually pulling away the old
wizard’s curtain and finally revealing the controllers of American
symbols and myths. Throughout American history there have always been
those who have not bought into or been distracted by the various
methods and techniques of symbols and myths.
One of the first to see behind the façade was Thomas Paine who
realized some of the early techniques of symbolism and myth control
employed around the founding of the nation. The technique was to
attempt to make the populace believe that the symbol controllers were
the same ones as those controlled by the symbols. It was carried out
by suggesting that government was part of society rather than outside
(or above) it. As Paine wrote in 1776 in his famous "Common Sense":
"Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave
little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only
different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our
wants, and government by wickedness; the former promotes our happiness
positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by
restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other
creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher …
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best
state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one."
Paine’s book became a phenomenal best seller making it impossible for
the new American government to find refuge within the protection of
society.
Ousted from being another piece of popular society, government had no
choice but to create what was to become one of their most pervasive
and persistent forms of control: that on going historic distraction
from their own manipulation of symbols and myths, that distraction
known as the two party system of Republicans and Demococrats. The
symbolic battle became one between elements within society rather than
one between society and government. The government sat in the
spectator stands so to speak and simply watched the battle below. It
never mattered a lot who won, the Republicans or the Democrats, as
long as they continued to fight amongst themselves.
One of the key people to lift the curtain on the wizard in the 20th
century was media theorist Marshall McLuhan who observed the
controlling symbols and myths of capitalism from just a little outside
the American culture in Toronto, Canada. His famous dictum "The medium
is the message" in his book of the 60s "Understanding Media" was
directed at media rather than symbols and mythologies. But it was
essentially about the new method of symbol control during his time in
the 60s and 70s when symbols were moving from messages of persuasion
the hidden, ubiquitous environemtn of media. It was a time when the
visible symbols of words and advertising messages was being replaced
by the invisible symbols of surrounding mediums like electricity and
cyberspace.
During the time McLuhan was providing a new roadmap from Canada for
the symbol trackers, the Frenchman Guy Debord was also providing a
powerful roadmap for tracking symbols in his book of the late 60s "The
Society of the Spectacle." His claim was that symbols, images and
media created what he termed the "spectacle," by substituting the
created for the real. As he observed, we are living in a time " … when
images chosen and constructed by someone else have everywhere become
the individual’s principal connection to the world he formerly
observed for himself."
* * *
There have always been small groups of critics and theorists who have
continued to chase down the current manifestations of the controlling
symbols and myths that are just a little outside the gaze of most
Americans. Interestingly, many of the greatest critics have come from
places outside America like from Canada and France. There is the quote
attributed to Marshall McLuhan’s "We’re not sure who discovered water
but we’re sure it wasn’t a fish." This is another way of saying that
the all surrounding context one lives in, their medium, their
environment, is something that remains invisible to them.
And now, in 2005, there is a powerful new voice from outside American
culture to motivate the old symbol and myth chasing posse. This time
it comes from England and author Simon Danser in his short but
brilliant book "Myths of Reality." The slim little volume discusses
various myths that sustain modern versions of reality. Danser lists
the myths of commerce, science, knowledge, causality, language,
consciousness and identity. He addresses each one of them in a
separate chapter. As he notes, the book is somewhat like "steadily
peeling away the layers of an onion."
He illustrates how these myths are created and sustained by social
interactions so that "all the concepts which make up what we think of
as ‘reality’ are socially constructed."
The book reveals how reality is culturally constructed in an ever-
continuing process from mythic fragments transmitted by mass media.
Danser is part of an important group of social critics and modern
mythologists working around author, critic and publisher Bob
Trubshaw’s Heart of Albion Press located at (www.hoap.co.uk). Heart of
Albion’s new imprint Alternative Albion was launched in June 2004 with
the aim of providing a series of studies of aspects of British
‘counter culture.’
Trubshaw notes some of these studies will be essentially historical
accounts and others will discuss and develop current alternative
ideas.
A webzine called Foamy Custard sponsored by Heart of Albion Press is
located at http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/foamycustard/. It is doubtful
that "Myths of Reality" can be found in many American bookstores.
However, it is available by airmail from Albion Press by emailing Bob
Trubshaw at alb...@indigogroup.co.uk.
* * *
Yes, there is reason to suspect that the evolution of the use of
symbolism and mythology in America’s advanced capitalistic culture
will continue to change into new forms (like that sly, mythic
Trickster) to outsmart the general populace. But there is also reason
to suspect that the posse will continue to chase them down and that
someday they might just corner them and reveal them for what they are.
With people like Bob Trubshaw and Simon Danser and committed little
enclaves of resistance like Heart of Albion Press the pursuing posse
has a powerful new allies.
And when the day comes when the possee finally catches up with the
controlling symbols and myths of culture, when the curtain of the old
wizard is finally pulled away, symbols and myths might be returned
back to the people from which they were taken away so long ago.
© 2005 John Fraim. All rights reserved.
John Fraim is President of The GreatHouse Company, a publisher and
marketing consulting firm located in Columbus, Ohio. He has a BA
(History) from UCLA and JD from Loyola Law School. His web site
www.symbolism.org is ranked #1 on Google for symbolism. He can be
contacted at the following email address jfr...@symbolism.org.
Sid Harth
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/gordon.html
Marshall McLuhan
McLuhan was still a twenty-year old undergraduate at the University of
Manitoba, in western Canada, in the dirty thirties, when he wrote in
his diary that he would never become an academic. He was learning in
spite of his professors, but he would become a professor of English in
spite of himself. After Manitoba, graduate work at Cambridge
University planted the seed for McLuhan’s eventual move toward media
analysis. Looking back on both his own Cambridge years and the longer
history of the institution, he reflected that a principal aim of the
faculty could be summarized as the training of perception, a phrase
that aptly summarizes his own aim throughout his career.
The shock that McLuhan experienced in his first teaching post
propelled him toward media analysis. Though his students at the
University of Wisconsin were his juniors by only five to eight years,
he felt removed from them by a generation. He suspected that this had
to do with ways of learning and set out to investigate it. The
investigation led him back to lessons on the training of perception
from his Cambridge professors, such as I. A. Richards (The Meaning of
Meaning, Practical Criticism), and forward to discoveries from James
Joyce, the symbolist poets, Ezra Pound; back to antiquity and the myth
of Narcissus, forward to the mythic structure of modern Western
culture dominated by electric technology.
Understanding Media, first published in 1964, focuses on the media
effects that permeate society and culture, but McLuhan’s starting
point is always the individual, because he defines media as
technological extensions of the body. As a result, McLuhan often puts
his inquiry and his conclusions in terms of the ratio between the
physical senses (the extent to which we depend on them relative to
each other) and the consequences of modifications to that ratio. This
invariably entails a psychological dimension. Thus, the invention of
the alphabet and the resulting intensification of the visual sense in
the communication process gave sight priority over hearing, but the
effect was so powerful that it went beyond communication through
language to reshape literate society’s conception and use of space.
Understanding Media brought McLuhan to prominence in the same decade
that celebrated flower power. San Francisco, the home of the summer of
love, hosted the first McLuhan festival, featuring the man himself.
The saying “God is dead” was much in vogue in the counterculture that
quickly adopted McLuhan but missed the irony of giving a man of deep
faith the status of an icon.
Spectacular sales of Understanding Media, in hardback and then in
paperback editions, and the San Francisco symposium brought him a
steady stream of invitations for speaking engagements. He addressed
countless groups, ranging from the American Marketing Association and
the Container Corporation of America to AT&T and IBM. In March 1967,
NBC aired “This is Marshall McLuhan” in its Experiment in TV series.
He played on his own famous saying, publishing The Medium is the
Massage (coproduced with Quentin Fiore and Jerome Agel), even as he
was signing contracts for Culture Is Our Business and From Cliché to
Archetype (with Canadian poet Wilfred Watson) with publishers in New
York. Dozens of universities awarded McLuhan honorary degrees and he
secured a Schweitzer Chair in the Humanities at Fordham University. At
the University of Toronto’s Centre for Culture and Technology, where
McLuhan was director, a steady stream of visitors arrived from around
the world to absorb his lessons on media, or just to see him and be
seen with him. Andy Warhol was scheduled to visit but did not show
(when McLuhan finally met him some time later, he pronounced him a
“rube”); John Lennon and Yoko Ono arrived unannounced. Understanding
Media, which was eventually translated into more than twenty
languages, overshadowed the only McLuhan book-length publication from
the 1960s that took him back squarely to his roots as a professor of
English literature, the two-volume Voices of Literature (edited in
collaboration with Richard J. Schoeck). By the time the decade ended,
he had collaborated with Canadian artist Harley Parker on Through the
Vanishing Point: Space in Poetry and Painting and once more with
Quentin Fiore and Jerome Agel on War and Peace in the Global Village.
This popular paperback, exploding at every page with McLuhan’s
observations juxtaposed to a visual chronicle of twentieth century
happenings, bore the improbable subtitle, an inventory of some of the
current spastic situations that could be eliminated by more
feedforward. The book looks and feels light years away from the
Cambridge University of the 1930s where McLuhan trained, but that was
just where he had picked up the idea of feedforward—from his teacher
I. A. Richards.
McLuhan wrote with no knowledge of galvanic skin response technology,
terminal node controllers, or the Apple Newton. He might not have been
able even to imagine what a biomouse is. But he pointed the way to
understanding all of these, not in themselves, but in their relation
to each other, to older technologies, and above all in relation to
ourselves—our bodies, our physical senses, our psychic balance. When
he published Understanding Media in 1964, he was disturbed about
mankind’s shuffling toward the twenty-first century in the shackles of
nineteenth century perceptions. He might be no less disturbed today.
And he would continue to issue the challenge that confronts the reader
at every page of his writings to cast off those shackles.
—by Terrence Gordon, July, 2002
W. Terrence Gordon is the author of the biography, Marshall McLuhan:
Escape into Understanding. Gingko Press. ISBN: 1-58423-112-2.
Sid Harth
IF IT WORKS,
IT’S
OBSOLETE
Marshall McLuhanisms
The story of modern America begins With the discovery of the white man
by
The Indians.
Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by
public
incredulity.
Whereas convictions depend on speed-ups, justice requires delay.
The nature of people demands that most of them be engaged in the most
frivolous possible activities—like making money.
With telephone and TV it is not so much the message as the sender that
is
“sent.”
Money is the poor man’s credit card.
We look at the present through a rear-view mirror. We march backwards
into
the future.
Spaceship earth is still operated by railway conductors, just as NASA
is
managed by men with Newtonian goals.
Invention is the mother of necessities.
You mean my whole fallacy’s wrong?
Mud sometimes gives the illusion of depth.
The car has become the carapace, the protective and aggressive shell,
of urban and suburban man.
Why is it so easy to acquire the solutions of past problems and so
difficult to solve current ones?
The trouble with a cheap, specialized education is that you never stop
paying for it.
People don’t actually read newspapers. They step into them every
morning like a hot bath.
The road is our major architectural form.
Today each of us lives several hundred years in a decade.
Today the business of business is becoming the constant invention of
new business.
The price of eternal vigilance is indifference.
News, far more than art, is artifact.
When you are on the phone or on the air, you have no body.
Tomorrow is our permanent address.
All advertising advertises advertising.
The answers are always inside the problem, not outside.
“Camp” is popular because it gives people a sense of reality to see a
replay of their lives.
This information is top security. When you have read it, destroy
yourself.
The specialist is one who never makes small mistakes while moving
toward the grand fallacy.
One of the nicest things about being big is the luxury of thinking
little.
Politics offers yesterday’s answers to today’s questions.
The missing link created far more interest than all the chains and
explanations of being.
In big industry new ideas are invited to rear their heads so they can
be clobbered at once. The idea department of a big firm is a sort of
lab for isolating dangerous viruses.
When a thing is current, it creates currency.
Food for the mind is like food for the body: the inputs are never the
same as the outputs.
Men on frontiers, whether of time or space, abandon their previous
identities. Neighborhood gives identity. Frontiers snatch it away.
The future of the book is the blurb.
The ignorance of how to use new knowledge stockpiles exponentially.
A road is a flattened-out wheel, rolled up in the belly of an
airplane.
At the speed of light, policies and political parties yield place to
charismatic images.
“I may be wrong, but I’m never in doubt.”
—Copyright © 1986, McLuhan Associates, Ltd.
Sid Harth
By Marshall McLuhan
Books
Note: A complete list of publications, to include books, articles,
etc. is under preparation.
1934
George Meredith as a Poet and Dramatic Parodist.
M. A. thesis, University of Manitoba. (Unpublished.)
1941
The Place of Thomas Nashe in the Learning of his Time.
Ph. D. thesis, Cambridge University. (Unpublished: long circulating in
manuscript; to be published ca. 2003 by Gingko Press.)
1951
The Mechanical Bride; Folklore of Industrial Man.
New York: Vanguard Press.
Published by Gingko Press in 2002
1950s-1970s
Explorations magazine. (Editor; many articles.)
1956
Alfred Lord Tennyson: Selected Poetry.
Edited with an Introduction by Herbert Marshall McLuhan. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
1960
Explorations in Communication: An Anthology.
Edited by Edmund Carpenter and Marshall McLuhan.
Beacon Press.
Report on Project in Understanding New Media.
New York: National Association of Educational Broadcasters, Office of
Education, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
1962
The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man.
University of Toronto Press.
1964
Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man.
McGraw-Hill
Critical edition published by Gingko Press in 2003
Voices of Literature, Book One: The First of a Two-Volume Anthology
for
High Schools Compiled and with Notes and Commentary by Marshall
McLuhan, Professor of English and Richard J. Schoeck, Professor of
English at St. Michael's College, University of Toronto; Illustrations
by Harley Parker.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited.
1965
Voices of Literature, Book Two: The Second of a Two-Volume Anthology
for High Schools Compiled and with Notes and Commentary by Marshall
McLuhan, Head of the Centre for Culture and Technology, and Richard J.
Schoeck, Head of the Department of English at St. Michael's College,
University of Toronto; Illustrations by Harley Parker.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada, Limited.
1967
Verbi-Voco-Visual Explorations. [Explorations 8 as a book].
Something Else Press.
The Medium is the Massage.
By Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, Co-ordinated by Jerome Agel.
Bantam Books / Random House.
Published by Gingko Press in 2000
1968
War and Peace in the Global Village: An inventory of some of the
current spastic situations that could be eliminated by more
feedforward.
By Marshall McLuhan and Quentin Fiore, Co-ordinated by Jerome Agel.
Bantam Books / Random House.
Published by Gingko Press in 2000
Through the Vanishing Point: Space in Poetry and Painting.
By Marshall McLuhan and Harley Parker.
Harper and Row, Publishers.
1969
The Interior Landscape: The Literary Criticism of Marshall McLuhan
1943-1962.
Selected, Compiled and Edited by Eugene McNamara.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Counterblast.
Designed by Harley Parker.
Harcourt-Brace. (London: Rapp & Whiting; Canada: McClelland &
Stewart.)
Sounds, Masks, Roles. (Paperback of Voices of Literature, I.)
Mutations 1990.
French trans., François Chesneau.
Tours, France: Maison Mame.
1969-1970
The McLuhan Dew-Line Newsletter.
New York: Human Development Corporation.
1970
Culture Is Our Business.
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
From Cliché to Archetype.
By Marshall McLuhan and Wilfred Watson.
The Viking Press.
Voices of Literature, Book III: Sounds, Masks, Roles.
By Marshall McLuhan and R. J. Schoeck.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
1972
Take Today: The Executive as Drop Out.
By Marshall McLuhan and Barrington Nevitt.
Longman Canada Limited; Harcourt Brace Jovanovitch, Inc.
1977
City as Classroom: Understanding Language and Media.
By Marshall McLuhan, Kathryn Hutchon, Eric McLuhan.
The Book Society of Canada Limited.
D'oeil à oreille.
French trans., D. de Kerckhove.
Éditions Hurtubise HMH, Ltée.
Autre homme autre chrétien à l'âge électronique.
By Pierre Babin, S.J. / Marshall McLuhan.
Lyons: Editions du Chalet.
1980
Media, Messages and Language: The World as Your Classroom.
[U. S. reprint of City as Classroom.]
1987
Letters of Marshall McLuhan.
Edited by M. Molinaro, Corinne McLuhan, W. Toye.
Oxford University Press.
1988
Laws of Media: The New Science.
By Marshall McLuhan and Eric McLuhan; Introduction by Eric McLuhan.
University of Toronto Press.
The Global Village: Transformations in World Life and Media in the
21st Century.
By Marshall McLuhan and Bruce Powers.
Oxford University Press.
1989
Marshall McLuhan: The Man and his Message.
Edited by George Sanderson and Frank Macdonald; Introduction by
John Cage.
Fulcrum, Inc.
1995
Essential McLuhan.
Edited by Frank Zingrone and Eric McLuhan.
House of Anansi Press
1996
Forward through the Rear View Mirror: Reflections on and by Marshall
McLuhan.
[Based on the CD-ROM.]
Edited by N. DeHart and Paul. Benedetti.
Published in Canada by Prentice-Hall; in U.S by M.I.T. Press. McLuhan
material © 1996, The Estate of Marshall McLuhan; remainder © 1996,
Southam, Inc. ISBN: 0134949560
1997
McLuhan for Beginners.
By W. Terrence Gordon.
Writers and Readers Publishing, Inc
1999
The Medium and the Light: Reflections on Religion and Media.
Edited by Eric McLuhan and Jacek Szklarek; Introduction by Eric
McLuhan.
Gingko Press. ISBN: 0-7737-6031-8
2002
The Book of Probes.
By Marshall McLuhan and David Carson. Edited and Introduced by Eric
McLuhan and William Kuhns.
Gingko Press. ISBN: 1-58423-056-8
2003
Understanding Me: Lectures And Interviews.
By Marshall McLuhan
Introductory Essay by Tom Wolfe.
Edited by Stephanie McLuhan and David Staines.
Published: September 2003 by McClelland and Stewart
ISBN: 0-77105-545-5
2005
McLuhan Unbound
By Marshall McLuhan.
Edited by Eric McLuhan and Terrance Gordon. Published: September 2005
by Gingko Press
ISBN: 1-58423-051-7
2006
The Classical Trivium - The Place of Thomas Nashe in the Learning of
his Time
By Marshall McLuhan
Edited by W. Terrence Gordon
Published by: Gingko Press
ISBN: 1-58423-067-3
Audio Recordings
1967
The New Technology and the Arts. A Flexidisc that accompanied
ArtsCanada 24.2.
Wyndham Lewis Recalled: Marshall McLuhan Recalls Lewis. A Flexidisc
that accompanied ArtsCanada 24.11, No. 114, a special issue on Lewis.
1968
The Medium is the Massage; with Marshall McLuhan. Long-Playing Record.
Produced by John Simon. Conceived and co-ordinated by Jerome Agel.
Written by Marshall McLuhan, Quentin Fiore, and Jerome Agel.
Columbia CS 9501, CL2701.
Compact Discs
1996
Understanding McLuhan: a CD-ROM on the ideas and life of media guru
Marshall McLuhan.
Co-produced by Southam Interactive and The Voyager Company
1999
The Medium Is The Massage.
SONY Catalog #: SRCS-8912
Films
1977
Annie Hall.
Written (with Marshall Brickman) and directed by Woody Allen. Starring
Diane Keaton, Woody Allen, Tony Roberts, Carol Kane, Paul Simon,
Shelley Duvall, and Christopher Walken.
A United Artists production.
The Bad Trip.
With Jane Jacobs — about / against the Spadina Expressway in Toronto
Videos
1984
Marshall McLuhan: The Man and His Message. Television documentary (1
hour). Produced and directed by Stephanie McLuhan; written and hosted
by Tom Wolfe
1996
The Video McLuhan. Set of six tapes.
By Stephanie McLuhan-Ortved (Producer), and Tom Wolfe (Writer).
Canada_I...@yahoo.ca
2002
McLuhan's Wake.
Directed by Kevin McMahon.
Written by David Sobelman.
Conceived and Co-produced by David Sobelman.
Produced by Primitive Entertainment.
Co-production with the National Film Board of Canada, in association
with TVOntario.
Available from National Film Board of Canada Library
http://www.nfb.ca/mcluhanswake
22-D Hollywood Avenue, Ho-Ho-Kus, New Jersey, 07423)
Marshall McLuhan's ABC.
Written and directed by David Sobelman.
Edited by Steven Pinchuk.
Original music by Dan Thompson.
Executive Producer Rudy Buttignol.
A TVOntario Production.
The McLuhan Probes.
Produced and Directed by David Sobelman.
Editor Steven Pinchuck.
Executive Producer Rudy Buttignol.
A TVOntario Production.
Out Of Orbit.
Produced by Raven West Films Ltd. in association with CBC Televiison
Director: Carl Bessai
Writers: Carl Bessai, Manfred Becker
Producer: Laura Lightbown
Cinematography: Carl Bessai
Editor: Manfred Becker
Music: Vince Mai
Production Company:
Raven West Films Ltd,
Suite 701, 207 W. Hastings St., Vancouver, BC V6B 1H7
Tel 604-681-7121 fax 604-681-7173
rave...@uniserve.com
Biographies of Marshall McLuhan
1989
Marshall McLuhan: The Medium and the Messenger.
By Philip Marchand.
Vintage Canada / Random House.
Rev., with a new foreword by Neil Postman, 1998.
Canada: Random House (Vintage). United States: MIT Press.
1997
Marshall McLuhan: Escape into Understanding.
By W. Terrence Gordon.
Gingko Press. ISBN: 1-58423-112-2
To be published by Gingko Press in 2003
2001
Marshall McLuhan: Wise Guy.
By Judith Fitzgerald.
XYZ Publishing. IBSN 0-9688166-7-3
Writing style appropriate for "young adult" readers
"Gingko Press has been authorised by the Estate of Marshall McLuhan to
acquire the rights and publish all of his work as those rights become
available."
www.gingkopress.com/_cata/_mclu/mclanth1.htm
Sid Harth
Miscellany
1994
Marshall McLuhan The Musical
Book by Frank Moher
Music and Lyrics by Gerald Reid
Download in PDF format *
For more information, contact Single Lane Entertainment
1995
The Ballad Of Marshall McLuhan
By The Vestibules
From The Album "Radio Free Vestibule"
Listen to a sample MP3 of The Ballad of Marshall McLuhan (1.3MB) †
* Requires Adobe Reader (free download)
† Requires QuickTime, RealPlayer, or Windows MediaPlayer
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/downloads/mcluhan.pdf
bademiyansubhanallah
Downloads
Foreword to What Ten Young Men Did by Kiran Nagarkar | More Info
Download Foreword by Kiran Nagarkar. (13 pp, 132kb). To be published
in the second edition; currently available online only.
Foreword to Three Satires by Mani Shankar Aiyar | More Info
Download Foreword by Mani Shankar Aiyar. (7 pp, 95kb). To be published
in the second edition; currently available online only.
Foreword to Ramáyana I: Boyhood by Amartya Sen | More Info
Download Foreword by Amartya Sen. (12 pp, 136kb). To be published in
the second edition; currently available online only.
Foreword to Rákshasa’s Ring by Romila Thapar | More Info
Download Foreword by Romila Thapar. (6 pp, 96kb). To be published in
the second edition; currently available online only.
Foreword to the Birth of Kumára by U.R. Ananthamurthy | More Info
Download Foreword by U.R. Ananthamurthy. (9 pp, 98kb). To be published
in the second edition; currently available online only.
Foreword to “The Lady of the Jewel Necklace” and “The Lady who Shows
her Love” by Anita Desai | More Info
Download Foreword by Anita Desai. (9 pp, 128kb). To be published in
the second edition; currently available online only.
How the Nagas Were Pleased | More Info
Act Two (pp. 58-71)
(22 pp, 1.34mb)
Ocean of the Rivers of Story (Volume Two) | More Info
Attainment IV: “The Birth of Nara·váhana·datta” (pp.70–83)
(22 pp. 0.74 mb)
Gita·Govínda: Love Songs of Radha and Krishna | More Info
Canto 6: “Coveted Krishna: The God who Rules Vishnu’s Heaven” (pp. 90–
95)
(16 pp, 0.49mb)
“Bouquet of Rasa” and “River of Rasa” | More Info
The Fourth Wave: “Description of the Involuntary Physical
Reactions” (pp. 188–199)
(19 pp, 0.58mb)
Life of the Buddha | More Info
“The Departure” (Canto 5, pp. 124–43)
(27 pp, 0.84mb)
Maha·bhárata V: Preparations for War (volume one of two) | More Info
Vídura’s Teachings (Canto 33, pp. 236–55)
(28 pp, 2.45mb)
Maha·bhárata V: Preparations for War (volume two of two) | More Info
“Shikhándini Becomes Shikhándin” (Cantos 188–191, pp. 664–79)
(24 pp, 2.42mb)
Maha·bhárata VI: Bhishma (volume one of two) Including the “Bhagavad
Gita” in Context | More Info
“Bhagavad Gita” (Cantos 25–26, pp. 172–93)
(30 pp, 2.23mb)
Maha·bhárata VIII: Karna (volume two of two) | More Info
“The Slaying of Karna” (Cantos 84–85, pp. 370–89)
(28 pp, 2.27mb)
“Friendly Advice” and “King Víkrama’s Adventures” | More Info
Prologue (pp. 62–75)
(26pp, 790 kb)
Handsome Nanda | More Info
“Súndari’s Request” (Canto 4, pp. 80–93)
(24pp, 1.2 mb)
Maha·bhárata IX: Shalya (volume two of two) | More Info
“The Duel” (Cantos 55–57, pp. 280–297))
(26pp, 1.02 mb)
Rama’s Last Act | More Info
“The Shadow” (Act III, pp. 174–193)
(28pp, 2.92 mb)
The Ocean of the Rivers of Story (volume one of nine) | More Info
Attainment I, Seventh Wave (pp. 161–181)
(28pp, 900 kb)
“The Lady of the Jewel Necklace” and “The Lady Who Shows Her Love” |
More Info
“Rendezvous” (Act III, pp. 181–199)
(26pp, 900 kb)
Maha·bhárata Book Four: Viráta | More Info
“Disguises for Viráta's Court” (Canto 1-13, pp. 23-43)
(28pp, 1.4 mb)
Maha·bhárata Book Eight: Karna (volume one of two) | More Info
“The Wrangling of Karna and Shalya” (Canto 37-45, pp. 367-387)
(28pp, 1.3 mb)
CSL Wallpaper
1600x1200 (84kb)
1280x1024 (112kb)
1024x768 (152kb)
Ramáyana III: The Forest | More Info
“Sita’s Isolation and Abduction” (41–47, pp. 241–267)
(34pp, 2.0mb)
Full Bibliography
(15pp, 952kb)
Messenger Poems | More Info
“Rupa Go·svamin: The Swan Messenger” (pp. 175–197)
(30pp, 1.4mb)
The Epitome of Queen Lilávati (volume two of two) | More Info
“The Enlightenment and Initiation of His Highness Prince Vímala·sena,
the Soul of the Mighty Ascetic Rama·deva” (Canto 13, pp. 361–379)
(26pp, 1.2mb)
Five Discourses on Worldly Wisdom | More Info
“On War and Peace: The Story of the Crows and the Owls” (Book III, pp.
353–375)
(32pp, 3.5mb)
Rama Beyond Price | More Info
“The Breaking of Shiva’s Bow” (Act III, pp. 188–207)
(28pp, 1.2 mb)
Ramáyana IV: Kishkíndha | More Info
“Rama Reproached” (14–18, pp. 101–131)
(39pp, 2mb)
Full Bibliography
(9pp, 604kb)
Ramáyana I: Boyhood | More Info
“The Creation Of Poetry” (2–4, pp. 43–61)
(27pp, 1.3mb)
Full Bibliography
(15pp, 1.1mb)
Ramáyana II: Ayódhya | More Info
“The Boons of Kaikéyi” (7–12, pp. 69–95)
(35pp, 1.4mb)
Full Bibliography
(15pp, 1.1mb)
What Ten Young Men Did | More Info
“What Mitra·gupta Did” (From Chapter 11, pp. 414–449)
(43pp, 1.4mb)
Full Bibliography
(5pp, 64kb)
Corrections
Download file (2pp, 104kb)
Here we provide a list of corrections for our volumes. We would be
delighted to be informed of any mistakes which you may find in our
books. Please write to: in...@claysanskritlibrary.org.
CSL Front Matter
Download file (6pp, 917kb)
The document describes how we transliterate the Sanskrit text in the
Roman alphabet, which includes a guide to pronunciation. It also
explains our system of representing phonetic fusion (sandhi).
FAQ
Download file (3pp, 96kb)
Some of the frequently asked questions about our project and editorial
policy.
Sandhi table
Download file (1p, 808kb)
A must-have aid for all learners of Sanskrit for identifying word-
breaks and beginnings of words. The table systematically lays out
possible combinations of phonetic fusion (sandhi) of adjacent words in
Sanskrit.
CSL Brochure Spring/Summer 2005
Download file
(74pp, 2.1mb)
CSL Screensaver
Mac OS X Version (972kb)
Windows Version (1mb, zipped)
The Emperor Of The Sorcerers (volume two of two) | More Info
“A Glimpse of Breasts” (Canto 26, pp. 389–399)
(19pp, 1.9mb)
Rákshasa's Ring | More Info
“Dissension” (Act IV, pp. 197–231)
(43pp, 2mb)
Maha·bhárata Book Nine: Shalya (volume one of two) | More Info
“Surrender Rejected” (3-5, pp. 53–83)
(39pp, 1.9mb)
Birth of Kumára | More Info
“Love's Wife’s Lament” (Canto 4, pp. 129–153)
(33pp, 1.3mb)
The Emperor of the Sorcerers (volume one of two) | More Info
“The Meeting on the Riverbank” (Canto 4, pp. 129–153)
(50pp, 740kb)
The Epitome of Queen Lilávati (volume one of two) | More Info
“The Fruits Of Sensuality” (Canto 7, pp. 463–486)
(32pp, 1.4mb)
The Heavenly Exploits | More Info
“The Story of Makándika the Wanderer” (36, pp. 309–333)
(33pp, 1.4mb)
Love Lyrics | More Info
“Bílhana: The Love Thief”
(17pp, 144kb)
Maha·bhárata Book Three: The Forest (volume four of four) | More Info
“About The Drilling Sticks” (3.311-215, pp. 277–299)
(31pp, 1.4mb)
Maha·bhárata Book Seven: Drona (volume one of four) | More Info
Maha·bhárata Book Seven: Drona “The Death of the Beholden” (Canto
16-32, pp. 142–161)
(28pp, 1.8 mb)
Much Ado About Religion | More Info
“Lustful Ascetics” (Prelude to Act Two)
(11pp, 1.3mb)
Additional materials:
Abstract (2pp, 63kb)
Introduction (20pp, 2.3mb zipped)
Critical edition (106pp, 572kb)
Full annotation (116pp, 656 kb)
Bibliography (17pp, 160 kb)
Three Satires | More Info
“Mockery of the Kali Era” (pp. 319–339)
(29pp, 1.4mb)
CSL Brochure Winter 2004
Download file
(36pp, 1.1mb)
© 2005-2009 The Clay Sanskrit Library.
Co-published by New York University Press and the JJC Foundation.
bademiyansubhanallah
Statesman among Indian economists
If you leave it all to the market to sort out, you will not get the
best results because both prices and resource allocation need some
nudging from time to time.
As an explorer of ideas and speculative philosophy, Dasgupta has few
challengers. As pathfinders go, therefore, he stands alone.
The essay ‘Tendencies in Economic Theory’, should become compulsory
reading for all policy-advocates, if only to show that in human
affairs a certain amount of direction is not such a bad thing after
all.
The Collected Works of A. K. Dasgupta (3 Vols) OUP;
Rs 995 (each Vol)
T.C.A. Srinivasa-Raghavan
It is impertinent to attempt to review the works of A. K. Dasgupta
(1903-92), the Senior Statesman of Indian economists. In a career that
spanned over 65 years, he taught hundreds of students and wrote many
scores of papers. He was witness, thus, not just to the flowering of
economics as a fully structured system of thought during the 20th
century, but also of economists — Indian economists, in particular.
The sheer breadth of his writings and their depth also make a ‘review’
impossible. No one person can do it. The best anyone can do,
therefore, is to pay a tribute, not just to the author but the editor
as well — his daughter, in this case — for the patience, diligence and
commitment needed to undertake such a monumental task.
Indeed, by doing no more than reading the three tributes written by
Amartya Sen, S. R. Sen and P. R. Brahmananda reproduced in Volume 1,
one emerges feeling intellectually more vigorous and proud of being
Indian.
Abundant self-confidence
Not everyone who is intellectually inclined is intellectually vigorous
as well. Even fewer have the self-confidence to write it all down.
This is especially true of, and in, the world of ideas and speculative
philosophy. As an explorer of these — and remember, he was out there
when the Indian economics tradition was just starting — Dasgupta has
few challengers. As pathfinders go, therefore, he stands alone.
It is hardly surprising, then, that he said, way back in 1960, that
“Indian economists, particularly of the older generation, have been
somewhat allergic to economic theory... this is surprising… the Indian
mind is traditionally speculative and is supposed to lend itself more
to abstraction than to crude reality.”
For almost two decades before that, he had taken it upon himself to
remedy this lamentable state of affairs.
It took a lot of self-confidence to join issues with men — and a woman
— who belonged to a small intellectual elite of the Anglo-Saxon world
who thought that their way of looking at the system of commerce,
business, finance and industry was the only acceptable way.
In those days, an idea was regarded as respectable only if it had a
British provenance. America had arrived as an economic and military
power, but intellectually it was still regarded as something of a
parvenu. Indeed, any idea to be any good had to come either from
Cambridge or Oxford. Everything else, even London, was economy class.
It was this quiet smugness that Dasgupta challenged, not frontally,
not shrilly, nor obliquely. He merely used their own analytical
techniques and showed that the same evidence, using the same framework
of thought, could be adduced to reach very different conclusions.
This was intellectual debate and challenge of the highest order. These
three volumes contain several examples of it. They may not be
everyone’s cup of tea but to those who like to exercise their brains,
they are just what the doctor ordered.
Financial prescience
Much water has flowed under the bridge since these papers were
written, and thanks to the global financial crisis economics today
stands somewhat discredited as a credible system of thought. It was
therefore a pleasant surprise to find an essay called Tendencies in
Economic Theory. It was the Presidential address at the All India
Economic Conference held in 1960.
Now that the economic orthodoxy of the last 50 years has begun to be
seriously questioned, this essay should become compulsory reading for
all policy-advocates, if only to show that in human affairs a certain
amount of direction is not such a bad thing after all because, as
Dasgupta pointed out with such prescience, “…relative prices cannot
just be left alone to take their own course, nor can the allocation of
resources be left to be regulated by the movement of relative
prices…”
The reason he gave is critically important in today’s context, namely,
that if you leave it all to the market to sort out, you will not get
the best results because both prices and resource allocation need some
nudging from time to time.
True — except that bureaucracies, which are expected to do the
nudging, are famously prone to get the timing almost invariably wrong,
erring between combinations of too little, too much, too early and too
late. Chance, therefore, very clearly plays a major role in economic
outcomes.
Role of chance
But Dasgupta — and I could well be very wrong — appears not to have
factored it in explicitly, as a factor distinct from uncertainty,
which has been worked upon more intensely than any other single aspect
of economics and that too by some of the best brains in the business.
Many economists tend to believe that there isn’t much difference
between the two, but chance is a different thing altogether.
It is stochastic, while uncertainty is a permanent state, a sort of
continuum, if you will. Sadly, chance decisions by governments play a
much larger role in determining outcomes than the uncertainty that
normal government functioning introduces.
Thus, who would have predicted on September 4, 2008, that Lehman would
go down? Yet, barely 12 days later, that single event had paralysed
the world of finance — and made economics intellectually virtually
comatose.
bademiyansubhanallah
Has economics lost its way?
The triumph of mindless empiricism has seen the advent of a menace
called the policy economist. This tribe is to economics what ‘non-
state actors’ are to security.
T.C.A. Srinivasa-Raghavan
Over the next several months, therefore, this column will argue that
economics has comprehensively lost its way. It will take the help of
the latest economics research in order to do so.
It has become commonplace to say that economists never agree on
anything. But even if the number of disagreements is directly
proportional to the number of economists, surely there must be some
common ground?
But, like the Brahmins of the Gupta period — one of whom discovered
zero, whence the name of this column — economists are today obsessed
with empirical method, rather than substance. This may not have
mattered much as long as those who do bother with substance paid some
attention to the method of logic. But, often, that too seems not to be
the case. The result is a discipline in which the only certainties are
the ones in microeconomics postulated by economists in the 19th and up
to the mid-20th century.
Why empty sum?
I have deliberately chosen ‘Empty Sum’ as the name of this column. It
sounds very similar to the better-known concept of ‘zero-sum’ from
Game Theory. But the latter has a very specific meaning and signifies
the trade-off where neither party to the trade either gains anything
or loses anything. Empty sum, in contrast, means that zero multiplied
by zero will give you zero.
You only need to look at Bramhagupta’s rules about zero to see how
closely they fit economics. And, today, as with zero, the problem with
economics remains what the ancient Greeks grappled with: What do we do
with it? Can something be a number and not a number at the same time?
Post-war economics
Economists will protest, more than somewhat shrilly, that I am making
far too many sweeping statements. That is to be expected. But, after
spending a lifetime with them, I know that in their heart of hearts
they agree that this is exactly true of most of post-war economics.
Techniques in econometrics have, of course, improved. But useful
economic theory has made virtually no progress. Much of microeconomics
stays where it was in, say, 1945, except in the matter of its dress.
And as we are seeing now, macroeconomics hasn’t gone beyond Keynes,
who published his seminal work in 1936.
My view is that the post-war period can be divided into two clear
segments. The first comes roughly up to the mid-1970s when economic
theory grew increasingly distant from real life and more-or-less
merged into advanced mathematics. The second phase was a sort of
reaction, and comprises the empiricist phase where, gradually, the
mere presence of a data set has meant that anyone who knows a little
regression can become an economist. Thought and thinking have both
exited.
The trouble with empiricists, as opposed to empiricism whose
importance can’t be denied, is that they can’t tell the difference
between correlation and causality. I once wrote an article showing how
every change of party of government in the US after 1945 has been
accompanied by a recession.
The correlation was easy to establish but causation, in either
direction, is another kettle of fish altogether. Even after having
been advised early not to fall prey to it, they make the classic post
hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) mistake.
Swings between extremes
The triumph of mindless empiricism has seen the advent of a menace
called the policy economist. This tribe is to economics what ‘non-
state actors’ are to security: guided missiles but with commercial
intent. These economists flourish in think tanks which, if you ask me,
are like those camps in Kandahar, Muridke, PoK, etc. But more about
them in the months to come.
Overall, the swings between the two extremes — of economics posturing
as physics so that it can use advanced mathematics, and data-based
vacuity which has no roots in politics, custom, institutions, law, etc
— have led the discipline into a state of meaningless tarkam and
vitarkam where scoring petty points is mistaken for scholarship and
where debate becomes an end in itself.
Let me conclude by saying that Oscar Wilde, who said that an economist
is a person who knows the price of everything but the value of none,
was wrong. Today, it is the other way round.
bademiyansubhanallah
The tragedy of economics
After more than a century of using rationality assumption as a bedrock
of their theories, economists have now begun to abandon it in order to
justify the discipline’s inability to come up with explanations that
stand the test of time.
T. C. A. Srinivasa-Raghavan
As mentioned last week the purpose of this column is to suggest that
economists no longer quite know what they are doing as a result of
which economics has lost its way. This is proposed to be done with the
help of examples from the research in economics.
Assumptions are central to any discipline of structured thought.
Newspapers, for example, assume that readers are only interested in
reading news but not reading per se. Psychologists assume that
everyone is nuts unless proven otherwise. Historians assume that the
historical material they use is true. And so on.
Too many assumptions
Economics differs in one very important respect. It makes more
assumptions than any other discipline. One of these is (or used to be)
that people and societies act rationally, where rationality consists
mostly of consistency.
But after more than a century of using this assumption as a bedrock of
their theories economists have now begun to abandon it in order to
justify the discipline’s inability to come up with explanations that
stand the test of time.
They are not saying that people don’t behave rationally but only that
there can be no standard yardstick by which to judge an action as
rational.
Thus, even though suicide bombing is regarded as completely irrational
behaviour, to the bomber himself it appears to be the most rational
thing to do.
I might add that whether or not that is the case, suicide bombers
certainly take care of one of the most used definitions of rationality
in economics, attributed to John Muth of Chicago University, an
economist of great standing.
His definition was simple: people don’t make the same mistake twice.
With suicide bombers, of course, we never get the chance to find out
if this is true.
Back in 1997 Peter Hammond, one of the leading figures of economic
theory, had this to say in a paper that he wrote: “…rationality has
become little more than a structural consistency criterion. At the
least, it needs supplementing with other criteria that reflect
reality. Also, though there is no reason to reject rationality
hypotheses as normative criteria just because people do not behave
rationally, rationality as consistency seems so demanding that it may
not be very useful for practicable normative models either.”
Well, he is right of course. The rationality assumption was altogether
too constricting and not very much in evidence either, because people
and societies do change their minds. In other words, context was
crucial — but you will not find a single economist who will say so.
The Indian poet A K Ramanujam had an explanation for the rejection by
western thinkers, whose preferences Indian economists have adopted, of
context. In a most wonderful essay called “Is there an Indian way of
thinking?” he said absolutist principles, as opposed to contextual
ones, were the bedrock of western thought. As we shall see in my next
column, this obsession with absolutism lies at the root of the crisis
in macroeconomics today.
The abandonment of rational behaviour, without acknowledging that
rationality had to be judged in a given context, was honoured with a
Nobel prize in 2002. Daniel Kahneman who is now regarded as the father
of behavioural economics, was awarded the prize. But his explanations
were rooted in psychology, not context.
Bounded rationality
Kahneman and his colleague Amos Tversky basically said that you could
not disregard intuition. They “explored the psychology of intuitive
beliefs and choices and examined their bounded rationality.” They
conducted experiments using individuals and groups to validate their
theories.
Bounded rationality? What in heaven is that, pray? No one really knows
who invented the term but it is most widely attributed to another
Nobel prize winner, Herbert Simon. People, he said, don’t have the
brains to handle complex situations, so they often act in ways that
are not consistent with total rationality. In other words, people are
rational only some of the time.
The question that needs asking but which no one is asking is: by
diluting the rationality requirement, has the subject gained or lost?
Having thought about it a lot during the last two decades, I would say
that one way or another, it has not made any difference.
Therein lies the real tragedy of modern economics.
bademiyansubhanallah
bademiyansubhanallah
The Top Ten Indian Writers in English
chillibreeze writer — KAUSHIKI SANYAL
Salman Rushdie
The 1980s and 90s saw a renaissance of Indian writing in English
making the task of choosing the top ten authors of this genre
especially challenging. The renaissance was spearheaded by Salman
Rushdie with his path breaking novel Midnight’s Children in 1980. Ever
since his success, there has been a glut of Indian authors writing in
English. These contemporary writers are not confined to people living
in India, but like Rushdie, a large number of them are part of the
Indian diaspora. Earlier writers like Nirad C. Choudhuri, R.K.
Narayan, Mulk Raj Anand or Raja Rao used English in its classical
form. However, Rushdie, with his Pidgin English, signaled a new trend
in writing as well as giving voice to multicultural concerns. Although
his Midnight’s Children, Shame, The Moor’s Last Sigh, Fury, and
Shalimar the Clown received critical acclaim for their themes as well
as his use of magic realism, the book that generated the most
controversy was The Satanic Verses. He was accused of blasphemy by
many Muslims because of certain allegedly irreverent references to
Islam’s Prophet Mohammad. A fatwa was issued by Iran’s Ayotollah
Khomeini in 1989 calling for the execution of the author. Many
countries banned the book including India. Rushdie had to go into
hiding in U.K. Till date, Rushdie remains a hunted man with a price on
his head.
Vikram Seth
Next on the list should be Vikram Seth who produced some magnificent
works like The Golden Gate, A Suitable Boy, An Equal Music, and Two
Lives. His first book is written in verse form and chronicles the
lives of young professionals in San Francisco. But the work that
propelled him into the limelight was his second book, A Suitable Boy,
which was based in a post-independent India.
Arundhati Roy
If Rushdie’s work liberated Indian writing from the colonial
straitjacket, Arundhati’s Roy’s book, The God of Small Things,
radically changed perceptions about Indian authors with her commercial
success. She won the Booker prize and remained on the top of the New
York Times bestseller list for a long time. With her also started the
trend of large advances, hitherto unheard of among Indian writers.
Rohinton Mistry
The other authors who should be included in the list are: Rohinton
Mistry, V.S. Naipaul, Amitav Ghosh, Jhumpa Lahiri, Shashi Tharoor, and
Upamanyu Chatterjee. Mistry’s books shed light on the issues affecting
the Parsi community in India. Although the novels are long and at
times depressing, the beauty of the books lies in their lyrical prose.
Some of his better known works include Such a Long Journey, Family
Matters, and A Fine Balance.
V.S Naipaul
One of the most enduring figures in the field and a nobel laureate,
V.S. Naipaul, is of Indian origin although he was born in Trinidad.
His prolific writing career includes works such as A House for Mr.
Biswas, India: A Wounded Civilization, An Area of Darkness, India: A
Million Mutinies Now, and A Bend in the River. Naipaul is another
writer who has courted controversy for a long time. His often scathing
commentaries on developing countries like India or the Caribbean and
his critical assessment of Muslim fundamentalism on non-Arab countries
have been subjected to harsh criticism.
Amitav Ghosh
Another respected name that should feature on a list of the top ten
contemporary Indian writers is Amitav Ghosh, who has won many
accolades including the Sahitya Akademi Award and the Prix Medicis
Etrangere of France. Although less prone to controversy, he is
responsible for producing some of the most lyrical and insightful
works on the effect of colonialism on the native people. His books
include The Circle of Reason, The Glass Palace, The Calcutta
Chromosome, and The Hungry Tide.
Jhumpa Lahiri
Jhumpa Lahiri, a recent entrant into the world of Indian writers,
tackles the much-debated topic of cultural identity of Indians in a
far off land. Lahiri took the literary world by storm when her debut
book, The Interpreter of Maladies, won the prestigious Pulitzer Prize
in 2000. The Namesake, her first novel, is an ambitious attempt to
chart the lives of a family of immigrants through the eyes of a young
boy. Both her books have received brickbats as well as accolades but
she deserves a mention for tackling a subject long ignored by other
Indian writers.
Shashi Tharoor
The list would be incomplete without a mention of Shashi Tharoor’s
satirical works like The Great Indian Novel and Show Business. His
latest book, India: From Midnight to Millennium, is a non-fiction
chronicle of India’s past and its projected future.
Upamanyu Chatterjee
Lastly, Upamanyu Chatterjee deserves a mention as he was one of the
first Indian authors who found success outside of India with his 1988
debut novel, English, August. His wry sense of humor and realistic
portrayal of India has given us the witty and amusing, The Mammaries
of the Welfare State. However, he hasn’t been able to replicate the
success of his debut novel with his later works, especially in the
West.
bademiyansubhanallah
DO GODMEN PROVIDE SOLACE?
Mrs. Margaret Bhatty
Rock me Guru Maharaj ji & roll me tonight
Rock me Guru Maharaj ji & say it's all right!
Two lines from a pop song from Millennium 1973 held in Houston, Texas,
where an estimated 40,000 devotees arrived from all over the world to
honour the roly-poly Child-God, Balyogeshwar, son of a celibate priest
from Hardwar. His Divine Light Mission was about to launch the
beginning of 1,000 years of peace and plenty.
Those were exciting times indeed, with the Guru cult peaking in the
USA. About 125 Indian godmen were operating in the country, with 25
big league ones establshed in oppulent ashrams in major cities.
Today many of these have been discredited, their spiritual heads
having fallen victim to their own messages. But in the beginning they
appeared as meassaiahs to a hippie generation unable to make sense of
a chaos of their own creating. Their deification of poverty, non-
attachment to material things, rebirth, karma and a lot of other
claptrap seemed to offer values unknown to a rootless society. They
raked in the money and earned themselves rolls royces, private jets,
commode seats of solid gold, and other riches dear to an Indian's
heart.
Today, what Naipaul describes as "the recurring crooked comedy" of our
godmen is by no means played out. Quite a number of hardcore
nincompoops still hang on, like so many limpets. What do these
disciples seek? And what do they get? Do godmen provide solace?
The guru cult, according to Nirad Choudhuri in his book Hinduism, is
an example of how this religion seeks to personalise an idea with
reference to the two strongest impulses that move humans - a need for
power and a need for protection. The guru-shisya bond adequately
answers this dependency need. Traditionally, a Guru is a human
incarnation to his followers. They even offer prayers and puja to his
portrait. And they follow his instructions without question. Many go
to more abject lengths of attending to his personal needs, chewing
betel nut taken from his mouth, drinking holy water stirred with his
big toe, and even swilling his morning's micturation.
Undoubtedly, they are deriving something from their self abasement.
Such symbiosis is found even in Nature where two different species
benefit from a kind of mutualism. It would be simple to enlarge on
this in facetious vein, for nothing amuses and astonishes skeptics
more than the bizarre relationships we witness between godmen and
their followers. Nevertheless, however ridiculous these appear, the
fact remains that one or both are in some way benefiting from the
bond.
Traditionally, a Guru is more than a mere guide and mentor. He is seen
as a man who has achieved remarkable "spiritual" stature. This could
mean he has an exemplary moral character. It could also mean, in
popular terms, that he is a magician with power over spirits and an
adept in occult practices and magic.
Chaudhuri describes a Guru thus: "He is always a man who has attained
to a high religious status in the world by leading a genuinely devout
life, or practising nothing better than charlatanry."
For Hindus, the godman as Guru is one who can provide them access to
the Higher Reality. There is no scientific explanation for this
supranormal level of Awareness. But it is there, and it can be tapped
as a source of Knowledge with a capital K. The chief goal of one's
search for meaning in life is the achievement of this Higher
Consciousness. Its realisation endows one with all wisdom, enabling
people like Giggling-Guru Mahesh Yogi to expound the Unified Field
Force of Vedic Science with an absolutely straight face.
Frustration with one's common lot and an inability to cope with stress
sends people in search of a Guru for solace. Psycho-analyst, Sudhir
Kakar writes: "The godman or the devotee turns his back on the
painfulness of a hard reality-experience of loss and disappointment in
close human relationships - to retreat into a world of imagination
where the unacceptable reality is sought to be replaced by an inner
one in which he can feel vigorous and powerful, no longer dependent on
others' whims. The way of the godman, the spiritual path, is then the
culturally sanctioned way to deal with frustration and depression."
In his book Shamans, Mystics and Doctors, Kakar describes his
encounters with Her Holiness Mataji Nirmala Devi - the plump and
motherly godwoman challenged successfully by rationalists in Pune in
December, and earlier forced to cut short her visit to her home town,
Nagpur, for refusing to answer awkward questions about her miraculous
powers. She had to run away from Trivandrum (Kerala) also when she
tried to raise the Kundalini power of the journalists. He examines the
susceptibility of the human mind in faith healing. "The apparent
success of different healing methods based on all kinds of religious
faiths and secular ideologies compels the not improbable conclusion
that the healing power resides primarily within the patient's mind
than in the tenets of these faiths and ideologies."
He remarks on the self-image projected by people like Mataji that of a
protective mother, possessive and warm yet in control (come sit on my
lap, my head, says she). The Maharaj Charan Singh of the Radha Saomi
sect he sees as a benign patriach, while Bhagwan Rajneesh is indulgent
and encouraging of his 'children.'
This parent-child transaction is commonly found in the guru-shishya
bond. But for us skeptics the problem arises when we see such
confidence exploited by a godman resorting to fraud and conjuring. It
baffles us that hundreds honestly believe the Satya Sai Baba can
produce something out of nothing, and really materialises gold, jewels
and vibhuti by divine power. Such a guru-chela relationship is a fake.
But how impossible it proves to convince the followers of that! Their
ability to reason is jambed in a kind of mind-set. They are not
interested in knowing the truth, because knowing it will not help
fulfill their dependency needs.
I recall a mild debate that arose in our local paper on whether the
Makarajyoti at Sabarimala is genuine or not. One reader wrote in to
say the question was of no importance. "If people want to be fooled
what harm is there?"
The same could also be said of religion. But we know too much of
baneful effects of blind belief to shelve the argument so easily.
Essays on "DO GODMEN PROVIDE SOLACE?" - for and against are welcome
from the readers and other thinkers for publication in the INDIAN
SKEPTIC.
The University of Regensburg neither approves nor disapproves of the
opinions expressed here. They are solely the responsibility of the
person named below.
Gerald...@r.maus.de
Last update: 19 June 1998
bademiyansubhanallah
The portrayal of a misguided notion
6 Oct 2009, 0349 hrs IST, Mukul Sharma,
The 2007 bestseller, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything
by Christopher Hitchens, received critical acclaim from reviewers who
even compared it with Bertrand Russell’s classic anti-theist work Why
I Am Not a Christian . Religion, wrote Hitchens, is violent,
irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism and bigotry, and
invested in ignorance. Guilty of misogyny, child abuse and fraud on a
monumental scale, “it is a plagiarism of a plagiarism, hearsay of a
hearsay, an illusion of an illusion.”
More specifically, he said religion misrepresents the origins of
humankind and the cosmos, demands unreasonable suppression of human
nature, inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority
and expresses hostility to free inquiry.
It’s obvious that after unleashing such violence against a belief
system adhered to or practised by over 90% of the world, Hitchens
would lay the blame squarely at the feet of the source of such belief
— God — and pronounce that, under the circumstances, He couldn’t
possibly be great by any stretch of imagination.
And right he would be. For anyone who manages to wade through the
litany of physical and mental savagery perpetrated in the name of
faith down the ages should, logically, come to the same conclusion. Is
it any wonder then that hostile reviewers (many of those too) didn’t
acknowledge this fact but instead attacked the author of shoddy
research, sloppy erudition, sly distortions, misrepresentation of
scriptures and juvenile characterisation of religious belief. Some of
this criticism was correct but completely dodged the issue enfolded in
the provocative title.
Because where Hitchens is wrong is that God — if such a thing exists,
of course — doesn’t have to be great. The mistake lies in providing
Him, Her or It with a superhuman attribute that can be equated with
comic book characters like Wonder Woman or Spiderman, forgetting in
the process that something which is capable of creating whole
universes would neither need such exaltation from a small planet nor
necessarily be honoured by it.
That same God would also have to be intimately associated with
everything happening in the cosmos including, as far as our recent
existence goes, what we perceive as good and what we think of as evil.
Turns out, all Hitchens was doing was demolishing a very simple-minded
notion with an equally simple-minded rebuttal.
bademiyansubhanallah
A Pooh sequel after 80 years
FELICIA R. LEE
A man takes the Winnie-the-Pooh book, Return to the Hundred Acre Wood,
at a London bookshop . (Reuters)
New York, Oct. 5: Return to the Hundred Acre Wood, the first
authorised sequel to the A. A. Milne classic Winnie-the-Pooh books in
more than 80 years, was released today, inviting the question, “Why
now?,” as well as, “Why do it at all?”
“Some people said it shouldn’t be done, and there will still be some
of that now, this feeling that this is a gleaming jewel in the world
of children’s books and don’t mess around with it,” Michael Brown,
chairman of the Pooh Properties Trust, said of creating the sequel.
“This doesn’t damage the original stories at all, though, and allows
us to continue the stories in a world of kindness, cheerfulness,
laughter and fun.”
A less sanguine assessment came from Elizabeth Bluemle, a children’s
book author, co-owner of the Flying Pig Bookstore in Shelburne,
Vermont, and president of the Association of Booksellers for Children.
Spinoffs and sequels tend to be “thin soup”, she said in an email
message, and can keep children away from the original, better-written
books.
The new Pooh book has plenty of Pooh-related company: books, feature
films, television shows, video games, many of which stray far from
authentic Milne and are not overseen by the trust. The Walt Disney
Company holds the Pooh merchandising rights.
Return to the Hundred Acre Wood, with 10 stories, is by David
Benedictus, an English writer whose work includes several novels.
Illustrations are by Mark Burgess, an English writer and illustrator
of many children’s books.
Published by Dutton Children’s Books, an imprint of Penguin Young
Readers Group, Return has a robust first printing of 300,000 copies in
16 languages.
NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE
bademiyansubhanallah
A MAN OUT OF HIS TIME
- Manu Shroff was an ironist worth chuckling with
Writing on the wall
Ashok V. Desai
IG Patel is a legend. He was the chief economist in the finance
ministry in the 1960s. He left, rather than serve, a corrupt minister
Indira Gandhi appointed in the ministry. Later on, he became governor
of the Reserve Bank and director of the London School of Economics. To
cap it, he wrote some entertaining memoirs when he retired to his home
town, Gujarat.
He had a friend who also retired to Baroda, and built a house within a
stone’s throw from IG’s. This friend too was an economist, and spent
the best years of his life working in the finance ministry with IG. He
did not receive accolades like IG; in fact, he was largely unknown
except to aficionados of the finance ministry and of economic policy.
After retiring from the finance ministry, he became editor of the
Economic Times. Anyway, the liaison, not surprisingly, did not last
long.
I knew Manu Shroff since I spent some time in the 1960s in Delhi. I
was always impressed by his robust common sense and sound judgment,
and thought it went well with his low-key, unassuming personality.
Then I left for other parts of the world, and he for Bombay and
Baroda, so I did not see much of him.
I had seen virtually nothing written by him, and had assumed that this
refusal to express himself was a part of his modesty. But that was a
misjudgment. A bureaucrat writes reams in his lifetime; it is just
that it is buried in files and never sees the light of day. And there
is a convention that it must stay in files and cannot be published.
Thus it is that the wisdom of some highly intelligent people remains
buried — amongst them, Amar Nath Verma, L.K. Jha and Manu Shroff.
It would be hard to retrieve the writings of such a retiring
economist, but Deena Khatkhate has, in a labour of love, collected the
writings of Manu Shroff (Indian Economy: A Retrospective View,
Academic Foundation, 2009, Rs 295). It is disappointing but natural
that it contains nothing from Manu Shroff’s time as a bureaucrat.
Khatkhate calls it a retrospective view, but what I found remarkable
was the absence of the retrospective: there is nothing in this volume
that would throw light on what Manu Shroff thought of his time in the
finance ministry, of the economic problems he encountered while there,
why the government did what it did then, and what he thought of the
policies he helped sculpt.
That matters, not because the policies were much to boast about — I
think the years from the 1950s to the 1970s were lost decades, and
that stupid socialist dogma set India back thirty years. Nor would
they be anything to write home about; if Manu Shroff was an architect
of the disastrous policies of that time, then he might as well pass
into oblivion with the lost decades.
But he was not. He was an intelligent liberal. He was devastatingly
critical of the socialist era. This volume contains a response Manu
Shroff wrote to Deepak Nayyar’s 1993 critique of the reforms. I was
then in the finance ministry, and gave a hand in designing the
reforms. Deepak Nayyar was chief economic advisor in the finance
ministry during the 1980s. That does not mean that he was responsible
for the payments crisis of 1989-91. But he was an important member of
the team that made an ineffectual response to the crisis. Eventually,
all those who dealt with the crisis and failed, from V.P. Singh and
Chandra Shekhar down to Deepak Nayyar, were swept aside. Narasimha Rao
came in together with Manmohan Singh and P. Chidambaram, jettisoned
the hallowed policies of controls, and heralded the period of high
growth and increasing openness that continues till today. Being in the
government, I was gagged; but even if I had been able to, I could not
have given a better response to Deepak Nayyar. Manu Shroff summarizes
Nayyar’s attack in ten points and dissects them; in the end, nothing
is left.
I have just been to the G20 summit in Pittsburgh and witnessed the
deliberations that went on there about what to do with the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and how to give them
more funds. I was disappointed but not surprised that Manu Shroff
participated in the same debates 30 years earlier, as a paper from the
1970s shows. The idea was then, and still is, that developing
countries are subject to peculiar balance of payments problems. Since
they do not produce capital goods and goods in which there are
important economies of scale, their growth is highly import-intensive.
And since they export mostly primary goods, their exports are highly
inelastic. So to develop, they need aid of two sorts. They need
temporary loans to support their balance of payments, and they need
aid for long-term investment to change their production profile. The
International Monetary Fund was designed to give the first, and the
World Bank to give the second. But giving money to developing
countries is risky, so the IMF and the World Bank cannot easily raise
money from the market. If they cannot, they must be given money by
industrial countries. Developing countries like that idea; industrial
countries do not. They meet every once in a while in nice places like
Washington and Pittsburgh, argue and then go their own way. Manu
Shroff took part in those civilized debates in the 1970s; I watched
them from the sidelines in 2009. Some things will never change.
If economists have to think and talk about such serious issues for
decades without reaching any solution, their lives must be depressing;
one might wonder why they do not commit suicide. The remedy lies in a
sense of humour. Manu Shroff had a distinctive line in irony. Take,
for instance, what he has to say about Savak Tarapore, a grey eminence
of the Reserve Bank of India: “He has been generally conservative.
Though one notices an occasional uncharacteristic boldness, which can
perhaps be ascribed to the state of ‘nivrutti’, which he enjoys like
many of us.”
Manu Shroff is essential reading for understanding the economic
history of our times; and more remarkably, it is entertaining reading.
Reading his writings, I was often struck by how similarly we thought,
and how he often put something better than I would. Then I thought,
here is a man who could have done just the reforms we did in the
1990s; perhaps he could have done them better. He could have become a
celebrity. It was just his misfortune that he was born at the wrong
time, and served the wrong government.
But I doubt if he would have looked at it that way. He would have had
no regrets. He might have taken some satisfaction in the fact that he
did his job competently and conscientiously, he might have chuckled at
some of the human follies he encountered. He does that often in this
book, and he is worth chuckling with.
bademiyansubhanallah
MEN WITHOUT WOMEN
Is it merely a coincidence that some of the greatest men in the
history of Western culture were unmarried? wonders Satrujit Banerjee
Goethe in the Roman Campagna, Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein
If you were asked to name the leading lights of Western philosophy
down the ages, the following will, without doubt, feature prominently:
Friedrich Nietzsche, George Santayana, Jean-Paul Sartre, Benedict de
Spinoza, Arthur Schopenhauer, Henry David Thoreau, Voltaire, Ludwig
Wittgenstein, Immanuel Kant, Søren Kierkegaard, John Locke and David
Hume. Any listing of great historians, novelists and poets of Europe
will feature Samuel Butler, Gustave Flaubert, Edward Gibbon, Oliver
Goldsmith, Washington Irving, Franz Kafka, Charles Lamb, T.E.
Lawrence, Henry James, Alexander Pope, Marcel Proust, Stendhal and
Jonathan Swift. When citing great composers of Western classical
music, Franz Schubert, Johannes Brahms, Frédéric Chopin and Ludwig van
Beethoven can never be overlooked. Eugène Delacroix, Vincent van Gogh,
Michelangelo, Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec and Leonardo da Vinci would
grace any shortlist of immortal painters and sculptors not only of
Europe but also of the entire world. Talking of scientists, among
household names are Nicolaus Copernicus, René Descartes, Galileo
Galilei, Blaise Pascal and Isaac Newton. Now add to this already
impressive list, the economist, Adam Smith, and Giacomo Casanova —
better known as a womanizer but who authored arguably the most
authentic source of customs and norms of European social life during
the 18th century — and the entire list reads like a roll-call of the
architects of Western civilization.
Incidentally, some insist, not surprisingly, that they were all
bachelors. And if one were to take into consideration the immense
contributions of the many (ostensibly) celibate medieval monks and
theologians such as Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham,
Desiderius Erasmus and Michael Servetus, who were instrumental in
dragging Europe out of the dark Age of Faith and paving the way for
the glorious Renaissance, then a clearer picture emerges of the vital
role unmarried men played in this remarkable journey.
“Woman inspires us to great things,” remarked Alexandre Dumas, “and
prevents us from achieving them.” The bitter Nietzsche considered
marriage (if not women, in general) to be a distraction from
philosophical pursuits. Many other eminent men may not have been
bachelors, but were effectively single — in the way Benjamin Franklin,
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Milton, Thomas Paine or Shakespeare
remained. “Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the
public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men,” wrote
Francis Bacon, not a bachelor, but perhaps wishing he were. “Love is
an ideal thing, marriage a real thing,” notes Goethe. “A confusion of
the real with the ideal never goes unpunished.”
Some years ago, a noted Japanese researcher analysed the biographical
data of some 280 famous scientists and discovered that they all peaked
professionally in their twenties, beyond which their careers spiralled
downward. Married scientists suffered the worst decline in
productivity. However, those who never married remained highly
productive well into their fifties. One theory suggests that married
men lack an evolutionary reason to continue working hard — that is, to
attract females. More likely is the fact that they lack the time and
solitude. The polymath and eminent critic, George Steiner, observed,
“Philosophy is an unworldly, abstruse, often egomaniacal obsession.
Marriage is about roughage, bills, garbage disposal, and noise. There
is something vulgar, almost absurd, in the notion of a Mrs Plato or a
Mme Descartes, or of Wittgenstein on a honeymoon.”
The single life may be ideal for a Copernicus or a Sartre, but isn’t
there some truth in the old Puritan notion that the bachelor is a
menace to society? In Sex and Destiny: The Politics of Human
Fertility, Germaine Greer notes that “the most threatened group in
human society, as in animal societies, is the unmated male: the
unmated male is more likely to wind up in prison or in an asylum or
dead than his mated counterpart. He is less likely to be promoted at
work, and he is considered a poor credit risk”. Also, there is a
school of thought which holds, with some justification, that the
female, in her dual tasks as mother and wife, plays a crucial role in
tempering the testosterone-fuelled excesses of the young male, and are
the carriers of morality and the shapers of the next generation. The
French diplomat, Talleyrand, may be one of the most versatile and
influential personalities in European history, but he is also
remembered as a womanizer. He reasoned that the married man was the
steady one: “a married man with a family will do anything for money.”
But the other common belief that men need durable ties to women to
discipline themselves for civilized life is debatable as women’s
attitude to life has changed drastically in recent times. Women now
argue that they, too, are equally in need of the good old civilizing
influence as much as the men.
It is easy to adopt an iconic view of the bachelor — a resigned cynic
or hopeless romantic, a man of infinite sorrow and sophistication, of
real or imagined conquests, or the misanthropic bar-room brawler. But,
in fact, no single image prevails. What could be more bittersweet than
the memories of unrequited love nursed by an old bachelor? Irving was
one well acquainted with this sentiment: “With married men their
amorous romance is apt to decline after marriage…but with a bachelor,
though it may slumber, it never dies. It is always liable to break out
again in transient flashes.”
Times have changed, but not quite to the bachelor’s advantage. Old dad
is unable to work overtime because he has promised to run Missy to her
ballet class and Master to his football practice. He is reluctant to
leave town because the Missus has been tetchy about his too-frequent
travel, and likes to remind him that she too works, and how unfair it
is to expect her to do it all. The bachelor, by contrast, is believed
to have few responsibilities and can work as many hours as needed or
cover for his married colleagues, particularly for the much maligned
mothers on the staff.
One enduring myth holds that the bachelor is an expert on the female
sex, a legend encouraged by the married H.L. Mencken, “the sage of
Baltimore”, who affirmed that “Bachelors know more about women than
married men; if they didn’t they’d be married too”. The story further
goes that the bachelor’s married friends seldom speak of their
troubles, though their eyes betray a deep-rooted sorrow and a tragic
lonesomeness, not least due to an unfilled desire for male
companionship. “If you are afraid of loneliness,” warned the famous
Russian doctor-turned-story-teller, Anton Chekhov, “don’t marry.”
bademiyansubhanallah
At Tihar, Naxal leader writing book on dead wife
Abhishek Sharan, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, October 05, 2009
First Published: 00:39 IST(5/10/2009)
Last Updated: 00:41 IST(5/10/2009)
Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy, who is currently lodged in Tihar Jail,
has decided to write a book in the memory of his wife and comrade
Anuradha Shanbag.
On April 12 last year, his wife died due to cerebral malaria while
staying ‘underground’ at an undisclosed location in the Naxal
stronghold of Chhattisgarh.
The prison authorities have given the politburo member of the banned
CPI (Maoist) enough space by giving him a cell completely to himself.
Normally, four inmates share a cell in Tihar.
The London-educated leader’s two-room cell also has an attached
bathroom and toilet.
Superintendent Manoj Dwivedi of Sub-jail number 3 said, “Kobad Ghandy
told us that he needed space and a relative calm, which was not
possible in a typical cell for an under trial like him having four
inmates, to concentrate on writing the book.”
Acceding to his “request” on “humanitarian grounds”, the jail
administration accommodated Ghandy’s cellmates (three) to another
cell.
Shanbag, wife of 63-year-old Ghandy, who was in-charge of expanding
the party in urban areas and played a crucial role in getting
international recognition for the party, was herself a revolutionary,
as Ghandy described her to the jail officials.
He told them that she was the lone female member of the central
committee of the CPI (Maoist) and had married him in 1983.
Ghandy is expected to reminisce in his book his and Shanbag's years of
“struggle for the disempowered” in Maharashtra and Chattisgarh.
Ghandy has already been provided plain sheets of paper and writing
material, the jail superintendent said.
He has not sought any reading materials from the sub-jail’s library
though.
“Our library is very basic, meant for the semi-educated inmates that
usually abound here. It’s not for an intellectual like Ghandy who can
write a book himself, not just read them,” said Dwivedi.
He added that Ghandy does not mix much with other inmates.
“They have no time for somebody like Ghandy and call men like him
‘mental’,” he said.
Ghandy, who is afflicted with prostate cancer and cardiac problems,
has been referred to the jail’s hospital for “routine treatment” by
the doctors at Gobind Ballabh Pant Hospital.
The latter, despite Ghandy’s request, maintained that there was no
need as of now to admit him in their hospital, said the jail official.
The official said, “Ghandy alleges the Pant hospital doctors acted at
the behest of the Delhi police and fears he might be taken in police
custody by the Special Cell.”
Ghandy has been charged with provisions of the central Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act.
chhotemianinshallah
100 Most Influential Books Ever Written
by Martin Seymour-Smith
Note: This list is in chronological order. I've gotten e-mails from
people who complain that there are too many religious books on the
list. Say what you want, but you cannot deny that religion has been
influential in human history. I'm sure that's what Seymour-Smith had
in mind.
See the Great Books FAQ for more about the Great Books and these lists
of them.
1.The I Ching
2.The Old Testament
3.The Iliad and The Odyssey by Homer
4.The Upanishads
5.The Way and Its Power, Lao-tzu
6.The Avesta
7.Analects, Confucius
8.History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides
9.Works, Hippocrates
10.Works, Aristotle
11.History, Herodotus
12.The Republic, Plato
13.Elements, Euclid
14.The Dhammapada
15.Aeneid, Virgil
16.On the Nature of Reality, Lucretius
17.Allegorical Expositions of the Holy Laws, Philo of Alexandria
18.The New Testament
19.Lives, Plutarch
20.Annals, from the Death of the Divine Augustus, Cornelius Tacitus
21.The Gospel of Truth
22.Meditations, Marcus Aurelius
23.Outlines of Pyrrhonism, Sextus Empiricus
24.Enneads, Plotinus
25.Confessions, Augustine of Hippo
26.The Koran
27.Guide for the Perplexed, Moses Maimonides
28.The Kabbalah
29.Summa Theologicae, Thomas Aquinas
30.The Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri
31.In Praise of Folly, Desiderius Erasmus
32.The Prince, Niccolò Machiavelli
33.On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Martin Luther
34.Gargantua and Pantagruel, François Rabelais
35.Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin
36.On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs, Nicolaus Copernicus
37.Essays, Michel Eyquem de Montaigne
38.Don Quixote, Parts I and II, Miguel de Cervantes
39.The Harmony of the World, Johannes Kepler
40.Novum Organum, Francis Bacon
41.The First Folio [Works], William Shakespeare
42.Dialogue Concerning Two New Chief World Systems, Galileo Galilei
43.Discourse on Method, René Descartes
44.Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
45.Works, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
46.Pensées, Blaise Pascal
47.Ethics, Baruch de Spinoza
48.Pilgrim's Progress, John Bunyan
49.Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Isaac Newton
50.Essay Concerning Human Understanding, John Locke
51.The Principles of Human Knowledge, George Berkeley
52.The New Science, Giambattista Vico
53.A Treatise of Human Nature, David Hume
54.The Encyclopedia, Denis Diderot, ed.
55.A Dictionary of the English Language, Samuel Johnson
56.Candide, François-Marie de Voltaire
57.Common Sense, Thomas Paine
58.An Enquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,
Adam Smith
59.The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward
Gibbon
60.Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel Kant
61.Confessions, Jean-Jacques Rousseau
62.Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke
63.Vindication of the Rights of Women, Mary Wollstonecraft
64.An Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, William Godwin
65.An Essay on the Principle of Population, Thomas Robert Malthus
66.Phenomenology of Spirit, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
67.The World as Will and Idea, Arthur Schopenhauer
68.Course in the Positivist Philosophy, Auguste Comte
69.On War, Carl Marie von Clausewitz
70.Either/Or, Søren Kierkegaard
71.The Manifesto of the Communist Party, Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels
72."Civil Disobedience," Henry David Thoreau
73.The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin
74.On Liberty, John Stuart Mill
75.First Principles, Herbert Spencer
76."Experiments with Plant Hybrids," Gregor Mendel
77.War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy
78.Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, James Clerk Maxwell
79.Thus Spake Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche
80.The Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud
81.Pragmatism, William James
82.Relativity, Albert Einstein
83.The Mind and Society, Vilfredo Pareto
84.Psychological Types, Carl Gustav Jung
85.I and Thou, Martin Buber
86.The Trial, Franz Kafka
87.The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Karl Popper
88.The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, John Maynard
Keynes
89.Being and Nothingness, Jean-Paul Sartre
90.The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich von Hayek
91.The Second Sex, Simone de Beauvoir
92.Cybernetics, Norbert Wiener
93.Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell
94.Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson, George Ivanovitch Gurdjieff
95.Philosophical Investigations, Ludwig Wittgenstein
96.Syntactic Structures, Noam Chomsky
97.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, T. S. Kuhn
98.The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan
99.Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung [The Little Red Book], Mao
Zedong
100.Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B. F. Skinner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Seymour-Smith, Martin. 100 Most Influential Books Ever
Written. Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1998. © 1998 Martin Seymour-
Smith
The content of this page may belong to the author. The transcription,
however, is the result of my research and hard work. It may not be
reposted on any Web site, newsgroup, mailing list, or other publicly
available electronic format. Please link to this page instead.
-----
First posted: December 2002
Updated: March 25, 2008
Praise? Blame? Advice? Comments? Send me your thoughts
URL: http://www.interleaves.org/~rteeter/grtinfluential.html
bademiyansubhanallah
An open mind to carry oneself
Radhika Mimani
First Published : 06 Oct 2009 12:13:00 AM IST
Last Updated : 06 Oct 2009 02:18:52 PM IST
The need for self-approval is striking at times. And ‘striking’ in all
its senses. ‘Fashion is being comfortable in your own skin’, is a
rather clichéd definition. Moreover, the irony is that it has nothing
to do with those saying it. After all, who isn’t comfortable in
designer skins, when others lurk at your haute couture with jealousy?
A few evenings back at an uptown bar, my husband made a rather
startling behavioural observation under the gleam of neon lights and
sound of experimental DJ music. Every time a swanky woman entered the
lounge, heads turned and eyes stared. But the interesting part is that
this head count had more women than men. No, there is no issue of
lesbianism here (we already have an overdose of reports on it).
Women have their own reasons to look with interest at other women.
Fashion feisty that we have grown; it matters if my Gucci is better
than her Prada or her Dior outshines my Chanel. In addition, the
accompanying paraphernalia of fashion is ever growing. After all,
girls will be girls. From stilettos to hand bags, bracelets to
chandeliers (they have found their place from our ceilings to the ears
as well) it all counts. I have myself indulged in such conversations
at parties and know others do as well. Just as you take the glass to
the lips and turn around, you see another guest entering and between
the sip you mutter, “Oh! What a gauche she looks”. Suddenly there is a
glint in your eyes. The tackily dressed guest gives you a double
bonanza. Firstly, you get something to gossip about and secondly,
secretly it boosts your confidence and ego. One less to compete in
style and panache.
Funny as it may sound, we spend half a fortune for our outfits to
become conversational topics at social evenings. Well, I myself revel
in such trivialities. However, that is how our sensibility and
sensitivity have evolved. There is another interesting insight in the
fairer sex behaviour. While in her late twenties and early thirties,
basking in the prime of her youth, a woman desires to catch every
man’s fancy. The same is also true of the men folk at this age, which
is attracting the opposite sex. However, with time and age while most
men grow out of this vanity, women change their target. Now the
purpose of all embellishments and adornments is to attract every other
woman’s attention. Yes, it is somewhat conceit but gratifies us
nevertheless.
Whether you are a human rights activist, or an art aficionado, a
litterateur or a socialite, what you wear and how you wear should say
it all. And bling! Do it all with élan. Make a statement but the trick
is to do it without words. I guess it is here that style and fashion
diverge. Style defines the individual while fashion defines the
designer. Our excessive fancy and over experimentation with fashion
rather leaves us a nonentity. Stendhal, the great French writer
remarked, “Only great minds can afford simple style.” I believe it is
true because while great minds have strikingly fashionable ideas and
thoughts, we are still hankering about Fall Winter Collection 2009.
Maybe we hide our unimaginativeness behind the façade of ensembles and
accessories. Gail Rubin Bereny said, “Above all, remember that the
most important thing that you can take anywhere is not a Gucci bag or
French cut jeans; it’s an open mind.”
bademiyansubhanallah
Behind brand Booker
ANURADHA ROY
Unpredictable, arbitrary, unreliable…The Man Booker Prize may be all
that and more. Yet, for 40 years, it has unfailingly picked winners
that have staying power. Who will win it this October 6?
Market forces and media pressures …have made a competitive sport out
of literary awards, and the run-up to the Booker smells more of a
soccer game than a salon.
Photo: AP
The literary award as a competitive sport: The judges for the Man
Booker Prize (from left) John Mullan, Lucasta Miller, Chair James
Naughtie, Sue Perkins, and Michael Prodger with the shortlisted
novels.
There will be five exhausted writers in search of refuge on October 6,
2009. A sixth will be the ecstatic, just-crowned winner of this year’s
Man Booker Prize.
The practice of releasing a Booker longlist of 12 to 13 books began in
2001; after a month, it is winnowed down to a shortlist. The six
shortlisted authors have another month to wait before the prize is
announced. This month passes in a maelstrom of speculation, betting
and controversies, taut with delight and terror. Although, as 1996
winner Graham Swift said, “Prizes don’t make writers ... and writers
don’t write to win prizes,” the pressure is monstrous. This year’s
favourite, Hilary Mantel, describes her state of mind thus: “By the
time the shortlist is released you simply don’t know what to do with
yourself. You realise that, in effect, by becoming a writer you have
agreed to sit exams all your life ... the more public the process is,
the more cruel.”
When the first Booker was awarded in 1969 to P. H. Newby, the process
of choosing a winner was neither as interminable nor as public. Market
forces and media pressures in the intervening 40 years have made a
competitive sport out of literary awards, and the run-up to the Booker
smells more of a soccer game than a salon. Bookies change the stakes
every day. The judges are judged. Blogs are on fire. Authors make
provocative statements. This year, A.S. Byatt has worried that “...the
increasing appearance of ‘faction’ — mixtures of biography and
fiction, journalism and invention... feels like the appropriation of
others’ lives and privacy.” Is this an attempt to guillotine her
rival, Hilary Mantel, whose shortlisted book, Wolf, is about Henry
VIII and Cromwell? (Ironically, Byatt’s Possession, which won in 1990,
drew on the life of Robert Browning.)
Controversial
The Booker thrives on controversy, and its downfall is regularly
forecast. In previous years, columnists have railed against
shortlisted novels written “for prizes”. By this they meant less-than-
gripping novels about war/ genocide/ terrorism/racism. Jock Campbell,
who started the Booker foundation in the 1940s — initially to provide
a tax haven for his friend Ian Fleming — grumbled some years ago that
the modern literary novel needed “better story-lines”. In1996, A.N.
Wilson mourned the demise of the Booker in a newspaper article.
Columnists have claimed that the Booker no longer makes a difference
to sales. When Keri Hulme’s The Bone People was published, its print-
run was 800 copies, and one review called it a “disaster”. After it
won, it sold 34,000 copies. No longer, said journalists: the Booker
was losing its alchemic touch. Because it went year after year to
worthy novels nobody enjoyed reading, people had stopped buying
shortlisted books.
This year, one columnist has called the shortlist a “literary
staycation” — when Irish, Commonwealth and British writers are all
eligible, five of the shortlisted authors are home-grown, and
historical fiction focused on Britain dominates (see box). If Adiga’s
The White Tiger (India/ poverty/ class war) had come out this year,
where would it be? If Nadeem Aslam’s The Wasted Vigil (Afghanistan/
terrorism) or Kamila Shamsie’s Burnt Shadows (Pakistan/ Hiroshima/
terrorism) had been published last year, they may have been guaranteed
shortlist slots. For authors, it’s the luck of the draw.
How reliable then is the Booker as branding for literary fiction? Can
it remain the Levis of the English literary world?
If anything appears consistent, it is the unpredictability of the
Booker. A Nobel for literature is given for the life’s work of a
writer, not for one book. About 160 major libraries across the world
nominate novels for the longlist of Dublin’s Impac Award. The Costa is
given in five categories, First Novel, Novel, Biography, Poetry and
Children’s Book. The Orange Prize too has a separate First Book
category.
Arbitrary
The Booker has no categories, there is just the one big prize. (It
might be argued that this “All or Nothing” is what creates an extra
frisson.) There are no set criteria. Everything depends on the year’s
five judges, who admit that the selection process is subjective. Their
tastes, and their power-games, decide writers’ destinies. One judge,
Joanna Lumley, described the “so-called bitchy world of acting” as “a
Brownie’s tea party compared with the piranha-infested waters of
publishing.”
Judges have themselves been controversial. The year Naipaul won (for
In a Free State), Malcolm Muggeridge resigned as a judge, “nauseated
and appalled” by the submissions. Kingsley Amis was shortlisted when
his wife was one of the judges. The critic James Wood recommended a
novel by Clare Messud to his fellow judges, neglecting to mention that
she was his wife. In 1993, the publisher Anthony Cheetham called the
judges “a bunch of wankers” for not shortlisting Vikram Seth’s A
Suitable Boy.
The process is arbitrary from the start: novels can be submitted for
the prize only by publishers. Authors cannot enter their own books.
Each publisher is allowed to submit two titles. (Past winners are
automatically considered, and judges can call for a few titles.)
Gossip networks claimed that Rushdie made it a contractual obligation
for his publisher to submit The Enchantress of Florence. What of
writers like Yann Martel (winner, 2002), whose The Life of Pi was a
first book? Would it even have been submitted for the prize if,
instead of a small press in Edinburgh, the book had come out from a
monolith dominated by literary superstars? Another debut, Adiga’s The
White Tiger (winner, 2008), was published by an independent press with
a small list — one reason it was submitted for the prize at all.
Test of time
Whatever its drawbacks, for 40 years, the Booker has picked novels
with staying power. All but one of the winners remain in print, when
forests of fiction are turned into paper bags. For Indians writing in
English, the Man Booker Prize is among the richest, most prestigious
prizes for which they are eligible. Apart from the prize money, film
deals can follow, publishing contracts become more lucrative, the
author’s life changes.
Exactly how transformational is the Booker? Here is Sebastian Barry,
on being shortlisted last year:
“As usual, there is no one in the house when you need to tell someone
something urgently. There is a silence and a gap and a happiness. It
is almost odd to be so happy, because a lot of literary experience is
like boxing. Once you’ve had a few KOs against you, you tend to go
quiet in the face of any possible victory. But again the Booker seems
to brush all that aside. You’re a Blakean kid again, with all your
experience perhaps, but something else again. There is a tincture of
newness, new territory, impossible good luck ...”
bademiyansubhanallah
Booker shortlist 2009
NEEL MUKHERJEE.
Short takes on this year’s nominations by novelist
A.S. Byatt, The Children’s Book. Byatt visits the Edwardian era in her
complex and layered novel on the intertwined fates of two artistic
families, the Wellwoods and the Fludds, and delivers a devastating
novel about childhood and its loss. It is also a characteristically
dense Byatt novel: by the time you finish it, you have learnt
everything about the Edwardian period that there is to know.
J.M. Coetzee, Summertime. The third instalment in the trilogy of
“fictionalised memoir” that includes Boyhood and Youth, Summertime
involves an English biographer’s research into the artistically
critical years, 1972-77, of the late South African writer John
Coetzee. Playful, elusive, yet unrelentingly honest, Summertime makes
a ringing claim for the truth that only fiction can tell.
Adam Foulds, The Quickening Maze. Foulds’s second novel, written in
lyrical, restrained prose of near-perfection, is a deceptively slim
book about the incarceration of the 19th-century nature poet John
Clare in an asylum in Epping Forest in the late 1830s. It is also a
subtle meditation on the mysterious nature of the creative process.
Hilary Mantel, Wolf Hall. Mantel’s novel about Thomas Cromwell follows
him from his shadowy origins as a blacksmith’s son in Putney to his
elevation as the indispensable right-hand man of Henry VIII. The book
ends with the death of Thomas More in 1535, so there’s a follow-up on
its way; Cromwell lived until 1540. Nothing like this book exists in
contemporary English writing: its history is so deeply inhabited, its
narration in terms of both point of view and style so utterly
original, that it animates the Tudor era miraculously.
Simon Mawer, The Glass Room. Viktor and Liesel Landauer have architect
Rainer von Abt build them a modernist masterpiece, Der Galsraum, in
Czechoslovakia. But this is the late 1930s and the Landauers flee the
country as Nazis take over their house of dreams. The whole troubled
history of the 20th century then unfolds through reflection in the
Glass Room.
Sarah Waters, The Little Stranger. Waters does the ghost story in this
novel about a working-class country GP, Dr. Faraday, visiting a
patient in Hundreds Hall, the seat of the Ayres family, now fallen on
hard times. The year is 1947, the patient is a 14-year-old skivvy, and
there are inexplicable and spooky goings-on in the Georgian manor
house. Waters is scalpel-sharp in her dissection of post-war class
hierarchies and attitudes.
Neel Mukherjee is the author of the novel, Past Continuous, which own
the Crossword Award, 2009.
bademiyansubhanallah
Hilary Mantel wins Booker for 16th century tale
STAFF WRITER 10:3 HRS IST
Prasun Sonwalkar
London, Oct 7 (PTI) In a short-list bereft of Indian writers, this
year's Man Booker prize has gone to British novelist Hilary Mantel for
her gripping 16th century tale titled 'Wolf Hall'.
Mantel, 57, received 50,000 pounds as prize money last night in what
is considered one of the English-speaking world's most prestigious
literary prizes.
Indian writers such as Salman Rushdie, Anita Desai, Aravind Adiga and
Arundhati Roy have previously won the prize but this year's shortlist
did not feature any Indian.
Other writers who made the short list this year were A S Byatt, J M
Coetzee, Adam Foulds, Simon Mawer and Sarah Waters.
'Wolf Hall' is set in the 1520s and tells the story of Thomas
Cromwell's rise to prominence in the Tudor court.
Sid Harth
October 6, 2009...11:59 pm
Discovering Five Dials
by Raza Rumi
‘We’d love to have more people from Pakistan writing for and reading
the magazine’
It was quite soothing to come across a delightful publication entitled
Five Dials — a free, beautifully produced magazine. The current issue
available at www.fivedials.com includes a piece by the young novelist
Ali Sethi who has written a novel at an extraordinary age of 24. The
piece delves into the reaction of author once he encounters the
desolation at Shah Jamal’s shrine in Lahore.Shah Jamal’s shrine has
also been associated with the great Pappu Sain dhol wala.
I am publishing the small post on Five Dials in its own voice to make
the description of the magazine a little more familiar and immediate
than a boring review. I am grateful to Craig Taylor for helping me in
getting the introduction right.
Accessibility of Five Dials: As for new technology, Five Dials is a
very lean and flexible entity. We do not need to worry about paper
stock and production cost. Unlike Granta, we’re able to turn around
issues quickly and react to current events. (See the American election
issue, which came out days before Barack took the country.) The Five
Dials iPhone app is imminent and we have fans at Adobe who keep up
posted on what’s coming next and when that technology comes along,
we’ll be a in a good position to use it for our purposes. Most of all
we’re interested in inclusivity. I don’t care if readers use the
latest generation Blackberry or a souped up Commodore 64. They’re all
welcome.
How is Five Dials different: When we started this project I made sure
there would be no ads and no rule about publishing only Penguin
authors. Our readers are intelligent; they don’t want to subscribe to
a marketing magazine. Of course we can turn to a lot of amazing Hamish
Hamilton authors but the current issue also has contributions from
Geoff Dyer, Ellen Hinsey, Paul Davis and Lauren Elkin, none of whom
are Penguin authors. We’ve published first-time writers and writers we
like but can’t publish in book form at the moment. My favorite article
in this category was a dispatch from a young woman who grew up in the
US and Qatar and wrote about a Qatari wedding. We haven’t published a
book by her but we’ve shown interest in her as a developing writer by
placing her essay in Five Dials. So: everyone’s welcome. We’re
particularly interested in young writers from parts of the world that
demand reportage at the moment. Pakistan is a great example. We’d love
to have more people from Pakistan writing for and reading the
magazine.
Sid Harth
Give the devil its due14 Comments
I’m not the world’s greatest Times of India fan. I have frequently
been critical of many of the group’s initiatives. I opposed the shift
downmarket which influenced so many other newspapers. I was appalled
by the Times during the early years of the century when it was run by
brand managers. (Fortunately, editors seem to be back in charge
judging by the content in recent years). I remain bitterly opposed to
Medianet, which is a form of prostitution. And as a group, the Times
is petty and graceless.
But let’s give credit where credit is due. All of us who care about
newspapers and the printed word must appreciate the Times group’s
initiative in launching a Saturday paper called Crest (terrible name
though; sounds like a toothpaste) that has longer articles and aims to
provide a more intelligent alternative to the other Saturday papers.
You can argue about the quality of the first issue. I thought it was
badly let down by the design which is dull and unimaginative (page one
in particular is a disaster) for a product that is supposed to be
upmarket.
Some of the headlines were odd (only Bengalis seem to favour the word
‘frightful’ in headlines). And many of the articles had a haven’t-I-
read-this-before feeling about them.
But what you can’t argue with is this: as a concept it works.
Judging by the people I’ve spoken to, it has touched a chord with
middle class readers who have been depressed by the drop in quality in
national newspapers and who long for something that they can sink
their teeth into.
No doubt the early defects will be ironed out in the weeks ahead and
the paper will get better and better. Once that happens, it should
cause other newspaper groups to re-think their own offerings.
In particular, it should remind us that the Times group is the only
one in this country these days that has the guts and the resources to
grab an idea and run with it. The Saturday paper is one example. After
all, the idea is not new. The HT launched a Saturday paper long before
anybody else. And in the early days, under the editorship of Namita
Bhandare, it was easily the best paper in Delhi every Saturday.
Sadly, during the dark days of the Kalbag editorship, the Saturday
paper lost focus, Namita left because of her lack of respect for the
editor and the paper never quite recovered. At one stage, they even
removed the branding (though that I think was Pankaj Paul’s stupidity)
and turned it into just another daily paper.
Fortunately the new regime at the HT comprises real editors with skill
and imagination and so the Saturday paper has been relaunched with
great success. But unfortunately, the relaunch has been conducted
within the existing resources of the paper. So as good as the HT is on
Saturday is, it is not a 40-page special newspaper in the sense that
the Times of India’s offering is.
Call me biased but I would argue that page for page, the HT on
Saturday is still vastly superior to the new Times paper. However,
when readers are looking for a product that they can curl up with on
Saturdays, they want critical mass and the bulk of the Times’ new
offering will give them that.
(For those who don’t, the normal paper is still available).
Can the Times paper be a commercial success?
Frankly, I don’t know. What I do know is that it goes against the
tenets of current newspaper management. Editors are always being told
by managers that people no longer like reading, that all stories must
be very short and that light is better than substantial. If newspaper
managers had their way, then all articles would be the size of tweets.
Most newspaper managers worship the Times because they argue that the
group has redefined profitability in the industry. (They also love the
fact that the Times makes it clear that the executives are the bosses
and the journos are the minions.) I don’t know what they will make of
the new Saturday paper which totally bucks the conventional wisdom in
the industry. But I do know that because it is the Times of India,
they will have to take it seriously.
For the sake of the newspaper business I am happy to put aside all
Times versus HT rivalries and hope that the new paper does extremely
well. For many weeks I have been suggesting on this blog that there is
a new kind of reader emerging, the sort of chap who buys The
Argumentative Indian at traffic lights and who wants to use the
Internet to engage in some serious political debate. I feel that
Indian newspaper groups, run on the whole by executives who do not
like reading, are ignoring this development and wasting too much time
on the old let’s-take-it-downmarket model.
The new Times paper is a sort of test case for this view. If it does
succeed – which I think it will once it puts its editorial house in
order – then it will make all of us look at readers in a new light.
So, let’s wait and see.
Posted by Vir Sanghvi on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 at 8:05 pm
14 Responses to “Give the devil its due”
Anil Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
There was one thing unique about TOI. The Laxman’s cartoons. Although
past his prime the common man still evokes a smile every morning !!
Anil Says:
September 29th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
MAn I woudl love to get my hands on that Saturday edition.. remidns me
of those old days when as a student I used to sit in my balcony with
those sepcial editions and a dictionary in tow. Once in a while
hurlign glance at the pretty damsel passing buy from behind the
goggles.
See the neuty of goggles you can be a peepign tom and yet come of as
someone who is too emersed in the article to notice the God’s best
creation passing by.
Since then thigns have changed and now all I get is perusal of article
on net and smoehow this doesn’t have the same touch. Somehow the cold
impersonal hello of neighbourhood ladies doesn’t feel the same as the
flirtatious gait of those damsels in Delhi. But then again I am no
longer 18 year old pretentious hunk (pardon the over-assessment)
anymore either.
Akhilesh Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Dear Mr. Vir,
I guess this is what happened. You liked the concept of TOI’s Crest
edition immensely. You even liked the actual product.
But how does such a high profile former editor of HT praise anything
to do with TOI. It would be blasphemous. So you indulge in the time
tested method. First demonise almost everything that TOI stood for in
the past. Use as acerbic language as possible in a public forum to
denounce the group. And when it is established that you have
sufficiently bad mouthed the group, then only praise the latest effort
of TOI.
This way you can prove to HT owners (read Shobna Bhartia) that you
have not committed treachary and simultaneously prove to world outside
that you are a “statesmanly” editor !!
But one more question hangs in the balance : Why go to such lengths to
praise a rival paper’s initiative? Why not simply let it lie or ignore
it ?
My theory : You are no longer the editor of HT but a kind of a super
advisor ( Editorial Director). Not exactly an excutive post but I
would presume a mostly ornamental post. Like being elevated to Vice
Presidentof India from being Prime Minister !
Time to move on !. And what better than to do something that no one
has done before? Become the editor of Times of India.
And thus this praise of TOI and obvious hints that give me a chance
and I can improve the Crest edition further.
And thats why this last line in your blog : “it does succeed – which I
think it will once it puts its editorial house in order “. Guess who
can put that editorial house in order ? Obviously not the existing
fools but some one new.
Think about the epigraph that your future biographics may write :
“Vir Sanghvi the brilliant thought leader who went on to edit both the
Times of India and the Hindustan Times, two newspapers known for their
legendary rivaalry. But his talent surpassed even this vast gulf.”
Go for it Vir. I as a life time reader of TOI would love to see you
there.
Rajeev Reply:
October 1st, 2009 at 2:10 am
I guess he has lost his interest in job. We may see him carrying
Rahul’s briefcase in future elections just like Rajiv Shukla.
Pankaj Says:
September 30th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
what can we expect from someone who works for HT.
TOI is a competitoer and they are not in congress’s puppet as Sanghvi
and HT/CNN-ibN are…
Stuff you!
Ishmart Alec Reply:
September 30th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
We all know that TOI and HT are not competitors in the real sense as
far as ownership pattern is concerned.
As far as TOI, journalists have a term for TOI amongst their circle
that starts with “The OLDEST ********** in India”. Need I say more.
Much of the content, as many of my editor friends proudly flaunt
thinking that i respect them, are politically motivated, blackmail by
editors, affiliations to organizations etc. That explains the
frontpage converage for modi’s pic that was really uncalled for. After
Akshardham, I fail to recollect any terrorist attack happen on Gujrat
Soil. (Pardon me if I miss out on some event). Whereas mumbai has a
calendar list of blasts. Need i say more. Demonization through mind
games is TOI’s forte.
http://mywriterkeeda.wordpress.com
DR.KAZMI Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
VIR, LET ME START BY SAYING THAT I AM A FAN OF YOUR AND REGULARLY READ
YOUR COLUMS IN HT. MY REQUEST TO YOU IS TO START A BLOG ON THE
PROBLEMS FACING THE COUNTRY, AND ALSO TO WRITE MORE FREQUENTLY THAN
YOUR SUNDAY COUNTERPOINT. IF YOU CAN BRING TO LIGHT ,THE DAMAGE
SOMEONE LIKE RAJ THAKAY IS DOING TO INDIAN UNITY, HE IS ACTING LIKE
HITLER. TODAY I WAS SHOCKED TO HEAR IN THE NEWS THAT KARAN JOHAR WENT
TO HIM TO APOLOGISE FOR SAYING THE WORD BOMBAY INSTED OF MUMBAI IN HIS
MOVIE. HE SHOULD BE LOCKED BEHIND BARS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IN OUR
COUNTRY PEOPLE LIKE MODI AND RAJ THAKRAY ARE NEVER BROUGHT TO BOOK FOR
INCITING VOILENCE. REGARDS
DR.KAZMI
ripal mehta Reply:
October 5th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
people like modi and raj?
what are you taking about ?? it seems you too have got carried away by
modi bashing of media.. no wonder your name says it all.. Shree shree
narendra modi has been elected thrice ( THRICE ) , so the people of
gujarat loves him and adore him, just because he refused to get
intimidated by media , the congress mouth piece media has gone after
him with embarassing failure, but this shameless media is stil after
him and never misses an opportunity to defame him . raj thackery is
another congress chamcha to help them garner votes. modi has never
spoken against any other language speaking people inspite of having
large marathi population in gujarat. what z the problem with you guys
huh? mr kazmi? what do you want him to do ? bash hindus? like these
congess walas does? that will make mr. modi secular? huh? have some
sense mr. kazmi …
DR.KAZMI Reply:
October 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY SAYING THAT MY NAME SAYS IT ALL, PLEASE
EALOBORATE. AND REGARDING MODI BEING ELECTED THRICE, EVEN HITLER WAS
ELECTED. BUT HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT SUCH PEOPLE ONLY BRING
DESTRUCTION TO THE COUNTRY. IT IS TIME PEOPLE LIKE YOU WAKE UP TO THE
THREAT PEOPLE LIKE MODI POSE TO OUR COUNTRY.
rhea singh Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Dear Mr Sanghvi,
I am inclined to agree with you. Both the TOI and the HT are read in
my home. I find the TOI to be inferior to HT. Their daily supplement
is crude, vulgar and tasteless. After one such so called headline that
screamed Priety Zinta says ” I did rather be a bechari than a ***** “,
I went online and starting putting up my comments on their articles
and blogs - my attempts at ridiculing and shaming them a little. I
urged them to restrain - they have such a disturbing tabloid feel to
their content- all aimed at sales ofcourse. We have children at home
reading papers.
I have’nt read Crest - though it is a great idea because somewhere
they realized that people are not as dim witted as they thought.
People like to read things with a little more substance.
Where TOI scores is that online they are far easier to surf in terms
of their format. I have been a regular at their blogs simply because
the look is brighter and more clear than HT online.
I suggest you take a look and make changes because you are far
superior and would get many more viewers.
Regards,
Rhea Singh
PS- Take a look at Sherlyn Chopra’s blog at TOI. Its vulgarity would
surprise you.
Mr. K.SIngh Reply:
October 3rd, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Dear Ms. Rhea,
This is K.Singh. I just read your comment and totally agree with you
on the
contents and the quality of TOI. I too agree with you on the matter of
substance
which TOI perhaps cannot match up with HT and IE ( as per my opinion).
Please do read my statement which is just after you. We perhaps
missed each other’s statement by few mins. But I guess both are
talking
on the same line as I also agree with your facts which is also visible
in my
statement that TOI is more about good packaging than content.
Please do reply if you can after going through my statement as well,
I would be glad.
- Regards -
Mr. K.SIngh Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Dear Mr. Sanghvi,
I really admire your views and in depth knowledge about various
tropics. I
agree that previously HT had this sort of paper and just to update you
that
even Indian Express group has been doing the same for quite sometime
now. If you can check Sunday’s edition of The Indian Express - “The
Sunday Express”
then you will see the same initiative but in a limited scale.
I would only recommend and add up to your comments that though HT &
The Indian Express
groups have been the original front runners of such initiatives but
now a days
it’s all about good packaging and branding practises. If you have a
baby exploit it
till it’s exposed enough to get attention from public. Hence, the TOI
have done the
same. They have simply segregated their baby from it’s original
parents and presented
it to the world to look at and admire. Trust me, they managed to get
the initial attention
from public.
However, such practises are missing with HT and IE. I liked when HT
did rebranding and
brought out the Delhi’s historial moments ( creation of Parliament
House - Rastrpati Bhawan
and some historical facts in written format) couple of month’s ago but
with HT that was the
only initiative I noticed after a long gap but that was along with
their own branding and completion
of certain number years celebration.
I would recommend in this compititive world their is no time to wait
and claim credits
for past. It’s still not late with HT and IE to open their eyes and
work on some of these factors
as these 2 Newspapers served India for quite a long time and are well
embedded into
our systems and known for their own contents and editorials.
I am sure you must have gone through this book but if not then will be
glad if you
can suggest management to go through it atleast and if you too can
read it ( I am sure you
must have read it but in case you missed it) and make them realise
that the business can
be run differently and by taking inititaives.
The book is : “The Blue Ocean Strategy”
-Regards-
Hemant Kapre Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Dear Vir - let me begin in a pretty forthright manner. As someone
closely associated with the HT, you are scarcely expected to sing
paeans of praise for the TOI group. So, I find it hardly surprising
that you are critical of the TOI. Also the first step the TOI took
towards catering to the lowest common denominator was bringing out
that filmi supplement called Delhi Times (in Delhi) / Mumbai Times (in
Mumbai)…etc. And let me remind you that HT City was a desperate
response by the HT group to that move when it realized that it was the
LCD that was setting the cash registers ringing more often than not in
all media houses. So it sounds a bit “holier than thou” when you find
fault with the TOI on that.
Having said that, let me share that I personally prefer the Delhi HT
edition to the Delhi TOI edition (perhaps because HT city hasn’t
dumbed down to the depths that Delhi Times has). Another factor which
swings my vote in HT’s favour is Brunch. You ought to honour the
person who came up with the Brunch idea !
Mark Says:
October 7th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Vir… i respect the clarity of your mind / views. Let me repeat what
everyone knows and feels about today. The age of reading and writing,
i guess is passe. It is the time of talking over the mobile. Short
msgs., SMS-language (shorter than the telegraphic language). Grammar
has been thrown out into the dustbin. Kaam Ki Baat Chal Rahi Hai. The
pen is used only to sign “bank cheques”. So in the world of 2009, i am
sorry to say., but i say that within the next 20-25 years., print
media would be dead by 80%.
chhotemianinshallah
and Lies
http://www.harpercollins.co.in/BookDetail.asp?Book_Code=2366
Secrets and Lies
By: Jaishree Misra
ISBN: 9788172238506
Cover Price: Rs. 275.00
HarperCollins India Original
BOOK SUMMARY
Anita, Zeba, Bubbles and Sam have a friendship that spans over twenty
years—a friendship born out of their years at a girls' school in Delhi
in the early 1990s. Beautiful, intelligent and secretive, they were
the top clique; the girls whom everyone wanted to impress—until the
arrival of fifteen-year-old Lily D'Souza who instantly threatens their
superiority.
Now, Anita, Sam and Bubbles live in London. Bubbles is the pampered
but bored wife of a billionaire, Anita is a top journalist working for
the BBC, whilst Sam tries hard to be a trophy wife for her corporate
lawyer husband. Zeba remained in India, and now lives a life of
unimaginable luxury as the reigning Bollywood queen.
Coming together for a school reunion, the women must confront a secret
that has haunted their adult lives. Or are some things better left
untouched and unsaid?
Jaishree Misra
Jaishree Misra was born and educated in India and moved to England in
1990. She has published four novels so far, including the best-selling
Ancient Promises. She has worked in special needs, child care, as a
broadcast journalist, and is currently employed as a film and video
examiner at the British Board of Film Classification in London.
chhotemianinshallah
The Namesake - Film Tie-in Edition
By: Jhumpa Lahiri
ISBN: 9780007258918
Cover Price: Rs. 295.00
Format: Paperback
Extent: 304 pages
On Sale: March 2007
BOOK SUMMARY
'When her grandmother learned of Ashima's pregnancy, she was
particularly thrilled at the prospect of naming the family's first
sahib. And so Ashima and Ashoke have agreed to put off the decision of
what to name the baby until a letter comes…'
For now, the label on his hospital cot reads simply BABY BOY GANGULI.
But as time passes and still no letter arrives from India, American
bureaucracy takes over and demands that 'baby boy Ganguli' be given a
name. In a panic, his father decides to nickname him 'Gogol' – after
his favourite writer.
Brought up as an Indian in suburban America, Gogol Ganguli soon finds
himself itching to cast off his awkward name, just as he longs to
leave behind the inherited values of his Bengali parents. And so he
sets off on his own path through life, a path strewn with conflicting
loyalties, love and loss…
PRAISE OF THE BOOK
‘Extraordinary… a book that spins gold out of the straw of ordinary
lives’ — The Times
‘Fantastically readable, warm and profound’ — Guardian
‘Jhumpa Lahiri’s excellent first novel is the work of a fine writer,
discriminating, compassionate and surprising. It is, too, a story for
our times.’ — Evening Standard
‘Eloquent, striking, lucid, The Namesake is an extremely accomplished
first novel’ — Daily Telegraph
‘Gracious… neither uniquely Asian nor uniquely American, but tenderly,
wryly human.' — The Observer
‘Extremely good … a glowing miniature of a tiny family making the
voyage between two worlds’ — Sunday Times
http://www.harpercollins.co.in/AuthorDetail.asp?Author_Code=1241
Jhumpa Lahiri
Jhumpa Lahiri was born 1967 in London, England, and raised in Rhode
Island. She is a graduate of Barnard College, where she received a
B.A. in English literature, and of Boston University, where she
received an M.A. in English, M.A. in Creative Writing and M.A. in
Comparative Studies in Literature and the Arts, and a Ph.D. in
Renaissance Studies. She has taught creative writing at Boston
University and the Rhode Island School of Design. Her debut
collection, Interpreter of Maladies, won the 2000 Pulitzer Prize for
fiction. It was translated into twenty-nine languages and became a
bestseller both in the United States and abroad. In addition to the
Pulitzer, it received the PEN/Hemingway Award, the New Yorker Debut of
the Year award, an American Academy of Arts and Letters Addison
Metcalf Award, and a nomination for the Los Angeles Times Book Prize.
Lahiri was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 2002. The Namesake is
Jhumpa Lahiri's first novel. She lives in New York with her husband
and son.
http://www.harpercollins.co.in/BookDetail.asp?Book_Code=1336
Interpreter of Maladies
By: Jhumpa Lahiri
ISBN: 9788172235024
Cover Price: Rs. 295.00
Format: Paperback
Extent: 208 pages
BOOK SUMMARY
Jhumpa Lahiri's elegant stories tell the lives of Indians in exile,
of people navigating between the strict traditions they've inherited
and the baffling New World they must encounter every day. An
interpreter guides an American family through the India of their
ancestors and hears an astonishing revelation, a young Midwestern
woman is drawn into a tantalizing affair with a married Bengali man,
the eccentric nervous Mrs Sen needs to learn to drive if she is to
keep her job minding eleven year old Eliot after school, a young
couple exchange confessions each night as they struggle to cope with
the loss of their baby and their baby and their failing marriage, and
Mr. Pirzada, whose watch is always set to Decca time, worries about
his family back in Pakistan.
Jhumpa Lahiri's elegant stories tell the lives of Indians in exile, of
people navigating between the strict traditions they've inherited and
the baffling New World they must encounter every day. An interpreter
guides an American family through the India of their ancestors and
hears an astonishing revelation, a young Midwestern woman is drawn
into a tantalizing affair with a married Bengali man, the eccentric
nervous Mrs Sen needs to learn to drive if she is to keep her job
minding eleven year old Eliot after school, a young couple exchange
confessions each night as they struggle to cope with the loss of their
baby and their baby and their failing marriage, and Mr. Pirzada, whose
watch is always set to Decca time, worries about his family back in
Pakistan.
http://www.harpercollins.co.in/MediaReview.asp?Book_Code=1336&Book_Title=Interpreter
of Maladies
chhotemianinshallah
Of Sadhus and Spinners
By: Bruce Bennett
Santosh K. Sareen
Susan Cowan
ISBN: 9788172238483
Cover Price: Rs. 295.00
Format: Paperback
Extent: 224 pages
BOOK SUMMARY
A fascinating range of encounters—mental, physical and spiritual—of
Australians with India over the past century and a half
Despite a shared history of British imperialism, and commonalities
like the English language, a democratic polity and a craze for
cricket, Australians and Indians know very little about each other. Of
Sadhus and Spinners attempts to correct this with a range of stories
that trace the chequered history of interactions between the two
nations.
From John Lang's 'The Mohammedan Mother' (1859) to Yasmine
Gooneratne's 'Masterpiece' (2002), the stories in this anthology bring
to the fore a variety of literary responses to Indo-Australian
encounters. There are stories here of Australian visitors to India and
stories about and by Indians—immigrants or temporary visitors—in
Australia.
Thoughtful, exploratory and often just wide-eyed in its observation of
strange new worlds, the anthology provides insights into an array of
fascinating cross-cultural encounters.
chhotemianinshallah
Can we judge books?
Mondy Thapar
October 06, 2009
First Published: 22:51 IST(6/10/2009)
Last Updated: 23:00 IST(6/10/2009)
By the time you read this, you’ve set off to buy Wolf Hall, Hilary
Mantel’s novel set in Tudor England, or Sarah Waters’s The Little
Stranger, a spooky story set in post-World War II England, or Adam
Foulds’s The Quickening Maze set in a mid-19th century English asylum,
or JM Coetzee’s Summertime, about a biographer researching on the late
writer JM Coetzee, or Simon Mawer’s The Glass Room, set in pre-World
War II Czechoslovakia.
One of them has already won the 2009 Man Booker Award. With that will
come a two thumbs up that will convince us that his or her book is a
damn fine one. To a lesser extent, the books already shortlisted will
also be recommended reading for all of us. I have total respect for
the choice(s) made by the Booker jury. It’s still one of the best ways
to go about things — rather than the squabble between readers over
whether Ian McEwan’s 1998 Booker-winning Amsterdam is better than his
1997 non-Booker-winning Enduring Love. I have no issue with Booker
decisions, or those by juries of other awards. And no, I don’t only
read books set in my own surroundings of history or geography. Most of
my favourite books have nothing to do with India.
But I am a bit puzzled about the practice of Indian editions of books
available here — including those originally published in India — of
overwhelmingly carrying blurbs and lines of praise from foreign
reviews. The edition will have a roster from the Times, London, the
New York Times, the Independent, or other such worthy publication. The
desi lines of praise about a desi edition of even a desi book don’t
seem to matter much.
Is this because Indian readers of books in English have no clue about
what’s a good book and what’s a crap one until we are told by the
‘only real experts’ who are published in Western papers? Or is it
because our publishers know that what really matters for us desi book-
buyers is what the verdict is from London-New York.
Either way, there may be a case to try out a novel experiment: print a
smattering of blurbs from Indian reviews along with the foreign ones.
They may also be able to win the hearts and wallets of Indian book-
buyers. Who knows, maybe an Indian blurb can provide a different and
equally engaging hookline for many of us who are not necessarily
bewitched by the NYT bestseller list or other sacred recommendations.
chhotemianinshallah
ODE TO THE ART OF READING
Editor's choice
Kindred soul
Rick Gekoski is a former academic with a D.Phil in English from the
University of Oxford. He gave up his academic job to become a dealer
in rare books and manuscripts. He is also a passionate reader, and
this book brings together his reflections on some of the books that he
has read and has been influenced by at various phases of his life. The
term, “bibliomemoir”, is his own coinage but the genre is not an
unknown one. Alberto Manguel, Diana Athill and Anne Fadiman have all
excelled in this kind of writing about books and reading. The only
difference between them and Gekoski is that the latter, in keeping
with the conventions of writing memoirs, follows a strict
chronological line while writing about books and the impact they had
on his intellectual development.
After 25 years of marriage, Gekoski and his wife went through an
acrimonious divorce. One fallout of this was that his wife kept their
house and its contents. Gekoski was shocked when his wife claimed that
this included his books — a library built up over the years,
consisting of books read, marked and annotated. Gekoski initially felt
numb with shock, as if a part of him had been sawed away from him. But
after a few months, he felt a sense of release. He felt unencumbered.
With this came the realization that more than the possession of books,
what mattered was reading: “[it] has always mattered to me. I can’t
not do it, any more than I can stop eating or breathing. I can’t stop
reading without feeling anxious, and extinguished. I read, therefore I
am.” He felt that the books could not actually be taken away from him.
They were inside him, part of him. He was constituted by the books he
had read. Many, if not all, avid readers and book lovers will find in
Geksoki a kindred soul.
Reading T.S. Eliot’s The Waste Land, he began to understand how to
appreciate the poem; it was necessary to get oneself a different set
of lenses and critical tools than those that he had acquired in his
adolescence. It “required that one re-schooled oneself in the very art
of reading. And to do that you had to learn, too, how not to read.’’
From the US, he came up to Merton College in Oxford to ‘read’ for
D.Phil in English. This use of the word, read, was a revelation to
him. He discovered Yeats. But it was not poetry alone that held him.
He was influenced by Descartes and Hume and even A.J. Ayer. His
reading, as he reveals, was varied and often odd. But looking back he
discerns a pattern. He believes with Freud that nothing happens
without a reason. Reading, Gekoski tells his readers, “how we learn to
attach ourselves to ourselves, and to others, and to the world. We are
made and continually transformed by what, and how, we read.’’
chhotemianinshallah
FICTIONEERING
- And the living isn’t easy
Summertime: Scenes from provincial life By J.M. Coetzee, Harvill
Secker, £8.75
Great writers have a way of arousing the most vulgar kinds of
curiosity in their hapless readers. This is partly because no truth is
too low to be the object of their steady Parnassian gaze. But there is
also the fact of the writers’ bottomless self-absorption. It is their
sublime vanity that teases these questions out of us, so that they can
then play with the answers, for the truth deserves nothing less than
the endless games of fiction. As questions go, nothing can be more
vulgar than ‘What is he like in bed?’ But I have often found myself
asking precisely this question when faced with the cold, grey ardour
of J.M. Coetzee’s fiction. And Summertime has pleasured and
disconcerted me in equal measure with the directness — or seeming
directness — of the answer.
The protagonist of this book is a dead South African writer called
John Coetzee, whose English biographer, a shadowy “Mr Vincent”, is
going round the world interviewing his subject’s lovers, cousins,
colleagues and other associates. He wants to reconstruct the story of
a specific period in the life of John Coetzee from these interviews,
supplemented by the writer’s own notebook entries made intermittently
during these years. The period Vincent focuses on are the years
between 1972, when John returned to South Africa in a state of obscure
disgrace after working in England and America, and his first public
recognition in 1977, after Dusklands and In the Heart of the Country,
both of which are discussed in the Summertime interviews. This was the
time when John lived with his widowed father in the suburbs of Cape
Town; it was also the heyday of apartheid in South Africa. But
Vincent’s 2008 interview with Julia Frankl, now a therapist in Canada,
inevitably moves towards the affair she had had with John in the early
Seventies in Cape Town, when she was already married and the mother of
a child.
The love they made was adequate: he was competent, but impersonal.
There was an “autistic quality” to his operations. “I offer this not
as criticism but as a diagnosis,” Dr Frankl adds. Then she elaborates:
“Characteristically the autistic type treats other people as automata,
mysterious automata. In return he expects to be treated as a
mysterious automaton too. If you are autistic, falling in love
translates as being treated reciprocally as the inscrutable object of
the other’s desire. Two inscrutable automata having inscrutable
commerce with each other’s bodies: that was how it felt to be in bed
with John. Two separate enterprises on the go, his and mine. What his
enterprise was I can’t say, it was opaque to me. But to sum up: sex
with him lacked all thrill.” As prose, this is like Bach’s music
turning into the robotic precision of Steve Reich’s minimalist loops.
Indeed, music and sex come together in Julia’s subsequent relations
with John, and in a sharply alienating way for her, when he insists
that they “rut” to the beat of the slow movement of the Schubert
string quintet: “‘Empty your mind!’ he hissed at me. ‘Feel through the
music!’” Later, John explains to her that what it felt like to make
love in post-Bonaparte Austria could only be glimmeringly experienced
through Schubert’s music, “because the slow movement of the quintet
happens to be about fucking”. Julia’s resistance of, and lack of
response to, his post-coital sermon on “the history of feeling” bring
on “a sullen, defeated look” in John. But he refuses to fight back,
which infuriates her even more. She eventually works herself up to
throwing him out of her house that night, with his cassette player and
the Schubert tape, after throwing a plate at him: “Straight from the
heart! I said to myself. My first plate!”
Julia’s account of her sex-life with John achieves what was hitherto
unthinkable in Coetzee’s fiction, a sort of “dour comedy” that comes
from John accepting, in his inscrutable way, that he could actually be
quite funny in all his “clenched grimness” and “woodenness”. The last
two phrases are used to describe the earlier John Coetzee, protagonist
of J.M. Coetzee’s Youth, written uniformly in the third person and set
in the early Sixties in Cape Town and London. So what more are we
getting from Julia? Who is she, and who is her John? And when he
sermonizes on Schubert and sex and she screams back at him, whose
voice are we hearing? In terms of autobiographical truth, what is J.M.
Coetzee giving us, or not giving us? Are we getting more, or less,
than what we get, say, from Isherwood when he uses the
autobiographical third person in Christopher and his Kind or Kathleen
and Frank?
Following one thread in Coetzee’s writings, Summertime comes after
Boyhood and Youth, making up an autobiographical trilogy. In that
sense, it is set apart from the works of fiction with which these
three books are interspersed. Yet, beginning with Elizabeth Costello
and, most consummately, with the “ficto-facts” of Señor C’s life and
opinions in Diary of a Bad Year, Coetzee has systematically broken his
reader’s trust in the identities of the many kinds of voice that
speak, are spoken through, or spoken for, in the books. So the reader
is never allowed to make a secure distinction between the truths of
the autobiographical trilogy and the fictions of the novels. No one
kind or level of representation is privileged as a more authentic
revelation of the writer’s self in being placed unequivocally outside
the artifice of his writing. The author becomes nothing more, and
nothing less, than the sum of his vanishing tricks. Vincent blandly
explains to another one of John’s lovers how, as his biographer, he
has learnt not to trust as factual record “what Coetzee writes” — “not
because he was a liar but because he was a fictioneer”.
Vincent had never met or corresponded with John, yet the biography
that he is preparing to write will be “authorized” in a masterfully
upside-down sense of the word. The irony of this inversion operates as
much beyond Vincent as upon him, without quite letting the reader feel
exempted from its acute and complex treachery. In what relation, then,
does Summertime stand to Vincent’s biography and to “the third memoir”
that we learn, from Vincent, that John Coetzee was planning to write,
which was to follow Boyhood and Youth, but which “never saw the light
of day”? These are questions that arise not only in our minds as we
read the book, but its characters also seem to be increasingly uneasy
about the appropriation of their own words as these words are
transcribed from the taped interviews and read out to them by Vincent.
Readers of Coetzee will immediately begin to hear the unmistakable
cadences of his prose in the words of each of these people. It is as
if the characters also feel the sinisterness of their voices being
homogenized by the informing presence of the author as they submit to
his authority in spite of all their resistance or intransigence. As
Señor C puts it in Diary of a Bad Year, “What the great authors are
masters of is authority.”
Yet this compulsive ‘fictioneering’ does not obscure the terrible
questions that have formed the core of Coetzee’s writing. Coming back
to live in a brutal and divided country, and with a father the odour
of whose failed life was the one thing John had hoped never to have to
breathe again, was like regressing into childhood in a travesty of the
European Bildungsroman. Coetzee, in one of his rare interviews, talks
about Wordsworth as a pervasive, but silent, presence in his work. And
that solemn Wordsworthian question, “Was it for this…?” which forms
the opening chord of The Prelude, is the bleak and unheard leitmotif
that joins Boyhood, Youth and Summertime. Wordsworth had set the
gloriousness of his childhood and youth against the desolation and
banality of adulthood. For Coetzee, the terms are exactly reversed.
Can greatness be achieved out of an essential ungenerosity of spirit?
Can the relentless anatomy of a self that consistently experiences
itself as “not fully human” when confronted with the demands of love
and of human care (“Care of Wound”), can such a process of self-
examination count as integrity of soul?
Stuck at night in the middle of the Karoo, the “mournful plains” that
had wrenched his heart as a child, John recites to an uncomprehending
cousin a few lines from Lucky’s speech in Waiting for Godot as a sort
of bedtime story. And it is in his essay on Beckett’s fiction that
John’s creator allows himself to put in words the only thing that the
writer could let the world hold him to: “a vision of life without
consolation or dignity or promise of grace, in the face of which our
only duty — inexplicable and futile of attainment, but a duty
nonetheless — is not to lie to ourselves.”
AVEEK SEN
chhotemianinshallah
FAMILY ROMANCES
The Wish Maker By Ali Sethi, Penguin, Rs 499
If you have been a teenager in Nineties’ India, and were bedazzled by
the nascent charms of satellite television, chances of your having
fond memories of the American television series, The Wonder Years, are
reasonably high. Set in the turbulent Sixties, its plot revolved
around the lives of some schoolkids growing up in the shadow of the
Vietnam War. The protagonist, Kevin Arnold, was a wide-eyed boy. His
best friend was the geeky Paul, and biggest crush, Winnie Cooper. A
delightful comedy about the highs and lows of adolescence, The Wonder
Years captured the essence of an era through the quietly observant
eyes of the adult Kevin, looking back on his early life with a
restrained nostalgia.
Something similar happens in Ali Sethi’s first novel. Zaki Shirazi,
the 19-year-old narrator, is visiting his family in Lahore from
America (where he attends a liberal arts college) on the occasion of
his cousin’s wedding. Although Zaki is not exactly the prodigal son,
he has returned nursing obscure hurts and cherishing flickering
memories of the days of yore. His eyes are startled by the changes
that have accrued over the life he had left behind. But, instead of
wallowing in wistfulness and melancholy, Zaki tells an absorbing tale,
sparkling with intimate, and often eccentric, details about his
extended family.
The chief delight of this book is the dispassionate tone in which Zaki
tells his story. The similarities between Zaki and Kevin are
noticeable. Both of them are loners. While Kevin’s father had been a
veteran of the Korean War, Sami Shirazi, Zaki’s father, was a pilot
with the air force, and had died in a crash a few months before Zaki
was born. Kevin’s mother, Norma, a liberal feminist, appears to be a
kindred spirit of Zaki’s mother, Zakia, a feisty journalist and
activist. So one feels pleasantly validated when Zaki finally
confesses (on page 160) that as a schoolboy in Pakistan his “favourite
programme was The Wonder Years”.
In spite of a happy enough ending, Sethi’s novel is not a feel-good
work. There are far too many grey clouds that keep swirling around the
lives of his dramatis personae. Although a great many of the 400 pages
of this book are filled with conversations, some of the most intense
moments are born out of what remains unspoken. At times, the profusion
of chattering voices may strike you as a bit mundane, but it is only
as you turn the last page that you begin to realize how the teeming
voices have grown inside your head and acquired a life surpassing
their fictional limits: many of us have known cranky teachers like
Zaki’s “arthritic old” English teacher, “who carried a ruler for
discipline and shouted ‘Don’t behave!’ when the class was rowdy”.
Zaki’s maternal grandfather, Papu, is also familiar. A later-day Mr
Bennet, Papu is in the habit of breaking into Ogden-Nash-like
limericks at dinnertime to bully his grandson: “Zaki Zaki Strong and
Able/ Take Your Elbows off the Table/ This is Not a Horse’s Stable/
But a First-Class Dining Table”.
Although Zaki has a more or less privileged upbringing (his class is
“too rich to be poor, too poor to be rich”), he is haunted by his
absent father, and feels neglected by his workaholic mother. His
closest companion is his cousin, Samar Api, growing up in the same
house with him, but emotionally more volatile than the fatherless boy.
Zaki becomes the still centre of Samar’s life, a source of
unconditional love and allegiance, ever willing to absorb all her
anxieties and disappointments. Until the time Samar is forcibly taken
away by her mother to live with her, Zaki remains the mirror into
which she looks from time to time to assuage her distress. Even when
she sets out on a wild goose chase for her love-interest, Jamal, Zaki,
the old faithful, follows close on her heels. Ever compliant with
Samar’s craziest schemes, and with a propensity to follow her
everywhere, Zaki is the perfect little lamb to Samar — although he is
far from innocent.
Samar’s absolute dependence on Zaki to help her carry out her romantic
adventures tellingly reveals the gender disparities that remain
entrenched in a conservative society: it is alright for 14-year-olds
to smoke publicly and drive flashy cars but dangerous for young girls
to step out unaccompanied. Boys will be boys, and they better behave
that way, but girls must be all things nice. So Samar and Zaki, unable
to fit into these roles, become misfits early on. The emotional costs,
it seems, are higher for Zaki, who is only semi-successful at making
friends with boys of his age. While Samar hangs out with Tara Tanvir,
a femme fatale (“the girl with a rep”), Zaki keeps an awkward distance
from the easy bonhomie of boys. He feels lost in the company of his
cousins, Isa and Moosa, who, although barely a head taller than he is,
are seasoned drinkers and smokers, both driving showy cars and
watching X-rated films. Things are no better at school, where Zaki
ends up with the Mad Hatter of the class, Kazim, gifted painter and
giver of inventive names: he calls the English teacher, Alto (after
the car), “while Dr Qazi with his henna-dyed beard was Ginger Spice”.
The episodic structure of Sethi’s novel owes to works like Middlemarch
(from which he borrows the epigraph), and its meandering journey
across generations harks back to Thomas Mann’s Buddenbrooks. Although
Sethi’s touch is lighter, he covers vast stretches of time, from
Zaki’s Daadi’s life before the Partition and his mother’s avant-garde
years in Lahore, to Benazir Bhutto’s rise and fall, followed by the
coming of Nawaz Sharif, and finally, Zaki’s own life in Musharraf’s
Pakistan. The portraits that Sethi leaves us are finely-sculpted,
intimate, breathing human passions. Curiously, it is Zaki himself who
remains the most enigmatic of them all. His erotic life is charged
with oddities — a boyhood encounter with Mazri, the son of a servant;
his college roommate tells him, pointing at the bunk-bed they have to
share, “Top, bottom, whatever… your call”. But the adult Zaki never
loses his air of inscrutability. He remains the most preciously
guarded secret of his own story.
SOMAK GHOSHAL
chhotemianinshallah
Out of good books? Pick up the pen
- Jha downplays political parallels; Jogi hopes to score where Jaswant
stumbled
SANJAY K. JHA
Ajit Jogi
New Delhi, Sept. 5: If books can snuff out political careers, they can
resurrect fading politicians too.
Congress leader Ajit Jogi is bringing out a book that will underline
his loyalty to the Nehru-Gandhi family at a time the BJP has expelled
Jaswant Singh for his Jinnah book.
Jogi’s book, which hits the stands later this month, deals with 17
personalities who have inspired him since his childhood. The only
Indian politician among them is Rajiv Gandhi.
There was speculation in political circles that Jogi had turned
rebellious and had not included any Nehru-Gandhi to send out a
message.
Jogi is indeed a bitter man these days, having been left out of the
Congress mainstream and denied help in setting up his son’s political
career. But he cannot afford to be seen as disloyal to the Nehru-
Gandhis, from whom he drew his political sustenance.
At the fag end of his career, the wheelchair-bound former chief
minister’s only dream is to push his son into the good books of Sonia
Gandhi.
“There are reports I have deliberately left out all the members of the
family. It is a cock-and-bull story,” Jogi told The Telegraph.
“Mine is an honest book about personalities whose influence shaped my
life. How can I leave out Rajivji, who brought me into politics?
Whatever I got in life was because of Rajivji. I have great respect
for my leader Soniaji but the book is only about those who were my
inspiration in the initial days.”
He denied that Rahul Gandhi had refused to release the book. “I have
not yet asked anybody to release the book. Let it be printed first.
But I will certainly request Soniaji or Rahulji to release the book,”
he said.
The book, written in Hindi and being brought out by a Raipur
publisher, is being translated into English too. Jogi has already
authored five books in Hindi, including a collection of poems, and two
in English on the role of district collectors and the administration
of peripheral areas.
On Jogi’s list of 17, obscure commoners share space with global
personalities like Martin Luther King and former Malaysia Prime
Minister Mahathir Mohamad. Bhairo, a hunter from his native village,
tribal heroine Rani Durgawati and a little-known advocate, Rajender
Singh, make the list, which includes Greek mythological hero Achilles
and Sant Kabir.
Figuring prominently in the book is the late US President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, who was paralysed from waist downwards like Jogi, who
survived an accident over five years ago.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s inclusion ahead of
Indira Gandhi may raise eyebrows, but Jogi may have left Indira out
since too many members from one family might have attracted charges of
sycophancy.
Jogi says reading political meanings into the choice of heroes will be
wrong. He claims he went by his instincts, not politics. He says he
has no reason to feel disgruntled since it was Sonia who had made him
chief minister. Now, he says, seeing Rahul as Prime Minister is one of
the few dreams he has left.
chhotemianinshallah
Between the covers
Sex writing in English is coming out of the closet in India. Varuna
Verma turns the spotlight on the new books that peddle sexuality as
their USP
Amandeep Sandhu lives life with a big regret. Given a chance, the
author of Sepia Leaves would withdraw his book from the market — but
only to add a paragraph on how as a boy he held up his mother’s
undergarments to his body to feel like a woman. “This is something I
omitted from the book, and regret,” says Sandhu.
Sandhu’s 2008 book — which opens with the line, ‘Mama and Baba never
touched each other’ — is an exploration of sexual intimacies. “From
peeping into Ritu Aunty’s cupboard and finding a bagful of napkins to
watching his father pining for his mother, the book traces the boy
protagonist’s sexual discoveries,” says Sandhu.
The book’s first print is sold out — but it’s not the only tome that’s
gone to town with explicit sex. In fact, when Sandhu’s book was
released, few batted an eyelid. “No one came to me and said ‘Oh my
God’,” says the Delhi-based author who is now writing a book on
sexuality in a boys’ boarding school.
Sex writing in English is coming out of the closet in India.
Tranquebar Publishers released a book of erotica called Electric
Feather with a performance by belly dancers in the capital on
Thursday. Twelve south Asians — all writing erotica for the first time
— have contributed to the book edited by writer Ruchir Joshi. “There
is a dearth of erotic writing in English. To fill the gap, we decided
to challenge a few writers,” says Joshi.
Of course, sex writing was always around in India — right from the
time of the Kamasutra. Regional languages had writers such as Ismat
Chughtai and Saadat Hasan Manto whose works related to sex. But only a
few writers in English wrote about sex, and fewer still did it
explicitly. Only once in a while would a writer like Sasthi Brata,
author of My God Died Young and Confessions of an Indian Woman Eater,
explore sexuality in India.
BODY TALK : Recent books that focus on sex include (from top) Sepia
Leaves, A Pack of Lies and Ghalib At Dusk
“These were one-off books,” says Sandhya Mulchandani, who has written
extensively on sex in ancient Indian literature and a series on the
Kamasutra. “In general, Indian writers in English failed to deal with
the sexuality of their characters,” she adds.
In more recent times, there have been some heroic efforts by Khushwant
Singh and Shobhaa Dé. But while smutty sex books and railway platform
pornography have always been around, contemporary Indian writing in
English has generally been devoid of juice.
Suddenly, however, sex is not something to be ashamed of. “In India’s
new writing, sex is an integral part of a character’s life,” explains
Mulchandani, whose Kama Sutra for Women was published in 2006. Books
across genres — from thrillers to romances and chick-lit — come with a
touch of sex, she adds.
There is good reason for that. Sex is on the Internet, on cable
television, and even in magazines and journals that earlier overdosed
on politics. “It’s all around us — from the botoxed beauties of
Bollywood to TV shows and the Internet. The significance of sexuality
has shot up,” says sociologist Shiv Vishwanathan.
Sex in Indian writings, experts stress, is merely a reflection of the
present. “Sex is not there for its own sake in contemporary writing.
Authors are just telling their tales, and sex, like any other human
activity, happens,” says Debbie Smith, agent in India for literary
agency Red Ink.
As old social norms break, bookshelves in India are exploding with
outpourings of erotica. Delhi-based publishing house Zubaan is
currently putting together a book on erotic stories by women writers
from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. “There has been a lot of
prudishness around sex writing in India. The more it is written about,
the less will it be associated with shame,” says Anita Roy,
commissioning editor, Zubaan Publishing.
The eternal favourite Kamasutra is being rediscovered as a book that’s
not just about impossible postures. Diplomat Pavan K. Varma’s The Art
of Making Love to a Woman looks at how the ancient sex manual explains
the female sex psyche. “The book is a contemporary take on the
Kamasutra,” says the author, India’s ambassador in Bhutan. Varma says
the first edition of his book, which was published last year, is
already sold out.
Art curator Alka Pande’s The New Age Kama Sutra for Women also
explores the book’s feminine side. “When I began writing on Indian
erotica, people thought I was a sexologist,” she recalls.
Curiously, the authors are not people who specialise in sex writing.
Psychoanalyst Sudhir Kakar, for instance, has written a fictionalised
biography of Vatsyayana, The Ascetic of Desire. Among the contributors
to Electric Feather is Sonia Jabbar, who has so far been known for her
writings on the Kashmir conflict, and filmmaker Paromita Vohra.
Book Extract
'That very night, Eunice and Deb, eager to progress with their
passion, went to Sathyam Cinemas for a late film — one of those
Hollywood romantic comedies. Eunice had been so excited at the
prospect of being out on a date that she didn’t even bother with
popcorn or chips. She waited in the dark for Deb’s arm to find its way
across her shoulder, which it did.'
From The Delicate Predicament of Eunice de Silva by Tishani Doshi
(Electric Feather: The Tranquebar Book of Erotic Stories)
Journalist Jabbar’s story The Advocate is about the sex lives of
people in a small Uttar Pradesh town. “It was a big release getting
into the head of a middle-class man and exploring sexual mores and
attitudes,” says Jabbar. Vohra’s Tourist is about a young woman and a
Bollywood star who time travel and land on a deserted island.
“Initially I had issues like what my mother would think if she read
the story. But I got over it,” says Vohra.
As Indian erotic writing takes a literary turn — these are not books
that need a brown paper cover — Tranquebar pins big hopes on the new
volume. “Sex sells. We are looking forward to huge sales for the
book,” says Renuka Chatterjee, chief editor, Tranquebar Publishers.
When Chatterjee started her career in publishing, the four-letter
synonym for sex was frowned upon. “It was either deleted or marked
with asterisks,” she remembers. That’s all in the past. “In the last
five years, writers have become very comfortable with erotic writing.
Most manuscripts we get have sex as a natural part of the story,” says
Chatterjee. Next week, Tranquebar releases Ghalib At Dusk and Other
Stories, a book by Nighat Gandhi that deals with middle class Muslim
families and has an underlying sexuality in every story. Another of
its books — Urmilla Deshpande’s A Pack of Lies — is all about sex,
drugs and music.
Sex books don’t make up a separate section in book stores any more —
it’s become a part of every storyline. In October, the Delhi-based
Tara Press will publish a collection of thriller stories by five
writers which have it all — sex, rape, mystery and investigation.
“There is always a sexual angle behind every human story,” reasons
Anuj Bahari, owner of the publishing house.
In 2005, Tara Press published Kusum Sawhney’s Ayala on incest. “Incest
was never a conversation piece in India. But once the book was out, I
was taken aback by the number of people who told me tales of sexual
encounters within the family,” recalls Sawhney. She is now writing a
book that deals with the life — including sex life — of a middle
class, married woman.
Journalist Aniruddha Bahal, whose novel Bunker 13 won the Bad Sex in
Fiction Award in 2003, says it is high time Indian authors began
treating sex as a part of life and writing. Critics might have
disapproved of Bahal’s comparison of a woman’s sex drive to a revving
Bugatti, but he is proud he put it in. “Bunker 13 has as much sex as
there is in one’s life. Indian authors are now returning to normal,
and giving sex the time and attention it deserves,” he says.
Sexologist Prakash Kothari has seen the demand for sex shoot up in
urban India. “A number of women tell me that they plan on leaving
their husband because he doesn’t have a satisfying sex drive. This was
unheard of a few years ago,” he says. Also, as the marriage age goes
up, promiscuity increases. “Since there is more sex happening, there
is more requirement of knowledge on sex,” explains Kothari.
The turn towards sex in Indian writing is evidently a part of an
overall cultural change. “As the young generation becomes blasé about
sex, it gets reflected in the writing,” says Tranquebar’s Chatterjee.
A growing publishing market in India has also broadened the writing
base. In money terms, the English book publishing market in India is
valued at Rs 6,000 crore. It’s growing by a tenth every year. “As the
market booms, books of every genre — from self-help to erotic fiction
— are finding ready publishers,” says Zubaan’s Roy.
Till a decade ago, Indian writing in English was like putting up a
sari shop for the westerner, says author Sandhu. “Back then, authors
wrote about arranged marriages, joint families, chappals and cuisine,
to attract the white man’s attention. But the new generation is
writing for the Indian reader. So they write about normal, ordinary
happenings like conversation, college life, every day angst and sex,”
he says.
For Indians, sex, clearly, is no longer only in the bedroom. It’s also
reaching every bedside reading table.
chhotemianinshallah
THIRD TIME UNLUCKY
- Rowling could have got the Carnegie Medal for the third Potter
MUKUL KESAVAN
Philip Pullman has just been awarded the Carnegie of Carnegies. The
Carnegie Medal is an annual prize for the best children’s book
published in the United Kingdom, so like the Booker of Bookers (which
Midnight’s Children won), Northern Lights, the first book of Pullman’s
trilogy, His Dark Materials, has been picked as the best of the
Carnegie winners over the prize’s entire history, which goes back
seventy years.
When someone whose work you love wins a major prize, it confirms your
trust in your readerly judgement. And when that person in his
acceptance speech says, as Pullman did, that the prize ought to have
gone to another writer (Philippa Pearce, the author of Tom’s Midnight
Garden) who is the other person you were rooting for, your cup runneth
over. Now I know that Pullman isn’t merely a wonderful novelist, he’s
also a generous and sensitive soul who likes the same books I do.
This brings me to the first thought that occurred to me after I read
about Pullman’s prize: has J.K. Rowling ever won the Carnegie Medal?
The answer to that question is no. She has been short-listed for it
more than once, but she hasn’t won it. She has won a whole boatload of
other book prizes, including the Whitbread Prize for the best
children’s book, but the librarians who vote the Carnegie Medal
haven’t picked her for their prize. Does it matter? After a zillion
copies sold in all the world’s languages, living and dead, and the
undying love of nearly all of the planet’s children (and not a few
adults, this one amongst them) we can safely say that the answer to
that question must be no.
Still, the question lingers. Who are the people who haven’t given it
to her? The Carnegie Medallist is chosen by an association of
librarians: the Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals, unattractively condensed into CILIP. Any writer who
writes in English anywhere in the world is eligible, so long as the
book is published in England. The books considered for the prize are
chosen by librarians who run libraries for children: so it isn’t
publishers who enter books for the prize, but CILIP’s members who call
for them. They’ve been doing this for seventy years and have, in the
process, made the prize important enough for Pullman, who has won the
Whitbread Prize, to describe it as the biggest literary honour he has
ever received.
The children’s writers who have never won the Carnegie Medal might
give us a clue to Rowling’s exclusion. In terms of best-selling
children’s writers, Rowling is in good company: neither Enid Blyton
nor Jacqueline Wilson, both monster-sellers, ever won the prize. This
doesn’t actually tell us much because popular as they were, Blyton and
Wilson wrote like robots and no one in their right mind would have
expected them to win anything remotely like a literary prize. A loser
called Lezard (first name Nicholas) weighed in, in the Guardian
recently, to argue that Rowling wrote awful prose and produced a
string of examples from one paragraph to prove his point, where ‘said’
was clunkily qualified by an adverb: furiously, glumly, indignantly,
loftily and so on. He has a point, but the reason Rowling isn’t to be
classed with the bottom-feeders of children’s fiction like Wilson and
Blyton is that Potter’s world is imagined and furnished and named with
such intelligence and wit (at least in the first three books) that she
makes Lezard’s pickiness about her prose precious and irrelevant.
Well, irrelevant to the first three books in the saga. I think the
library gnomes at CILIP should have given Rowling the Carnegie for The
Prisoner of Azkaban (the third installment of Potter’s adventures)
which, as anyone with a smidgen of sense knows, is the outstanding
book in the series. I remember reading the first two books in quick
succession (my children and I weren’t part of the cult from the
beginning so we had two to inhale right off) and thinking, this can’t
last. So I waited for the third one, bought it in hardcover and began
reading it, first warily (because it couldn’t last) and then with
incredulous delight because not only was it every bit as good as
Philosopher’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets, it was both fatter and
better. Lupin/Moony is by such a distance the most attractive
character in the Potter books that I’m continuously aggrieved about
his not starring in the later books.
But I was right. It couldn’t last. The Potter books declined
alarmingly from the fourth book on. They became thicker for one. I
like fat books but in this case fat was less. Goblet of Fire was
creaky and disjointed enough but it was the Order of the Phoenix
which, retrospectively, makes the Carnegie judges seem clever and
farsighted. That novel was so broken-backed and implausible that I
couldn’t find the energy to suspend disbelief. Never has Rowling
produced a pivotal character as charmless and boring as Dolores
Umbridge. It’s the one Harry Potter movie I look forward to seeing
because it can’t be worse than the book. The decline levelled off a
bit with The Half-Blood Prince, though it wouldn’t have taken much to
be better than Order of the Phoenix.
I have a theory about why things begin to go wrong with Goblet of
Fire. The reason Prisoner of Azkaban is so good is that it keeps
Voldemort firmly off-stage. The book invokes his menace, but through
his minions. The heart of that book is a nostalgia for the intense
friendships of boyhood, Harry’s father’s boyhood, reprised by Padfoot
and Moony and Wormtail, with Harry standing in (at one point,
literally) for his father, James. Young male bonding and betrayal,
it’s wonderfully done. Then, in the fourth book, Rowling makes the
terrible mistake of wheeling Voldemort on, placing him centre-stage,
giving him a body, describing the embodiment in stupefying detail and
laying on a duel between him and Harry for good measure. Evil oughtn’t
be incarnated in a novel. Not halfway through a novel sequence anyway.
It’s nearly impossible to do and you run the grave danger of making
your readers giggle when they’re meant to be hypnotized by wickedness.
And ever since then Rowling has gone on and on about the books
becoming “darker” (by which she seems to mean snuffing out the odd
character) and the books have become a collection of arbitrary
portents that gesture enigmatically at some grand resolution. Well,
the grand resolution is at hand, and I’m not hopeful.
But subsequent loss of form can’t have been the reason for not giving
her the gong for Prisoner of Azkaban. Librarians aren’t astrologers.
And I’d argue in Rowling’s defence that she had seven novels to bat
through, where Pullman only had three and he couldn’t sustain his
magnificently imagined world into the third book of his trilogy.
Northern Lights was a masterpiece and it’s that book that won him the
Carnegie and subsequently the Carnegie of Carnegies. By the time he
finished The Subtle Knife and got to the third and final book, The
Amber Spyglass, the trilogy had become hard going. He made the same
mistake Rowling made in her fourth, only she introduced the devil and
he, carried away by his splendid loathing of Him and the Hereafter,
dragged in Angels and a divine regent, so he could have a go at God
and all his works in the flesh, so to speak. But it didn’t matter: he
had written Northern Lights and that’s better than anything Rowling or
anyone else has managed. Still Rowling managed three hits in a row, a
hattrick…the good librarians really should have given her the Carnegie
for the third.
chhotemianinshallah
A FINE BALANCE
- Wise and just, but perhaps not a sage
Driven by reason
The Scientist as Rebel By Freeman Dyson, New York Review Books, $
27.95
John Desmond Bernal, the famous British molecular biologist, was
lovingly called a ‘sage’ by his friends and colleagues. He earned the
title for his fervent support of scientific research dedicated to
serving the poor, a stand that his admirers believed ought to be
traced to his communist ideology. However, it was the same commitment
that made Bernal describe Josef Stalin as one of the greatest
scientists he ever saw!
If bias is the last attribute expected of a sage, then the modern-day
scientist who seems to qualify for that stature is Freeman John Dyson,
the 83-year-old professor emiritus at that mecca of theoretical
physics, the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, US. His was a
case of a missed Nobel Prize, most certainly because of the convention
that not more than three can share the award each year. Richard
Feynman, Julian Schwinger and Sin-Itro Tomonaga won the prize in 1965
for separately inventing the theory of interaction of light and
matter. But it was Dyson who showed the sublime connection among the
various formulations invented by them.
Those familiar with his commentaries on the contentious current
issues, both within and beyond science, know that his is often the
most balanced — and therefore the wisest — views on those topics. The
Scientist as Rebel, a highly readable compilation of his speeches,
essays and book reviews, most of them already printed in the New York
Review of Books, bears testimony to his wisdom.
The title of Dyson’s book is somewhat misleading; Giordano Bruno,
Galileo Galilei or Andrei Sakharov barely figure in it. Rather, while
discussing rebellion in its first chapter, he suggests that science in
the new millennium ought to rebel “against poverty and ugliness and
militarism and economic injustice”. His hero is Benjamin Franklin, who
stood for “thoughtful rebellion, driven by reason and calculation more
than by passion and hatred”. If science ever stops confronting
authority, Dyson believes it won’t deserve to be pursued by our
brightest children.
Buried within science are many supremacy battles. What drives
progress, theory or experiment? Out-of-the-box ideas or new tools?
Extraneous demands or intrinsic curiosity? Dyson’s answers to all
these questions are simple: a mix of both. With his characteristic
incisive analysis, he discusses how two great theorists, Albert
Einstein and Robert Oppenheimer, despite providing the best clues for
the existence of black holes, became useless bystanders as young
researchers went ahead with vigorous studies on them. According to
Dyson, historians of science often fall prey to their biases while
assessing the contributions of theorists and experimenters. He points
out that it is not right to claim that Einstein’s discovery of the
special theory of relativity was necessitated by the demand for
perfecting the time-keeping jobs. Also, while reviewing two books on
the advent of nuclear physics, he wonders how they can portray
entirely different characters as the key player in this important
drama in science.
Dyson’s penchant for unbiased assessment of the luminaries in science
is best illustrated in his defence of Edward Teller, deeply reviled
for his clamour for the hydrogen bomb and for causing the downfall of
his erstwhile boss, Oppenheimer. First, Dyson takes Alan Lightman to
task for depicting “mostly the dark side” of Teller while reviewing
his Memoirs. Second, in his own review of the same title elsewhere, he
elaborates how Teller quarrelled vehemently with older scientists but
gave generous help to young colleagues. “Those who disagreed with him
did him a grave injustice when they tried to turn him into a demon,”
Dyson signs off.
Dyson has added postscripts to almost all the articles in The
Scientist as a Rebel in order to update them. They consist of the gist
of the rejoinders that his book reviews attracted, mostly from their
authors, as well as his response to their points of view. In some
cases, he admits his errors and says they have been taken care of in
the articles now published in the book.
That brings us to an exception to this exercise in fairness. There is
no postscript to the chapter, “Religion from the Outside”, Dyson’s
take on the philosopher, Daniel C. Dennett’s latest book, Breaking the
Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. The title earned rave reviews
in many publications, coming, as it did, as the first among a dozen or
so tomes published last year delineating the grip of religion on 21st-
century men and women. Dennett, a professor at Tufts University,
Massachusetts, is a diehard Darwinian when it comes to explaining
human behaviour. His plea to everyone is to come out of the spell that
religion often casts upon us.
Dyson, who calls himself a “sceptical Christian”, is a recipient of
the Templeton Prize, an honour bestowed by the trust founded by the
international investor, Sir John Templeton. The philanthropist is
known for encouraging dialogue between spirituality and science, an
idea ridiculed by the Nobel-Prize-winning physicist, Steven Weinberg.
Not one to consider religion a dispensable fad, Dyson has taken issue
with Dennett for having quoted a famous remark of Weinberg’s in
Breaking the Spell: “Good people will do good things, and bad people
will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things — that takes
religion.” That’s looking at religion from the outside, Dyson argues,
citing its beneficial aspects that its critics ignore. “Weinberg’s
statement is true as far as it goes, but it is not the whole truth,”
he comments, “to make it the whole truth, we must add an additional
clause: ‘And for bad people to do good things — that takes religion.’”
Dennett’s long rebuttal of Dyson’s arguments has not made it to The
Scientist as Rebel. As the last chapter, “Religion from the Outside”,
may have been included in the book as it went to the press. There may
not have been time enough to add Dennett’s rejoinder, published in the
New York Review of Books one-and-a-half months after Dyson’s review
appeared in it.
If that is not the reason for its omission then we can’t call Dyson a
sage either.
PATHIK GUHA
bademiyansubhanallah
Book review: Wolf Hall
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, October 09, 2009
First Published: 12:24 IST(9/10/2009)
Last Updated: 12:30 IST(9/10/2009)
Book: Wolf Hall
Author: Hilary Mantel
Publisher: HarperCollins-India
England in the 1520s is a heartbeat away from disaster. If the king
dies without a male heir, the country will be destroyed by civil war.
Henry VIII wants to annul his marriage of 20 years and marry Anne
Boleyn.
The pope and most of Europe oppose him. The quest for the king's
freedom destroys the pope's advisor, Cardinal Wolsey and leaves a
power vacuum. Into this impasse steps Thomas Cromwell. The son of a
brutal blacksmith, a political genius, a briber, a bully and a
charmer, Cromwell breaks all rules of a rigid society in his rise to
power.
Rising from the ashes of personal disaster - Cromwell pits himself
against parliament, the political establishment and the papacy and is
ready to redraw England to his own and King Henry's desires.
Hilary Mantel's novel Wolf Hall, which wrested the 50,000 pounds Man
Booker Prize for 2009, beating a rival by a margin of one vote in a
secret ballot, explores individual psychologies with the wider
politics of Tudor England.
It is thickly populated - teeming with life, characters, locales,
action and colours of 16th century England - in the true tradition of
a historical epic. It peels back history to show that Tudor England
was a half made society. Published by HarperCollins-India, the
paperback edition of the book available in India is priced at 8.25
pounds.
The book begins with a series of family trees. Street-smart Thomas,
who ran away from home at Putney after being beaten to pulp by a
drunken Walter, is described as one "who is at home in courtroom or
waterfront, bishop's palace or inn yard" as he rises through the
ranks.
He marries Liz Wykys, a divorcee and builds a home at Austin Friars in
London.
The first chapter, 'Across the Narrow Sea, Putney 1500', is a racy
account of young Thomas Cromwell's life with dad Walter. The language
is contemporary and lucid - almost like an action thriller. This is a
book that Mantel "hesitated for 20 years before writing".
The book is mammoth in scope - taking into its swathe a wide array of
characters, each more striking than the other, more scandalous and
nifty in an essentially "dog -eat-dog" medieval England, where tough
men survived by their wits. King Henry was making new history of the
heart that went against the political grain of matrimonial alliances.
Perhaps the most riveting section of the book is 'An Occult History of
Britain'.
It throws light on the barbaric ways of early England - frequent wars
and the undercurrents of viciousness that marked the rise of new power-
heads like Thomas More and subsequently Thomas Cromwell.
"Once in the days of time immemorial, there was a king of Greece who
had 33 daughters. Each of these daughters rose up in revolt and
murdered their husbands. Perplexed as to how he had bred such rebels,
but not wanting to kill his own flesh, he set them adrift on a
rudderless ship. They landed on an island shrouded in mist - and as it
had no name, the eldest of the 33 gave it her own name, Albina. The
island was home only to demons. The 33 princesses mated with the
demons and gave birth to a race of giants who in turn mated with their
mothers and gave birth to more giants."
There was no priest, no law, no churches and no way of telling the
time on Albina - the early England. The great grandson of Aeneas,
Brutus was born in Italy and was orphaned early. He fled Italy and
became the leader of a band of men who were slaves in Troy.
They were driven to Albina's coast, where they fought the giants,
defeated them and ruled till the coming of the Romans. "Whichever way
you look at it", the history of England begins with slaughter, says
Mantel.
bademiyansubhanallah
Mueller wins Nobel literature prize
Reuters
Stockholm, October 08, 2009
First Published: 18:17 IST(8/10/2009)
Last Updated: 18:54 IST(8/10/2009)
German Herta Mueller, a Romanian-born writer who produced tales of the
disenfranchised and fought for free speech, has won the 2009 Nobel
prize for literature.
The Swedish Academy, which decides the winner of the 10 million
Swedish crown ($1.4 million) prize, recognized Mueller for her ability
to depict "the landscape of the dispossessed."
Mueller, whose mother was sent to a Soviet work camp for five years
and who herself was harassed by the Romanian secret police after
refusing to be an informer, made her debut in 1982 with a collection
of short stories.
That work, Niederungen, was censored in Romania. In it, and in her
book Drueckender Tango (Oppressive Tango) published two years later,
she wrote about corruption and repression in a German-speaking village
in Romania.
Her works reflect her experiences growing up in Romania under dictator
Nicolae Ceausescu, whose rule came to an end in 1989 when he was
executed.
The nationality of this year's award has been more closely watched
than usual after comments last year by former Academy Permanent
Secretary Horace Engdahl that Americans did not participate in
literature's "big dialogue."
Some had speculated that the committee might chose an American to make
up for bruised feelings.
bademiyansubhanallah
On the waterfront
Riddhi Shah, Hindustan Times
April 27, 2009
First Published: 14:40 IST(27/4/2009)
Last Updated: 20:40 IST(27/4/2009)
Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi
Geoff Dyer
Randomhouse | Rs 395 | PP 291
Remember the Maggi ketchup advertisement, the one with Pankaj Kapur
and Javed Jaffrey that always ended with ‘It’s different’? Admittedly,
this is not an original or a literary descriptor for a book as
inventive and creative as Geoff Dyer’s. But that’s how I feel about
his third novel Jeff in Venice, Death in Varanasi.
The novel, which follows protagonist Jeff Atman — a cynical and
unhappy British journalist — as he journeys across Venice and
Varanasi, is a slow, meandering story of loss, redemption and the
ultimate discovery of the ‘eternal truth’.
The recurring theme through the book is that of rebirth — of former
selves that die, and the new selves we quickly adopt, leaving behind
the old.
In he beginning, Atman (a pun on atma perhaps) is embittered, insecure
and lonely, in search only of the next free glass of Bellini and a
gram of coke. But when he meets the witty and waif-like Laura, while
on an assignment to cover the Venice Art Biennale, he is rejuvenated.
Their conversations are the stuff of Woody Allen films: (“Why, I
oughta…” “It’s funny, no one says that any more: ‘Why, I oughta’. We
should start a campaign to bring it back”. “You’re right. We
oughta”.).
And their love affair is ethereal and spellbinding, brought to life by
Dyer’s description of the tragic romance of Venice. (“He was alone
in Venice. She had gone and he had gone from Plus One to Minus One.
There was nothing to do except stroll, so he strolled through the
crowded, empty city... One moment he was in a busy, densely populated
area and then he was in completely silent streets, deserted except for
sunlight.”)
When she leaves four days later, he finds himself on the water’s edge,
unsure and unable to go on. In the second part of the book, we meet
yet another avatar of Atman. This time he’s in Varanasi to write a
travel piece, and his rebirth comes in the form of spiritual
emancipation. Instead of leaving the city after a week as planned, he
stays on interminably, being tossed, turned and remodelled by the
temples, monkeys and sadhus of Varanasi, like driftwood in the Ganga.
Eventually, Atman manages to rid himself of all desire and lets go of
the ego. The story ends, not entirely unexpectedly, on the water’s
edge. But this time around, there’s no fear, only the acceptance of
the timelessness of things.
Despite the book’s clearly metaphysical theme, this is no run-of-the
mill self-help story; instead, its spirituality — subtle, funny and
quietly self-effacing — takes you by surprise.
It is Dyer’s familiarity both with Venice’s decadent and hedonistic
art world as well as Varanasi’s decaying mysticism that lends to his
writing a rare authenticity. His prose is lyrical and delightful, if
on occasion self-serving and indulgent. At times, the free-associative
monologues become boring. You stop caring about Atman’s thoughts on
the exact colour of Laura’s underwear and just want to know what
happens next.
But it is the dialogue and self-reflection that sparkles. Dyer’s
ironic and incisive writing ought to strike a chord with the current
generation, with anyone who is caught between the polarities of
materialism and spiritualism. If you’ve experienced the life of all-
night partying and drinking, but are still seeking to the understand
the ultimate meaning of life; if you’re smart, funny and enjoy good
conversation, this book is for you.
bademiyansubhanallah
Victoria memorials
Paramita Ghosh , Hindustan Times
September 04, 2009
First Published: 23:46 IST(4/9/2009)
Last Updated: 19:33 IST(5/9/2009)
Some cities are defined by light, some by sound. Venice, poets say, is
beautiful at sunrise. The cornices and columns are more prominent.
Their silhouettes, more striking than their features. Daylight is less
kind to Calcutta, especially on those parts that make visible the
evidence of past grandeur. White & Black, an exploration of Calcutta’s
social history through text and pictures, focuses on the imperial
quarters — Dalhousie Square — and the people who live beside it.
Dalhousie is Calcutta, not Kolkata — that ungainly bastard child
birthed by Bengali chauvinism and the politics of a degenerate state.
In Calcutta, the Armenian Church was an equal landmark with Laldighi
and Victoria Memorial. There was an audience for live bands at the
Great Eastern Hotel. Nahoum’s, a Jewish patisserie, did good business
in New Market.
Grand offices, roads, arcades, as the book points out, airlifted
London, as it were, in the days of the Empire. This was the Second
City of the Raj.
The reverse couldn’t be more true. Shabbier, poorer, isolated and
cloaked by an end-of-empire melancholy, Dalhousie is now the detritus
and the drying up of West Bengal’s cosmopolitan spirit, which, to
begin with, wasn’t egalitarian and inclusive.
The book is thus a fitting museum of ‘objects’ and people, some tied
to dying professions: the solitary typist smiling wanly into the
camera in front of the court; the small-time trader for whom this city
was the city of fortune; a Marwari businessman’s old and unused family
gaddi; walls plastered with idiosyncratic graffiti; a pavilion at
Fairlie Place erected by the Nawab of Dhaka, now turned into a
makeshift kitchen.
Dalhousie, in White & Black is, however, a beautiful frieze. The
visual portrayal of decay is not quite matched by the text of Soumitra
Das, who seems to have experienced that ‘falling apart’ from the
outside.
Desmond Doig, who wrote and illustrated Calcutta An Artist’s
Impression, published by The Statesman, had found a way to make
buildings tell their own story. That way, is the way of flânerie and
anecdote. So, while we had a Mr Mukherjee telling Doig about a Raj
Bhawan bearer, who when asked about the Ceasar busts in the complex,
replied without hesitation that they were of “Calcutta’s first
memsahibs”, in Tagore Villa, a young Tagore outlined his contribution
to the family residence thus: “filling the pool with a ton of river
mud to raise lobsters.” Stories of decay need good characters. But you
have to keep asking them the right questions.
White & Black Journey to the Centre of Imperial Calcutta
Photographs: Christopher Taylor
Text: Soumitra Das
Niyogi books
Price: Rs 2,495 n pp 224
bademiyansubhanallah
All is not revealed
PRADEEP SEBASTIAN
Waiting for the sequel to the Da Vinci Code? Well, The Lost Symbol is
definitely not the one.
The Lost Symbol is really an overwritten, over wrought screenplay
inside the covers of a book
The Lost Symbolis a big con. At 500-odd pages, it’s an even bigger
con. It doesn’t uncover a conspiracy, it tries to end one. It doesn’t
provoke or shatter or tease, but tries to reassure and empower. Very
nice if you are looking for some Eckhart Tolle-Paul Coelho kind of
mysticism, but is this what we want from a long and eagerly awaited
sequel to that juicy conspiracy blockbuster? A quasi-mystical, over
long feel-good adventure that set our wallets back by Rs. 500? The
reason we breathlessly went along with the plot of The Da Vinci Code
was not for the codes and symbols and chases, but for its wow-inducing
revelations as it traced a secret, alternative, hidden history of
Christian art and history, making us wonder how much could be true.
What is uncovered in The Lost Symbol is too esoteric for the reader to
be tantalised or intrigued by: Free Masons, Washington D.C. monuments
and fringe mystical religious traditions. Not exactly the kind of
shocking conspiracy material Da Vinci… was made of.
The plot of The Lost Symbol, alas, is not even pseudo history but pure
fiction; entirely a Dan Brown invention. A labyrinth of codes and
grids and symbols minus the conspiracy frisson of DVC. What excited us
in DVC was its delicious mix of history and fiction with some clever
code breaking and symbol interpreting. What this sequel reveals at the
end is rather fascinating and nice in that Dancing Wu Li Masters kind
of way, but that’s not why I — or anyone else — picked it up in the
first place.
Too long
The book becomes tiresome with some 200 pages still to go, and I
thought: what an odd thing to happen to a story that takes place in
some 24-odd hours. That lightening pace is there and yet we feel just
as dragged about as Robert Langdon on some mystical wild goose chase.
My little tip: skip the book, wait for the movie. The movie version
will nicely shrink the plot to 100 pages, and since The Lost Symbol is
really an overwritten, over wrought screenplay inside the covers of a
book, it’s best we leave it to Hollywood to perform some alchemy and
patiently transform it into entertainment.
On finishing the book, my thoughts turned to not Dan Brown or the
book, but to Sonny Mehta, chief editor at Alfred Knopf, who was one of
the first in the Doubleday editorial team to read it before it came
out. Mehta is known for spotting books that are literary, thrilling
and sensational (The Secret History, Damage, American Psycho), so
naturally we had no reason to doubt him when he pronounced the book a
“brilliant and compelling thriller”. What was he thinking?
I admit that if the book was just 250 pages it could have been a
little compelling, and you could even grant that the secret of the
Ancient Mysteries revealed in chapter 133 (it had to be 33) sparkles
with brilliant effort. (It would be worthwhile to photocopy or print
that lecture by Katherine Solomon from this last chapter and
distribute it around like an evangelical pamphlet).
Skilled storytelling
But the whole thing is too stretched; Brown shouldn’t take it for
granted that he’s taken the reader so captive. However, at 500 pages,
DVC would have still sustained our interest; Brown’s skills for
counter-twists, cliff hanging suspense, and roller coaster
storytelling is intact in the sequel but the main edifice of the book,
the Ancient Mysteries, does not sizzle and tantalise and make you go,
‘Wow, so that is what they have been hiding from us!’
For a reader to exclaim and gape in this way she has to have some
familiarity with what THAT is, or who THEY are: in the DVC it was the
Catholic Church, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Holy Grail, in The Lost
Symbol it is the Free Masons, Albrecht Durer and the Ancient
Mysteries. Who could really care what is revealed about the latter
three?
Deciphering codes concealed in Durer’s “Melancholia I” does not have
the oh-my-god thrill of uncovering secrets in “The Last Supper”. And
to top it all, the Free Masons, the book demonstrates, are not some
sinister secret society with world domination on their minds but
people with more integrity than you and me with a design to make
humans realise their greatest potential. And here I was hoping to find
something scandalous and shocking (but they are not the Church, it
would seem).
The Da Vinci Code was always a hard act to follow for anyone, even its
author, but in The Lost Symbol Brown departs further away and reverses
(undoes, some would say) everything he did in the prequel: there are
really no conspiracies, all religions know the one truth, even the
naked and tattooed villain is noble, and there really is a God —whose
identity is finally revealed here for us. The Lost Symbol may be the
book for those who were miffed by The Da Vinci Code. For those of us
who were longing to be told more faith shattering secrets and to
indulge in religious paranoia, we’ll just have to wait for the true
sequel to DVC where all will be revealed. A book, I’m beginning to
feel, is mostly a myth, a mere symbol, lost to us.
bademiyansubhanallah
Spotlight on “Ordinance Raj”
ARVIND P. DATAR
ENDANGERED CONSTITUTIONALISM — Documents of a Supreme Court Case: D.C.
Wadhwa; Published by Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics,
Pune. Distributed by Aditya Books Pvt. Ltd., 119, Vinoba Puri, Lajpat
Nagar II, New Delhi-110024. Rs. 795.
It is indeed ironical that one of the landmark judgments on
constitutional law was the result of pioneering work by an economist,
D. C. Wadhwa, a former Director of the Gokhale Institute of Politics
and Economics, Pune, who accidentally stumbled on the fact that the
constitutional provision for promulgating ordinances was being abused
in Bihar. Article 213 of the Constitution empowers the Governor of a
State to promulgate ordinances when the Legislative Assembly is not in
session. The provision is to enable the executive to enact urgent laws
through ordinances in situations where immediate action is considered
necessary. Such a law will lapse six weeks after the Legislature re-
assembled unless it is replaced by a legislative enactment. Law-
making, under the theory of separation of powers, is the preserve of
the legislature. The executive’s duty is to implement the laws.
From 1967, Bihar — and a few other States — started resorting to the
pernicious practice of re-promulgating the lapsed ordinances several
times over. As Wadhwa points out, a sugarcane ordinance was
promulgated repeatedly and kept alive for almost 14 years! Statistics
show that during 1950-66 the Bihar Legislature passed 444 Acts and the
number of ordinances promulgated was 76. During 1967-81, while the
number of Acts passed by the legislature dropped to 180, the tally of
ordinances shot up to 2014! There are cases where as many as 50
ordinances were promulgated on a single day.
It was Wadhwa who, through his book titled “Re-promulgation of
Ordinance: A fraud on the Constitution of India” (published by the
Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics, Pune), brought this
deceitful practice into the spotlight. He followed it up, in 1984,
with a writ petition in the Supreme Court. The Constitution Bench
headed by Chief Justice Bhagwati, while allowing the petition,
categorically declared that “Ordinance Raj” had no place in India and
went on to make quite a few significant observations on the ordinance-
making powers of Governors.
Compilation
The book under review, published by the Gokhale Institute as a sequel
to Wadhwa’s earlier work, is basically a compilation of the
affidavits, written submissions, and other documents that were filed
in the Supreme Court in 1984. It sharply brings out, on the one hand,
the meticulous attention Wadhwa had paid to detail in presenting his
case and, on the other, the casualness that was apparent in the
counter-affidavit filed by the Bihar government.
In a lengthy epilogue, Wadhwa criticises the Supreme Court for
permitting re-promulgation “if there is too much legislative business
in a particular session.” He rightly contends that the Constitution
does not permit any such relaxation and the Supreme Court judgment is
clearly contrary to the plain words of Article 213. If there is too
much legislative business, the remedy lies in extending the number of
days of the session and not in freely invoking the ordinance-making
powers. Indeed, in recent times there has been a drastic fall in the
number of days devoted to legislative business by Parliament and the
State Assemblies. He also points out that even after the Supreme Court
judgment, governments run by various political parties have resorted
to promulgating ordinances in a clear violation of the apex court’s
verdict and Article 213. The net result is that the legislature has
quietly surrendered its paramount power in favour of the executive.
Wadhwa goes on to suggest some amendments to the Constitution with a
view to preventing the “Ordinance Raj.”
Upendra Baxi, who has provided an excellent introduction to the
publication, laments that too much time is frittered away by the
Indian legislatures on purposes other than making laws and public
policies.
This book will be particularly useful to lawyers and students of
constitutional law for the manner in which the case was prepared and
presented before the Supreme Court. For non-lawyers, it provides
shocking evidence as to how our legislatures have betrayed their
constitutional duty and allowed the executive to encroach upon their
law-making powers.
bademiyansubhanallah
On economic reforms
S. MAHENDRA DEV
The book is a fitting tribute to Prof. Bagchi’s contribution to social
sciences
POST-REFORM DEVELOPMENT IN ASIA — Essays for Amiya Kumar Bagchi:
Edited by Manoj Kumar Sanyal, Mandira Sanyal, and Shahina Amin; Orient
Blackswan Pvt. Ltd. 3-6-752, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad-500029. Rs. 695.
Economic reforms have influenced the development strategies in recent
decades. There have been some improvements in economic growth and
other indicators in the post-reform period.
However, there are concerns regarding poverty reduction, quantity and
quality of employment generation, human development, and inequalities
in the economy and society — rural-urban, man-woman and so on. It is
known that economic growth is only one of the means or instruments for
achieving the end — the well-being and freedoms of the people.
A festschrift volume for Prof. Amiya Kumar Bagchi, the book under
review deals with post-reform developments in Asia. Bagchi is an
eminent economist, a social scientist, and an institution-builder. His
research on various development issues is widely known. He interacted
with renowned economists and social scientists. As indicated in a
‘tribute’ to him in the volume, he acknowledged “his debt to his
teachers Maurice Dobb, R.M. Goodwin and Joan Robinson in particular”
at Trinity College. He also records his debt to Amartya Sen and
Sukhamoy Chakravorty and recalls his useful interactions with the
students of the Presidency College, Calcutta (now Kolkata).
As mentioned in the ‘preface,’ the essays are an “attempt to grapple
with the issues often raised in the development debate on whether neo-
liberal reforms in developing nations have raised poverty, food
insecurity and income inequality, hindered empowerment of women,
raised agrarian distress, reallocated resources for private
profitability as against social gain and facilitated the rise of multi-
national oligopoly.” These issues have been examined on the basis of
empirical data drawn from China, India, and Bangladesh. The volume
contains 11 essays — six on India, two on China, and one on
Bangladesh; the other two papers deal with theoretical issues.
Inequality
The papers on China focus on the inequality across regions and the
rural-urban disparities. Inequalities increased in China in spite of
rapid economic growth. Those on India have as their themes food
insecurity, growth-poverty-employment relationship, gender
discrimination in the labour market, agrarian distress caused by
withdrawal of state support to small farmers and, policy shift in
‘priority sector lending’ to the detriment of small and marginal
farmers and entrepreneurs.
One of the papers refers to the paradox of higher GDP growth, lower
poverty, and higher unemployment in the post-reform India and the
authors discuss it using the data up to 1999-2000. But if we use the
more recent 2004-05 data, the employment growth rate will be high.
Although unemployment increased, it is still less than 10 per cent.
Apart from unemployment, a basic problem in India is that of “working
poor.” People are working but at low wages, in low working conditions,
and without any social security. In other words, there is no paradox
of low poverty and high unemployment in India.
Child labour
The paper on Bangladesh revisits poverty issues in the context of
child labour. It indicates that the determinants of children’s market
work and household work will have to be examined in separate models.
The last two papers discuss an analytical framework for understanding
the issues relating to the recent rise of multi-national firms and the
rapid growth of India’s software technology.
One can differ with the methodology used and the analysis made in some
of the papers. It may be noted that the impact of economic reforms
depends on initial conditions and other factors. In general, the
international experience shows that reforms have not succeeded in
Latin America and Africa.
On the other hand, the experience of South East Asia and East Asia
with economic reforms and poverty reduction has been much better. For
example, in China, although inequalities increased, their official
data show that the poverty ratio is very low and children suffering
malnutrition is eight per cent. This does not mean that everything is
good about these regions. Countries here also suffered on account of
the financial crisis in the late 1990s. As pointed out in the book,
these countries and those in South Asia have to focus more on
inequalities, employment, poverty, human development, and other social
and economic problems apart from accelerating economic growth.
Moreover, economic reforms have given greater importance to the
financial sector as compared to the real sector. The Indian experience
with reforms over the past 18 years reveals that there have been
achievements on the growth front but inequalities widened and the
performance in terms of the quality of employment and progress in
social sector is far from satisfactory. For example, malnutrition
among children was stubborn at 45 per cent during the period
1998-2006. Fortunately, there is a growing recognition in countries
like India that an equitable or inclusive development is imperative
since the social and economic disparities are persistently high and
worsening, in spite of the higher economic growth. Compared to other
countries, India has done well in the present financial crisis because
of its cautious approach.
To conclude, this book is a significant addition to the literature on
economic reforms and a fitting tribute to Prof. Bagchi’s contribution
to social sciences.
bademiyansubhanallah
From the Blurb
Ethnic Activism and Civil Society in South Asia: Edited by David N.
Gellner; Pub. by Sage Publications India Ltd., B1/I-1, Mohan
Cooperative Industrial Area, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044. Rs. 750.
Second in the series named ‘Governance, Conflict and Civic Action’,
this volume looks at civil society in the light of case studies of
different types of ethnic (communal) activism in Nepal, Sri Lanka and
India. The articles, grouped under four heads, examine the Hindu
nationalism, the Dalit activism, and the Janajati movement (in Nepal)
and seek to establish that they are driven by the same impulses — to
assert their self-respect and pride; to resist injustice, and reassess
the previously stigmatised symbols and so on. How ethnic activists
wrestle with official categorisation and the traditional practices and
strive to effect a radical change on the social, political, and
intellectual fronts is brought out effectively.
In his introduction, titled “How civil are ‘communal’ and ethno-
nationalist movements?,” David N. Gellner, who has edited the volume,
says the problem with “some ethnic activists” is that they are
“willing to act illegally and violently,” in pursuit of their goals,
especially where that appears to be the only option to obtain a
hearing. He goes on to argue that insofar as they wish to participate
in emergent global civil society, “ethnic movements will feel some
moral pressure to modify their means and compromise their ends.” If
the case of Sri Lanka shows how “polarisation can rapidly squeeze the
possibility of neutrality or even-handedness out of the public
sphere,” the case of India suggests that “pluralisam and democracy can
permit some emergence of an open civil society.”
Intellectual Property Rights in WTO and Developing Countries:
Published by Serials Publications, 4830/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002. Rs. 1450.
The subject of trade-related intellectual property rights (TRIPS) has
always been very controversial.
The areas of intellectual property covered by the TRIPS agreement
include plant and seed varieties; micro organism; copyright and
neighbouring rights; trademarks (including services matters);
industrial designs; geographical indications; integrated circuits; and
trade secrets. For every one of them, certain norms of protection are
prescribed and a transition period is allowed for attaining these
norms. In most cases, legislations are in different stages of
formulation and implementation.
This book, which has a bunch of 32 articles, discusses the IPR-related
issues in the WTO context and insofar as they affect the developing
countries. While some of the themes are general in nature — for
example: IPRs and WTO; Impact of WTO on agricultural marketing; IPRs
and their impact on developing countries; and WTO and labour standards
— a good number of them are country-specific and often based on case
studies, with India claiming a major share. Some of the India-specific
areas that have received attention are: health infrastructure; tea
industry; small scale industries sector; women empowerment;
agriculture; edible oils; and dairy products
Sid Harth
ACORN: Flesh-Eating Machine
Or Left–Wing Conspiracy?
By Billy Wharton
09 October, 2009
Socialist WebZine
The People Shall Rule: ACORN, Community Organizing, and the Struggle
for Economic Justice
Robert Fisher, ed., Vanderbilt University Press (2009), $27.95
A flesh eating machine? A political animal? Or a far-left conspiracy?
Descriptions of ACORN vary widely, yet Robert Fisher’s The People
Shall Rule attempts to offer readers a window into America’s most
influential community organization. The volume brings together
academics and activists in what is presented as the first
comprehensive examination of the group. Overall, the articles suggest
that ACORN has managed to transcend many of the theoretical debates –
community development v. conflict politics, service v. advocacy,
movement-building v. organizational formation – which have framed
previous examinations of community organizing. ACORN, it seems, is a
hybrid organization – as willing to employ direct action as to accept
donations from real estate magnates.
Several authors point to ACORN’s federated structure as key to the
organization’s success. ACORN has managed to marry a fairly
centralized, staff-driven, national organization with relatively
autonomous member-controlled local groups. This marriage allows for a
synergistic national-local energy which is often beyond the capacities
of most locally-bound community organizations. For example, Peter
Drier argues that many community groups have scored important
victories in the struggle to secure community reinvestment programs.
Yet, “…only ACORN has used its federal structure to bundle these
accomplishments to build its political clout, organizational funding,
and constituency base.”
Political clout is precisely what Wade Rathke, founder of ACORN,
desired at the group’s origin. Even early on, Rathke argues, the group
was “not willing to simply be a power broker,” but, instead, wished to
build power in numbers for both street protest and electoral
campaigning. In addition, he sought to move away from the “episodic
and situational” character of social movements. “Movement,” he stated
firmly, “is not magic as much as muscle powering imagination and
will.” The basic rule employed to cultivate these muscles is that “if
it builds power, if it adds to the whole, then it can be done.”
Rathke’s ACORN is a “real-life, flesh eating machine that must be fed
constantly on activity and victory.”
The need for constant activity is reflected in ACORN’s stance as an
explicitly anti-idelogicial organization in the tradition of Saul
Alinsky. They must, therefore, constantly develop new campaigns inside
of often hostile historical and economic contexts. One key campaigning
opportunity was the struggle against credit redlining in low-income
communities, which developed after the Community Reinvestment Act was
passed in 1977. Weak national enforcement opened the space for
community organizing. ACORN’s versatility was on full display in anti-
redlining campaigns – serious research and political lobbying was
buttressed by locally-mobilized direct actions. Success was evident on
all levels – the organization grew and the campaign generated more
than $4 trillion in new loans for traditionally underserved
communities.
The victory against redlining was the result not only of organizing
from below, but an adaptation by financial capital from above.
Capital, it seemed, also had the capacity to respond to changing
economic situations. ACORN was therefore faced, in the 1990s, with a
social problem it helped usher in by loosening credit – predatory
lending in poor communities. Gregory Chadwick and Jan Chadwick
estimate that this practice cost victimized families more than $9.1
billion per year and led to countless bankruptcies and foreclosures.
ACORN initiated another cycle of organizing that has moderated the
predatory trends, but has yet to eliminate them.
Neoliberalism has placed other challenges before ACORN. Another case
study presented by John Atlas in his chapter entitled “The Battle of
Brooklyn,” describes describes the struggles surrounding a mega-
development project proposed in Brooklyn called the Atlantic Yards
project. Real estate magnate Bruce Ratner authored the project and
managed to secure significant concessions from NY City and State
governments using eminent domain laws to displace residents. Community
opposition developed immediately, resulting in the creation of the
Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn coalition and dissent from prominent
Democratic Party officials.
Though they seemed like a perfect fit for the opposition, ACORN’s New
York leader, Bertha Lewis, did not head to the picket line,
preferring, instead, the negotiating table with Ratner. “It’s better
to win something,” Lewis told the media, “than go into opposition and
just yell and scream and ultimately lose.” Atlas concurs, viewing the
ACORN-Ratner deal, which secured 50% affordable apartments and a
portion of living wage jobs, a successful attempt to “steer
gentrification to benefit poor and working-class residents.” Opponents
called the deal an opportunistic “sell-out” and pointed to large-scale
personal contributions made by Ratner to ACORN.
The struggle around the Atlantic Yards development is not an isolated
instance of controversy. ACORN has faced multiple internal and
external scandals of late. In 2008, newspapers reported that the
national leadership was rocked by an embezzlement scandal initiated by
a member of Rathke’s family, which led to wholesale resignations,
including the founder himself. ACORN veteran Gary Delgado viewed the
controversy as evidence of the hazards of bureaucratization on the
national level. More recently, undercover right-wing operatives
created a national media sensation by soliciting information about
concealing funds from an illegal prostitution ring. The stunt
manipulated the autonomy of ACORN’s local organizations and has led to
a significant national decrease in funding from government sources.
Yet, as Robert Fischer argues in the conclusion of this compilation,
the sheer scale of the ACORN project provides it with “…the ability to
experiment and
fail.”
The critiques mentioned above are, however, not as readily available
in The People Shall Rule as one would prefer. Most of the authors are
exceedingly friendly to ACORN – defending them from either liberal
political leanings or as a theoretical wedge in sociological debates
about community organization and social mobilization. The book would
be improved by providing space to both right and left wing criticisms
of ACORN. From the left, significant questions should be raised about
the organization’s trajectory. Its willingness to adapt to and, in the
case of both Atlantic Yards and H&R Block, partner with capitalist
corporations raises questions about how closely the organization is
integrated into the structures of neoliberal capitalism. In addition,
ACORN’s blind commitment to act as insiders in the Democratic Party is
one of many trends serving to stifle the development of significant
third party politics in the US.
Overall though, The People Shall Rule is an important first offering
into what promises to be a proliferation of studies into one of the
most significant community organizations in the country. Left-wing
activists of all stripes would do well to understand the manner in
which ACORN has harnessed a dynamic tension between local and national
organizing to carve out a place in the lives of poor and working class
communities. As neo-liberalism moves into what appears to be a period
of prolonged crisis, the strategies and structures championed by ACORN
offer lessons to be both learned and unlearned.
This article was originally published in the Socialist WebZine
***
Billy Wharton is the editor of The Socialist and the Socialist
WebZine. His articles have recently appeared in the Washington Post,
Monthly Review Webzine and The Indypendent.
bademiyansubhanallah
Asking me to behave is to insult me
Rajesh Kalra Thursday September 24, 2009
The ability of our politicians to outperform themselves on the
absurdity quotient never ceases to amaze me. As if the Congress party
was not stupid enough when its spokesperson, Jayanthi Natarajan,
slammed Tharoor for his 'holy cow' and 'cattle class' remarks as being
insensitive, the BJP has gone a step ahead, with its spokesperson,
Rajiv Pratap Rudy, claiming that had Tharoor and home minister P
Chidambaram been in service with the private sector, they would have
been sacked.
In Tharoor's case, we already know the arguments, but why on earth is
the BJP stalwart, who has made more trips to the TV studios than to
Parliament, baying for Chidu's blood? Simple, he dared to advise
Delhiites to mend their behaviour if they wanted Delhi to be called a
world-class city. By asking the citizens of the capital of this
country to behave, the home minister had insulted the common man. Holy
cow!
I completely agree with you, Rudyji. And Chidambaram did not insult
the common man alone, he also said the police vehicles jumped traffic
signals often. So he insulted the police force too, and you must
demand that the Prime Minister remove him immediately for his ministry
controls the police.
But please don't stop your demand at Tharoor and Chidambaram. A
diplomat from Mauritius recently wondered at a meeting to discuss
Commonwealth Games that he cannot figure out why people in Delhi,
indeed India, cannot drive in proper lanes. The government should send
this gent back home immediately for insulting our nation. And if you
really want to target someone big in the private sector, you could
easily latch on to the editors of some of the papers which have been
running a campaign against the boorish behaviour of Indians. In fact,
just yesterday, an English daily had listed 10 obnoxious things that
Indians do, and that included spitting and jaywalking. I would be
appalled if the owners don't sack that editor for insulting the common
man. Phew!
This is the height of absurdity, really. Both Tharoor and Chidambaram
are among the most articulate and educated folks in Indian politics,
and for a change, from them we have started getting comments that are
direct, the way they should be, without beating around the bush. If
anything, Chidambaram should have been harsher. And he also needs to
target the so called VIP class of India and ask them to behave. Ask
them to follow rules, not to behave as if they are above law.
What politicians say and do is lapped up by a lot of people,
especially the impressionable kinds. And in this brouhaha of national
pride and all else, a lot of nonsense sieves through as well. We all
want national pride, but it cannot be by overlooking the facts. Wish
all these loud mouths realise that sticking to stupid notions is
actually a bigger insult to the nation than anything else. My advice
to Rudis and Natarajans of the world would be to please look at the
future and start attacking the drawbacks that hamper this country's
growth. Indiscipline is one major drawback. If saying so is insulting
my nation, then so be it!
Rated 4.6/5 (222 Votes)
Comments:
Agree (52)
Disagree (2)
Gaurav Kaushik says:
September 24, 2009 at 03:44 PM IST
Wao, someone writes his mind. No beating around the bush and looking
ahead for India. Everyone wants India to be liked. But it need to
change
and change a lot. It is a good start.
Agree (34)
Disagree (1)
Amit Deshpande says:
September 24, 2009 at 03:59 PM IST
Bang On!
Seldom do we hear some sensible talk from the politicians and there
already are a lot of them waiting to deride the much due direct chit-
chat. Natarajan's sycophancy is much clear when she gets hurt
'thinking' that Baba was the Holy Cow!
Rudy has to oppose since he is in opposition, so he derides Chidu's
straight talk.
One thing that politicos would do well would be to reduce the
inconvenience caused to others due to their entourages blocking
traffic. We surely dont want the games sportspersons being late for
their respective games because of traffic jams.
By the way, who is in command of the games? The one responsible person
to take credit if it goes well? Surely, if all goes well miraculously
there will be hundreds to claim credit, but since everyone will push
the blame on others in case of a problem, then better get the name of
CEO of the games right now. Is it Kalmadi, Sheila Dikshit or MMS?
Agree (47)
Disagree (1)
Hanif Mohammed says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:04 PM IST
The Rudis and Jayantis are playing to the masses, so that in the event
it backfires, they are already insured !! Basic etiquette, which are
not known to most of our folks (because they deem what they do is
right), should be produced on mass level for greater awarness and
relayed on newsprint, TV and other media, and also introduced at
schools, were the children can learn and they in turn teach their
parents on what is right and wrong. We can make it happen in India, if
everyone contribute their bit, and be a responsible stake holder !!
Agree (25)
Disagree (1)
Juhi Dang says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:13 PM IST
Loved this post. Sarcasm at its best! Mr. Kalra, I just wish all these
efforts drill some sense into these big mouths!!
I wonder why Rudi and his likes have always got something silly to
crib about. If they put in this energy into raising issues which
matter to the country, I'm sure India will be a much better place to
live in.
Agree (11)
Disagree (21)
turbulence says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:20 PM IST
What a piece!
Our most educated politicians should also include this in their
agenda:
1. They should ask all the children of India to get educated before
the commonwealth games and we will have an educated India by then
2. They should ask all the police in the country to shun corruption
and before the commonwealth games we will have a corruption-free
police.
3. They should ask all the MP's to vote in the parliament as per their
conscience only and lo and behold we will never have cash for votes
scam ever again.
Anything else comes to your mind?
Agree (27)
Disagree (2)
apeksha verma says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:32 PM IST
I totally agree wid u.being the home minister of india,mr chidambram
hasn't said anything wrong.i feel that whatever mr. chidambram
addressed should be followed strictly as this is the need of the
hour.the commonwealth games are just around the corner.instead of
taking a dig at him,the whole ministry should speak in support of him
to make the games a success
Agree (11)
Disagree (4)
rachana says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:43 PM IST
It appears from your article that we are the best behaved people in
the world and that even if we are not, nobody should dare tell us
otherwise. Frankly, i feel most of us want to tell the nuisance makers
to behave, keep the boundaries and walls of our buildings clean, drive
sanely and many other things, but why does it hurt when a political
leader says it?
Agree (11)
Disagree (4)
SC Cyclone says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:52 PM IST
Thanks Rajesh, I think Rudi should stick to looking good on TV & Page
3. I always though that he was worthless and my conviction has been
reinforced. As I said in an earlier post, we sure have a front row
ticket to the Freak Show of Indian Politics/Politicians. I guess
Indian Politcs needs an urgent Blood Transfusion.
Leaving a few, the majority are not taking us or taking the Country
anywhere. What a shame...
Agree (8)
Disagree (2)
Divya Rao says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:54 PM IST
Knock on wood,sir! I hope Rudy babu takes a html line out of your blog
entry.
Agree (9)
Disagree (1)
Sachin says:
September 24, 2009 at 04:56 PM IST
Good to see a blog questioning a behavior which I have already started
assuming to be acceptable for political class...There a thousand
stupid things that 80% of our political class blabber everyday and the
only way out I find is to ignore politicians who say it and media
channels who play it over and over again for 48 hours !!!
May sanity return !
Agree (18)
Disagree (1)
Vijay Dhawan says:
September 24, 2009 at 05:00 PM IST
Rajesh, you got it!!
Decent behaviour is not common at all. Urinating where ever it pleases
them, spitting as if the world was made for this, jumping red lights
cause thats what you are supposed to do, ill treating women....man..
we have a long list and a long way to go. I think Chitambaram was
being very polite. Harsher treatment and words are required for
defaulters so that the next generation hesitates in such behaviour.
Right now all the wrong messages are being imbibed and a bit of
correct policing would help.
A stint in a disciplined force like the armed force will do a number
of citizens a lot of good!!
Chitambram sahib, go ahead and carry out your job...hum tumahre saath
hai!!
Agree (5)
Disagree (3)
Mihir says:
September 24, 2009 at 05:08 PM IST
How rude of Rudi!!
Agree (14)
Disagree (1)
Sughosh Bansal says:
September 24, 2009 at 05:11 PM IST
I once witnessed a scebe. Two young men were driving a bike at the
peak time in the wrong lane. To save them another Bike being driven in
the correct lane skidded and the driver got seriously injured. Can
Ruddy tell us who was at fault and why the person driving correctly
got injured? and this is the scene which you witness daily on the
Delhi Roads. If one has to go by Ruddy, we must dismantel all the
traffic lights forthwith and save crores of rupees. In any case these
traffic lights do not serve the purpose for which they are installed.
We should also dismantle all the loos and make a nice saving, since
the so called middle class of Delhi do not use these loos and urinate
anywhere and every where treating Delhi as Big Loo. We the Delhiites,
in the grab of middle class, have become abosultely characterless,
selfish, and non-caring for the Society.
Agree (20)
Disagree (1)
Kavitha Kanaparthi says:
September 24, 2009 at 05:14 PM IST
By God ki Kasam, what manners are you talking about? Aren't we in the
land of spit everywhere, pee just about in all corners, and pick your
nose, scratch yourself without a care in the world.? What with all
those firm customs should we do about some silly pedestrian crossing,
lane jumping, and calling holy cows, 'holy cows'!
Seriously, a friend of mine videotaped a Indian H1 worker in
Washington, on a Red line service, picking his nose through three
station stops. Why be offended? He just an Indian on a different soil.
When some of us step up to ask people not to litter when we witness
it, we are told, 'well, we are in India', not Singapore, or US! You
get it, don't you? Indians aren't supposed to follow rules, behave
decent, and wait their turn in line, nor should they be grooming
themselves at home, but in public. If they did, it would make them un-
Indian I suppose.
I read that Mrs.Gandhi took the time to meet with Mr.Tharoor, and gave
him friendly advise on being an good Indian Leader. Don't call holy
cows 'holy cows'. That would make him a bad politician. I was thrilled
when Mr.Tharoor took office, and over the last year saw Mr.Chidambaram
conduct himself with dignity, and loved his talk when on TV.
Moral of my story: none - Be a sensible sensitive Indian, and you will
live happily without offending your neighbors (don't mind the trash
they will heap in front of your house), and so on and so forth.
Agree (12)
Disagree (3)
lmsharma says:
September 24, 2009 at 05:28 PM IST
Dear Sir,
Indian politicians have loud mouth and false practice. They leave no
stone unturned to make a political capital out of even good issues. Be
it anybody. They will always comment upon things that can fetch them
votes but will certainly hesitate on making statements of mass
interest. How many of our politicians have raised their voice against
the killings of innocent boys and girls in Haryana. Hundreds of young
girls have disappeared in Haryana only for showing their brave face to
marry boys of their own choice. To tell such people to behave is taken
as an insult. Honour killings are common in Punjab. Still living in
dark ages! To speak anything on national interest is taken as an
offence in this country. We have a sense of false pride only to hide
our weaknesses. As we are living in an age of globalization all our
weakness will be exposed to the world. A petty man with a political
backing will not hesitate in parking his car /motorcycle in the middle
of the road, and if requested not do so please, he is up in arms. An
Indian driving an expensive car, riding an expensive motorcycle will
never forget to spit on the road, not caring about the discomfort
caused to other person. Not only this he will use high mercury beam at
night so that he can drive safely and the other person goes into a
ditch/ KHUDAA We are Indians don’t tell/teach us to behave. It harms
our national pride! A bus driver will take heavy booze and drive at
night, least caring about the lives of sixty odd people at his
disposal. We will use highest irritating sound pressure horns only to
cause uneasiness to others. Not a only this, they believe that by
honking the traffic congestion will clear. We are Indians please don’t
tell us good things of life.
Agree (3)
Disagree (1)
Amar Nath says:
September 24, 2009 at 06:05 PM IST
nice sensible post. its hight time someone talks straight abt
ourselves especially when we have a big event like commonwealth games
around the corner. not taht we will correct ourselves overnight but at
least we would be able to appreciate the criticism that will naturally
come from other countries following the games!
we will at least then think abt it at least instead of shouting hoarse
abt being looked down because we are brown, blah blah blah..
Kalra go on..
Agree (5)
Disagree (1)
S Roy says:
September 24, 2009 at 06:09 PM IST
The Delhi Govt / NGOs should start educational programs for adults on
TV at prime time in Hindi. Subjects : How not to behave boorishly, ie
picking nose,not shaving, spitting, scratching of goolies/backside in
public, going the wrong way in a one way street, honking, jumping
traffic lights, crossing the white line at stops, overtaking from the
wrong side, jaywalking. In fact the traffic police should conduct
drives on decent acceptable behaviour on roads. I am sure many
students/NGOs/middle class volunteers will help them out. The worst
offenders are the illiterate migrants from neighbouring states, and
these can be corrected by sustained drumming through TV and fines by
the police. These measures should work, we still have a year's time
Agree (6)
Disagree (0)
Kamlesh says:
September 24, 2009 at 07:45 PM IST
Delhi is most indiciplined city among all metro in india.Delhi is
first crime capital of india then national capital.Delhi may be in top
position in Rape crime.You name a crime in india and delhi will figure
in that.The Coments of PC are 101 % true
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Rakesh Bhalla says:
September 24, 2009 at 07:53 PM IST
We must not let the actions or words of others determine our
responses. Magnanimous people make the choice to respond to the
indignities of others based upon their own principles and their own
value system rather than their moods or anger.
We hope atleast we won,t see any fish market in the parliament. All
members of parliament will behave in a proper way. Because the world
media is watching us.
Thanks
Agree (7)
Disagree (1)
Sharda Bhargav - Confiscated Soul says:
September 24, 2009 at 07:55 PM IST
Let us pray that good sense prevails on all concerned and Delhi
becomes a city of international standards. Delhites will have to
exihibit their prowess to achieve this.
Agree (5)
Disagree (9)
MANOJ KUMAR SINGH says:
September 24, 2009 at 08:06 PM IST
So dear Rajesh,we Indians are quite indisciplined.95 percent of us
drive insanely,spitting here and there and behave indecently.And even
after that those highly educated,most sincere, well disciplined and
foreign degreeholder Chidus and Tharoors are our leaders.They are the
representatives of us, one billion cattles.They give us sermons,teach
us but never try to do their jobs.They are the government but will
never enforce the law.They are absolutely right that we are cattles
and that's why they are our leaders.
Agree (6)
Disagree (1)
manish says:
September 24, 2009 at 08:23 PM IST
in complete agreement with you.
BJP has always taken potshots at astute people of congress which are
by the very few in number.
and has sufferd. they insulted an honest man like manmohan singh and
they suffered loss.. now they are at it again.
I wonder why Mr. RUDI is still the spokesperson of the party. HE LOST
ELECTION THIS TIME JUST FOR INFO GUYS. so he was fired by public.
leave apart mr chidu. LOOSER RUDI
Agree (3)
Disagree (1)
Yash says:
September 24, 2009 at 09:29 PM IST
It is alright to tell people from time to time to
behave in public places, but the bottom line is unless the laws are
enforced people will always take the short cut. Even in the advanced
and rich
countries it is the enforcement of laws that force people to obey and
follow the rules, otherwise the basic human tendency is always to do
the most convenient. The discipline that we see in the western culture
has evolved first through enforcement which over a period of time has
given the people a sense of civic responsibilities. So let's put the
laws into good use for everyone and see how attitudes and civic sense
will start changing.
Agree (3)
Disagree (9)
Loyal Congress says:
September 24, 2009 at 09:33 PM IST
Just nonsense as usual!! Times of India bloggers have it easy (sri
M.J. Akbar not included). Just make up some nonsense against Congress
Party and people give 4.6/5.0. More outrageous the better!!
Fortunately, these people are not real Indians and Congress keeps
winning!!
Rajesh Kalra saw nothing wrong in Tharoor's Cattle Class comment about
common man but offended by Chidambaram's comments??? Obviouly, since
Tharoor also called the Congress people Holy Cows, it is a OK! Isn't
it Mr. Kalra??
Chidambaram is right and Tharoor was wrong!!!
Agree (3)
Disagree (1)
Suresh Kumar says:
September 24, 2009 at 10:31 PM IST
Mr.Kalra's remarks echoes the Indian's syndrome "I know" Chidambaram
has spoken the truth and there is nothing wrong in his remarks.
Agree (7)
Disagree (0)
Prem Nizar Hameed says:
September 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM IST
Frankly speaking, you hit the nail on the head. Congrats, Rajesh ji.
Our constitution guarantees our fundamental rights. We scream and
fight for them every now and then. At the same time our constitution
prescribes our fundamental duties. We will conveniently keep these in
the refrigerator. This is the main problem we have. We have to
recognize our fundamental duties and invoke them as and when they
become necessary. We have to introspect before we criticize someone.
If the politicians practice a small fraction of what they preach, our
India would have been the best in the world. It does not mean that all
will live like naked fakirs in the name of austerity. In Singapore if
somebody spits or litters anything on the street, the authority will
immediately impose a fine irrespective of status symbols. When we go
to abroad, we will be advised to respect the law of the land we visit.
But we ignore the same on our own land. Cleansing, like charity,
should begin at home. I think every week some one has to write an
article to teach discipline to our politicians and irresponsible
citizens. We are still yielding to our self-praise just to keep on
singing: saare jahaanse achcha hindustaan HAMAARA. We have to impress
others by way of our good and disciplined living. Then that will make
others sing on us: saare jahaanse achcha hindustan TUMHAARA. That will
be much better and more acceptable precedence.
Agree (7)
Disagree (0)
Yeshwant says:
September 24, 2009 at 10:39 PM IST
All those in power must not only advise people on importance of
discipline, but must set a good example themselves and follow the
rules. A tourist from abroad mentioned that India must be producing a
lot of paint, used for 'zebra crossings or marking the lanes because
no vehicle stops on the STOP Line or follows a lane system. India is
one of the few developing(?) countries where pedestrians cannot use
the zebra crossings to cross the roads. Do the users of vehicles ever
walk or cross the roads. The policeman at the crossings is not
interested in assisting the pedestians but more concerned about the
vehicles donning the red light on top, to salute. Not realising that
the occupant of the car is in his own world! Well, in Chennai even the
foot-paths are done away with , the excuse being that pedestrians walk
on the roads!. These are only a few observations made, where immediate
remedial action needs to be taken. Even God cannot help a pedestrian.
Agree (7)
Disagree (0)
S. Sen says:
September 24, 2009 at 10:42 PM IST
There is absolutely nothing wrong in asking Delhites, or for that
matter, all Indians, to behave. But, we all knew what the response
would be. Remember how much noise we made after an Australian player
mentioned India as a 3rd world country? The world, not just the West,
thinks of India, at best, as a semi-civilized country and I believe
they are absolutely right.
A country where all the sports grounds are covered with fences to
protect the players, like a zoo, except that the animals are here
watching, cannot be considered civilized. Even with these fences and
so much security we still see matches are abandoned due to public
interference. Common people have too much respect for their own
religions but all it teaches is intolerance and hatred towards others.
A huge portion of the population can hardly get to survive their day-
to-day lives but they'd easily cause blood-shed if they hear anything
against their "god" or even "prophet".
Ironically this God of theirs treats them no better than animals and
they continue to struggle just to survive. Most unfortunate thing is
probably that there are many many degree-holders too in this gang and
considered "educated" by the less privileged population, yet, these
people hardly understand the true meaning of education and promote
hatred and violence towards people of other gender/class/caste/
religion.
Until mutual respect of gender/class/caste is restored in most parts
of the country, religion is made nothing more important than a hobby
and true education, which is the ability to think unbiased, is
provided, we will never be really civilized. And I fear this day is at
least few centuries ahead.
Agree (10)
Disagree (0)
Saurabh says:
September 24, 2009 at 11:50 PM IST
We Indians do lack social etiquette...its high time we improve
ourselves
Agree (3)
Disagree (8)
Jay says:
September 25, 2009 at 12:12 AM IST
Is it wrong for the home minister to call out the police who break the
law and jump signals? The author is worried about the bruised ego of
the abusers of power? What nonsense is this? Does Times of India
actually pay these idiots? There was a time when this magazine
represented good values of journalism!!!
Agree (2)
Disagree (1)
Siddharth Bhattacharya says:
September 25, 2009 at 01:11 AM IST
Even the common man's reaction to Tharoor's remark was abysmal. What
makes us think we are unflawed, and that anyone can't ask us to
improve, I don't get it. People are used to shutting their ears on
ways of improvement, until it gets totally offensive forcing them to
introspect. And then they come with their fundamental rights, stating
right to choice, right to freedom etc. I wonder when we Indians will
start understanding our duties, rather than just relishing our
rights.
Agree (3)
Disagree (3)
Vikram says:
September 25, 2009 at 01:22 AM IST
Wish there were people like you in charge instead of our politicians.
India would be a better country.
Agree (4)
Disagree (1)
N.K.Vijayan says:
September 25, 2009 at 06:01 AM IST
Well said Mr. Rajesh Kalra. Only wish loud mouth Natarajans and Rudies
read and try to understand your messasge. No that will not happen as
Politicians live for the day and future of the country or good of the
people are foreign to them.
Novertheless, Mr. Rajesh please continue to write and you have our
full understanding and support.
Once again heartfelt thanks to you.
Agree (3)
Disagree (12)
Indian says:
September 25, 2009 at 09:31 AM IST
Simply crap write up from an author who has lost touch with ground
realities ...Rather than blaming citizens Mr Chidambram should first
focus on improving Police efficiency & remove corruption( which is a
gift given to country by his masters). How can you ask people to be
civilized when they dont have access to basic amenities. This me me
attitude in indian junta comes because of that .. ..when things are
scarce people will never be nice or well behaved....why do we so much
of commotion at all places simply bcos if we wait then some one other
will grab it and we will be left with nothing..in western world people
are patient coz they know things are available in plenty...need not
worry that it may get over and they will have to return back empty
handed
So rather tahn blaming public it would be nice if Mr Chidambram first
takes necessary actions to provide basic amenities, effective policing
and law enforcement and effective goverenance. Once you have proper
enforcement of law things will fallin place automatically..
Jai Hind
Agree (4)
Disagree (0)
Rajiv says:
September 25, 2009 at 09:49 AM IST
We need people like Tharoor in the public offices more than ever. I
only wish he was a given a portfolio where he could make larger
impact. Nonetheless it is a good start.
We keep on comparing India's growth with China and other competing
countries. Do we realise what is holding us back. Yes, may be it is
resources, technology and so on. What is certain is our way of
working. The level of indiscipline in the general behaviour as well as
work is certainly one that is holding us back. Standing behind the
stop line at red lights is the simplest thing. It seems it is a matter
of pride to cross the zebra crossing. Yes, ofcourse, we are closer to
our destination 15 kms away by 2 meters. Big Deal! The rule is simple
for us. Public property is our property. Do we really treat it as if
it is our own. I am sure we could grow at a much faster pace just by
accepting rules and meding our behaviour in public. We are proud
Indians and India will be proud of us if we start respecting the
nation! Bring the nation before ourselves! Small changes could make a
big contribution.
Let us do it today. Be our own critic and change. We do not need
outsiders to show where we need to improve it. We know it very well.
Just accept the change! It is time we club our rights with our duties.
Let us make a better India! Sounds cliche but cannot resist to say,
Yes we Can!
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
Shrikant says:
September 25, 2009 at 10:23 AM IST
When will Indian's 'HUM NAHI SUDHARENGE' attitude change or will it
ever?
Agree (5)
Disagree (1)
Amit Saxena says:
September 25, 2009 at 10:36 AM IST
Dear Rajesh....there is nothing wrong whatever P Chitambram said...he
is very much right and he is the type of politician who asked us to
behave properly so we guys must realized that we are wrong in stead of
showing wrong attitude...he is very old to us ...so take his
advise.....
Agree (2)
Disagree (1)
Bobby says:
September 25, 2009 at 11:23 AM IST
Talking of litter and garbage, I would ask each and every person to
look around them as to what is missing in our own country that makes
it uglier in comparison to foreign countries, and its just litter.
Control your littering habit, please think even a small mint wraper
adds to the garbage, so pcoket it, dont throw it right away, dispose
off when u see a dustbin. Is it so hard? No, its just common sense.
As for traffic rules, honestly, I really wonder myself, why, why why
why, whats the harm in following lanes? what is the reluctance in not
following it, is beyond my comprehension.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
M.Govindarajan says:
September 25, 2009 at 12:03 PM IST
Blaming politicians for anything and everything has become a culture
here. No doubt they behave badly. But what politicians have done to
the Nation by way of Indiscipline and corruption is far less than
those slapped on the Nation by Indian Business magnets and
industrialists etc., with the tacit support of the very
politicians.The former is exposed by media while the latter goes
unreported. We, Indians, of late, are becoming less and less tolerant
even on well-meaning comments.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Kaushik Ghosh says:
September 25, 2009 at 01:23 PM IST
This kind of behavior makes it difficult to spread some good words. If
the home minister gives some good advice to for the betterment of
people, then we should attack him. What do you encourage? we should
continue to behave in the same way e.g. littering everywhere,
urinating all over the city walls, spitting in stairs. Will this help
us to build a strong India. For Gods sake try to understand where we
are wrong and improve. If some one points a mistake, not necessarily
it should be taken as insult.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
harryv says:
September 25, 2009 at 02:29 PM IST
indians deserve to be whipped in to shape. Or other countries will see
how our people relieve themselves on the road and kids doing their
morning business along the railway tracks. Oh well, no point in hiding
it - we elect such people to Parliament. It would be pretty
interesting to move these people to Parliament house and have them
line up in front of our esteemed law makers and do the doo doo
Agree (1)
Disagree (1)
Swami says:
September 25, 2009 at 02:54 PM IST
On the face of it, Chidambaram's remarks appear sensible, but he is
leading a privileged life. In no developed country is the life of a
common so different from the life of a minister. He should try to
navigate the traffic like a commoner just once and then he will
realise the stress that people are under. Its easy to preach from a
position of comfort and if he really cares, do something about it.
Install adequate public toilets that are clean, hygenic and safe to
start with. People will automatically stop peeing on the roads.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
AJ says:
September 25, 2009 at 03:52 PM IST
I think there can not be possibly any reason, as justification, for
traffic light jumping, and not driving in lanes. Not the lack of
infrastructure, lack of facilities kind of arguments. Yes, good
policing would surely eliminate these instances. And thats what needs
to be done.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
E. D'Souza says:
September 25, 2009 at 04:25 PM IST
“Spare the rod and spoil the child” Most of the Indians behave like
spoilt children because they know there are no strict punishments for
the offenders. Even if there are punishments people know that they can
get away by paying few bucks to the police or any law enforcement
officers. There are millions of Indian workers working in the Gulf
countries who dare to throw even a cigarette butt or an empty soft
drink can on the road in these countries because they are aware of the
harsh punishments and hefty fines they will be handed down if they are
caught littering the public places or violating the law, as a result
Indians have a good reputations of respecting the law of the land, but
these very people when they come to their own country on holiday or
vacation, overnight all their discipline and attitude changes and they
indulge in their old habits of littering the public property at their
will and wish because they know it is their country and they can do
anything and even if they are caught they can get away with it. Unless
there are on the spot fines and punishments like those in the gulf
countries or in Singapore, no amount of polite sermons will penetrate
our heads because old habits die hard and when one is spared the rod
then old habits never die in him or her
Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Babu says:
September 25, 2009 at 04:59 PM IST
This article is well written without any inhibitions. Hope such
articles will bring about a change in the country. As said by the
author, Chidambaram and Shasi Tharoor are brilliant and few amongst
the elite group of ministers who talks sense. Looking forward to
another good article from you like MJ Akbar,Anil Dharker to name a
few.
Agree (12)
Disagree (0)
debdeep says:
September 25, 2009 at 05:25 PM IST
Wait a sec, Kalra. It's not about Chidu or Congress or insulting the
common man. Answer these questions 1st.
1. In which city would you find cars jumping red lights because,
there's no cop to watch ?
2. In which city would you find bigger cars putting the squeeze on
smaller cars /bikes to get the right of way?
3. In which city would you find fair-skinned sharp-featured dudes and
babes talking of NorthEasterners as Chinkies, South Indians as Darkies
and stopping people from certain regions entry to restaurants and
nightclubs ? Does the Urban Pind incident ring a bell ?
There's something perverse about the Punjabi-Haryanvi culture that
teaches machismo and short-cut-finding at the expense of basic civic
sense.Talk to any Indian about a what makes up a typical Delhi-ite;
you'll get 3 words 'arrogant','looking for shortcuts', and 'power-
hungry-without-having-the-cojones-for it'.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Rakesh Gupta says:
September 25, 2009 at 05:46 PM IST
It happenned only once that a very crowded crossing saw all the
vehicles standing behibd the stopline at KHASA KOTHI Jaipur.I was
talking to the person on the next vehicle beside me that it is good to
see this today.
PLEASE DO BELIEVE:The police cop standing was shouting and whistling
that please come ahead(cross the line)on top of his voice and he was
unhappy that nobody was coming forward.
I happenned to cross the next intersection on YELLOW LIGHT not red and
they caught me and I paid the fine because somebody was waiting at the
Hospiotal on emergency.I requested the officer here to please arrange
better training so that policewallahs do not ask us to cross the
STOPLINE for sure.
Agree (2)
Disagree (2)
vijay daniel says:
September 25, 2009 at 06:03 PM IST
North indians in general and Delhiites in particular are the most
arrogant, boorish, uncultured, uncouth, ill mannered people in the
world.South indians are more disciplined and law abiding. My greatest
fear is these north indians like Biharis and Delhiites will infiltrate
in large numbers into our cities and turn this into another Delhi,
where merit counts for nothing and the car you drive and the name
droppings count for everything.Chennai would have been the best
choice.Chidambaram must be appalled by the behaviour of Delhiites,
coming as he does from Chennai.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Reshma says:
September 25, 2009 at 06:37 PM IST
Kudos Rajesh... Once again you have hit the nail on the head. Once
again I feel that you have put into words all that I feel when I see
the depths to which our country is falling.. We are a nation capable
of much much more, but the "kuch bhi chalta hai attitude" will be our
downfall if we dont get over it.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
indian says:
September 25, 2009 at 11:07 PM IST
Yeah, so be it. Indians want more such insults to behave in a way the
rest of the world behaves.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
indian says:
September 25, 2009 at 11:11 PM IST
I soooo agree with Vikram's comment.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Shavan Bhattacharjee says:
September 26, 2009 at 01:07 AM IST
Though I don't live in Delhi, I wonder why single out Delhi alone. Its
the same story in Mumbai, Bangalore, Calcutta, Chennai etc etc.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Parry says:
September 26, 2009 at 10:15 AM IST
Decent people are always buried under the pressure of uneducated
political gundas. They pretend to be developing the country; yet do
nothing for it. When someone complains, they go ballistic saying, "How
dare you mock our Country. I am a proud indian and cannot tolerate
this slander!" Mr. Proud Indian, it's time to do something so that you
can call yourself proud. This fake display of patriotism which is so
rampant across our country is sickening. Many of our people who have a
"chalta hai" attitude are like this. Overly patriotic, yet the worst
in doing anything useful. In fact, they are the ones who deteriorate
the country,.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
RAJIV MEHTA says:
September 26, 2009 at 03:50 PM IST
One does not learn good manners because of the Commonwealth games.You
learn and follow them because that is important for the person
concerned,the family and the nation.One does not behave only when
important guests are visiting.
We Indians do lack in manners and common civil sense.It is high time
we learn and teach our kids the importance of it.The games will be
over by this time next year but the life will go on.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
D Lakhanpal says:
September 26, 2009 at 04:14 PM IST
Great.. and congratulations...How I wish this wonderful note could be
made available to every school in the country...trust soon we shall
have a network of all educational institutions at the click of a mouse
so that such observations can be posted on their notice boards or may
perhaps be read out loudly in the morning assembly...
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Education Management says:
September 26, 2009 at 04:37 PM IST
Delhi is most indiciplined city among all metro in india.Delhi is
first crime capital of india then national capital.Delhi may be in top
position in Rape crime.You name a crime in india and delhi will figure
in that.The Coments of PC are 101 % true
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Rama0073 says:
September 26, 2009 at 10:29 PM IST
Why are you beating around bushes about BJP. You are trying to deviate
from the basic point that we as a country need to know how to behave
and also the police need to be more patient and less corrupt. So in
making Rudy & BJP in general a scapegoat is sucky part of your
article.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Indian from Singapore says:
September 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM IST
While it is absolutely true that Indians in general and Delhiwallahs
in particular are not rule minded we should also note that there is no
punishment for breaking rules. Red signals are broken with impunity
because the downside is limited. There is no penalty. 90% of times
there will be no cops to stop them. Also because when one driver
breaks the rule the others have to follow. Otherwise they will be hit
by other cars. That creates the chaos. Finally, the roads are
inadequate, poorly maintained, not marked and signals work sometimes.
If the infrastructure is much better and policing effective things
should be better. The one bad apple can be taken out. Otherwise why do
the same Indians behave well outside their country.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Niki says:
September 28, 2009 at 01:31 PM IST
Hahahahahahaha..... Man, you are brilliant! :-)
you should be punished as well ;-)
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
oppandey says:
October 08, 2009 at 07:37 PM IST
kya baat hai.....humne sab kuch dekh liya hai...
bademiyansubhanallah
Being a democracy, we care for the common man; China doesn't
Rajesh Kalra Thursday October 08, 2009
Respected Shri. Manmohan Singh Ji,
Greetings!
I write to compliment you on the great work being done by your
government to ensure that Delhi provides the most memorable
Commonwealth Games in history in 2010. But before I continue, let me
first establish my credentials as an objective person so that you take
me seriously.
I have already earned the wrath of some of those who work closely with
you towards making Delhi a great place by suggesting in a blog post
that Delhi is unfit (as against being unprepared) for the games and
that you should scrub them. But before you think I am some sort of an
agent propped up by the once ruling, and now fast diminishing even as
an opposition, BJP, I would draw your attention towards the other
piece I did, where I supported P Chidambaram, for calling a spade a
spade, i.e., calling the undisciplined Delhites, just that,
undisciplined, and that unless they change their ways, Delhi will not
be able to present itself as an international city.
And now that my objectivity is established, Sir, let me get down to
the real substance of my letter.
I, along with a lot of those who work in this city, have been rather
bemused at huge adverts in city papers yesterday that since the
delegates from all the Commonwealth nations would be on an inspection
tour of the various venues to be used during the games, please avoid
the routes to be taken by them from morning till evening.
Today I also learnt that these 200 odd delegates are being provided
free passage on these routes, i.e., traffic will be stopped on all
sides for them to go through unhindered. What a thoughtful idea!
But I have a question, especially now, in this season of austerity,
when all your Very Important Persons (VIPs) have turned Very Austere
Persons (VAPs). Where was the need to waste money on such
advertisements? Honestly, you are doing a great job in any case of
training the people of Delhi to wait endlessly in traffic jams day in
and day out.
Ask anyone who travels within the city, especially through those
dreaded VIP err VAP areas of Delhi. The traffic movement is entirely
at the whims of these VAPs. Just last evening, my colleague Sumit
Gulati and I were driving back home when about a km from the traffic
light near the VAP area, there was abnormal traffic built up for no
apparent reason, even as it flowed freely on the other side. We waited
and fretted and got scratched by other motorists for a good 30 minutes
before the suspense lifted. We saw one Z+ category VAP go past with
his full retinue of pilot and escorts et al. So, what the great
traffic police had done was that instead of making it inconvenient for
the VAP, they blocked traffic on one side completely so that the
direction in which the protected gent had to proceed could move
freely. You see, if it allowed the other side to move too, it would
block those who want to turn right on the VIP route, creating a
potential block.
But let me come back to this delegation visit, PM sir. Please look at
the map of the areas affected that the advert wants motorists to
avoid. It is virtually the entire city. Wouldn’t you be better off by
declaring it a holiday? Believe me, the savings that accrue to the
nation by not working would be greater. Imagine the savings on fuel,
the establishment costs in the offices with subsidised canteens, air-
conditioning, electricity, transportation, and so on.
And Sir, this is just the delegates that number a mere 200, I wonder
what you would do when thousands of athletes and officials have to
move around the city during the games? You would really do well to
declare a holiday through the game's duration.
The other day BBC called me from London to discuss Delhi's
preparedness for the games and also wanted to know if we look at China
as competition. I told them clearly we cannot compare ourselves, for
we are a democracy and we care for the common man where as China
doesn't. Am I not right, Sir?
Thanking you.
Warmest regards
Rajesh Kalra
Comments(70)
Rated 4.7/5 (159 Votes)
Comments:
Agree (14)
Disagree (3)
mihir says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:20 PM IST
Mr.Kalra - well said!
I wonder if they will take the delegates past Delhi Gate - or would
that be too much of an issue?
Agree (16)
Disagree (3)
Antonio says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:27 PM IST
A very good article Mr.Karla.Cheers!!
Telling the general public to avoid the major arterial roads of the
city on a working day certainly defies logic.A holiday would certainly
have been a much better option.But tell me was the China reference
even necessary?
Agree (10)
Disagree (1)
Feroz Khan says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:30 PM IST
Nice thought ,i think it should be a national holiday so that we also
can participate.
Agree (20)
Disagree (19)
yxd says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:38 PM IST
I do not think you know how common chinese to think about this issue.
You said your country care about common people, why so many people
still live in BPL, why so many children die within 24 hours after
birth. It is funny to such you are a democracy while let so many peole
live miseraly.
Agree (16)
Disagree (5)
Bharat says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:41 PM IST
Ha ha, I like it... :)
Absolutely true... no comparison to China. Infact Delhi is not even
comparable to few other cities in India.
What a waste of an opportunity !!!
Agree (12)
Disagree (2)
Aveeshkar says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:49 PM IST
Well said . . . international games like the CWG have been arranged in
many countries before , but unfortunately in ours , this is what they
are making the public go through !
Well Done - World's Largest Democracy ! ! !
Agree (9)
Disagree (1)
VIJAY PAL SALWAN says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:51 PM IST
Well Said Mr. Kalra,
Respected PM Ji, You must take a promising step towards Mr. Kalra's
suggestion.
Agree (10)
Disagree (0)
Jaysheel says:
October 08, 2009 at 03:56 PM IST
BRILLIANT
And Super Last line...
So True
Agree (5)
Disagree (2)
Nandinii says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:00 PM IST
Absolutely agree Mr.Kalra. Why Delhi all the time for any games or
major events. Is India only Delhi? Major portion of export earnings
come from lesser known towns and cities also from below the Vindyas
and Satpuras. Lets next time provide employment and opportunities to
these lesser blessed towns and cities down south. Lets make the
outside world look at India beyond Delhi or Dilli, Mumbai or Chennai.
Agree (4)
Disagree (0)
Piyali says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:07 PM IST
Nice post. Knowing some of the babus with their egg-headed decisions,
it just may be a national holiday! Mr PM: I hope you read this
Agree (5)
Disagree (0)
rohit garg says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:21 PM IST
There is something about Delhi. The CM doesn’t shy away from
saying sorry on front of being way out of schedule of CWG prep. But
would that suffice for the total failure of the government
machinery ??
Not only traffic problems but there are many issues which need urgent
attention.
New Delhi was lashed with heavy rains last month which continued for
five to six hours. The heavy rain exposed the Govt's preparedness to
deal with it. Despite tall claims by the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi (MCD), the city life was thrown out of gear leading to total
chaos. The red lights stopped working at many places resulting in long
traffic jams. Because of the poor drainage system, the roads were
water-logged for several hours adding to the inconvenience.
New Delhi has acute shortage of power and water. Almost all areas
suffer from power cuts and an errant water supply. Is it realistically
possible to hold Commonwealth Games without electricity and water? The
answer is a big NO.
The big question is: Is India ready for Commonwealth Games? Do we have
a system in place which would ensure that India successfully host the
mega sporting event and come out of it with flying colours?
If this is the way we are going to welcome our guests in CWG, then i
dont know with what impression of India, in their heart we'll end up..
Agree (6)
Disagree (1)
rahul says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:28 PM IST
Man, this article really rocked. I really hope that sonia gandhi and
the so called gandhi scion gets to read this. I would love to slap
those people for their comment on "austerity" in the recent
times. Pathetic excuses for each and every problem has become a glory
point of the government.
Agree (8)
Disagree (1)
rahul says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:36 PM IST
If you see closely at traffic advisory : It says CITIZENS FIRST !!!
Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Nimit Agarwal says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:40 PM IST
Hello Kalra sir,
Its a well thought and well written piece sir.
With this letter, you have touched upon on a very important aspect
i.e. how will they manage the city when hundreds of athletes will be
in the city. The government should restructure their plans so that no
inconvenience is caused either to the participants nor to the general
public at large.
Agree (4)
Disagree (0)
Amit Deshpande says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:42 PM IST
Very well said once again...
That's the grouse we have to face in India. If you talk against the
govt. then you are an opposition man or else you are a sycophant of
the governing.
Rajesh Kalra as ever, has given a wonderful unbiased viewpoint of the
situation yet again. Keeping fingers crossed that the Games go through
without a hitch. Yes, for once I want to believe that, miracles do
happen.
I wonder what the delegation of our ex-sportsperson would be feeling
at the unpreparedness, who fought an emotionally charged debate when
Delhi won the bid to host CWG.
Sir Gavaskar and other dignitaries of the delegate, the government has
let you down, once again. The nation apologises.
Once again I want to ask, who is the CEO of the Games? the one
responsible individual who would want to take credit 'if' the Games go
well, we do not want blame game if things fail.
Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Anant Khirbat says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:44 PM IST
Great article Kalra Sahab. I hope our VIPs, VAPs and PM read this
Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Sanjay Vasudeva says:
October 08, 2009 at 04:58 PM IST
Wonderful..I really wonder how would Saadi uncouth Delhi handle these
games.. I remember Asiad was a wonderful experience and was always
proud of the fact that all the paraphernelia for the games was erected
in 18 months straight.. But a lot has changed in Delhi Since then..the
roads and people's mind have gone narrower... with so much work going
on...It would really be a Miracle that we can host the games.. I would
want to feel the same Pride again in Being a Delhite
Agree (8)
Disagree (0)
Sharda Bhargav - The Confiscated Soul says:
October 08, 2009 at 05:07 PM IST
Very touching piece. The emotional elements about Indian government's
care for common people is praiseworthy.
The delegates must have been mighty happy to have unobstructed drive
on Delhi roads contrary to their belief.
Thinking the smoothness of traffic, they may not get caught in the web
of our eternal unpreparedness.
Organizers need to be congratulated for projecting positive progeny.
Aam aadmi looks askance.
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
DB says:
October 08, 2009 at 05:18 PM IST
You really told BBC that! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Nagabhushanam G says:
October 08, 2009 at 05:19 PM IST
Sir what u have said is absolutely right.
It's better to declare a Holiday to Delhi.
Oh God this holiday is for only just 200 officials
What when all the officials,athletes,international media,delegates
comes..Then I think even a holiday won't be sufficient may be a month
Delhi comes to stand still.Off course our VAP's are so busy in
uplifting the life of common man....Hope at least on day our PM sir
would read this..
Thank you sir
Agree (1)
Disagree (1)
Rakesh says:
October 08, 2009 at 05:48 PM IST
I beleive this is being done just to get a good feedback from these
delegates (who will get a chanse to see deserted road and would never
come to realise how badly managed is the traffic in Delhi). Government
wants to leave a good first impression and they definetly would do
some thing similar during the games..pls be prepared!!!
Agree (4)
Disagree (1)
Sachin says:
October 08, 2009 at 06:16 PM IST
Ahh....There goes my Tax money in the non sensible advertisements, yet
again...on serious note there are some very useful points in this
article:
1. Unpreparedness for CW games
2. No regard for common person by authorities
3. Waste of Fuel because of bad infrastructure/planning/technology.
4. Waste of Tax Payers money.
5. And more ...
TOI should have a section in print media wherein it publishes its most
popular blog entries...I guess political leaders are more sensitive to
prin media than E-Media.
Agree (13)
Disagree (10)
A Chinese says:
October 08, 2009 at 06:23 PM IST
Declaring yourself as a democracy system does not mean you are a
democratic country. Only when the majority behave in a democratic
manner, than can we say a democratic society is in the making.
However, to behave in a democratic ways needs a lot of preconditions,
either for individuals or for a country. Others, it is more like a
joke! The latest version of Human Development Report released just
this week shows clearly who care more about people!
Agree (2)
Disagree (6)
gag says:
October 08, 2009 at 06:26 PM IST
I am surprised to see from NDTV that the India government did this
just for a CMG group! if it had been the president of USA, maybe, the
whole country will stop for that!!
Agree (15)
Disagree (2)
P.S.Narayanan says:
October 08, 2009 at 06:49 PM IST
It is not a fact that China does not care for its citizens. While
India looses each minute 4 kids due to malnutrition, we are kite
flying this ten day tamasha called CW Games. China took care of
education, healthcare, food and sanitation of its people before
organising Olympic Games. A Democratic nation does not deprive the
majority its basic minimum needs even after 6 decades of free rule.
India is any thing except democracy.
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
Anurag Gupta says:
October 08, 2009 at 07:28 PM IST
This road-avoidance reminds me of inspection days at school. Our
teachers repeatedly asked us to come in clean, neat, ironed school-
uniform with the tie properly knotted. The inspector has to be greeted
in an energetic voice. Our notebooks have to be neatly covered in gray
paper with appropriate labels. And lastly, we should not loiter around
in playgrounds or near the "chana bhatura" stall.
I used to take a sick leave on those inspection days!
Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Pals says:
October 08, 2009 at 07:29 PM IST
Superb article !!
I wish it reaches its destination.
Agree (7)
Disagree (6)
Lienboi Haokip says:
October 08, 2009 at 07:32 PM IST
Indian Babus care for the common people?..are you kidding me? come on
don't you try to judge anything by sitting at your comfort room. Go,
travel around Bharat and see yourself what is happening and how the
common people live in the remote areas. When the Capital city looks so
precarious, do you ever think, the conditions of the remote and widest
areas of Bharat be more better? Sometimes i wonder, If the common
people living in the remote areas have any right in the so-called the
largest Democratic country. Only the people from Mainland Indians and
those living in the city may enjoy their rights fully, but if you are
thinking you are living in a democratic country, try to do something
for your hapless people in the remote areas rather than writing
anything without any experience in your comfort room. This is what
most of the Indian writers do and they'd never focus the plights of
the majority common people.
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
Gopi says:
October 08, 2009 at 08:09 PM IST
Sarcastic punch line at the end drives home the irony! Very good.
Agree (8)
Disagree (0)
Dev says:
October 08, 2009 at 08:18 PM IST
The BBC started all this comparison spree between India and China, and
your paper picked it up for feel good effect. At least China makes
good on its promise of providing its people a better quality of life
in return for them handing over control in all aspects to the
Government. But Indians are being taken for a ride by their Government
who don't provide ANYTHING but take back a lot through corruption.
Agree (10)
Disagree (11)
Nikhil says:
October 08, 2009 at 08:27 PM IST
@A Chinese
Stop killing innocent Buddhists and Tibetans first and then talk about
HDR reports. While we're at it, stop adding lead paint on toys and
milk to kill little kids world over.
Also, might wanna note that China doesn't exactly go out leaking all
info about their country to such reports. Good lick figuring out what
actually goes in there.
Now coming back to my lovely Delhi. I just love the pathetic comments
from "fellow Indians". Instead of actually supporting the
"CAPITAL" of this country these people are busy talking
online everywhere (even on international forums) about how Delhi is
unfit to host games. You are all just model deshbhakts aren't ya? Well
how about you all STFU and remember that Delhi is still the best metro
esp. without the influence of shitty Bollywood industry so far (we
also don't have retard speech like bombay guys).
All these people talking about Delhi being unfit cause of attitude and
whatnot should remember that people from YOUR states come here to live
a better life, not other way around (most of the times). Stay in your
own damn states and stop populating Delhi with your ignorance if you
can't even support this city while living here.. forget the part about
it being national capital.
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
Prof. Ramesh Sinha, Freelancer says:
October 08, 2009 at 09:26 PM IST
Rajesh Kalra possesses value of recognising humanity at every statge
as a result of which his present blog in form of an open letter to the
prime minister Manmohan Singh is there. His efforts to present true
picture of citizens particularly the Delhiites at the moment when
entire government machinery is busy in making the Commonwealth games
grand success. I personally request the PM to take his views seriously
and guide the SAI for championing the cause of sports and athletics.
No need to say that under his competent stewardship the organisers
would come upto the expectation so that we retain decorum and degnity
before hundreds of athlets particpating from all over the commonwealth
nations.
Agree (8)
Disagree (0)
VB says:
October 08, 2009 at 09:35 PM IST
Nice piece, Mr. Kalra. It's a pity it won't penetrate the extremely
thick hides of our politicians, though.
As for the comments by some of your Chinese readers: Whatever else may
be China's achievements, they have achieved one thing in 60 years of
communist rule---they have made sure that their people don't get a
joke anymore. It's obvious that they have taken your last para
literally, and are assuming that you have adversely compared China
with India. Now we're faced with a philosophical question: is it
better to be able to laugh at politicians while living in misery
(India), or is it better to live reasonably well, but without the
freedom to laugh at politicians or even the ability to understand a
joke (China)?
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
Shail says:
October 08, 2009 at 09:44 PM IST
@Nikhil..
I too love Delhi and have been there lot many times and can see the
reason why the Government plans to impose this traffic bar and i
totaly support this event...but with due respect to all your emotional
outburst against fellow indians 'wanting a better life'..let me state
that Delhi(or for that matter any other metro in India) is not the
domain of a few select individuls and iam sure that your father or
forefathers had come to delhi once upon a time for the 'want of a
better life'..and i think that right to want a better life exists for
all indians...ever heard something called urbanization???
Agree (6)
Disagree (0)
lmsharma says:
October 08, 2009 at 09:45 PM IST
Dear Sir,
A lovely write-up!
We can not hide our weaknesses. We have been doing so, for the last
sixty years. Democracy is not an excuse to be weak and corrupt. We
have different standard for the poor, the rich and the politically
well connected people. What message is sent to the common man when the
entire state and central machinery is pressed into action only to
search a CM of a state! On the other hand in a similar chopper
accident few years ago no such courage was shown by the central
government. GARIB AOUR BE SAHARA ADMI KI KOON SUNTA HAI! YE DESH AUR
SARKAR SIRF PAISE WALON KO SUNTA HAI, MUSEBAT PAR NE PAR GARIB ADMI
DOO ASUN BAHA LETA HAI AUR CHOOP BAIT JAATAA HAI.. The curse and
robbery of common man will not let this country grow. The day this
country starts showing concern to common mans grief, it will start
progressing. It is imprudent to think to be at par with China. China
is far, far ahead of India. It hardly matters about the type of
government so long as common mans problems are solved. Look the way
our politicians are enjoying at the cost of tax payer! And there is no
accountability, no probity, no transparency and no duty towards
nation. Everybody is looting this country.Our politicians are thugs of
the highest order. 18 brave commandos killed in Maharashtra! Who cares?
They only put on white dress but z black in their deeds.. One such
minister had to leave the central cabinet only because he was busy in
changing dresses after dresses, when it was time to be at the site of
disaster. His deputy was busy in birthday celebrations. This is the
accountability of our leaders. They feel it to be below their dignity
to live in government accommodation. No one can top us in corruption.
Learn something from China and Israel.
Agree (8)
Disagree (12)
A Chinese says:
October 08, 2009 at 10:29 PM IST
@Nikhil: Please stop killing the poor fighters in Assam, Manipur,
J&K, Orison, CHantisgarth and many other states, stop burning down
Christian Churches, stop killing the infants through chronic
starvation, stop selling wives and bonded laborers, before you can
talk about democracy. Again, please read books on what is democracy
before you can talk and practice it. What you are doing is not
democracy at all. Please do not fool youself. It is only Demo-crazy (a
collective mental illness).
Agree (5)
Disagree (4)
hortense vaughan says:
October 08, 2009 at 10:46 PM IST
With your babus and chatral hai attitude the CWG are bound to be a
disaster. Why dont you cancel the CWG or employ the Chinese to
organise it for you after all they performed pretty well responding to
last years horrific earthquake and did an admirable job at the last
Olympics.
If you used the IAF's helicopters to move the 200 odd delegates then
there would not have been been a reason to disrupt the normal Delhi
traffic;better cancel before it becomes too much of an embarrassment..
Agree (4)
Disagree (0)
bala srinivasan says:
October 08, 2009 at 11:08 PM IST
I beg to defer completely.this comparison is totally undefendable
simply because the facts are glaringly point in the opposit
direction.we indians in general may be because of british
indoctrination of three hundred years still have the
"servant" or "coolie"mentality to the extent we
treat our helpers as such.look at all the newly rising subdivisions
advertising "servant quarters".until that mind set is there
in DELHI or INDIA we will always be "BROWN SAHIBS" and have
discriminating&definetly NOT CARING our fellow INDIANS.we have to
start,atleast make a sincere attempt at scrubbing ourselves of that
stupid british vestige mentality to be proud CARING INDIANS.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
varsha says:
October 08, 2009 at 11:13 PM IST
a brilliant sarcasm.. I hope the govt gets the message..
Agree (5)
Disagree (3)
Capitalist says:
October 08, 2009 at 11:53 PM IST
China reference does apply here and may have nothing to do with them
valuing people less. In China, when people see this notice, they would
sincerely leave home before dawn and will not return until dark (I was
told, never been to China)! Call it discipline, training or that they
ask "what can I do for my country". India has people like
you, asking "what can I take from Manmohan Singh today?".
People will mock, moan and complain just like you're doing here in the
article. I'm not saying you should not but that's what Indians are
accustomed to. I'm an American and if it makes you feel any better,
we're exactly like you inspite of the fact that government tries hard
to please aam admi here!
In all seriousness, Indian Government is within reason to limit the
traffic to put the guests away from danger and to (lesser extent) save
themselves time. The solution obviously is more roads in Delhi. In
absence of those roads, I don't see why government should not break-
away from the austerity drive and advertise inconvenience people. In
our country, we do the same for VVIPs but we have much nicer road
network and hence the disruption is less.
As far as your comment to BBC goes, it is of cheap taste and
definitely fits your character Mr. Kalra! If it was China, you would
be in jail! So, cherish your freedom. Be a good journalist and
criticize your government, but be constructive. As we say it here in
USA, with freedom comes responsibility.
Agree (2)
Disagree (0)
Abhishek says:
October 08, 2009 at 11:55 PM IST
I guess you are partially right. I believe the problem is that
everyone part of the traffic is responsible for the current situation.
Unless we start using the public transport and reduce/limit the usage
of own transport nothing would imrpove. Problem is that some of us who
do realize this take the initiative and to some extent succeed to
execute the idea but soon realize its not enough to make the change.
We still see, fellow citizen abuse the resources and soon gets
frustrated enough to give up. I guess whats needed is little more
patience for this 'educated' group and little penalties for abusers
from the side of the government.
As for the VIP's or VAP's ... well these are leaders we chose, who by
bookish definition of the word leader, should selflessly work for our
betterment. Its irritating to see them create nusiance ( be it a lil
thing as traffic jams or their involvement in scams ...or inefficiency
to summarize) and hence we complain. Efficient or not, I guess we got
to repect the authority we have entitled them with. They are the
representatives of our country and I guess they should be entitled to
little perks.
My Point is, its easy to crib to complain about everything, but is
quite hard to provide the solution. Lets be the part of the
constructive group and rather present with some solutions rather than
complaining alone.
Agree (7)
Disagree (0)
An American Perspective says:
October 09, 2009 at 02:31 AM IST
@VB
As an expat living in Beijing, I can assure you that you are wrong on
many counts. The problem isn't that the Chinese cannot understand a
joke. I know and work with many Chinese in my life and they are
generally happy people and tell plenty of jokes themselves. Contrary
to your belief the Chinese criticize and laugh at their politicians as
well. However, these days the people are generally content and proud
of the direction their country is heading in. Hu Jintao has an 80%
approval rating and is generally well liked by the common people
because he has drastically improved their day to day lives.
The way the last sentence is worded in the article, the BBC reporter
probably took the words literally instead of understanding it as
sarcasm as it was intended. Alas, the Indian sense of humor and
Western humor are not compatible.
Agree (7)
Disagree (5)
Shashank says:
October 09, 2009 at 06:54 AM IST
Have you been to China ? Its a great country with happy people, great
infrastructure, great history and a better tomorrow as compared to
India. Indian Government has zero accountability for the things they
do...If thats caring...why the hell we feel otherwise...
Agree (0)
Disagree (1)
Jayesh says:
October 09, 2009 at 07:56 AM IST
It's sad to see so many people completely missing the satire in the
China comment...to these people, "Please grow a sense of
humour" :)
Agree (4)
Disagree (5)
manish says:
October 09, 2009 at 09:11 AM IST
@nikhil first of all you are sick.get a doctor
@ a chinese , well thanks for suggestion. But we need not learn things
from you guys. We have democracy and so all are free to express things
so in most of the times it leads to mess. What mr kalra(exercising his
freedom of speech) said was example of buerocratic people considering
themselves above ordinary trust me china is very much the same. the
only difference is that you guys accept whatever bestowed upon you and
don't oppose and we indians discuss it at large and finally look for a
way which is democratically fine with most of us. So we live in a
messy country but yes we have free valus and culture. We don't wish to
be like you you guys simply dancing happily beacause of all the FDI
and FII's but remember you guys started 20 years ahead of us that's
why you are ahead. india is still a nascent economy but very much at
the place where you were last 10 years ago infact if you check
relativly we almost beat you so don't jump the gun about india. And
once again thanks for suggestion it showed in some sense you cared as
if.
To mr. kalra well written article nicely put up. but i think this
situation is same all over the world in fact in mumbai things are
same. So i would like to blame it on politician as well poor
infrastructre and with fingers crossed i hope things will change.
Let's hope people love this article and this letter reaches PMO
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
naro says:
October 09, 2009 at 10:10 AM IST
Yes,I wrote in a scathing remake when the news item about the road
block hit the online publication(of course TOI didn't print it) and I
am writing to express my extreme displeasure at the foolishness of
setting up these roadblocks. I also asked how the Delhi govt. is going
to deal with the additional traffice during the Games?Blocking roads
is never a solution.They are not going to declare the Games a public
holiday for Delhi and issue 'no travel' advisory all over te city are
they?The city is not going to come to a standstill for the Games, the
daily chores and office will function as always.So, how is the govt
going to deal with that?Is it a 'wait and see'this time too after?
after all we do have the'dekha jayega' attitude.
The remedy is to construct properly planned roads and an efficient
public transport system(busses, metro and yes autos too!). Efficiency
of the public transport system will encourge the public to use it
regularly thus eliminating the need to choke the roads with private
vehicles. Another very important aspect should be employment of
efficiently trained and expert drivers for these vehicles.
This are all not impossible tasks.It may takes 4-5 yeras but if the
government approaches this in a systematic manner it can be done
successfully(This could've been achieved if Delhi had started on this
task the year the city bagged the Games!)
Also, instead of blamming the govt. for all the ills in the country,
it is better advised that the public becomes more aware of their
rights and duties and thus induce the babudom and politicians to be
more accountable of their actions and decisions.after all, this is a
government of the people,for the people and by the people so they are
accoutnable to us-the people.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
CJ says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:03 AM IST
Well two substantive points in the post. The democratic institutions
have completely failed the common man and our cities are obvious
examples of these
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Roshmi Gupta says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:05 AM IST
Dear yxd,
You seem to have missed the point and the sarcasm! Mr Kalra, is trying
to say that the government does NOT care about the common man.Same
goes for the other readers who have jumped up with descriptions of the
common man's suffering at the hands of babudom.
Agree (1)
Disagree (2)
indian says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:18 AM IST
""""CITIZEN'S
FIRST"""".........very true and honest statement
from the Delhi police.... Motto of Delhi Police and Government.. 1.We
rip Citizen's first. 2. We harm Citizen's first. 3. We put every blame
on Citizen's first. 4. We take money from Citizen's first ( and then
we might work)............ This Citizen's First list can go
on...............
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Sharad kapur says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:54 AM IST
Rajesh you have outperformed this time. Did u really say that to the
BBC. I am imagining the tone in which it must have been said. It is
almost mischievous, yet enjoyable. Well done! Hope the stupid
politicians get this in the joke form as straight things go over their
heads.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Kirhore Jingan says:
October 09, 2009 at 11:56 AM IST
Haha! Rajesh, well said, but if our bullheads will understand this is
a big if! hey, do let us know where we can read/see/hear the BBC
stuff!
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Manoj Ghildiyal "manu" says:
October 09, 2009 at 12:07 PM IST
Sarcastic Shot by Mr. Rajesh Kalra. When I hear/ read something
related to CWG’s inadequate preparation I smitten by a fear of
stigma on Delhi’s dignity. Albeit, your letter is a brilliant
sarcasm, but I really like the pukka solution provided that during CWG
Govt. should declare holiday, this way we (aam aadmi) can contribute
too. Otherwise, it would be very frustrating for us to stuck in an
endless traffic jam.
Moreover, media is not allowed to talk to the delegates so nothing
concrete is coming about the CWG preparations. This is nothing but to
conceal that Delhi is teetering on the brink of becoming a failed
state in terms of organizing CWG. It’s been 7 yrs since India
bagged the honor to organizing CWG in Delhi. What are we doing? What a
‘Sluggish Sarkari System’ we have? But this is not the
right question at this point in time, because it will stimulate
nothing but a pure blame game.
I am pretty sure that there has been and will be loads of loop-holes
in the preparation of CWG. At the 11th hour, I am sure they will
finish all the things in holus-bolus. So the end products will
definitely be hogwash and this all will lead to nothing but a flop
show. But the biggest irony is nobody is aware that who is the
director of the show? Is it Mr. Kalmadi, Mrs. Dixit, Builders,
Organizers or finally Mr. PM?
Nutshell, Mr. PM has to form an instant adhoc committee and on the
basis of its report he needs to make the action plan. If you come
across a need to chuck Mr. Kalmadi out or Mrs. Dixit out from the
Project you need to do it at the earliest and assign the
responsibility to other person (e.g. Mr. Sridharan-DMRC, Mr. Nilekani-
UIDAI) we don’t have crunch of talented people in our country
they are ready to unleash their forte. I know the route to CWG is very
topsy-turvy as now only 364 days to go, but we have to accomplish it,
at this juncture I can simply suggest, if you want to sustain the
dignity, pride and glory of India, WAKE UP Mr. Singh !!!
"Manu Ghildiyal"
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Nair says:
October 09, 2009 at 12:21 PM IST
The hiccups would likely begin at the IGI Airport itself. Is it ready
for the influx of officials, athletes and spectators who will descend
on Delhi in Oct 2010? Are Delhiites, in particular, and Indians, in
general, ready to make sacrifices to make the CWG a success? How
willing are we to forgo some of our daily comforts and tweak daily
routines for the benefit of others, especially foreigners? Can Delhi
car owners stomach travelling by public transport for 2 weeks? Perhaps
the state govt could consider introducing staggered work and school
hours (or starting these earlier/later based on events' schedules) for
the duration of the Games. This may not eliminate traffic congestion
at peak hours, but would prevent an already bad situation from getting
worse. Holding an event of this magnitude requires the host city and
its residents to make some temporary allowances and sacrifices, so as
to project a gracious image and reap some benefit from the event. Mr
Kalra's tongue-in-cheek dig at China will probably be lost in
translation. Still, one cannot dismiss or ignore the efforts China and
her citizens put into hosting an even bigger event in '08 - the
Olympic Games. By all accounts, and any measure, they did an admirable
job, whatever their reputation for human rights may be.
Agree (6)
Disagree (6)
A Indian says:
October 09, 2009 at 12:35 PM IST
@ A CHINESE
Please stop
* The genocide that is going in TIBET, XINJIANG and other parts of
China
* Brutal Killing of Chinese who are fighting for freedom and are being
executed for merely talking against the state
* Selling fake goods to the world and INDIA. Many goods sold in India
are fakes and of poor quality like toys, mobiles (completely third
rate and which bursts at a mere press of button), medicines, etc
* Selling chemical tainted products like Milk products, toys, mobiles,
etc.
* Labeling your sub standard medicines as MADE IN INDIA and selling
them in African nations.
* Persecuting FALUN GONG sect and harassing their members.
* Persecuting Christian priests and people across China and razing
their churches
* Stop selling third rate cheap labour subsidized by your Government
* Stop building inferior quality infra projects like schools, etc that
collapsed in the quake.
* Selling your wives and having more than one woman as wives in
secret.
* Many more,,,,,,,,,,,,
India has been a democracy since time immemorial unlike yours which
has a history of persecution and killings. Reading books on democracy
is not reqd for we are naturally democratic unlike you people who can
hardly pronounce the word DEMOCRACY like u do.
So PLEASE STOP living in a world of fake illusions (like your fake
products) and come to ground reality. Stop floating in a world of
illogical beliefs. Your One party state is a Mobo-crazy (a collective
mental disease) that comes from ruling like a MOB.
Agree (4)
Disagree (2)
AP says:
October 09, 2009 at 12:50 PM IST
To hell with CWG 2010.. I want to debate the last line of your
article.. Do we really care for our common man???? .. our comman man
lives below poverty line whereas in China poverty is fast decreasing
and prosperity is reaching millions.. Now this is taking care of
common man not boasting every now and then that we are a democracy so
we care for our people... tht BS sir BS served with hot kebabs if u
like but BS it is after all!!
Agree (6)
Disagree (3)
JAKE says:
October 09, 2009 at 12:54 PM IST
@ HORTENSE VAUGHAN
Ha, the traitor is back again. Eating Indian food, the traitor is
licking Chinese boots. No scruples and no morals. Vaughan will even
desert his wife and his family plus parents for CHINA.
When people are there, anything will be a disaster for u are a devil
in a sheep’s garb. Ok, Hortense, as u say, we will cancel the
CWG and employ Chinese, but they will only do construction work and
clean our streets. And u can also join them. If the CHInese responded
to the earthquake, so too we have to the floods and tsunamis.
The thing is cancellation can be done if scums like u are not there in
India and if shameless perverts like u are kicked out then the country
will work well. It is people like u who are an embrassment not only to
India, but the whole of mankind and it will be better if u are lynched
and then executed. The whole world will be better off….
Agree (5)
Disagree (5)
JJ says:
October 09, 2009 at 12:54 PM IST
Please dont comapre to us with China, I think they are far better than
us. We dont treat any women/poor with respect. WE SIMPLY DOES NOT
RESPECT ANYBODY IN ANYWAY expect he have money or power. ITS PITY THIS
SO CALLED DEMOCRACY DOES NOT EVEN TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR
HEALTH ALSO.
PITTY ON US INDIANS
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Venkatraman Ramakrishnan says:
October 09, 2009 at 01:39 PM IST
Telling the general public to avoid the major arterial roads of the
city on a working day certainly defies logic.A holiday would certainly
have been a much better option.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
rohit says:
October 09, 2009 at 01:49 PM IST
Yeah. The reference of China was unnecessary , really.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Yawwn says:
October 09, 2009 at 03:01 PM IST
Really.... This is crap. Commonwealth games will last for a few days
and it will be over. Stop discussing it! Whatever impression we
could've given to the world, we've lost the opportunity to build it.
it's too late now. Look... stop getting paranoid. Nothing will happen
during the games. Life will go on as usual in Delhi. It's a matter of
a few days. Nothing can ever improve in India and nothing ever
will.Going totally against Rajesh Kalra's thing. I'm saying,
"Chalta Hai". I don't give a crap anymore.
Agree (3)
Disagree (0)
dud_mumbai says:
October 09, 2009 at 04:27 PM IST
@shashank....we all know about the rule over there in chaina.the
author concluded with a sarcasm so take it that way only.
@nandini...you took it in a wrong way too.its not just delhi,its india
in general which is not capable of organizing the event of such an
arrant repute. If its not even delhi or mumbai then which city else
could do this in india.The post has been written to feel ashamed of
the present situation and analyze it rather than fighting for your
very OWN city.
@Mr Kalra..well I am already a great fan of your writing as well as
analyzing skills. But there is more than what meets to the eye. I
think India is putting efforts towards globalization despite this poor
scenario. So we should rather appreciate it( and i mean it...its not a
metaphor) and help india get going. If china is doing great its also
because of its people and I need not explain that as you know that
already.
Last but not least a great post and great analysis.
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Amit Virdi says:
October 09, 2009 at 05:10 PM IST
Very well said!
I wonder what does "Citizens" in the tagline of Delhi Police
means! How can they even think about such taglines?
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Bobby says:
October 09, 2009 at 09:29 PM IST
I would use a Hindi sentence to describe this piece... "Kya
Kataksh maaraa hai aapne"
I find only one problem with such highlighting of issues, that why
cant I read it normally, just like a normal article, why do I have
this blood boiling up feeling whenever I read such stuff.
Agree (1)
Disagree (1)
Karan says:
October 09, 2009 at 10:44 PM IST
haha It is most funny to read the comments from the Chinese and Indian
Communists who dont realize that your punchline is sarcastic... Idiots
abound...we may be a corrupt and uncouth city but atleast we can
understand a joke...unlike some of these idiots commenting on your
post. I agree that Delhi is unprepared but that is by design. You see,
the faster and more hectic and chaotic this thing gets, the more
opportunity there will be for the babus to khao paisa. Khao Khao ,
Delhi is the mother of these bureaucrats and they sell her every day
like a prostitute. Oh and one more thing , despite all this and more,
we are still better than China (no joke)
Agree (1)
Disagree (1)
Karan says:
October 09, 2009 at 10:49 PM IST
THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE MISSED THE SATIRE/JOKE ARE CHINESE IN DISGUISE.
THEY CANT SPEAK ENGLISH SO THEY DONT UNDERSTAND SARCASM. CHINESE
TAKING INDIAN NAMES. IM SURPRISED THEIR GOVERNMENT EVEN LETS THEM
VISIT THIS WEBSITE. ARENT MOST WEBSITES BANNED IN CHINA?
Agree (0)
Disagree (1)
Pavan says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:05 AM IST
For the uninitiated "Respected Shri.,Ji,Sir,Thanking you.
Warmest regards, compliment you on the great work ,What a thoughtful
idea,Wouldn’t you be better off by declaring it a holiday, we
care for the common man" are all Sarcastic !!
We have got our own desi Colbert!!!
Agree (0)
Disagree (0)
Wahaha says:
October 10, 2009 at 12:23 AM IST
we care for the common man where as China doesn't.
____________________________
Is it true that a servant in Mumbai have to work 7 days a week,
otherwise no one will hire her ?
What you said is as funny as it can be.
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Juhi says:
October 10, 2009 at 01:01 PM IST
Haha.. I love it.. Satire at its best! I just hope this reaches the
right ears. Mr PM - what do you think??
And why are my Chinese friends getting offended? I think now this
website will be banned in China.. lol..
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
Tariq says:
October 11, 2009 at 12:31 AM IST
hey guys u all just keep the mouth shut ..instead of wirting useless
comments.race china and be like china .it is internally strong and
internationally powerful not like india and indians just a$$ kissers
of the west and USA. we indians are open minded only towards thte
western's thought not to others as long as we are like that will never
lead the world ...back is our fate...wake up and smell the
coffee..okiess
Agree (1)
Disagree (0)
tariq says:
October 11, 2009 at 12:43 AM IST
hey dont u indians understand one thing indians citizens everywhere in
the world are devalued and not respected by others as u see nowadays
in Eu.and USA ..whereas Chineses are treated properly we have never
heared an attack on chinese in the USA...it is pretty clear thte world
degrade us so much ...?????why can any one of u answer...dont tell me
they are jealous of our success coz Chin and Chinese are more
successful than us..........OK..LOL
bademiyansubhanallah
Vedic spirituality loses out in times of dishonesty
M J Akbar Sunday September 13, 2009
It is common knowledge that the best way to argue your case in Delhi
is through a suitcase. The capital's punters can neither control their
laughter nor restrain their envy at the news that you can find your
way to 44 acres of prime land in Marxist Bengal through an ayurvedic
massage. Napoleon remarked that an army marches on its stomach.
Lenin's Bengali army also marches on its stomach, as long as it is
prostrate.
While corruption in rising India has moved with internet speed into
the 21st century, Kolkata's deals are still in the Vedic age. Land
worth Rs 20 crores was, it seems, handed over to promoters of a
cottage-style resort called Vedic Village on the edge of Bengal's
capital for just Rs 1 crore. The process began in 1997; the promoters
added to their expanse by purchasing adjoining plots from villagers
through the usual means of a cheque placed in one hand while the other
arm was being twisted. It took a disputed football match on August 23
this year for rural anger to explode into arson: this is Bengal. Facts
began to rise from the ashes. The police discovered a cache of arms in
the sylvan peace of Vedic spirituality, although 'discovery' might be
too optimistic a word. There is little that the Calcutta Police does
not know, even if there is little that it does about what it does
know.
The acquired land included wakf property. The good news, then, is that
Bengali corruption is transparently secular. The names involved -
Abdur Rezzak Mollah, Manabendra Mukherjee (ministers in severe need of
ayurvedic treatment), promoter Rajkishore Modi, Rashid Ali Mondal,
Sibnath Banerjee, Nuruddin Gazi - are a hymn to Hindu-Muslim
brotherhood. Greed is clearly the most powerful antidote to
communalism: Death to capitalism! Long live greed! Greed is also non-
partisan. An MLA from Mamata Banerjee's party has also been named,
which might explain her silence. Trinamool and CPI(M) finally agree on
something. Even Ms Banerjee, a spartan if ever there was one, cannot
contest elections from the straw tower of an ashram.
Unsurprisingly, the local media, which for a decade had no time for
investigations of its own, gave maximum play to ministerial ayurvedic
treatment. Was the issue, then, greed or hypocrisy? In Delhi, where
few claim to be paragons of personal virtue, the spa-story would have
been a snigger on a news cycle. In Kolkata, it has wafted through
innumerable conversations with that sardonic twitch that only a
Bengali can manage to perfection.
Indian Marxists are trapped in a systemic flaw: hyper-honesty is
inconsistent with ''bourgeois democracy''. The cost of a Lok Sabha
election now runs into multiple millions. Political parties are not
profit-earning corporations. Their overhand collections are a
miniscule proportion of need; the balance is met by underhand
arrangements. The CPI(M) tries a finesse through institutional
collection, but even this needs middlemen. Money is a trading
currency; there has to be a trade. Ministers get involved. Is it any
surprise if this nexus extends to a periodic back-rub? Land is
repeatedly at the centre of Bengal's controversies because traditional
industry has been driven into the doldrums between stagnant management
and self-centred unions. Since new arrivals like IT czars will not
ladle out cash, the only value left to exploit is land. Land belongs
either to institutions that can be manipulated, or insecure villagers
who can be bullied into temptation.
Corruption is the preferred means of the get-rich-quick lobby (if the
poor were corrupt, they would not remain poor). But is greed the only
motivation? Greed is not India-specific. The extent of our venality
may have a supplementary reason. We are, by temperament, a short-cut
people. We do not like waiting for due process, whether in a project
or towards a destination. Indian corruption could well find an
explanation in Indian traffic. We instinctively seek a faster way,
whether on a cow-clogged country lane or an incomplete super highway.
The Indian driver does not believe in the sober limitations of take;
he is a devotee of overtake. Cars do not create traffic jams; drivers
with hyper libidos do.
The long cut is demeaning to the Indian ego. A Delhiwallah measures
his importance by the number of short cuts he has wangled. A favour is
a measure of both the benefactor's value and the beneficiary's
influence. Some people wait till the last minute only to prove that
time will wait for them.
The system creates hurdles since it knows that short-cutters will pay
to cross them. Bribes feed the system; the system therefore knits a
framework for bribes. A hundred rupees to a traffic cop climbs towards
millions at the top. If you are really lucky, the ayurvedic massage
comes free.
Comments(32)
Rated 4.5/5 (79 Votes)
Comments:
Agree (24)
Disagree (2)
Ali Khan says:
September 13, 2009 at 03:30 AM IST
Very True, Corruption Rules India. Politicians are the master planners
of organised land grabbing/puchasing after that they make it a Prime
Land and Auction it for Multiplexes, Housing, Model Cities, Golf
Cources etc., and earn Huge Money. Common Man is the Loser and
Builders and Rich businessmen are the prime gainers. This is Harsh
Reality of Indian Democracy!!!
Agree (17)
Disagree (4)
B. K.Chatterjee says:
September 13, 2009 at 04:23 AM IST
Excellent write up,& I would rate it as 5 of 5. However it is not a
new phenomenon. Long time back German mathematician turned philosopher
SPENGLER in his monumental book "Decline of the West" has argued quite
convincingly that modern Democracy is to a large extent based on MONEY
paid by vested interests which slowly but steadily eats its soul and
ultimately makes it a stooge in its hand.
Unfortunately no better system is known or devised so far and we have
to live with it.
Agree (8)
Disagree (5)
MUBARAK PATEL says:
September 13, 2009 at 06:13 AM IST
Politician people in India are greedy and corrupt.
Moreover, India is in footsteps of America now
where lobbying system is prevalent. Today, money
is everything in India. With money in their mind
uppermost,people have lost moral values of the
past. By hook or by crook, people want to make
money. Bribes and corruption are the order of the day. Ayurvedic
system makes use of "JUNGLEE PLANTS AND TREE LEAVES" that is why it is
"FREE".
All Indian politicians should be made to drink
bitter AYURVEDIC MEDICINE to bring them to senses.
Agree (10)
Disagree (1)
L.k.balasubramanian. says:
September 13, 2009 at 06:28 AM IST
Greed is the grease that keeps the wheels of the State, economy,
politics, and society moving in India and elsewhere.Chanakya saw it in
4th century B.C. Akbar bhai seesit in 20th century.In Russia and
China, it exists. In USA, it permeates every level ofpower points,
from mayors to corporate heads. So who can save us? Perhaps God!
Agree (10)
Disagree (1)
Saratchandran says:
September 13, 2009 at 06:54 AM IST
Most of the places in the world, the bribe and corruption of officials
with power is seen as evil and disgraceful while in India it is simply
a matter of fact and a well oiled way of life. God's places like
temples, churches and mosques, all have collection pots that people
happily pay up to get the blessing. The next level of power in their
lives are the politicians and they apply the same philosophy of
pleasing the powerful to get the blessings!! There is no regret of
remorse in doing so! Believe it or not!!
Agree (9)
Disagree (5)
az says:
September 13, 2009 at 11:15 AM IST
it is my dream that journalist's like you should contest
elections..indian polity needs fresh air
Agree (4)
Disagree (3)
Nitesh says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:29 PM IST
Very rightly said. The two warring rivals in the political are in fact
two sides of the same coin when it comes to filling their pockets by
suppressing poor. Corruption has got so much into the system that it
now drives India.
The example of traffic jam has been very aptly given to show Indian
psyche. We cannot wait for a car to pass before our car. We cannot
wait for our turn to buy a movie ticket. We cannot wait for the
traffic light to go green. We always try to save our time and instead
end on wasting our and other people's time as well and nation's time
as a whole.
Agree (11)
Disagree (39)
Kevin D Souza says:
September 13, 2009 at 12:53 PM IST
This is as outdated as the Koran Akbarr Saab, you are right. You can
easily say that the whole process is as much backward as if it was
done by some Muslims in an Islamic country. C'mon, Hindus this is the
21st Century, let us not behave like dark age Muslims.
Agree (3)
Disagree (2)
N Somnath says:
September 13, 2009 at 03:01 PM IST
Many thanks to Mr Akbar. Truth spoken clearly in few words. There will
be corruption you can't expect to fully eliminate as it is driven by
'greed'. Rather than blaming politician we need to deal with it. India
needs:
1) Independent and transparent administration
2) Fair and fast justice at every level
3) Accountability at every level
Agree (11)
Disagree (1)
S C Vaid says:
September 13, 2009 at 03:16 PM IST
India is a big tree having beautiful leaves and flowers, attractive
branches, seemingly solid stem. But all this with decaying roots. We
the people, wish to bribe to get our illegal and unauthorised jobs
done at enhanced, unaccounted cost. This situation amuses a number of
govt servants and they unhesitatingly connive to take advantage, to
amass whatever possible. The greed is becoming unlimited in absence of
any deterrent legal action against economic criminals. There is no
shame even in compromising national security. Foreign countries enjoy
these conditions having Indian money stashed with them. Political
leadership must get automatically sensitized to honestly retract
country, and progress towards clean administration to put us on path
of REAL growth.
Agree (15)
Disagree (12)
George Blaney says:
September 13, 2009 at 04:16 PM IST
Shame on you MJ Akbar for using 'Vedic' in a noun form to generate a
cognitive consonance and association with the Hindu faith. I expected
from you. But again, you prove that under the name of 'secularism',
Moslems like you take to the pen ONLY to deginerate and demean the
richness of Bharath Matha and its culture. As a Westerner, I am amazed
by the breadth and depth of Hindoo philosophy, which pales in
comparision to the "you are born in sin and we shall redeem you"
Christian claims and "no one but us are pure" Moslem mysoginist
activism.
You have no business demeaning a tradition and culture that is the
soul of Bharath Matha, and the only saving light for humanity. Ashrams
are not straw towers. You should look closer to your own faith, which
till date destroys humanity in the name of "God". Or, shall we say,
"Moslem spirituality loses out in times of terrorism".
Agree (14)
Disagree (10)
George B says:
September 13, 2009 at 04:18 PM IST
Shame on you MJ Akbar for using 'Vedic' in a noun form to generate a
cognitive consonance and association with the Hindu faith. I expected
from you. But again, you prove that under the name of 'secularism',
Moslems like you take to the pen ONLY to deginerate and demean the
richness of Bharath Matha and its culture. As a Westerner, I am amazed
by the breadth and depth of Hindoo philosophy, which pales in
comparision to the "you are born in sin and we shall redeem you"
Christian claims and "no one but us are pure" Moslem mysoginist
activism.
You have no business demeaning a tradition and culture that is the
soul of Bharath Matha, and the only saving light for humanity. Ashrams
are not straw towers. You should look closer to your own faith, which
till date destroys humanity in the name of "God". Or, shall we say,
"Moslem spirituality loses out in times of terrorism".
Agree (3)
Disagree (3)
lakhinder singh says:
September 13, 2009 at 04:43 PM IST
superb article. M J Akbar has once again shown that he is the clearest
commentator on the Indian scene.
Agree (2)
Disagree (2)
Dib Maitra Jakarta says:
September 13, 2009 at 05:18 PM IST
This is, as usual, an excellent expose - typical of MJA.
Please add a column for email, so I may share his writing with others,
Agree (3)
Disagree (2)
Dayanand Balse says:
September 13, 2009 at 07:29 PM IST
Truly the Corrupt rule the roost. They can even "influence" private
Swiss/Leichenstein bankers.These bankers have now declared that there
are no "corrupt money accounts" with them , while we know that the
money stashed away thus is upwards of $1500 billion!
Agree (2)
Disagree (2)
S. K. Raghav says:
September 13, 2009 at 07:51 PM IST
Mr. Akbar has stated the truth in its naked form. We Indians talk all
about morality, spirituality and denounce worldly acquisitions, saying
money is hand's dirt : " hath ka mail hai". But in practise we either
keep mum like the proverbial 3 monkeys of Mahatma Gandhi or lay
prostrate before those who have accumulated illgotten wealth to the
extent of being filthy rich. Unless the people asks such corrupt
people as to how they have accumulated the illgotten acquisitions,
nothing is going to improve, because the Government agencies have
their own limitations, besides being easy prey of these corrupt
predators.
Agree (1)
Disagree (2)
AP says:
September 13, 2009 at 08:22 PM IST
India's corruption started with pretended austerity and legal gridlock
created by India's ruelers over 60 years. The fact that political
perties are not funded by common people but only by businesses--that
too in a clandistinal manner(how stupid can our lawmakers be?)-- has
perptuated the culture of corruption. The Hindu ethos of "why spend
the money" has to change.
Agree (3)
Disagree (2)
Health Fitness says:
September 13, 2009 at 09:06 PM IST
Very rightly said. The two warring rivals in the political are in fact
two sides of the same coin when it comes to filling their pockets by
suppressing poor. Corruption has got so much into the system that it
now drives India.
Agree (3)
Disagree (4)
ISHRAT HUSAIN says:
September 14, 2009 at 01:17 AM IST
The existence of corruption at most of the levels of Indian life is
not a great disclosure unless it comes up with a solution,so to me any
discussion or debate ,not coming with a solution is, mere another
discussion.It would be appreciatve if it takes that route.
Agree (3)
Disagree (1)
debdeep says:
September 14, 2009 at 02:29 AM IST
Mr Akbar,we are all old enough to understand that corruption is a part
of the Indian pysche, and will last as our ethnicity exists on the
planet. The only way we can optimize/harness the tendency for
shortcuts is via strong governance and quick addressals. Post
Nandigram, Buddha's government has shown absolute decision paralysis.
The rot in the system cannot be wished away, yet it cannot be any
excuse for an absence of executive decision on Singur, Lalgarh and
finally, Vedic village and related land acquisitions. I guess, a
strong, extra-legal, cadre-muscle-power response to the 3 Ms- The
Maoist-Mamata-Muslim vote bogey would have established some order
that's the need of the hour, albeit via an undemocratic process. Mr
Akbar, we need Infosys and Wipro in Bengal, not only for the high-
skilled who have been compelled to migrate to the South, but for the
subsidiary/support industries those 2 firms might generate, with the
resultant employment of the semi-skilled. With 2 premier IT firms
coming in, it would have been a huge branding exercize for WB.Chances
are that heavy industry might follow, and that would have resulted in
a bigger subsidiary industry growth. Too bad the CPI-M's cigarette-
smoke filled brain failed to look beyond the current political
embarassments of being caught in land-scams to these long-term
opportunities, and never tried to use West Bengal's most abundant
asset to its advantage. Corruption will stay; that should not put a
stay on land-allocation to industries.
Agree (4)
Disagree (1)
MKU says:
September 14, 2009 at 03:31 AM IST
Your prophecy of any given issue has always been nonpareil. Rightly
said, ascendancy of 'corruption' in our country is not prerogative of
any single party- not anymore. Sadly, it has become the ethos of our
modern India which goes beyond common man’s wit. Whether it’s
ayurvedic massage or twitched arms-nothing actually makes nous. Is it
the fate of morality in hands of turpitudes? This issue of our warped
leadership is definitely not new to us, but what is more excruciating
is this ‘monster’ is now rigging our homes, our day to day living -
unfortunately our children are growing-up in this culture. They don’t
know if life could be any different than what it is now. The question
is can we really turn the situation??
Agree (3)
Disagree (3)
ssmoorthy says:
September 14, 2009 at 03:52 AM IST
Vedic spirituality has been losing for long time.Vedantic philosophy
is prevalent as t5he people do not care whom they elect.Who cares
which politician is corrupt?As every one is corrupt.Who cares an IAS
officer was from the bottom of his class,or the engineer or doctor
went private schools and by corrupting the examiners passed the tests
and became qualified.There are no national examinations or standards
and controls.So why worry?Calta hi!
Agree (7)
Disagree (6)
khalid hilal says:
September 14, 2009 at 05:25 AM IST
ok, Kevin, for you - muslims are from the Dark Ages, fine, then you
should NOT wake up and use tens of benefits like the Islamic Finance
which is the next IN thing that every Finance Minister is sheepishly
agreeing to in times of this Economic Crisis..
Pls go ahead and take that loan at a high interest rate- the mordern
individual you are!! And yes, pls continue to advocate how NOT to give
the barbaric "capital punishment" to the politicians who rape your
country and go scott free and then sit and complain how the "system
needs to change"
I pity confused lots like you lol
Agree (2)
Disagree (2)
Raviraj Hosur says:
September 14, 2009 at 08:05 AM IST
Fantastic analysis. Very truly said MJ Akbarji. Politicians &
political parties are only interested in MONEY. Corruption is the only
way to get rich quickly. Religion is used by them to garner votes
rather than work for the poor.
Agree (2)
Disagree (3)
A. Whig says:
September 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM IST
Very well written but with sinister intentions. Notice the single
lines where Mr. MJ Akbar, a Muslim, cannot conceal his feelings "The
acquired land included wakf property", however no such proof is given
in this write-up. The heart-burn is in the age-old Islamic / Muslim
mentality that "come what may, we will not let go of anything that has
been stamped Islamic / Muslim", and here the heart-burn is not
grounded into any proof. How cleverly Mr. MJ Akbar is "Silent" on the
hooliganism and rampant destruction by the local land-shark, a
hooligan reported to employ muscle strength to serve his goals. Dear
Sir, can we have a line or two about this person also. Nah !! because
he is a Muslim. Incidentally this guy was also supplying guards /
security / goons (whatever suits you to call them) for the very Vedic
Village. and ... and ... and .. (deliberately repeated) what incident
caused the whole episode ... a football match lost by the team of this
local goon ... incidentally a Muslim. So, in India, if 2 people fight
and a Muslim is found guilty then some (like Mr. MJ Akbar) start
looking elsewhere, make a long and short story about known problems in
the society to link them with that incident, thus defending the
perpetrator by terming it a social uprising, and if a Hindu is at
fault (even if apparently) .. lo!!, behold!!! .. this is communal
hate, deliberately done, its an act to subjugate poor minorities of
India (What ?? I think Muslims in India are the most pampered
minorities in the world ... in fact the records of Muslim-major
nations towards minorities in their states are horrifically poor).
Dear Mr. MJ Akbar, I await an article by you upholding Taslima Nasreen
for her mighty pen against Islamic-borne social evils ... hope you
will rise up to the cause.
Agree (3)
Disagree (1)
Sharda Bhargav says:
September 14, 2009 at 02:05 PM IST
Sir,
Corruption must be curbed and crushed so that no one owns any
undeserved money. In the eyes of the world we should be able to
proudly say that we belong the Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic
Republic of India, which is most safe, secure and corruption free.
Possible, yes.
Agree (1)
Disagree (1)
Gopal Chintakayala says:
September 14, 2009 at 06:32 PM IST
It is said "prostitution is as old as Himalayas.Even prostitutes have
their rules and stipulations.One of the rules is not allow another
customer when she is entertaining one.But in case of politicians there
is no such distinction between and politics.But with a disstinctioni.e
politicians entertain not one but two, threes at one time and there is
time limit for the activity.It appears, one of the reasons for them to
prefer for staying in 5 star hotels, is that such operations can not
be conducted at home.( for give,this is not intended to hurt any one)
The paradox is Our leaders are now after the assumed black meney in
Swiss Bank"s, but they would not talk of unaccounted and black money
they have in our country which is believed to be twice the amount that
is supposed to be in Swiss banks.Be that as it may,Due to opening up
economy,we now get American apples, Middle east countries spirits,
Chinese toys of course swine flu.lot of motor cars polluting both air,
water and on the other hand nearly 70% of the people do not have
access to potable water, 30% of are still below poverty line ( the
percentage is constant since 1950.They are allowed to cross the line
as they from the solid vote bank to the ruling party. All in good
faith and malice towards none.Bharat Mata ki jai.
Agree (0)
Disagree (3)
RAMESH AGARWAL says:
September 14, 2009 at 08:08 PM IST
CORRUPTION IS RAMPHART IN INDIA AND WITH THE FREE ECONOMY AS MONEY IS
POURING IN SO THE DESIRE OF POLITICIANS AND BEAUROCRATS. THAT IS HOW
THEY WERE ABLE TO DEPOSIT SO MUCH MONEY AS BLACK MONEY IN SWISS AND
OTHER FOREIGN BANKS.IT IS NORMAL THI G IN INDIA TO GET EVERYTHING DONE
BY MONEY EVEN JUSTICE AND WINNING TRUST VOTE AS WAS DONE ON 22ND JULY
IN OUR PARLIAMENT. SEE HOW LALOO, MAYAWATI, MULAYAM AND FAMILY HAVE
AMASSED WEALTH AND COULD NOT BE PROSECUTED DUE TO
POLITICALCONSIDERATION. THE STORY OF WB IS NOT SURPRISING AND IS
NORMAL IN OURCOUNTRY.EVEN MEDIA IS TOO BIASED AND WHY THEY ARE DOING
SO COULD NOT BEEXPLAINED. THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS CORRUPT AND MORE
INFLUENCIAL YOU ARE EASY TO MANAGE EVEN OUR POLICE, CBI AND SECURITY
AGENCIES ARE INFLUENCED THAT IS WHY IT IS INCREASING. THERE IS NO
REMEADY TO REMOVE THIS AND WE WILL CONTINUE LIVE IN SAME SITUATION.
Agree (2)
Disagree (2)
SAMEER says:
September 15, 2009 at 12:42 AM IST
This blog reminded me of a famous Govinda Song.
IT HAPPENS ONLY IN INDIA!!!!! LOL
Agree (0)
Disagree (2)
JSingh says:
September 15, 2009 at 08:31 AM IST
The lack of transparency is a major contribution to the corruption and
also We do not make our Politician accountable for their action.
Corrupt Politicians are suspended or removed from their government
position for their misbehavior but still remains a key personnels to
support their party working behind the scene because Parties are not
ready to the risk the creation of new party by the suspended persons.
I think Election Commissioner should come up with some creative ideas
to make it difficult for any Tom, Dick and Harry to create a new
party. Simple rule like the suspended corrupt person should be
refrained from campaigning and creating the party for at least 4 years
can be helpful. We need to make Politicians accountable for their
action.
Agree (0)
Disagree (1)
aditya says:
September 15, 2009 at 04:36 PM IST
its difficult but humourous and strike to the point article. we are
fooled because we want to be by the politicians. should we really
blame them for what they do? but i appreciate the courage the author
has to strike the left(the Left), the right and the centre(the centre)
and take pride to be presented by such people
Agree (0)
Disagree (1)
RY Deshpande says:
September 17, 2009 at 05:49 AM IST
It is often said that democratic system and corruption are
interlinked. Yet there are national differences. In India it has
become a national habit, a second nature. We have won political
freedom but freedom from things ignoble and degrading is a long
battle. India cannot make true progress unless this is won. This is
possible only if those who are conscious of things can come forward
and work for the country. To awaken to the true character of India and
to live in it is the only solution possible. It cannot be a mass
movement; it has to be a movement carried by the pioneers. Whence
shall come these pioneers? Whence did the freedom fighters come?
Whence did the bringers of Indian renaissance come? From among those
few who love the country more than themselves and those who are
willing to do sacrifice for the sake of the country.
chhotemianinshallah
Where do our literary awards fail?
Antara Dev Sen
Wednesday, October 7, 2009 22:33 IST
Hilary Mantel has won the Man Booker Prize. Of course you knew that.
It is in all the papers today and anyway, you knew she was the
bookies' favourite. Er, no, you had not really heard of her before,
but of course you know all about her now and are looking forward to
reading Wolf Hall, the novel that got her the award. Read it already?
Gosh.
All the shortlisted authors too? Got some from abroad, you say? Oh
yes, internet shopping is such a joy. Well, you really are quite a
bookworm, aren't you?
And Kunwar Narain? Which of his works do you like the most? No, not RK
Narayan, Kunwar Narain. Er, well, he writes in Hindi, but has been
translated. Not a novelist, no, a poet, primarily. A remarkable poet,
one of our literary masters. Oh no, he isn't on the Booker list. And
will never be on it, frankly. That's a different ball game.
But on Tuesday evening, far away from London's Guildhall, where the
Booker ceremony was being held, in a very different literary award
ceremony held in Parliament House, Delhi, Kunwar Narain received the
Jnanpith Award from President Pratibha Patil. The award had been
announced earlier, this was the presentation ceremony. There had been
months to introduce one of India's finest poets to those who don't
read Hindi or don't read literature. But like with every Indian
literary award, this time too we did nothing to educate the
uninitiated.
The Jnanpith is India's highest literary award. And it very often goes
to a deserving candidate. This is primarily because, unlike the
Sahitya Akademi awards, which celebrate India's linguistic diversity
and struggle to find an awardee from each language every year, the
Jnanpith prioritises merit over linguistic representation. But of
course there is petty politics -- as is evident in the fact that it
took so long for Kunwar Narain, 82, to win the award that has gone to
far lesser writers before him.
That's not odd. A culture of almost sarkari secrecy and ad hoc-ism
dims our literary awards. We never know who are in the running, who
the judges are, or the nominees; we cannot judge the verdict. So they
just announce a winner and we say, oh, really? And dissolve in
happiness or raise an eyebrow.
That's it. Later, we may or may not know who the judges were, and
through hushed rumours and hot gossip may or may not get to know more
about the nominees and the process of selection. But we are never a
part of the excitement, never engaged, we are shut out till we
passively receive the final news.
There is a lot our literary awards can learn from the Booker. It
stimulates interest in not just the winner but all the serious
contenders for the prize. They give out information continuously,
keeping the readers -- the potential consumers -- informed at every
step.
The long list of 13 was released in July. Then in September the
shortlist of six was announced a whole month before announcing the
final winner. This build-up helps not just to sell the books in the
running, but also creates an interest in literature and authors that
is unfortunately dwindling worldwide. Remember the excitement of
following Aravind Adiga every step of the way to his victory last
year?
Curiously, our literary awards have no such fervour. Not even the
Jnanpith, which is from The Times of India family or the Saraswati
Samman and Vyas Samman which are from The Hindustan Times family can
generate it. Surely they need no lessons in marketing.
And they clearly know the importance of literature in creating a more
informed, perceptive and just society. If they, along with the sarkari
Sahitya Akademi Awards, can only make their award processes more
'reader-friendly', it would go a long way in strengthening our own
literatures and cultural values.
The writer is editor, The Little Magazine
chhotemianinshallah
The unbearable heaviness of the Nobel
Nilanjana S Roy / New Delhi October 13, 2009, 0:16 IST
Herta Müller, the new Nobel laureate in literature, has been a fierce
critic of Ceausescu’s regime in Romania. She is highly regarded in
Europe’s academic circles. She had received over 20 literary awards,
including the IMPAC, before winning the Nobel this year. And I must
confess an unliterary complaint: having read only two of her books,
The Land of Green Plums and The Appointment, I have about as much
enthusiasm for reading her as I do for swimming through a pool of cold
porridge.
The Nobel Prize in literature is administered by the Swedish Academy,
the process of selection is rigorous, and the shortlist of candidates
would usually begin at about 25 names and then be whittled down to
roughly five, before a winner is chosen. In a recent interview, Per
Wästberg, chairman of the Nobel Prize Literature Committee, revealed
that an author’s name would often come up for consideration for
several years before a nomination finally found acceptance. All of
this is imbued with gravitas, but none of this explains why the Prize
should be taken as seriously as it is, except for the fact of its
longevity.
The Prize’s track record over the first 30 years of its inception,
from 1901 to 1930, was dubious at best, with a smattering of the
Yeatses, Kiplings and Shaws making up for a score of now-forgotten
writers (Mommsen, Hamsun, Spitteler — names no longer read, even in
their home countries). It redeemed itself somewhat between the 1940s
and the 1980s, yielding at least a reasonable reading list of authors
whose works have endured the passage of time. In the last two decades,
the Prize seems determined to make political points and shine a light
on the obscure.
An uncharitable critic might detect the undertow of an anxiety that
Europe might be losing its influence, that the great writers who were
undiscovered by the British and the Americans (and a handful of
Indians) would sink into obscurity, taking part of the history of
Europe with them. What else might explain recent awards to Imre
Kertesz, Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clezio, Elfriede Jelinek and now Herta
Müller? And there’s a sense of drift with some other choices: Dario Fo
and Doris Lessing, for instance, may have deserved their Nobel nods,
but both received the laurel long after their respective works had
ceased to exert a once-powerful influence.
It is not that these are writers of no merit: truly bad writers don’t
make it to the shortlist. In different ways, Le Clezio, Jelinek,
Kertesz and Müller have made their contributions to literature and
literary history. Consider this, perhaps, evidence of this critic’s
poor taste and judgement, when I say that reading their works has not
convinced me that these are writers who will last, or whose works I am
astonished and pleased to discover. Perhaps pleasure is a frivolous
thing to want from the Nobel Prize; perhaps its august list of writers
is prescriptive, a judgement handed down from a great height to us
lesser mortals, an injunction to go forth and have our minds improved.
It is frivolous to complain, as I do having read two of Müller’s books
and all that is available of Le Clezio, Jelinek and Kertesz in
translation, that they bring me no enjoyment as a reader. And yet I
find that enjoyment is important to me, personally, as a reader, and
that in the last two decades, I have had little of that from the
Nobel.
The Nobel in literature has been awarded for over a century now; the
Man Booker International has made just three awards since 2005. The
Nobel is administered by the venerable academicians of the Swedish
Academy, a committee that rarely changes the composition of its
members. The Man Booker International has a shifting list of judges,
chosen from among contemporary writers every award season: it is peer-
driven, with all the benefits and faults this entails. The first of
its three awards went to Ismail Kadare, whose works found a new and
newly loyal readership; the second to Chinua Achebe, opening up his
work to readers who were beginning to forget him, and the culture he
came from; and the third to Alice Munro, establishing the worth of the
short story as a literary genre in its own right.
If the Man Booker continues in this vein, it will outstrip an
increasingly insular Nobel literature award in the next decade as the
prize to watch. Until we get there, though, I have to locate and find
the remaining works of Herta Müller. Perhaps reading her will be a
voyage of discovery and wonder, but I suspect this will be more like
trying to read the Wodehouse-created authoress so admired by Bertie
Wooster and Lady Florence Craye, author of Spindrift. That book, says
Wooster, went down “like ham and eggs with the boys with the bulging
foreheads round Bloomsbury way”, but he, like this critic, had a
plebeian soul and remained unmoved by her craft.
chhotemianinshallah
Pulp fiction
Overleaf
Rrishi Raote / New Delhi October 10, 2009, 0:59 IST
Above the pulp-line — but the exact boundaries are impossible to draw
— lies the world of erotica, of sexual writing with literary
pretensions or genuine claims,” writes George Steiner in Language and
Silence, a collection of his essays dating from the 1950s and 1960s.
“This world is much larger than is commonly realized.” (Below the pulp-
line, of course, is plain pornography.) There is much more of this
kind of writing than one might be aware of, Steiner says, because
little of it is published or disseminated. “[T]here is hardly a major
writer of the nineteenth or twentieth centuries who has not, at some
point in his career, be it in earnest or in the deeper earnest of
jest, produced a pornographic work”.
A glimpse of this heaving but silent world is afforded to us Indians
in a collection, assembled by Ruchir Joshi for Tranquebar Press, of
short, allegedly erotic new fiction by 13 South Asian writers. (An
interview with Joshi was carried on this page two weeks ago.) Several
are big names. But even among the experienced writers, Steiner’s “pulp-
line” is not marked — the contributions range from pornography with
the barest slip of narrative (Samit Basu) to psychological games
(Niven Govinden) to the deftly sensual and oddly lingering (Rana
Dasgupta). As to whether there’s any literature in this collection,
well, I’m old-fashioned about things like that.
Steiner begins by pointing out that “Despite all the lyric or obsessed
cant about the boundless varieties and dynamics of sex, the actual sum
of possible gestures, consummations, and imaginings is drastically
limited.” In other words, there’s little truly new to say about the
sex act itself, whether the description is set in elite or lumpen
prose. Those very few writers who do manage to “enlarge our actual
compass of sexual awareness” — including, Steiner says, Dostoevsky,
Proust, Mann and Nabokov — do so by other means than that of
describing the sex itself.
“After fifty pages of ‘hardening nipples’, ‘softly opening thighs’ and
‘hot rivers’ flowing in and out of the ecstatic anatomy,” writes
Steiner in anguish, “the spirit cries out, not in hypocritical
outrage, not because I am a poor Square throttling my libido, but in
pure, nauseous boredom. Even fornication can’t be as dull, as
hopelessly predictable as all that!”
Boy, do I agree. If you’re going to read anything but the best, take
it in small doses. Steiner’s essay was occasioned by the publication
of The Olympia Reader, a collection of extracts from various books
published by Maurice Girodias in the 1950s. Girodias ran the Olympia
Press in Paris, which was in its time the foremost publisher of
quality porn — porn with pretensions. Some of his contributors were or
became stars. Girodias was the first to recognise Nabokov’s Lolita as
something special, J P Donleavy’s The Ginger Man, some works of Jean
Genet, and so on.
One other who essayed on the basis of Girodias’s collection at roughly
the same time was Gore Vidal, the brilliant American whose notoriety
was at least partly based on his terrific promiscuity. In his essay
“On Pornography”, Vidal writes that “Mr. Girodias’s sampler should
provide future sociologists with a fair idea of what sex was like at
the dawn of the age of science.” Before, “sex was a dirty business
since bodies stank and why should any truly fastidious person want to
compound the filth of his own body’s corruption with that of another?”
Modern sanitation and medicine took the risk out of sex (this was pre-
AIDS), so Americans’ real and imagined sexual lives could come a mite
closer to alignment.
Now that middle-class Indians can count on reasonable sanitation and
medical care, is our sexual universe opening up? Is hypocrisy easing?
Is Ruchir Joshi’s book a sign of the times? Yes, perhaps, and yet...
its overwhelming banality suggests that our sexual imagination is
still impoverished. Perhaps we’re still at the talking stage: the
doing, the literature, may or may not follow.
chhotemianinshallah
Graphic novel on maths a bestseller
AFP 14 October 2009, 12:07am IST
ATHENS: Mathematics theory hardly sounds like comic book material, but
a pioneering Greek graphic novel on maths in early 20th century Europe
has become an unlikely hit, grabbing best-seller spots at online
bookshop Amazon.
“Logicomix: An Epic Search for Truth” tracks the battle of
mathematical minds — often against madness — before the invention of
the computer. The narrator and hero of the book is none other than
British philosopher, logician and pacifist Bertrand Russell
(1872-1970).
Running at more than 300 pages, it chronicles Russell’s tortuous quest
for the foundations of mathematics, and his search for logic as a
shield from the insanity that consumed other members of his family.
The story takes in his relations with thinkers and mathematical giants
of the era, two of his four marriages, and his hidden feelings for the
young wife of fellow mathematician Alfred North Whitehead.
The microcosm of great minds is played against the backdrop of broader
events in Europe, as the rise of Nazism directly threatens some of the
protagonists. “We wanted a narrator and Russell was ideal,” said
writer Apostolos Doxiadis, who co-authored the story with computer
science professor Christos Papadimitriou at the University of
California, Berkeley.
Crafting the unlikely novel took seven years, from discussions between
the creators to five years of scripting, drawing and colouring. The
aim of Logicomix is “to tell a fascinating story about the history of
ideas” says Doxiadis
chhotemianinshallah
Combat training on camping trip: Laden secrets out
ANI 13 October 2009, 12:24am IST
NEW YORK: After years of hiding and social ostracisation, the wife and
son of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden have come out with a no-holds
barred book that reveals quite candidly the harsh life the family led
under the gaze and zealous Islamic authority of the terror kingpin.
According to the New York Post, Osama bin Laden’s first wife, Najwa
and fourth son Omar reveal in the forthcoming book titled “Growing Up
bin Laden” how on one night in Khartoum, Sudan, bin Laden decided to
take his family — four wives, 14 children — on a camping trip.
They said he drove into the desert, found an isolated spot, made his
oldest sons dig ditches in the sand, long enough to fit each person,
and told them to be be gallant and not think about foxes or snakes, as
he was of the view that there was a war coming between Muslims and the
Western infidels, and this was a form of training for greater
hardships.
“You must “ he says. “Challenging trials are coming to us. Each child,
including a few 1- and 2-year-olds, lies in a hollow. There is no
water or food. As night falls, a child’s voice whispers in the
darkness, “I’m cold.” “Cover yourself with dirt or grass,” bin Laden
snaps. “You will be warm under what nature provides.”
Najwa, who remains married to Laden, but now lives apart from him in
an undisclosed Middle Eastern location, with her fourth son — of 11
children — Omar. Najwa says that “It’s a world where women are never
allowed outside the house, 12-year-old daughters are married off to 30-
year-old al-Qaida fighters, pet dogs are used for target practice and
the biggest household fight is over whether Islam allows
refrigerators.”
She neither defends nor lashes out at Osama, as she says that
terrorism is what he does for a living, and that all she does is worry
about keeping his house in order. The book reveals a terrorist leader
who is embarrassed easily, obsessed with a long-dead father, terrified
of women, and thinks of his children as nothing more than cannon
fodder
bademiyansubhanallah
The ease of being Gurcharan Das
HINDOL SENGUPTA
Author, columnist and former corporate czar, Gurcharan Das on his
latest book and his attempt to understand society’s moral failures
through the Mahabharata.
“This is an answer that the investment bankers, who tipped the world
into this crisis of capitalism, might ponder over.”
Photo: K. Pichumani
Destiny of Dharma: Gurcharan Das. .
If Gurcharan Das was a Mahabharata character, perhaps he would be
Bhisma; his early retirement as the celebrated CEO Proctor and Gamble
India to turn full-time author, almost a willing renunciation of the
capitalist kingdom and crown. Naturally sagac ious, he is a mild man,
who speaks sometimes with Vajpayeesque pauses, and fits the mould of
the benevolent teacher, the thinker of many things, the interpreter of
memories.
His Jor Bagh home in pleasantly leafy south Delhi is that of the
gentleman at leisure, adequately oak-and-book lined, with deep dark
sofas and customary lovable, if desultory, dog.
On Satyam
Last time I met him amid the Jaipur literature festival, with the
shadow of Amitabh Bachchan seeping out as it were from the crumbling
haveli in the background, Das spoke about Ramalinga Raju’s
Dhritarashtra-like failing.
He was, Das had said about the beleaguered Satyam boss, just unable to
recognise his mistakes and the errors of those closest to him. In fact
his book begins with the role of Raju in Satyam.
“I had met Raju 10 years earlier. I had looked him in the eye and I
had seen sincerity, competence and great purpose… why should a person
of palpable achievement, who lacked nothing in life, turn to crime?”
The search of the answer brought him to the Mahabharata and The
Difficulty of Being Good. The idea which took best-selling author Das
(his India Unbound had been widely sold and translated and even filmed
by the BBC) to the University of Chicago to study Sanskrit texts to
the Regenstein Library where he “interrogated” the epic, cheered on by
Sanskrit scholars like Sheldon Pollock and Wendy Doniger, the latter
telling him, “Reading Sanskrit is good for the soul.”
The right thing
If his last book was trying to understand the core values, the
metaphysics as it happens, of artha or wealth, this time retelling the
Mahabharata was his solitary search for the idea of dharma — of how
doing and then failing to do, the right thing, changes the world.
Last time I met him in winter-consoled Jaipur, in the aftermath of a
shocked India Inc post-Satyam, Das was tossing his big idea; it is not
the larger evil flaws society but the minor theft, the small sins that
is eating away the fabric of India. It is no so much the Satyams that
kill India, he had told me. It is the petty bribes, the illicit
donations, the baksheesh culture. The Difficulty of Being Good then is
Das’ way of trying to understand the world and its sins and of dharma,
as the great epic of retribution and retelling understood it.
Through the Mahabharata, Das is attempting to understand the moral
failure of society, how “the country (is) turning middle class
alongside the most appalling governance”.
The tale of warring brothers, destined to fight the greatest battle of
all times, was also telling him about the intricacies of world — from
a collapsing Wall Street to the one topic we were also, naturally,
destined to amble onto India’s very own warring brothers, the
Ambanis.
“It is envy, you see, that is at the root. Anil’s Duryodhana-like envy
for his brother and there always has been such conflict of jealousy,
pride, envy between brothers,” said Das, nodding his head sadly.
We spoke of whether Anil Ambani also has what Das calls Karna’s status
anxiety and how the battle between brothers is always a case of
intertwined, conflicting egos, personalities and histories. “There is
pride and envy and factions in this (the Ambani) battle,” said Das.
“It is all in the Mahabharata.”
Missing morals
In the interim period between the Dhitrarashtra-Raju and Duryodhana-
Anil, Das finished The Difficulty of Being Good, called a “tour de
force” by Nandan Nilekani, an attempt to understand the mystery of our
missing morals.
As he read the Mahabharata, “intrigued by its boast: What is here is
found elsewhere. What is not here is nowhere”, Das says he also
realised that the epic is the perfect textbook for these troubled
times. Take Wall Street, for instance. If only, says Das, the Wall
Street bankers would have acted like Yudhishthira, saying his immortal
words, “I act because I must.”
“It was,” writes Das, “the uncompromising, compelling voice of dharma.
This is an answer that the investment bankers, who tipped the world
into this crisis of capitalism, might ponder over.”
The big lesson, smiled Das beatifically, is that “the ferocious
competition of interests and passions that Duryodhana exemplifies is a
feature of the free market and it can be corrosive”.
Choosing the right way
“Since it is in man’s nature to want more, one learns to live with
human imperfection, and one seeks regulation that not only tames the
Duryodhanas but also rewards dharma-like behaviour in the market.”
His book is about the idea of good and bad, as he calls it “the subtle
art of dharma”, of how choosing to do the right thing is tricky and
often traumatic, yet, in doing the right thing, in following the
destiny of dharma lies the future and fate of our race. That’s why,
says Das, we all must do what we are destined to do — act according to
our dharma.
His, of course, as he would say, was to stop worrying about
oscillating market shares of soaps and shampoos and discover the
tantalising pulse of his country.
Hindol Sengupta is Associate Editor, UTVi
chhotemianinshallah
Columns&programId=1073755417&contentId=6077948
Going for the jugular -
Illustration: Bhaskarana
WICKED WORD
By V.S. Jayaschandran
Elizabeth Blackburn was asleep when she got the Nobel Prize call on
October 5. “I thought I was dreaming,” she said, full of joy. That was
natural—the Old English word dream meant joy. The Old English word for
dream was swefn, which is the same as Sanskrit swapna. Their root,
swep-no, meant sleep. Greeks pronounced swep-no as hypnos, just as
Iranians pronounced the Sanskrit soma as homa.
The Scottish surgeon James Braid coined the word hypnotism in 1843,
long after Franz Mesmer died. Mesmerism was considered black magic
until an Indian monk in Paris, Abbe Faria, published a book on lucid
sleep in 1819. His native Goa has an arresting bronze sculpture of him
mesmerising a woman.
Faria led a battalion in the French Revolution and spent years in
jail. He used yoga in his psychological research. His father was a
master of yoga and mind control. Yoga means union or yoke. Veins in
the neck are called jugular because they pass under jugulum, the yoke-
shaped collarbone. Yoga gets under covers in conjugal, but if you
listen hard you won’t miss the “jug jug to dirty ears”.
The tele-yoga teacher Baba Ramdev boasts he will cure mankind of all
diseases in 20 years. His disciples bought a Scottish island last
month to build a yoga centre. Scotsmen in kilts doing the headstand
will make a pretty picture. Looking up, they could go bananas. A true
Scotsman wears nothing under the kilt. Sergeants in Scottish regiments
enforced the no-undies rule, and checked under kilts with a long-
handled mirror. Guards at hotel gates use such mirrors to check under
vehicles for bombs. Terrorism can spell the end of miniskirts.
Ramdev swears by the vedas. Veda is related to the Latin videre (to
see, to know). So are wit, vision, video and voyeur. After a conquest
in 47 BC, Julius Caesar wrote: veni, vidi, vici—I came, I saw, I
conquered. Young men plagued by premature release change the word
order and lament, “I saw, I came….”
The Chinese on the border are going for the jugular, but India takes
reporters to task. It has denied reports of incursions with a rare
vehemence. But don’t fault China for giving Kashmiris paper visa,
ignoring Indian passports. Visa was originally known as charta (paper)
visa. America is eager to shoehorn itself into Kashmir. Bill Clinton
failed to become US special envoy to Kashmir, but depend on the pants
dropper to use his good orifices. The Organisation of Islamic
Countries has appointed a special envoy for Kashmir. In literature,
envoy is a message at the end of a poem. In the envoy to ‘The Clerk’s
Tale’, Chaucer advises women: “Ever wag your tongues like the
windmill.” Envoys are good at it.
In The Count of Monte Cristo, Abbe Faria helps the hero discover a
treasure. Alexandre Dumas did not mention his Indian origins in the
novel. Dumas did odd things. One winter evening, he allowed the
novelist Roger de Beauvoir to join him and his wife, Ida, in bed, just
to keep warm. Writes a historian: “In the morning Alexandre woke up
first, looked at the two traitors, and then addressed de Beauvoir,
‘Shall two old friends quarrel about a woman, even when she’s a lawful
wife? That would be stupid,’ and seizing his friend’s hand across
Ida’s sleeping form, he added: ‘Let us become reconciled like the
ancient Romans—on this public square.’”
Sharing a bed was a fine way of courtship in Scotland. No young Scot
took his girlfriend out for a date. He simply asked her parents to let
him share her bed at night. They went to bed fully clothed. Parents
tucked the girl in a sack, leaving only the hands and face free for
exploration. This was known as bundling, which should gladden modern
marketing strategists. But keep an eye on the border—the Americans and
the Chinese might do some bundling to turn up the heat on Pakistan.
chhotemianinshallah
Columns&programId=1073755417&contentId=6020928
Count your cash cows -
Illustration: Hadimani
WICKED WORD
By V.S. Jayaschandran
Goblins in Harry Potter speak gobbledygook. Others cannot understand
their lingo. India’s nuclear mandarins speak in tongues about the
“failure” of Pokhran II. Nobody can make sense of their glossolalia.
Bombay-born British educator Frederic Farrar coined the word
glossolalia in 1879. American legislator Maury Maverick coined
gobbledygook to twit bureaucratese. He did it in a wartime memo in
1944, threatening in jest to shoot anyone using words like activation
and implementation.
His grandfather Samuel Maverick was more famous. His name yielded the
word maverick. This Texas engineer did not brand the calves in his
cattle ranch. So other ranchers called unbranded calves maverick.
Later, maverick came to mean ‘masterless’ and then ‘unconventional
person’.
Shashi Tharoor is a maverick calf in politics. He tweeted in jest
about the government’s austerity drive. He said he would travel
“cattle class out of solidarity with all our holy cows”. The prattle
class was pleased, but hidebound Congressmen demanded his head.
‘Hidebound’ originally indicated skinny cattle with the ribs and
backbones sticking out.
Cattle class is economy class for the British and coach class for
Americans. Sailors called it steerage—the lowest deck, full of foul
air. It was slightly better than the cargo hold. Steerage got its name
from rudder ropes that veined the deck. Almost half the 2,566
passengers of the Titanic travelled cattle class.
James Cameron writes in Titanic film script: “Steerage passengers, in
their coarse wool and tweeds, queue up in moveable barriers like
cattle in a chute. A health officer examines their heads one by one,
checking the scalp and eyelashes for lice.” Two unruly boys and their
uncouth father shove past Rose’s fiancé, the uber-rich Cal. “Steerage
swine!” says Cal, iceberg-cold. “Apparently he missed his annual
bath.”
Manmohan Singh saw no sting in Tharoor’s tweet. The capitalist
economist knows the value of cattle. The word cattle comes from Latin
capitale, meaning property. As cattle moved, it was moveable property.
This meaning survives in the legal term ‘goods and chattels’. Chattel
was cattle in French.
Cattle represented the wealth of ancient migrants. Romans called their
domestic animals pecu. Indians called theirs pasu. Pecu produced the
words pecuniary (relating to money) and peculiar. Peculiar meant
private property in the form of cattle. The Jews were known as
Peculiar People—God’s chosen people, who owned private property and
had money. For many Jews, money-lending was heaven.
The government has asked IIMs and IITs to increase fees. This should
make cattle burp in satisfaction. The word fee comes from the Old
German fihu, meaning cattle. Some Harvard professors had a cattle perk—
they could graze their cows on the university campus. Professor Harvey
Cox, author of The Secular City, took that privilege on September 10.
He took a cow to his retirement party in Harvard. The English cow is a
clone of the Sanskrit gau, though gau sounds hoarse like deep-throated
Tharoor.
Sonia Gandhi knows that Italy (Viteliu) means land of cattle. The
Latin word for calf is vitulus. Sonia flew cattle class from Delhi to
Mumbai on September 14. Don’t connect her with Tharoor’s “holy cows”—
unless he had ‘sacred cows’ in mind. Holy Cow is just an interjection,
a swearword like Holy Mackerel. A sacred cow is something or someone
you can’t question.
The Sacred Band was an elite unit in the Theban army. Alexander
annihilated them. The Sacred Band consisted of 150 pairs of gay
lovers. Thebans theorised that lovers would stick by each other in
crunch time and battle hard. It was like the commando buddy system.
Buddy has a queer past. The word originated as butty (workmate) in
coalmines, where miners worked in close proximity, butt to butt.
chhotemianinshallah
Columns&programId=1073755417&contentId=5959708
A hot dog on a leash -
Illustration: Bhaskaran
WICKED WORD
By V.S. Jayaschandran
A tin trunk held everything Nripen Chakraborty owned. He lived in a
single room and was chief minister for ten years. George Fernandes
washed his own clothes in a bucket even when he was defence minister.
A half-naked fakir washes a long piece of white cloth in a river in
the film Gandhi. He lets the cloth slip from his fingers and float
towards a woman in rags. He looks away so that she can take it without
embarrassment. “Her lips almost part in a tiny smile of thanks,” reads
the screenplay. Gandhi’s eyes narrow with pain.
S.M. Krishna lived for months in a Maurya Sheraton suite costing the
earth. He took the trouble for his love of simplicity—sheraton is a
furniture style noted for its simplicity. Pranab Mukherjee, who
ejected him, hardly knows the root of austerity. The word austere,
meaning dry, was originally used to describe brandy, not ‘Gandy’.
Krishna said he would make “private arrangements” to continue living
in luxury. He spoke like a stoic, a philosopher with the stiff upper
lip. The word stoic comes from Stoa Poikile, the Painted Porch in
Athens where stoics taught endurance.
The Painted Porch had frescos of the battle of Marathon. More than
stoics, ascetics were associated with Marathon. Ascetics were Greek
athletes who trained hard for gymnastic competitions. They followed
rigorous self-discipline. The word ascetic later came to mean a monk
who showed such rigour. Shashi Tharoor, who camped in the Taj Mahal
hotel, declined to live in the Kerala House because it offered no
privacy or gym. He no doubt knows that ancients who went to gyms
trained naked, showing off their privates. Gymnos means naked in
Greek.
Gymnosophists were naked philosophers the Greeks sighted in India
after Alexander’s invasion. These were mainly Digambara (sky-clad)
Jain monks. The invaders would have paid attention to gymnosophists’
danglers. The Greeks knew how to restrain their own privates. Their
athletes tied a leather strap to the foreskin to stop the penis from
dangling during competitions. The other end of the strap was tied
round the base. Baring the glans, even by accident, was considered
inelegant.
The foreskin restraint was called kynodesme, meaning dog on a leash.
Kynikos means doglike. This word evolved into English cynic. Cynics
were a school of philosophers noted for their sneering sarcasm. While
sneering, they tended to bare their teeth like snarling dogs. Their
gymnasium in Athens was known as the Grey Dog. The anti-Naxalite
Greyhounds of Andhra Pradesh are all teeth and no leash.
The cynic Diogenes, who lived in a barrel and slighted Alexander, was
an exhibitionist. He fondled himself in public, saying, “If only I
could soothe my hunger by rubbing my belly.” The Japanese call male
masturbation senzui—it means a hundred rubs. They call the female
variety manzumi, meaning ten thousand rubs. The arithmetic could be
faulty, but women take a longer time than men.
The book Tingo, by Adam Jacot de Boinod, has such words and
expressions from different languages. In Japanese, Bakku-shan is a
girl who looks good from behind but not so from the front. Zaftig in
German is a buxom woman full of juice (zaf means sap). Don’t expect
the frau to dote on die toten hosen—the dead trousers—meaning a boring
place or an impotent man. She would rather chase Italians adept at
carezza. Carezza is marathon sex, coitus prolongatus, avoiding
emission.
Fijians call unfaithful husbands vori vori (ball ball). Large corn
flour balls swim in this thick soup. Sops that German philanderers
offer to pacify their suspicious wives are called dragon fodder. The
dragon sniffing at the Arunachal border is itching for trouble. The
best way to provoke Chinese brass hats is to send them green hats. If
you tell a Chinese that he wears a green hat, you imply that his wife
is cheating on him. A hard hat is a helmet. Helmet also means glans,
the private red hat.
chhotemianinshallah
Columns&programId=1073755417&contentId=5931968
To hell with size zero -
Illustration: Hadimani
THE SEXES
By Shobhaa De
Sandra Bullock happens to be one of Hollywood’s more intelligent and
accomplished actors. Audiences love her playing a tough cop or the
female boss from hell. That has always been her positioning. “Bullock
has ‘b@#*s of steel,” declare her admirers in awe. It is true. She has
built her rock solid career on roles that emphasise her ‘macho’
appeal. So, if such a high profile star starts shouting from the
rooftops that she “wants boobs” as she can’t wait to become a ‘sex
object’, one should understand the irony built into the remark. Of
course, she’s joking! At least, one hopes she is! After Bullock went
on and on about how disappointing it was that her brains were in her
butt, and not in her boobs, she was asked about opting for silicon
implants. She gushed she was entirely open to the idea, and stated she
was shopping around for enough silicon to qualify as a legit, honest
to goodness bimbo with bumps in the right places. I thought it would
end there. She’d made her point, and could we just get back to her
next movie, please?
Now comes a fresh set of quotes about Bullock’s liposuction fixation!
When a journo asked her the secret of her toned body, she confessed it
was “loads and loads of lipo”. Maybe she and her publicist have
jointly decided it’s cool to talk down on the subject and make a
monumental joke out of the current obsession for the Body Beautiful.
But you know what, Ms Bullock? These sorts of send-ups tend to bite
back. Fans take star quotes at face value and may not possess the
requisite intelligence/sense of humour to laugh over these clever
remarks. Unless of course Sandra is not jesting in the first place! Oh
dear!
In our own context, our sense of humour is distinctly different. I
watched Quick Gun Murugan and realised I was the only person in a
largely empty cinema hall who was laughing at Mango Dolly’s double
entendres. Mango Dolly is played by the luscious Rambha in a Dolly
Parton-style blond wig (cleavage to match). Since the entire movie is
a spoof (not that funny, alas!), Rambha’s cheesy lines as she tries to
seduce the hero, come off sounding slightly ridiculous instead of
tongue-in-cheek. Our audiences cannot handle this sort of broad
comedy.
Rambha fell flat on her face along with the rest of the cast. Why? Her
gangster’s moll portrayal played against the stereotype. The big
difference between a Rakhi Sawant declaring her (plastic) assets in
print and a Sandra Bullock lamenting the absence of hers, is not the
same thing. Rakhi’s silicon boosters are used blatantly to further
objectify her sex appeal. Sandra mocks society’s pathetic hang-up on
women’s bodies.
A couple of years earlier, our trusting fans were brainwashed by
Kareena Kapoor into embracing size zero. They were weaned away from
their earlier fascination with the heroine's curves. Bollywood
depended heavily on padded bras before the advent of silicon. And no
matter how generously endowed the leading lady may have been, it was
mandatory to fill her brassiere with enough cotton wool to stuff a
sofa.
When a producer said he wanted his heroine to look ‘healthy’, it meant
just one thing and the costume department swiftly got the message—pump
up the bra. Today, our leading ladies give countless interviews on
drastic weight loss programmes constructed by personal trainers so as
to conform to the latest gay director’s notion of a desirable female
form (strictly no curves!). Poor Rani Mukherjee is resembling a
dehydrated prune in her new release all because of that bloody diet
she was put onto. We want our curves back—cellulite and all! We want
the old fashioned ‘healthy’ heroine running around trees with body
parts jiggling in time with her wriggling. To hell with size zero.
Thank you, Sandra Bullock for providing a much-needed debate on the
subject. Rambha rocks, I say. Mind it!
chhotemianinshallah
Columns&programId=1073755417&contentId=5841648
Go on a leather hunt -
Illustration: Bhaskaran
WICKED WORD
By V.S. jayaschandran
Calicut gave English the word calico, and Kashmir yielded cashmere.
Machilipatnam, once known as Masulipatnam, perhaps supplied the word
muslin. Cambric cotton from Cambrai in France gave them stiff
competition. Levi Strauss took canvas cloth from Genoa in Italy to
pitch tents in America. The cloth from Genoa came to be called jeans.
The cloth he took from Nimes in France, called serge de Nimes, became
denims. English has hundreds of such words derived from names of
places. These are called toponyms.
Michigan bankroll, a toponym, is a bundle of notes with real currency
only at the top and the bottom. The CBI trapped Sarabjot Singh with
such bundles. A Chinese compliment is a polite interest in others’
views when one has already made up one’s mind. Note how Beijing seeks
to build strategic trust with New Delhi, when a Chinese think-tank
wants India balkanised into 20 to 30 countries.
Aamir Khan is producing a loose motion picture, Delhi Belly. But it
may well be a story of love in the time of cholera, not just
traveller’s diarrhoea. Delhi belly initiates visitors to the capital’s
culinary cruelties. Mexican two-step is another name for alimentary
canal unplugged. It compels the sufferer to leap to the loo.
“I gotta go pee, I want to go home,” whimpers Yolanda, the restaurant
robbing woman, in Pulp Fiction. She is in a Mexican stand-off, an
impasse of three or more people holding guns to one another’s head.
The director Tarantino stages yet another Mexican stand-off in his
latest film, the queerly spelt Inglourious Basterds.
A Mexican raise is a promotion with no increase in pay. An Irishman’s
rise is less pay for doing the same job. Irish toothache is something
swollen—either an erection or a pregnancy. Tata honcho R.
Gopalakrishnan keeps a toothbrush handy. “I brush after every meal,”
he said at the IIT Kharagpur convocation on August 8. He picked up the
habit while working for a toothpaste company, he told a friend. “Thank
God you don’t work for a condom company!” the friend exclaimed.
Brushing teeth after a meal is fine, but putting on a condom after the
act requires ingenuity.
Condoms were invented not to control birth, but as protection against
private infections. They were made of cloth, animal skin or intestine.
French letter originated from such sheath. A French tickler was of the
ribbed kind. The church ripped condoms and promoted Vatican roulette.
This rhythm method of contraception is a hit and miss game. If you
lose it you get life. If you lose playing Russian roulette you get
death.
Rome’s fears over condoms are not altogether unfounded. In 2001,
doctors in Meerut found a condom in a 27-year-old schoolteacher’s
lungs. After pulling it out, they wrote in a medical journal:
“Retrospectively, both the husband and wife accepted to having
undergone a fellatio. They could recollect that the condom had
loosened during the act, and at that time the lady had also
experienced an episode of sneezing and coughing.”
France boasts a village named Condom. The word does not mean
contraceptive in French. The river Baise flows by it. If you say baise
in French, you are asking for sex.
Condoms are taboo in the Amish commune called Intercourse in
Pennsylvania. A tour of the state could be stimulating. After Zipdown,
you can spend time in Ballplay or Lickdale, go for Intercourse, reach
Climax and then Yocumtown. Hillary Clinton’s office is in Foggy Bottom
in Washington, DC, but S.M. Krishna skipped Mount Buggery in
Australia. In England, one can stroll through Butt Hole Road in South
Yorkshire, and Sluts Hole Lane in Norfolk. Belgium has Labia, and
Russia is proud of its Vagina in Kurgan city.
Germany has two touchy-feely towns, Petting and Titting. Near Petting
is an Austrian town whose name is pronounced as Foocking but written
with a ‘u’ instead of the double ‘o’. Tourists love stealing the name
board.
Sid Harth
"Digi-novel" combines book, movie and website
Wed Sep 2, 2009 5:42pm IST
By Michelle Nichols
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Is it a book? Is it a movie? Is it a website?
Actually it's all three.
Anthony Zuiker, creator of the "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" U.S.
television series, is releasing what he calls a "digi-novel" combining
all three media -- and giving a jolt to traditional book publishing.
Zuiker has created "Level 26," a crime novel that also invites readers
to log on to a website about every 20 pages using a special code to
watch a "cyber-bridge" -- a three-minute film clip tied to the story.
Starting next Tuesday, readers can buy the book, visit the website,
log in to watch the "cyber-bridges," read, discuss and contribute to
the story.
"Just doing one thing great is not going to sustain business," he
said. "The future of business in terms of entertainment will have to
be the convergence of different mediums. So we did that -- publishing,
movies and a website."
He said he did not believe the digi-novel would ever replace
traditional publishing, but said the business did need a shot in the
arm.
"They need content creators like myself to come in the industry and
say, 'Hey, let's try things this way,'" he said.
Zuiker put together a 60-page outline for the novel, which was written
by Duane Swierczynski, and wrote and directed the "cyber-bridges." He
said the book could be read without watching the "cyber-bridges."
GADGETS CHANGE READING LANDSCAPE
Zuiker said the United States was infatuated with technology and it
had become such a permanent part of people's lives that more
entertainment choices were needed.
Increasingly, people are reading books on electronic readers like
Amazon.com's Kindle and Sony Corp's Reader.
Those devices don't play videos, so "Level 26" readers still need to
log on to the Internet on a different device. Apple Inc is said to be
developing a touchscreen tablet, which some analysts envision as a
multimedia device that could play videos.
Zuiker said people's attention span was becoming shorter and shorter
and that it was important to give people more options on how they
consumed entertainment and books.
"Every TV show in the next five, 10 years will have a comprehensive
microsite or website that continue the experience beyond the one-hour
television to keep engaging viewers 24/7," he said. "Just watching
television for one specific hour a week ... that's not going to be a
sustainable model going forward."
"I wanted to bring all the best in publishing, in a motion picture, in
a website and converge all three into one experience," he said.
"And when the book finished and the bridges finished, I wanted the
experience to continue online and in a social community."
Zuiker said he came up with the idea for the "digi-novel" during a
three-month TV writers strike in 2007/08.
© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
bademiyansubhanallah
Claudio Magris awarded Peace Prize of German bookseller association
www.chinaview.cn 2009-10-19 10:19:43
Writer Claudio Magris (2nd R) smiles as he receives the applause from
the audience as he is awarded the Peace Prize of the German bookseller
association during a ceremony at Paul's church (Paulskirche) in
Frankfurt, October 18, 2009. The Peace Prize (Friedenspreis des
deutschen Buchhandels) of the German bookseller association is known
as one of the most prestigious prizes for literature worldwide.
(Xinhua/Reuters Photo)
Writer Claudio Magris receives the Peace Prize from German bookseller
association Chairman Gottfried Honnefelder during a ceremony at Paul's
church (Paulskirche) in Frankfurt, October 18, 2009. (Xinhua/Reuters
Photo)
Writer Claudio Magris (L) receives the Peace Prize from German
bookseller association Chairman Gottfried Honnefelder during a
ceremony at Paul's church (Paulskirche) in Frankfurt, October 18,
2009. (Xinhua/Reuters Photo)
Writer Claudio Magris speaks after receiving the Peace Prize from
German bookseller association Chairman Gottfried Honnefelder during a
ceremony at Paul's church (Paulskirche) in Frankfurt, October 18,
2009. (Xinhua/Reuters Photo)
Writer Claudio Magris smiles before he is awarded the Peace Prize of
the German bookseller association during a ceremony at Paul's church
(Paulskirche) in Frankfurt, October 18, 2009. (Xinhua/Reuters Photo)
Writer Claudio Magris looks up before he is awarded the Peace Prize of
the German bookseller association during a ceremony at Paul's church
(Paulskirche) in Frankfurt, October 18, 2009.(Xinhua/Reuters Photo)
chhotemianinshallah
That Year Is Almost Here
By Paul Gray;Anne Hopkins/New York;John Saar/London Monday, Nov. 28,
1983Print Email Reprints Digg Facebook
But George Orwell's message for 1984 is bigger than Big Brother
He thought it was "a good idea ruined," that futuristic fable he had
planned on calling The Last Man in Europe. But he was always
pessimistic about his own writing. This time the gloom was deepened by
illness. His tuberculosis had worsened. The task of typing and
revising the manuscript had broken him physically. He lay in a
sanatorium bed when his book was published, in June 1949; the name
that appeared on its cover was Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Come Jan. 1, the fictional date of George Orwell's final and most
famous book becomes fact at last. It is a looking-glass anniversary, a
remembrance of things future, and an accidental one at that. Orwell's
manuscript, which has just resurfaced after years in a private
collection, reveals that the author had considered both 1980 and 1982
for the time of his story. So what is about to happen might have
occurred two or four years earlier, or not at all; had he stuck to The
Last Man in Europe, there would have been no occasion to commemorate.
Tens of millions have read it, in 62 languages: the story of Winston
Smith, a minor bureaucrat in the totalitarian state of Oceania. War
with the world's two other superpowers, Eurasia and Eastasia, is
constant, although the pattern of hostilities and alliances keeps
changing. Smith works at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting old
newspaper stories to conform to current Party ideology. He uses the
official language, Newspeak, a version of English being pared down to
make unorthodox opinions impossible to conceive. Privacy has vanished.
Waking and sleeping, Smith and all Party members are observed by two-
way telescreens; posters everywhere proclaim BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING
YOU. Suddenly, Smith commits a thoughtcrime: "Down with Big Brother."
He also begins a love affair with Julia, a co-worker at his office,
another heinous offense. The Junior Anti-Sex League indoctrinates the
virtue of celibacy; procreation will soon be carried on solely through
artificial insemination ("artsem," in Newspeak). All personal loyalty
belongs to the Party. Winston and Julia are caught by the Thought
Police and hauled off to the Ministry of Love. He is relentlessly
tortured, then taken to Room 101, where his worst fear has been
readied by interrogators. As a cage bearing a rat is being pushed
toward his face, he begs that this punishment be inflicted on Julia
instead. This betrayal eliminates the last trace of his integrity. He
has become a good Party Member.
For all its readers, for the countless millions who have heard of Big
Brother and the estimated year of his arrival, this New Year's Day
offers some unsettling moments: that glimpse of the new calendar, the
first chance to write 1984 in a diary or on a letter or check. Orwell
spelled his title out, a practice followed in the first editions: the
book had a name, like Utopia or Leviathan, not a date. But the
shorthand 1984 also gained wide currency. And those four neutral
integers, fused so long in the public consciousness, have acquired the
shimmering, brutal power of the hieroglyph.
What does it stand for? That question and the imminence of the
Orwellian year have galvanized a small army of professors, critics and
writers, journalists, pundits, social scientists, politicians and
professional doomsters; hardly anyone paid for thinking out loud seems
able to resist the temptation to play with Orwell's numbers. The game
began in earnest last January and could, thanks to crowded conditions,
easily extend into 1985. The action takes different forms: an
apparently endless round of academic seminars and symposiums, coast to
coast, from Manhattan College to Stanford; a swelling stream of
magazine articles ("On the Brink of 1984") and books (1984 Revisited:
Totalitarianism in Our Century); a CBS documentary last June anchored
by Walter Cronkite, plus some six hours of TV programming to be shown
in England.
A new 17-volume edition of Orwell's complete works will be published
next year in the U.S. and England. A wax figure of the author is to be
installed at Madame Tussaud's in London at the end of December.
Science-fiction buffs discussed the father of Big Brother in Antwerp
this fall. Futurists look forward to gathering for the same purpose in
Washington next June, well after the separate Orwell festivities
planned by the Smithsonian Institution and Library of Congress. By
then hearings scheduled by a House Judiciary subcommittee on "1984:
Civil Liberties and the National Security State" will be completed.
Orwell experts jetting from one gala to another can keep track of the
time through "The 1984 Calendar" ($10.95), the inspiration of two
Michigan State graduates. Billed as "a day-by-day history of the
increasing erosion of civil liberties in the U.S.," it measures 17 in.
by 34 in. and features black-and-white photographs of U.S. Government
buildings (the IRS, FBI, the Bureau of Indian Affairs) and of police
riot squads and jail cells. Each date is annotated with one or more
reminders, trivial as well as grim, of the loss of freedom; few may
recall that on Aug. 1, 1973, the Washington Post reported a private
investigation launched by the Nixon White House on the Smothers
brothers. Can Doublethink T shirts and Big Brother barbecue aprons be
far behind?
This snowballing imprecision has been in progress for almost a decade.
Author Anthony Burgess recalls teaching in the U.S. at various times
in the 1970s. "American college students have said, 'Like 1984, man,'
when asked not to smoke pot in the classroom or advised gently to do a
little reading." Now merely mentioning the date can convey muzzy
criticism of whatever the speaker happens to dislike: advertising,
computers, beeper phones, freeways and domed stadiums.
Such verbal knee jerks might be dismissed as harmless. But they never
were by Orwell. "The slovenliness of our language," he wrote in 1946,
"makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." And it is a
surpassing irony that the title Orwell made famous has become a
symptom of the very sloppiness he deplored: what he called a
"Meaningless Word," a ramshackle abstraction inviting everyone to come
in and stop thinking for a while.
"Happy 1984." This concludes a New York Times editorial criticizing
the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the "Orwellian arguments" for it
given by the Reagan Administration. The implication is clumsy but
clear: Nineteen Eighty-Four and its author stand behind the Times's
position. But a week or so earlier, the same newspaper's Op-Ed page
ran a defense of the Grenada action by Neo-Conservative Norman
Podhoretz, editor of Commentary. And Podhoretz had by then firmly
claimed Orwell for his camp of disillusioned liberals: "I believe he
[Orwell] would have been a neo-conservative if he were alive today."
The impulse to hold Orwell's coat while sending his ghost out to
battle now seems pandemic. A writer in the liberal Roman Catholic
journal Commonweal proclaims: "Orwell, if he were alive today, would
make a worthy opponent for the multinational corporation. He could
have made an idea and a book on 'organization man' stand up and sing."
The conservative National Review concludes an essay on Orwell with
cosmic theatrics: "The forces of darkness have huge armies, a bigger
and better arsenal, liberation movements, and the whores' allegiance.
The forces of light have Orwell on their side and draw strength from
it." On the other side of the barricades, the radlib Village Voice
waves a special issue devoted to Orwell and his year. One headline:
CHRONICLES OF A DECENT MAN.
Before Orwell's name becomes as muddled and mythologized as Nineteen
Eighty-Four, the testimony of personal friends who would not have
dreamed of predicting his views, on any subject, might be heeded. "I
understood him up to a point," says Author V.S. Pritchett. "It was
hard to define him because just when you had fixed on a view, he would
contradict it." Novelist Julian Symons remembers "a quality of
perversity" in Orwell: "He had a characteristic directness which upset
people and made him a lot of enemies." Malcolm Muggeridge recalls a
man "who utterly despised intellectuals and people he used to refer
to, scornfully, as wearing sandals. And yet he was an intellectual."
He was also many other things: an astute critic of literature and
popular culture, a journalist who turned political writing into an art
form, the finest English essayist of his century. Those who know of
him only as a grand bogey, a synonym for some terror that may go bump
in the Western night, hardly know him at all. He made it his business
to tell the truth at a time when many contemporaries believed that
history had ordained the lie. Yet the very name that is now so often
invoked, vaguely and in vain, is a fiction.
Eric Arthur Blair was born in 1903 in India, where his father Richard
worked as a civil servant for the British Empire. Not long afterward,
Eric's mother took him and his older sister Marjorie back to England,
a common domestic arrangement at the time; India was fine as a place
for husbands to work, but children were to be brought up in the
homeland. Richard Blair joined his family during his infrequent
leaves. A younger sister Avril was born when Eric was five.
Orwell looked back harshly on the "shabby genteel" class inhabited by
his parents and their friends: "Practically the whole family income
goes in keeping up appearances." Unlike most who rebel from the worlds
of their childhood, Eric became hypercritical of himself as well; his
behavior during his early years, his adult memories of this period,
both convey the peculiar sense that he considered himself not good
enough for a style of life he disliked. The Blairs kept up appearances
by enrolling their son, at reduced tuition, in St. Cyprian's, an
institution that rigorously prepared boys for the great public
schools. Eric, 8, was caned for bed wetting: the place encouraged him
to feel unworthy. "I had no money, I was weak, I was ugly, I was
unpopular, I had a chronic cough, I was cowardly, I smelt, I was an
unattractive boy."
Jacintha Buddicom, now 82, who met and became friends with Eric Blair
during his school vacations, disputes this self-portrait: "The
business about how unpopular he was was a lot of nonsense, a fairy
story." He fished and hunted, kept pet guinea pigs and roamed the
Oxfordshire countryside. But Jacintha did not see him at St.
Cyprian's. Critic Cyril Connolly, who was his classmate, would later
remember that Eric "felt bitterly that he was taken on at reduced fees
because he might win the school a scholarship; he saw this as a
humiliation, but it was really a compliment." The prickly youth did,
in fact, earn a scholarship to Eton, winning praise for himself and
his school. Yet his account of leaving St. Cyprian's hardly reflects a
sense of triumph: "Failure, failure, failure—failure behind me,
failure ahead of me—that was by far the deepest conviction that I
carried away."
He may not have felt like this at the time; an older man wrote these
words in an essay, in a world drastically altered. But Eric's conduct
at Eton did not resemble the courtship of success. He idled his way
through 4½ years at the apex of English secondary education, growing
tall (6 ft. 3 in.) and awkward in the process. He read widely in his
favorite authors (Dickens, Thackeray, Kipling, H.G. Wells),
contributed some poems to school publications and took part grudgingly
in athletics. His father could not afford to send him to Oxford or
Cambridge without a scholarship, and Eric's academic performance
ensured that no scholarship would be offered.
The lack of university training left him at a dead end in England. The
professions, even the higher reaches of the civil service, were
closed. It also made Eric an outsider to his friends and classmates,
those Etonians who were going on to do great things in government and
the arts. So he chose the course his father had taken and left the
country; he joined the Imperial Indian Police and was dispatched to
keep order among the colonial subjects in Burma.
Two of his greatest essays were to be wrenched from the five years he
spent there. A Hanging (1931) records both the execution of a Hindu
man and the writer's revulsion at the event: "It is curious, but till
that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy,
conscious man. When I saw the prisoner step aside to avoid the puddle
I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short
when it is in full tide." Shooting an Elephant (1936) portrays "the
dirty work of Empire at close quarters." A rampaging elephant in
Moulmein has killed a native, and the people expect the policeman to
do something: "Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in
front of the unarmed native crowd—seemingly the leading actor of the
piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by
the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that
when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he
destroys."
He returned to England after five years and resigned his commission.
"He had changed," his friend Jacintha recalls. "He seemed more aloof,
an unhappy sort of stranger. Whatever happened to him in Burma must
have embittered him very much." Blair described the feeling he brought
home as "an intolerable sense of guilt." He had been a petty tyrant in
the service of what he saw as a vast system of exploitation. He could
recognize in the flogged Burmese troublemakers a likeness to himself
as a schoolboy, whipped and cowed by the same imperious forces. A
childhood conviction had been confirmed: his place was with the
oppressed.
Over the next ten years, he undertook the quixotic journey that would
make him famous, under a new name and an altered identity. The first
step was to tell his appalled parents that he wanted to be a writer;
the next was to become one. That proved harder. He took a cheap room
in London and spent hours each day at his typewriter, tapping out the
kind of story that began "Inside the park, the crocuses were
out . . ." At night, he began "tramping," haunting the slums,
occasionally taking a bed in lodginghouses for the destitute, hoping
that his Etonian accent would not give him away: "What I profoundly
wanted, at that time, was to find some way of getting out of the
respectable world altogether."
Bohemianism did not attract him. He went to Paris in the late 1920s
and found it "invaded by such a swarm of artists, writers, students,
dilettanti, sightseers, debauchees and plain idlers as the world has
probably never seen. In some quarters of the town the so-called
artists must actually have outnumbered the working population . . ."
He took a job as a dishwasher in a Paris hotel, a member of the
working population 13 hours a day.
Urgently he kept struggling to become a novelist, but the sketches he
wrote about his flophouse experiences became his first book. He knew
that the seamy life depicted in Down and Out in Paris and London
(1933) would unnerve and embarrass his parents, so he told his agent
that he did not want the book published under his own name: "As a
pseudonym, a name I always use when tramping etc. is P.S. Burton, but
if you don't think this sounds a probable kind of name, what about
Kenneth Miles, George Orwell, H. Lewis Allways. I rather favor George
Orwell." George, the patron saint of England, plus Orwell, a river
that Eric Blair had known when young: the choice suggested the buried
patriotism of a disaffected subject.
By this time the conviction that something was terribly wrong in his
native land had begun to obsess him. Eric Blair had experienced
injustice and poverty; George Orwell began to look for their causes.
The change was not entirely voluntary. He wrote and published novels,
and tried to pursue the kind of literary career that had been
traditional in England since the 18th century. But the urge to stand
witness to his times nagged him out of seclusion: "In a peaceful age I
might have written ornate or merely descriptive books, and might have
remained unaware of my political loyalties. As it is I have been
forced into becoming a sort of pamphleteer."
A publisher asked him to go to the north of England and report on the
plight of miners and factory workers unemployed in the drift of the
Depression. Orwell spent two months early in 1936 among these people,
not drunks and derelicts this time but victims of economic forces
beyond their understanding or control. The first half of The Road to
Wigan Pier recounts some of their stories. The second half tells
Orwell's.
It is an astonishing document: a call for socialism to wipe out the
inequalities of capitalism and class, coupled with a stinging
indictment of contemporary Socialists: "One sometimes gets the
impression that the mere words 'Socialism' and 'Communism' draw toward
them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-
wearer, sex maniac, Quaker, 'Nature Cure' quack, pacifist and feminist
in England." Orwell not only sensed the distaste that unemployed
miners would feel for such studied eccentricities, he shared the
feeling. He also perceived something that was to reverberate in
political writings for half a century: ascendant leftist theories
threatened to replace one form of tyranny with another. "The truth is
that to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not
mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate
themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we,' the clever ones, are
going to impose upon 'them,' the Lower Orders."
He had scarcely written these words when he met their reality headon.
A few months after marrying Eileen O'Shaughnessy, 30, an Oxford
graduate who was working for an advanced degree in psychology in
London, Orwell went to Spain. The attempt by Generalissimo Francisco
Franco to topple an elected left-wing government had led to civil war.
Orwell could not pass up the chance to see "democracy standing up to
Fascism at last." He arrived in Barcelona at the end of 1936 and found
a city being run by the underdogs: "It was the first time that I had
ever been in a town where the working class was in the saddle."
Orwell was enchanted, "breathing the air of equality." A hotel manager
scolded him for offering a tip to an elevator operator; barbers posted
anarchist placards by their chairs announcing that they were no longer
slaves. The signs of class he so detested in his own country had
disappeared: "Except for a small number of women and foreigners there
were no 'well-dressed' people at all. Practically everyone wore rough
working-class clothes, or blue overalls, or some variant of the
militia uniform. There was much in it that I did not understand, in
some ways I did not even like it, but I recognized it immediately as a
state of affairs worth fighting for."
He recounted his odyssey in Homage to Catalonia (1938). He joined a
local militia unit and marched into trouble. Franco's troops fired at
him, as expected; they were the enemy. But while recuperating from a
bullet wound in the throat, Orwell learned that Communists in the
Spanish government had outlawed the loose alliance of radicals he had
joined in the struggle against Franco. The independent workers'
stronghold in Barcelona was not, apparently, what Madrid or Moscow had
in mind. Suddenly Orwell and his colleagues-at-arms were being called
fascists, Franco's hired killers, by the Communist papers in Spain and
Europe. Purges and reprisals began in Barcelona. Released from the
hospital, Orwell was forced into hiding and then out of the country.
His journey from exhilaration to exile took six months.
Spain left definitive marks on Orwell's character; all the political
writing he did after escaping the civil war was sharpened by his keen
sense of betrayal. He had seen the future, and it worked far too well;
the world was being staked out by mirror-image tyrannies equally
ruthless in stamping out the individual. The workers in Barcelona had
been punished by the Communists for the crime of being unorthodox;
they became, until suppressed, a more important enemy than Franco.
Back home in England, Orwell read accounts of the events in Spain and
realized that he was being fed hogwash: "I saw great battles reported
where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds
of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced
as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired
hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories." This phenomenon
frightened him, he wrote, "because it often gives me the feeling that
the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world."
Orwell devoted the rest of his life to arresting this process, against
formidable odds. He took on not only Nazis and Stalinists and all
advocates of the expedient lie but the solipsism of much modern
philosophy and literature. Theories that reality is simply the spider
web of word spinners left him aghast; that way lay the dictatorship of
the speaker and, ultimately, the abstract, ominous slogans of Nineteen
Eighty-Four: WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.
The first and best defense against such totalitarian gibberish, Orwell
argued, is common sense. A person with a basic understanding of what
the words freedom and slavery actually mean must reject a sentence
that equates them. He wrote: "In prose, the worst thing one can do
with words is to surrender to them. When you think of a concrete
object, you think wordlessly, and then, if you want to describe the
thing you have been visualizing you probably hunt about till you find
the exact words that seem to fit." The alternative method promises
treachery: "When you think of something abstract you are more inclined
to use words from the start, and unless you make a conscious effort to
prevent it, the existing dialect will come rushing in and do the job
for you, at the expense of blurring or even changing your meaning."
There was nothing donnish about Orwell's interest in language. He
realized that the manipulation of speech could be every bit as deadly
as the bearing of arms. He reminded all who would listen that Hitler
had risen to power in Germany through persuasion; that Stalin had
obscured massive crimes through the smokescreen of invective. He also
warned, on the eve of World War II, that matters could deteriorate:
"The terrifying thing about the modern dictatorships is that they are
something entirely unprecedented. Their end cannot be foreseen. In the
past every tyranny was sooner or later overthrown, or at least
resisted, because of 'human nature,' which as a matter of course
desired liberty. But we cannot be at all certain that 'human nature'
is constant . . . The radio, press-censorship, standardized education
and the secret police have altered everything. Mass-suggestion is a
science of the last twenty years, and we do not yet know how
successful it will be."
Still, Orwell never allowed this innate pessimism to overwhelm his
talent or his energies. With Europe flaring into war, he took time
from his political comments to write essays on Charles Dickens, Henry
Miller and the literary and social merits of English boys' magazines.
Oddly, these are the pieces that have aged the least. It is as if
survival depended on the small things, like childhood pleasures, and
not the large things, like war.
During the war, Orwell and his wife lived in London. Cyril Connolly
recalled: "He felt enormously at home in the Blitz, among the bombs,
the bravery, the rubble, the shortages, the homeless, the signs of
rising revolutionary temper." By then Orwell had become something of a
celebrated eccentric, that gaunt Etonian who dressed like a working
man (corduroy trousers, dark shirt, size-twelve boots), rolled his
cigarettes from a pouch of acrid shag and poured his tea into a saucer
before drinking it (there he goes, that Socialist who says such
terrible things about Mr. Stalin). Eric Blair had totally
metamorphosed into George Orwell; the mask had become the man. Money
was still scarce; his books had made him well known but not solvent.
He turned out columns for Tribune, a weekly organ of the non-Communist
British left, and did wartime broadcasts for the BBC's Eastern Service
to India and Southeast Asia. He also wrote Animal Farm.
This slight fable, scarcely longer than a short story, was Orwell's
favorite among his works; it led directly back to his first, heady
days in Barcelona. The abused, overworked animals rebel against the
rule of the exploiting farmer, Mr. Jones; but the workers' paradise is
soon commandeered and betrayed by a pig who bears more than a fleeting
resemblance to Joseph Stalin. His credo: "All animals are equal, but
some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm was rejected by
more than a dozen publishers in England and the U.S. The clear anti-
Soviet parody bothered many of them. After all, the U.S.S.R. was an
ally in the crusade against Hitler. But the publishers who finally
accepted the book were amply rewarded; it has sold dependably for
nearly 40 years.
Orwell's wife died in 1945, during surgery for uterine tumors. The
widower was 41, tubercular, and left with an infant son, Richard,
recently adopted. Loneliness, the responsibility of a child and the
prospect of his own death drove him to propose marriage to a series of
flabbergasted women. He wrote one, after two meetings, "You are young
and healthy, and you deserve somebody better than me: on the other
hand if you don't find such a person, and if you think of yourself as
essentially a widow, then you might do worse—i.e., supposing I am not
actually disgusting to you." Unsurprisingly, she declined the offer.
The success of Animal Farm at last brought Orwell some financial
relief; he could afford to cut back on his journalism and devote more
time to his next novel. He took a house on Jura, a windy, remote
island off the western coast of Scotland. There, growing more ill each
day, he completed Nineteen Eighty-Four.
He lived only seven months after its publication, long enough to
realize that his book was becoming enormously successful and widely
misunderstood. He attempted a note of clarification: "My recent novel
is NOT intended as an attack on Socialism or on the British Labor
Party (of which I am a supporter) but as a show-up of the perversions
to which a centralized economy is liable and which have already been
partly realized in Communism and Fascism. I do not believe that the
kind of society I describe necessarily will arrive, but I believe
(allowing of course for the fact that the book is a satire) that
something resembling it could arrive." Few listened, trusting the
title and the tale, not the teller.
Orwell did not view Nineteen Eighty-Four as his last will and
testament, a Swiftian condemnation of humanity, as some, including
Connolly, have claimed ("He was a dying man and he knew it").
Muggeridge remembers his last conversation with Orwell: "He said, 'I
have some more books to write.' " Soon afterward, he married Sonia
Brownell, a beautiful woman 15 years his junior, in his hospital room.
T.O. Fyvel, another friend, recalls Orwell's saying, "When one is
married, one has more reason to live." He died three months later, on
Jan. 21, 1950.
Where did he stand, finally? He called himself "a man of the left,"
realizing that most of his allies shied away from or repudiated his
maverick views. In fact, Animal Farm and Nineteen Eighty-Four have
long been embraced by the right as anti-revolutionary tracts. Yet such
terms shift with time; what was left 20 years ago could be mainstream
now and reactionary by 2001, or vice versa. Orwell's work has proved
itself, with some exceptions, grounded on bedrock.
His four published novels before Animal Farm are readable but minor
performances. His women characters are particularly stiff and
lifeless. He was not an imposing political theorist; his strength lay
in recognizing problems, not in propounding detailed solutions.
His greatest accomplishment was to remind people that they could think
for themselves, at a time in this century when humanity seemed to
prefer taking marching orders. He steadfastly valued ideals over
ideology. He tried to strike a correct socialist attitude toward
Dickens, and could not quite pull it off: "His whole 'message' is one
that looks at first glance like an enormous platitude: If men would
behave decently the world would be decent." But the sentiment, he
concluded, "is not such a platitude as it sounds." Indeed, for all the
pessimism attributed to him posthumously, Orwell had an abiding,
almost pious faith in the ability of that fragile, querulous species,
humankind, to correct its deficiencies by the most radical process of
all: thinking. In The Road to Wigan Pier he expressed the belief that
"economic injustice will stop the moment we want it to stop, and no
sooner, and if we genuinely want it to stop the method adopted hardly
matters." "Political chaos," he continued to stress, "is connected
with the decay of language . . . one can probably bring about some
improvement by starting at the verbal end." To that end, Orwell
devoted his life. His work endures, as lucid and vigorous as the day
it was written. The proper way to remember George Orwell, finally, is
not as a man of numbers—1984 will pass, not Nineteen Eighty-Four—but
as a man of letters, who wanted to change the world by changing the
word. A word that surely requires alteration today has been misused
since the '50s. The author's name is not a synonym for
totalitarianism. It is in fact the spirit that fights the worst
tendencies in politics and society by using a fundamental sense of
decency—Orwellian, in the best sense of the word.
—By Paul Gray.
Reported by Anne Hopkins/New York and John Saar/London
bademiyansubhanallah
October 28, 2009...7:52 am
The Bible of Militant Atheism
by Aasem Bakhshi
Contrary to the mainstream religious belief, incredulity and
skepticism regarding the ultimate nature of truth, existence of God
and eschatological claims of scripture is not an entirely modern
phenomenon. In his famous thought experiment Hayy Ibn Yaqzan, Ibn
Tufayl the famous Muslim philosopher of 12th century Spain,
aesthetically described discovery of God as the “joy without lapse,
unending bliss, infinite rapture and delight” and inability to find
Him as “infinite torture”. The curious and always speculative
protagonist of the fable remains incessantly engaged between
cosmological antinomies such as those put forward by contests between
classical Greek eternalism and scriptural creationism; or the ones
related to human origins such as spontaneous generation
(understandably so, considering the scientific milieu of 12th century)
or simple creationism as proposed by orthodox religion.
Ibn Tufayl’s classic as well as other such theologically flavored
thought experiments of pre-modern period, for instance Avicenna’s
“Floating Man”, can be characteristically distinguished from modernist
discourse in three important ways: their peculiar guarded speculative
approach towards theology, the careful selection of premises mostly
leading towards theistic conclusions and most importantly aesthetics
of literary exposition.
There were of course exceptions raising more formal agnostic queries
regarding nature of God, for example the physician Zakariya Razi and
Avicenna himself; however these undertakings, even though penned by
intellectuals who were primarily scientists did not go as far as to
purport an outright rejection of faith. In modern times, the western
philosophical tradition having roots in enlightenment, especially Kant
and Hume, provided basis for a scientific endeavor that gave rise to
more formal and popular agnosticism – and indirectly atheism – whose
main proponents were among logicians, paleontologists and physicists
whose writings while popularizing science as it was never done before
in the history of scientific culture, also extended the domain of
science to purely philosophical realms including metaphysics, ethics
and theology. Yet, the religion was never presented so
antagonistically in opposition to reason as it is done so remarkably
by Richard Dawkins in God Delusion.
Based upon extreme scientific naturalism, Dawkins’ thesis casts the
proposition that atheism is a natural consequence of human evolution.
All kind of religious faith, being impossible to be vindicated
empirically, is necessarily dissonant with reason. Religion, as
interpreted by Dawkins, is at the the root of much that is going wrong
in the world. Moreover, the idea of God in human consciousness can be
explained away as a naturally evolved impulse to believe in an
omniscient and omnipotent entity, an indulgence which is byproduct of
“something useful” or simply speaking an error in the grand
evolutionary process.
Unlike some of his predecessors, for instance Thomas Huxley, Bertrand
Russell and Stephen. J. Gould, who chose to describe themselves as
agnostics rather than atheists, Dawkins does not accept the idea that
outright atheism is simply dogmatic due to its unwarranted
metaphysical claims about the non-existence of God without enough
empirical evidence. Therefore, religion and science does not belong to
two “non-overlapping magisteria” – a term coined by Gould – limited to
their respective domains. Consequently, any question or claim related
to existence of God should be strictly considered a scientific
question; simply, because it cannot circumvent other cosmological
queries concerning origins of human life and universe.
The approach of Dawkins is rightly expressed as militant atheism by
many intellectuals as he is in favor of dismantling all practical
religion and every procedure that facilitates or establishes basis for
its survival. As explained succinctly by Karen Armstrong in her new
book The Case for God, the approach taken by Dawkins has a peculiar
reductionist tendency which is remarkably similar to religious
extremists as each considers the other as the “epitome of evil”. In
both discourses, oversimplifications and gross generalizations
necessitate wrong premises, ultimately bringing out the absolute worst
of the other; no wonder therefore, why Dawkins invoke the likes of Ibn
Warraq and Christopher Hitchens to argue that a tolerant and
respectable view of religion is equally reprehensible for all the
wrongs committed by religious extremists. Indeed, the superficiality
of logical analysis in such discourses does not demand intellectually
laborious critique as similarities are not hard to draw.
The nature of God, as understood by Dawkins to present his case
against religion, is vulgarly anthropomorphic. The reader is almost
duped into believing that all theists, irrespective of the particular
creed they ascribe to, believe in some kind of spirit out there; a
kind of superhuman entity which Dawkins pejoratively equates with
Russell’s ‘Cosmic Teapot’ or ‘Flying Spaghetti Monster’. The idea of
universal symbolism towards some transcendent ineffable entity beyond
the capacity of vocation of language seems alien to Dawkins’
naturalist preoccupancy. The religious belief, therefore, as he
vociferously advocates, is something stupid, naive and incapable to be
hold by an intelligent and unbiased rational being.
Due to his proclivity towards oversimplification in matters
metaphysical, Dawkins seems to advertently disregard the inherent
ineradicability of unknowing in the nature of acquired religious
truth. He does not acknowledge the fact that no theist claims
explicitly that he is in possession of the ultimate sacred truth,
except the reductionism loving religious extremists. The scripture
itself closes the door on such kind of claim by contending that “there
is nothing like the likeness of Him“. All we have are symbols pointing
towards the nature of ultimate truth concerning God and sundry
eschatological issues.
Probably due to his aphilosophical bent, Dawkins is apparently unable
to comprehend that for a theist, there is beauty in this astonishment;
a sense of awe that tends to make him humbly aware regarding the
degree of obscurity of his own self in the macrocosm. But he would at
least agree that science, no matter how much it achieves in reducing
complexity that surrounds us, also shares this sense of awe with
religion as it also had to consistently rely on an act of faith.
On this particular note, conjuring probability model to disregard the
so-called God hypothesis is outrageously strange. Dawkins’ conclusion
that “God almost certainly does not exist” cannot be philosophically
taken as a knowledge producing utterance unless ‘probability’ is taken
as synonymous for ‘truth’; a subtle yet important point, that was
profoundly framed by Karl Popper in his Logic of Scientific
Discovery:
…we must not look upon science as a ‘body of knowledge’, but rather as
a ’system of hypothesis’; that is to say, as a system of guesses or
anticipation which in principle cannot be justified but with which we
work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never
justified in saying that we know that they are ‘true’ or ‘more or less
certain’ or even ‘probable’”.
Because of strict evolutionary perspective that he sets up for
himself, it was incumbent for Dawkins to give some kind of Darwinian
origins to morality. Ultimately entailing the biological evolution of
human intellect, this is perhaps the crassest assertion of the book;
amounting to claim that our ancestors were less capable or probably
less intellectually equipped to be objective in apprehending the
ultimate reality. As Iqbal mentions in his second lecture on nature of
religious experience, any such view regarding intellect being a
product of evolution would “bring science into conflict with its own
objective principle of investigation”. To find an appropriate
expression of this conflict, he quotes Wildon Carr:
If intellect is a product of evolution the whole mechanistic concept
of the nature and origin of life is absurd, and the principle that
science has adopted must clearly be revised [...] How can the
intellect, a mode of apprehending reality, be itself an evolution of
something which only exists as an abstraction of that mode of
apprehending, which is the intellect? If intellect is an evolution of
life, then the concept of the life which can evolve intellect as a
particular mode of apprehending reality must be the concept of a more
concrete activity than that of any abstract mechanical movement which
the intellect can present to itself by analyzing its apprehended
content.
Dawkins wishes to portray the book as a consciousness raiser of sorts:
regarding atheism being more reasonable than agnosticism, religion
being the root of all evil, religious education being equal to child
abuse, religion and morality being completely uncorrelated and atheism
being an objective conclusion not to be ashamed of rather the only
rational position one can possibly hold with a sense of pride. I think
some of the aims were partially achieved, especially raising the
atheist pride by providing a kind of polemicist manual to hold
tightly.
But perhaps the real strength of the book lies in questioning the
innermost religious convictions of the people who are equally awed by
the respective magisteria of religion and science and want to bridge
gaps. Regarding the kind of evidence that would convince him regarding
the existence of God, Bertrand Russell once replied that if a voice
from the sky would reveal to him each and every thing that is going to
happen in next few hours and that would eventually happen also, he may
consider the possibility of existence of God. I sincerely doubt that
even in the face of such evidence, Richard Dawkins would even come
close in considering the truthfulness of God hypothesis. To borrow the
quip that he himself quotes in the book, he does not merely believe in
non-existence of God, he knows.
3 Comments
SV
October 28, 2009 at 3:15 pm
“But he would at least agree that science, no matter how much it
achieves in reducing complexity that surrounds us, also shares this
sense of awe with religion as it also had to consistently rely on an
act of faith.”
What does this mean?
Bloody Civilian
October 28, 2009 at 5:50 pm
SV
i suspect it’s a case of confusing the role of ’serendipity’ in
science with ‘an act of faith’. a (successful) scientist catches any
fruits of ’serendipity’ in a net made of dedicated effort and strict
objectivity. scientists running naked in the street shouting eureka
makes good copy, though.
just like ’serendipity’ may incorrectly be confused with ‘faith’,
‘dedication’ has similarities with ‘devotion’, and there cannot be
true objectiviy without humility… hence the scientisit’s ‘religious
experience’.. to use another figure of speech.
Raza Rumi
October 28, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Aasem, thanks for this brilliant post. Please write more for PTH and
we desperately need diversity here..
cheers
RR
chhotemianinshallah
Atanu Dey on India's Development
Atanu Dey
Location: Mumbai, India
A Collection of #UnlikelyIndianBooks
Oct. 29 2009 - 02:26 pm
A little over a week ago I came across #unlikelyindianbooks on
twitter. It was an interesting meme, as its contagious spread
testifies. It appears that it was started by someone with the twitter
handle "jhunjhunwala".
Just for the heck of it, I present a selection from the several
hundreds out there. I read some of them so that you don't have to.
These are pretty good by my reckoning although they may not be the
best. In any case, your mileage may vary. I start off with a few by
yours truly (identified by "AD") -- this being my blog, I have that
prerogative :)
(AD) "The Dangerous Insanity of Dynastic Rule in a Democracy" by Rahul
Gandhi
(AD)"Jawaharlal Nehru: The Great Visionary, Nation Builder, and
Statesman" by Atanu Dey
(AD) "Honesty is the Best Policy: Compilation of Essays by Indian
Politicians". Foreword by Laloo Yadav.
"Saare Jahaan Se Acchaa Hindustan Hamara" by Arundhati Roy
"Vande Mataram" by Prakash & Brinda Karat
"Basic research techniques for Journalists" by Sagarika Ghose
"Aagey Dukaan, Peechay Makaan" by Kishore Biyani
"The Are of Nepotism" with a foreword by Rahul Gandhi
"Learning Italian the Easy Way" by Manmohan Singh
"Social Hyperactivism" by Arundhati Roy
"Das and Capital: Why Bengal Needs Capitalism" by Jyoti Basu
"Nano Technology" by Mamata Banerjee
"Ethical Journalism" by Barkha Dutt
"Frugality and Responsible Public Administration" by Mayawati
"Intra-party Democracy" Co-authored by Karunanidhi, Bal Thakeray,
Sonia Gandhi, Farooq Abdullah, Deve Gowda, Mayawati, et al.
"The Evils of Caste-based Reservations" by D. Raja
"How to Cook Books" by Ramalinga Raju.
"Pragmatic Thinking for Dummies" by BJP
"How to Win Elections" by BJP
"Celebrating Valentines Day" by Pravin Togadia.
“It's Y-O-U!” by Young ‘mobile’ Indians
“Birth Control” by Laloo & Rabri Yadav
"Merit, The Only Criteria" by Arjun Singh
"The Pub-hopper's Guide to Mangalore" by Mutalik
"The Life & Times of a Sanyasi" by Vijay Mallya
"You Can Win" by LK Advani
"My Great Grandfather and That English Woman" by Rahul Gandhi
"Consistency and Stability in the Indian Education System" by Kapil
Sibal
"His Master's Voice: An Autobiography" by Dr Manmohan Singh
"How to Win a Loksabha Elections" by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh
OK, enough is enough.
by atanu-dey-blog
on 10/29/2009 05:33 pm
Oldtimer, what can I do!
There are tons of great books out there and I am a very slow reader.
Anyway, I will add the ones you recommended to the growing pile.
by Oldtimer
on 10/29/2009 05:10 pm
Your taste in books is not bad, but you obviously haven't tried the
best. Here they are:
"The Communist Bowdlerization of Indian History", By Romila Thapar
"Prophets on Canvas: Islamic Iconography Down The Ages", from The
School of Fine Arts, Deoband Seminary
"News is Sacrosanct; Advertising Can Wait", Times of India
Publications
"A Darwinian Basis for Evangelism", Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn and Ted
Haggard
Please also read these much-acclaimed papers published in well-known
academic journals:
"The Pitfalls of Nasal Intonations in Musical Art", Himesh Reshamayya
"Unveiling The Role of Sartorial Modesty in 21st Century Film-Making",
Rakhi Sawant
"Sport and Expletives: A Language Primer for Bowlers and Batsmen",
Harbhajan Singh
chhotemianinshallah
Pamphlets for the People
No. 11
Deity and Design
by Chapman Cohen
The Pioneer Press
The one certain thing about the history of the human intellect is that
it runs, from ignorance to knowledge. Man begins knowing nothing of
his own nature or of the nature of the world in which he is living. He
continues acquiring a little knowledge here and there, with his vision
broadening and his understanding deepening as his knowledge increases.
Had man commenced with but a very small fraction of the knowledge he
now possesses, the present state of the human mind would be very
different from what it is. But the method by which knowledge is
acquired is of the slowest. It is by way of what is called trial and
error. Blunders are made rapidly, to be corrected slowly; some of the
most primitive errors are not, on a general scale, corrected even to-
day. Man begins by believing, on what appears to be sound evidence,
that the earth is flat, only to discover later that it is a sphere. He
believes the sky to be a solid something and the heavenly bodies but a
short distance away. His conclusions about himself are as
fantastically wrong as those he makes about the world at large. He
mistakes the nature of the diseases from which he suffers, and the
causes of the things in which he delights. He is as ignorant of the
nature of birth as he is of the cause of death. Thousands of
generations pass before he takes the first faltering steps along the
road of verifiable knowledge, and hundreds of thousands of generations
have not sufficed to wipe out from the human intellect the influence
of man's primitive blunders.
Prominent among these primitive misunderstandings is the belief that
man is surrounded by hosts of mysterious ghostly agencies that are
afterwards given human form. These ghostly beings form the raw
material from which the gods of the various religions are made, and
they flourish best where knowledge is least. Of this there can be no
question. Atheism, the absence of belief in gods, is a comparatively
late phenomenon in history. It is the belief in gods that begins by
being universal. And even among civilized peoples it is the least
enlightened who are most certain about the existence of the gods. The
religions scientist or philosopher says: "I believe "; the ignorant
believer says: " I know."
Now it would indeed be strange if primitive man was right on the one
thing concerning which exact knowledge is not to be gained, and wrong
about all other things on which knowledge has either been, or bids
fair to be, won. All civilized peoples reject the world-theories that
the savage first formulates. Is it credible that with regard to gods
he was at once and unmistakably correct? It is useless saying that we
do not accept the gods of the primitive world. In form, no; in
essence, yes. The fact before us is that all ideas of gods can be
traced to the earliest stages of human history. We have changed the
names of the gods and their characteristics; we even worship them in a
way that is often different from the primitive way; but there is an
unbroken line of descent linking the gods of the most primitive
peoples to those of modern man. We reject the world of the savage; but
we still, in our churches, mosques, synagogues and temples, perpetuate
the theories he built upon that world.
In this pamphlet I am not concerned with all the so-called evidences
that are put forth to prove the existence of a God. I say "so called
evidences," because they are not grounds upon which the belief in God
rests; they are mere excuses why that belief should be retained.
Ninety per cent. of believers in God would not understand these
"proofs." Roman Catholic propagandists lately, as one of the
advertisements of the Church, have been booming the arguments in favor
of a God as stated by Thomas Aquinas. But they usually preface their
exposition -- which is very often questionable -- by the warning that
the subject is difficult to understand. In the case of Roman Catholics
I think we might well raise the percentage of those who do not
understand the arguments to ninety-five per cent. In any case these
metaphysical, mathematical, and philosophic arguments do not furnish
the grounds upon which anyone believes in God. They are, as I have
just said, nothing more than excuses framed for the purpose of hanging
on to it. The belief in God is here because it is part of our social
inheritance. We are born into an environment in which each newcomer
finds the belief in God established, backed up by powerful
institutions, with an army of trained advocates committed to its
defence and to the destruction of everything that tends to weaken the
belief. And behind all are the countless generations during which the
belief in God lived on man's ignorance and fear. In spite of the
alleged "proofs" of the existence of God, belief in him, or it, does
not grow in strength or certainty. These proofs do not prevent the
number of avowed disbelievers increasing to such an extent that,
whereas after Christians proclaiming for several generations that
Atheism -- real Atheism -- does not exist, the defenders of godism are
now shrieking against the growing number of Atheists, and there is a
call to the religious world to enter upon a crusade against Atheism.
The stage in which heresy meant little more than all exchange of one
god for another has passed. It has become a case of acceptance or
rejection of the idea of God, and the growth is with those who reject.
This is not the way in which proofs, real proofs, operate. A theory
may have to battle long for general or growing acceptance, but it
grows provided it can produce evidence in its support. A hypothesis is
stated, challenged, discussed, and finally rejected or accepted. On
the question of the hypothesis of God the longer it is discussed the
less it is believed. No wonder that the ideal attitude of the
completely religious should be "on the knee," with eyes closed and
mouths full of nothing but petitions and grossly fulsome praise. That
is also the reason why every religions organization in the world is so
keen upon capturing the child. The cry is: "If we lose the child we
lose everything" -- which is another way of saying that if we cannot
implant a belief in God before the child is old enough to understand
something of what it is being told, the belief may have to be given up
altogether. Keep the idea of God away from the child and it will grow
up an Atheist. If there is a God, the evidence for his existence must
be found in this world. We cannot start with another world and work
back to this one. That is why the argument from design in nature is
really fundamental to the belief in deity. It is implied in every
argument in favor of Theism, although nowadays, in its simplest and
most honest form, it is not so popular as it was. But to ordinary men
and women it is still the decisive piece of evidence in favor of the
existence of a God. And when ordinary men and women cease to believe
in God, the class of religious philosophers who spend their time
seeing by what subtleties of thought and tricks of language they can
make the belief in deity appear intellectually respectable will cease
to function.
But let it be observed that we are concerned with the existence of God
only. We are not concerned with whether he is good or bad; whether his
alleged designs are commendable or not. One often finds people saying
they cannot believe there is a God because the works of nature are not
cast in a benevolent mould. That has nothing to do with the essential
issue, and proves only that Theists cannot claim a monopoly of
defective logic. We are concerned with whether nature, in whole, or in
part, shows any evidence of design.
My case is, first, the argument is fallacious in its structure;
second, it assumes all that it sets out to prove, and begs the whole
question by the language employed; and, third, the case against design
in nature is, not merely that the evidence is inadequate, but that the
evidence produced is completely irrelevant. If the same kind of
evidence were produced in a court of law, there is not a judge in the
country who would not dismiss it as having nothing whatever to do with
the question at issue. I do not say that the argument from design, as
stated, fails to convince; I say that it is impossible to produce any
kind of evidence that could persuade an impartial mind to believe in
it. The argument from design professes to be one from analogy. John
Stuart Mill, himself without a belief in God, thought the argument to
be of a genuinely scientific character. The present Dean of St.
Paul's, Dr Matthews, says that "the argument from design employs ideas
which everyone possesses and thinks he understands; and, moreover, it
seems evident to the simplest intelligence that if God exists he must
be doing something, and therefore must be pursuing some ends and
carrying out some purpose." (The Purpose of God, p. 13.) And Immanuel
Kant said the argument from design was the, oldest, the clearest and
the best adapted to ordinary human reason. But as Kant proceeded to
smash the argument into smithereens, it is evident that he had not
very flattering opinion of the quality of the reason displayed by the
ordinary man.
But what is professedly an argument from analogy turns out to offer no
analogy at all. A popular Non-conformist preacher, Dr. Leslie
Weatherhead, whose book, Why do Men Suffer? might be taken as a fine
text-book of religious foolishness, repeats the old argument that if
we were to find a number of letters so arranged that they formed words
we should infer design in the arrangement. Agreed, but that is
obviously because we know that letters and words and the arrangement
of words are due to the design of man. The argument here is from
experience. We infer that a certain conjunction of signs are designed
because we know beforehand that such things are designed. But in the
case of nature we have no such experience on which to build. We do not
know that natural objects are made, we know of no one who makes
natural objects. More, the very division of objects into natural and
artificial is all admission that natural objects are not, prima facie,
products of design at all. To constitute an analogy we need to have
the same knowledge that natural objects are manufactured as we have
that man's works are manufactured. Design is not found in nature; it
is assumed. As Kant says, reason admires a wonder created by itself.
The Theist cannot move a step in his endeavor to prove design in
nature without being guilty of the plainest of logical blunders. It is
illustrated in the very language employed. Thus, Dr. Matthews cites a
Roman Catholic priest as saying, "The adaptation of means to ends is
an evident sign of an intelligent cause. Now nature offers on every
side instances of adaptations of means to ends, hence it follows that
nature is the work of an intelligent cause." Dr. Matthews does not
like this way of putting the case, but his own reasoning shows that he
is objecting more to the argument being stated plainly and concisely
rather than to its substance. Nowadays it is dangerous to make one's
religious reasoning so plain that everyone can understand the language
used.
Consider. Nature, we are told, shows endless adaptations of means to
ends. But nature shows nothing of the kind -- or, at least, that is
the point to be proved, and it must not be taken for granted. If
nature is full of adaptation of means to ends, then there is nothing
further about which to dispute. For adaptation means the conscious
adjustment of things or conditions to a desired consummation. To adapt
a thing is to make it fit to do this or that, to serve this or that
purpose. We adapt our conduct to the occasion, our language to the
person we are addressing, planks of wood to the purpose we have in
mind, and so forth. So, of course, if nature displays an adaptation of
means to ends, then the case for an adapter is established.
But nature shows nothing of the kind. What nature provides is
processes and results. That and nothing more. The structure of an
animal and its relation to its environment, the outcome of a chemical
combination, the falling of rain, the elevation of a mountain, these
things, with all other natural phenomena, do not show an adaptation of
means to ends, they show simply a process and its result. Nature
exhibits the universal phenomenon of causation, and that is all.
Processes and results looked like adaptations of means to ends so long
as the, movements of nature were believed to be the expression of the
will of the gods. Bat when natural phenomena are regarded as the
inevitable product of the properties of existence, such terms as
"means" and "ends" are at best misleading, and in actual practice
often deliberately dishonest. The situation was well expressed by the
late W.H. Mallock, --
"When we consider the movements of the starry heavens to-day, instead
of feeling it to be wonderful that these are absolutely regular, we
should feel it to be wonderful if they were ever anything else. We
realize that the stars are not bodies which, unless they are made to
move uniformly, would be floating in space motionless, or moving
across it in random courses. We realize that they are bodies which,
unless they moved uniformly, would not be bodies at all, and would
exist neither in movement nor in rest. We realize that order, instead
of being the marvel of the universe, is the indispensable condition of
its existence -- that it is a physical platitude, not a divine
paradox."
But there are still many who continue to marvel at the wisdom of God
in so planning the universe that big rivers run by great towns, and
that death comes at the end of life instead of in the middle of it.
Divest the pleas of such men as the Rev. Dr. Matthews of their semi-
philosophic jargon, reduce his illustrations to homely similes, and he
is marveling at the wisdom of God who so planned things that the two
extremities of a Piece of wood should come at the ends instead of in
the middle.
The trick is, after all, obvious. The Theist takes terms that can
apply to sentient life alone, and applies them to the universe at
large. He talks about means, that is, the deliberate planning to
achieve certain ends, and then says that as there are means there must
be ends. Having, unperceived, placed the rabbit in the hat, he is able
to bring it forth to the admiration of his audience. The so-called
adaptation of means to ends -- property, the relation of processes to
results -- is not something that can be picked out from phenomena as a
whole as an illustration of divine wisdom; it is an expression of a
universal truism. The product implies the process because it is the
sum of the power of the factors expressed by it. It is a physical, a
chemical, a biological platitude. I have hitherto followed the lines
marked out by the Theist in his attempt to prove that there exists a
"mind" behind natural phenomena, and that the universe as we have it
is, at least generally, an evidence of a plan designed by this "mind."
I have also pointed out that the only datum for such a conclusion is
the universe we know. We must take that as a starting point. We can
get neither behind it nor beyond it. We cannot start with God and
deduce the universe from his existence; we must start with the world
as we know it, and deduce God from the world. And we can only do this
by likening the universe as a product that has come into existence as
part of the design of God, much as a table or a wireless-set comes
into existence as part of the, planning of a human "mind." But the
conditions for doing this do not exist, and it is remarkable that in
many cases critics of the design argument should so often have
criticized it as though it were inconclusive. But the true line of
criticism, the criticism that is absolutely fatal to the design
argument is that there is no logical possibility of deducing design
from a study of natural phenomena. And there is no other direction in
which we can look for proof. The Theist has never yet managed to
produce a case for design which upon examination might not rightly be
dismissed as irrelevant to the point at issue.
In what way can we set about proving that a thing is a product of
design? We cannot do this by showing that a process ends in a result,
because every process ends in a result, and in every case the result
is an expression of the process. If I throw a brick, it matters not
whether the brick hits a man on the head and kills him, or if it
breaks a window, or merely falls to the ground without hurting anyone
or anything. In each case the distance the brick travels, the force of
the impact on the head, the window, or the ground, remains the same,
and not the most exact knowledge of these factors would enable anyone
to say whether the result following the throwing of the brick was
designed or not. Shakespeare is credited with having written a play
called King Lear. But whether Shakespeare sat down with the deliberate
intention of writing Lear, or whether the astral body of Bacon, or
someone else, took possession of the body of Shakespeare during the
writing of Lear, makes no difference whatever to the result. Again, an
attendant on a sick man is handling a number of bottles, some of which
contain medicine, others a deadly poison. Instead of giving his
patient the medicine, the poison is administered and the patient dies.
An inquest is held, and whether the poison was given deliberately, or,
as we say, by accident, there is the same sequence of cause and
effect, of process and result. So one might multiply the illustrations
indefinitely. No one observing the sequences could possibly say
whether any of these unmistakable results were designed or not. One
cannot in any of these cases logically infer design. The material for
such a decision is not present.
Yet in each of these cases named we could prove design by producing
evidence of intention. If when throwing the brick I intended to kill
the man, I am guilty of murder. If I intend to poison, I am also
guilty of murder. If there existed in the mind of Shakespeare a
conception of the plan of Lear before writing, and if the play carried
out that intention, then the play was designed. In every case the
essential fact, without a knowledge of which it is impossible
logically to assume design, is a knowledge of intention. We must know
what was intended, and we must then compare the result with the
intention, and note the measure of agreement that exists between the
two. It is not enough to say that one man threw the brick, and that,
if it had not been thrown, the other would not have been killed. It is
not enough to say if the poison had not been given the patient would
not have died. And it certainly is not enough to argue that the course
of events can be traced from the time the brick left the hands of the
first man until it struck the second one. That, as I have said,
remains true in any case. The law is insistent that in such cases the
intent must be established; and in this matter the law acts with
scientific and philosophic Wisdom. Now in all the cases mentioned, and
they are, of course, merely "samples from bulk," we look for design
because we know that men do write plays. men do poison other men, and
men do throw things at each other, with the purpose of inflicting
bodily injury. We are using what is known, as a means of tackling, for
the time being, the unknown. But our knowledge of world-builders, or
universe designers, is not on all-fours with the cases named. We know
nothing whatever about them, and therefore cannot reason from what is
known to what is unknown in the hopes of including the unknown in the
category of the known.
Second, assuming there to be a God, we have no means of knowing what
his intentions were when he made the world -- assuming that also. We
cannot know what his intention was, and we contrast that intention
with the result. On the known facts, assuming God to exist, we have no
means of deciding whether the world we have is part of his design or
not. He might have set about creating and intended something
different. You Cannot, in short, start with a physical, with a natural
fact, and reach intention. Yet if we are to prove purpose we must
begin with intention, and having a knowledge of that see how far the
product agrees with the design. It is the marriage of a psychical fact
with a physical one that alone can demonstrate intention, or design.
Mere agreement of the "end" with the "means" proves nothing at all.
The end is the means brought to fruition. The fundamental objection to
the argument from design is that it is completely irrelevant.
The belief in God is not therefore based on the perception of design
in nature. Belief in design in nature is based upon the belief in God.
Things are as they are whether there is a God or not. Logically, to
believe in design one must start with God. He, or it, is not a
conclusion but a datum. You may begin by assuming a creator, and then
say he did this or that; but you cannot logically say that because
certain things exist, therefore there is a God who made them. God is
an assumption, not a conclusion. And it is an assumption that explains
nothing. if I may quote from my book, Theism, or Atheism: --
"To warrant a logical belief in design, in nature, three things are
essential. First, one must assume that God exists. Second, one must
take it for granted that one has a knowledge of the intention in the
mind of the deity before the alleged design is brought into existence.
Finally, one must be able to compare the result with the intention and
demonstrate their agreement. But the impossibility of knowing the
first two is apparent. And without the first two the third is of no
value whatever. For we, have no means of reaching the first except
through the third. And until we get to the first we cannot make use of
the third. We are thus in a hopeless impasse. No examination of nature
call lead back to God because we lack the necessary starting point.
All the volumes that have been written and all the sermons that have
been preached depicting the wisdom of organic structures are so much
waste of time and breath. They prove nothing, and can prove nothing.
They assume at the beginning all they require at the end. Their God is
not something reached by way of inference, it is something assumed at
the very outset."
Finally, if there be a designing mind behind or in nature, then we
have a right to expect unity. The products of the design should, so to
speak, dovetail into each other. A plan implies this. A gun so
designed as to kill the one who fired it and the one at whom it was
aimed would be evidence only of the action of a lunatic or a criminal.
When we say we find evidence of a design we at least imply the
presence of an element of unity. What do we find? Taking the animal
world as a whole, what strikes the observer, even the religious
observer, is the fact of the antagonisms existing in nature. These are
so obvious that religions opinion invented a devil in order to account
for them. And one of the arguments used by religious people to justify
the belief in a future life is that God has created another world in
which the injustices and blunders of this life may be corrected.
For his case the Theist Requires co-operative action in nature. That
does exist among the social animals, but only as regards the
individuals within the group, and even there in a very imperfect form.
But taking animal life, I do not know of any instance where it can
truthfully be said that different species of animals are designed so
as to help each other. It is probable that some exceptions to this
might be found in the relations between insects and flowers, but the
animal world certainly provides none. The carnivora not only live on
the herbivore, but they live, when and where they can, on each other.
And God, if we may use Theistic language, prepares for this, by, on
the one hand, so equipping the one that it may often seize its prey,
and the other, that it may often escape. And when we speak of a
creation that brings an animal into greater harmony with its
environment, it must not be forgotten that the greater harmony, the
perfection of the "adaptation" at which the Theist is lost in
admiration, is often the condition of the destruction of other
animals. If each were equally well adapted one of the competing
species would die out. If, therefore, we are to look for design in
nature we can, at most, see only the manifestations of a mind that
takes a delight in destroying on the one hand what has been built upon
the other.
There, is also the myriads of parasites, as clear evidence of design
as an anything, that live by the infection and the destruction of
forms of life "higher" than their own. Of the number of animals born
only a very small proportion can ever hope to reach maturity. If we
reckon the number of spermatozoa that are "created" then the number of
those that live are ridiculously small. The number would be one in
millions.
Is there any difference when we come to man? With profound egotism the
Theist argues that the process of evolution is justified because it
has produced him. But with both structure and feeling there is the
same suicidal fact before us. Of the human structure it would seem
that for every step man has, taken away from mere animal nature God
has laid a trap and provided a penalty. If man will walk upright then
he must be prepared for a greater liability to hernia. If he will live
in cities he must pay the price in a greater liability to
tuberculosis. If he will leave his animal brothers behind him, he must
bear reminders of them in the shape of a useless coating of hair that
helps to contract various diseases, A rudimentary second stomach that
provides the occasion for appendicitis, rudimentary "wisdom teeth"
that give a chance for mental disease. It has been calculated that man
carries about with him over one hundred rudimentary structures, each
absorbing energy and giving nothing in return.
So one might go on. Nature taken from the point of view most favorable
to the Theist gives us no picture of unified design. Put aside the
impossibility of providing a logical case for the inferring of design
in nature, it remains that the only conception we can have of a
designer is, as W.H. Mallock, a staunch Roman Catholic, has said, that
of "a scatter-brained, semi-powerful, semi-impotent monster ...
kicking his heels in the sky, not perhaps bent on mischief, but
indifferent to the fact that he is causing it."
Issued for the Secular Society Limited, and
Printed and Published, by
The Pioneer Press (G.W. Foote & Co., Ltd.)
2 & 3, Furnival Street, London, E.C.4,
England
Pamphlets for the People
By Chapman Cohen
(The purpose of this series is to give a bird's-eye view of the
bearing of Freethought on numerous theological, sociological and
ethical questions.)
1. Did Jesus Christ Ever Exist?
2. Morality Without God.
3. What is the Use of Prayer?
4. Christianity and Woman.
5. Must We Have a Religion?
6. The Devil.
7. What is Freethought?
8. Gods and Their Makers.
9. Giving 'em Hell.
10. The Church's Fight for the Child.
11. Deity and Design.
12. What is the Use of a Future Life?
13. Thou Shalt Not Suffer a Witch to Live.
14. Freethought and the Child.
15. Agnosticism or ... ?
16. Atheism.
17. Christianity And Slavery.
chhotemianinshallah
Morality Without God
by Chapman Cohen
Home to: Positive Atheism
I.
Christianity is what is called a "revealed" religion. That is, God
himself revealed that religion to man. In other religions man sought
God -- some god -- and eventually found him, or thought he did. In the
case of Christianity God sought man and revealed himself to him. The
revelation, judging by after events, was not very well done, for
although a book made its appearance that was said to have been
dictated or inspired by God so that man might know his will, yet ever
since mankind has been in some doubt as to what God meant when he said
it. Evidently God's way of making himself known by a revelation is not
above criticism. There seems a want of sense in giving man a
revelation he could not understand. It is like lecturing in Greek to
an audience that understands nothing but Dutch.
What was it God revealed to man? He did not reveal science. The whole
structure of physical science was built up very gradually and
tentatively by man. He did not teach man geology, or astronomy, or
chemistry, or biology. He did not teach him how to overcome disease,
or its nature and cure. He did not teach him agriculture, or how to
develop a wild grass into a life-nourishing wheat. He did not teach
man how to drain a marsh or how to dig a canal so that it might carry
water where it was needed. He did not teach him arithmetic or
mathematics. He taught him none of the arts and sciences. Man had no
revelation that taught him how to build the steam engine, or the
aeroplane, or the submarine, the telegraph or the wireless. All these
and a thousand other things which we regard as indispensable, and
without which civilization would be impossible, man had to discover
for himself. There is not a Christian parson who would to-day say that
God gave these things to man. That, perhaps, is not quite true. Some
of the clergy will say that God gave everything to man inasmuch as he
let him find them out. But at any rate none of these things I have
named is said to have been revealed to man. He had to discover or
invent the lot. And in inventing them or discovering them he behaved
just as he might have behaved had he never heard of God at all.
What was there left for God to give man? Well, it is said, he gave him
morality. He gave man the ten commandments. He told him he must not
steal, he must not commit murder, he must not bear false witness; he
told children they must honor their fathers and mothers, but somehow
he forgot the very necessary lesson that parents ought also to honor
their children. He mixed up with these things the command that people
ought to honor him, and he was more insistent upon that than upon
anything else. Not to honor him was the one unforgivable crime. But,
and this is the important thing, while there is no need for an
inspired arithmetic or an inspired geometry, while there is no
inspired chemistry or geology, there had to be, apparently, and
inspired morality, because without God moral laws would be without
authority, and decency would disappear from human society.
Now that, put bluntly, lies behind the common statement that morality
depends upon religious belief. It is not always put quite so plainly
as I have put it -- very absurd things are seldom put plainly -- but
it is put very plainly by the man in the street and by the
professional evangelist. It is also put in another way by those people
who delight in telling us what blackguards they were till Christ got
hold of them, and it is put in expensive volumes in which Christian
writers and preachers wrap up the statement in such a way that to the
unwary it looks as though there must be something in it, and at least
it is sufficiently unintelligible to look as though it were good sound
theological philosophy.
Is the theory inherently credible? Consider what it means. Are we to
believe that if we had never received a revelation from God, or even
if there were no belief in God, a mother would never have learned to
love her child, men and women would never have loved each other, men
would never have placed any value upon honesty or truthfulness or
loyalty? After all we have seen an animal mother caring for its young,
even to the extent of risking its life for it. We have seen animals
defend each other from a common enemy and join together in running
down prey for a common meal. There is a courting time for animals,
there is a mating time, and there is a time however brief when the
animal family of male, female and young exist. All this happened to
the animals without God. Why should man have to receive a revelation
before he could reach the moral stage of the higher animal life?
Broadly, then, the assertion that morality would never have existed
for human beings without belief in a God or without a revelation from
God is equal to saying that man alone should have never discovered the
value of being honest and truthful or loyal. He would not even have
had such terms as good and bad in his vocabulary, for the use of those
words implies moral judgement, and there would have been no such thing
-- at least, so we are told.
I am putting the issue very plainly, because it is only by avoiding
plain speech that the Christian can "get away" with his monstrous and
foolish propositions. I am saying in plain words what has been said by
thousands upon thousands of preachers since Paul laid down the
principle that if there was no resurrection from the dead, "let's eat
and drink for to-morrow we die".
Sometimes the theory I have been stating is put in a way that throws a
flood of light on the orthodox conception of morality. It is so
glaringly absurd to say that without religion man would not know right
from wrong, that it is given a very slight covering in the expression,
"destroy religion and you remove all moral restraints". Restraints!
That expression is indeed a revelation. To the orthodox Christian
morality stands for no more than a series of restraints, and
restraints are unpleasant things, because they prevent a man from
doing what he would like to do. It is acting in defiance of one's
impulses that makes one conscious of "restraints". A pickpocket in a
crowd is restrained by the knowledge that there is a policeman at his
elbow. A burglar is restrained from breaking into an house by hearing
the footsteps of a policeman. Each refrains from doing as he would
like to do because he is conscious of restraints. It may be God; it
may be a policeman. God is an unsleeping policeman -- I do not say an
unbribable one, because the amount of money given to his
representatives every year, the churches that are built or endowed in
the hopes of "getting right with God", totals a very considerable
sum.
From this point of view, what are called moral rules are treated much
as one may treat the regulation that one must not buy chocolates after
a certain hour in the evening. The order is submitted to because of
"sanctions" that may be applied if you do not. So to the type of
Christian with whom we are dealing the question of right or wrong is
entirely one of coercion from without. If he disobeys he may be
punished, if not here, then hereafter. He asks, "Why should a man
impose restraints on himself if there is no future life in which to be
rewarded or punished? Why not enjoy oneself and be done with it?" On
this view a drunkard may keep sober from Monday morning till Friday
night on the promise of a good "drunk" on Saturday. But in the absence
of this prospect he may say, paraphrasing St. Paul, "If there be no
getting drunk on Saturday, why should we keep sober from Monday to
Friday? If there is to be no drunkenness on Saturday, then let us get
drunk while we may, for the day cometh when there will be no getting
drunk at all".
But all this is quite wrong. The ordinary man is not conscious of
restraint when he behaves himself in a decent manner. A mother is not
conscious of restraint when she devotes herself to nursing her sick
child, or goes out to work to supply it with food. A man who is left
in the house of a friend is not conscious of restraint when he
refrains from pocketing the silver, or when he does not steal a purse
that has been left on the mantlepiece. A person sent to the bank to
cash a check does not feel any restraint because he returns with the
money. The man who is conscious of a restraint when he does a decent
action is not a "good" man at all. He is a potential criminal who does
not commit a crime only because he is afraid of being caught. And when
he is caught, the similarity of the Christian frightened into outward
decency and the detected pickpocket with the policeman's hand on his
shoulder is made the more exact by the cry of, "O Lord be merciful to
me a miserable sinner", in the one case, and "It's a fair cop" in the
other.
The religious theory of morality simply will not do. It turns what is
fundamentally simple into a "mystery", and then elevates the mystery
into a foolish dogma. It talks at large of the problem of evil, when
outside theology no such problem exists. The problem of evil is that
of reconciling the existence of wrong with that of an all-wise and all-
good God. It is the idea of God that introduces the conundrum. The
moral problem is not how does man manage to do wrong, but how does he
find out what is right? When a boy is learning to ride a bicycle, the
problem is not how to fall off, but how to keep on. We can fall off
without any practice. So with so many opportunities of doing the wrong
thing the moral problem is how did man come to hit on the right one,
and to make the treading of the right road to some extent automatic?
But in the philosophy of orthodox Christianity man is a potential
criminal, kept from actual criminality only from fear of punishment or
the expectation of reward in a future life. If the Christian teacher
of morals does not actually mean this when he says that without the
belief in God no such thing as "moral values" exists, and that if
there is no after-life where rewards and punishments follow, moral
practice would not endure, then he is more than mistaken; he is a
deliberate liar. Fortunately for the world, Christians, lay and
clerical, are better than their creed.
II.
We are back again with the old and simple issue of the natural versus
the supernatural. This is one of the oldest divisions in human
thought, and there is no logical compromise between them. Morality
either has its foundations in the natural or in the supernatural. In
asserting the first alternative I do not mean to imply that there is a
morality in nature at large. There is not. Nature takes no more heed
of our moral rules and judgements than it does of our tastes in art or
literature. A man is not blessed with good health because he is an
example of lofty morality, nor is he burdened with disease because he
is a criminal in thought and act. Nature is neither moral or immoral.
Such terms are applicable only when there is conscious action to a
given end. Nature is amoral, that is, it is without morality. The
common saying that nature "punishes" us or "rewards" us for this or
that is merely a picturesque way of stating certain things; it has no
literal relation to actual fact. In nature there are no rewards or
punishments, there are only actions and consequences. We benefit if we
act in one way; we suffer if we act in another. That is the natural
fact; there is no ethical quality in natural happenings. Laws of
morals are human creations; they are on all fours with "laws" of
science -- that is, they are generalizations from experience.
So morality existed in fact long before it was defined or described in
theory. Man did not first discover the laws of physiology in order to
realize the need for eating or breathing, to digest food or to inhale
oxygen. Nor did the rules, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal,
etc., first make stealing and killing wrong. A moral law makes
explicit in theory what is implicit in fact. The fact creates the
rule; it is not the rule that creates the fact.
Non-recognition of this simple truth is mainly responsible for the
rubbish that is served up by so many teachers of ethics, and also for
the unintelligent attack on ethics by those who, because they are,
often enough, dissatisfied with existing standards of moral values,
feel justified in denouncing moral values altogether. As we shall see
later, moral rules stand to human society pretty well as laws of
physiology do to the individual organism. They constitute the
physiology of social life, with the distinction that whatever rules we
have must be modified in form from time to time to meet changing
circumstances.
Let us feel our way gradually, and in as simple a manner as possible.
We begin with the meaning of two words, "good" and "bad". What is
their significance? There are many religious writers and many of those
who aim at founding a religion of ethics -- as though the association
of religion with moral teaching had not already done sufficient harm
in the world -- who speak of certain actions as being good in
themselves, and who profess a worship of the "Good" as though it were
a substitute for "God". There are others who puff themselves out with
a particularly foolish passage from Tennyson that to follow right
because it's right "were wisdom in the scorn of consequence", and
there is a very misleading sentence cited from the philosopher,
Immanuel Kant, expressing his "awe" at man's moral sense. We should
always be on our guard when the sayings of great men become very
popular. It is long odds that they embody something that is not very
wise, or that its wisdom has been lost in the popularization.
It should be very obvious that it is the height of stupidity to do
things in "scorn and consequence", since it is the consequences of
actions that give them their quality of goodness or badness. If
getting drunk made people happier, better, and wiser, would anyone
consider drunkenness a bad thing? In such circumstances the moral rule
would be, "Blessed is he that gets drunk", and the more drunken he
was, the better the man. If we can picture any actions that are
without consequences, they would not come within the scope of morals
at all.
The first point to remember is that there is no such thing as good in
the abstract. A thing is good in relation to its consequences, or as
it realizes the end at which we are aiming. Tennyson was talking
nonsense. These ethical and religious philosophers who "blather" about
the "reality" of good in itself, are talking nonsense. It is not
possible to do right in scorn of consequences because it is the
consequences that make the action either good or bad. It may be
unpleasant or dangerous to do what is right, and we admire the one who
does right in such circumstances, but this does not affect our
standard.
It must also be remembered when we are seeking a natural basis for
morals, that -- if the teleological language may be permitted --
nature requires but one thing of all living creatures. This is
efficiency. The "moral" quality of this efficiency does not matter in
the least. A Church without a lightning conductor is at a disadvantage
with a brothel that possesses one. A man who risks his life in a good
cause has, other things equal, no advantage over a man who risks his
life in a bad one. Leave on one side this matter of efficiency and
there is not the slightest attention paid to anything that we consider
morally worthy in the organism that survives.
Finally, efficiency in the case of living beings is to be expressed in
terms of adaption to environment, a fish to water, an air-breathing
animal to land, a carnivorous animal to its capacity to stalk its
prey, a vegetable feeder to qualities that enable it to escape the
attack of the carnivora, and so forth. An animal survives as it is
able to adapt itself, or as it becomes adapted to its environment. It
is well to bear in mind this principle of efficiency, because while
what constitutes efficiency varies from time to time, the fact of its
being the main condition determining survival remains true whether we
are dealing with organic structure or with mental life.
Now if we take ethical terminology, it is plain that the language used
implies a relation and one of a very definite kind. The part of the
environment to which these terms are related is that of other and like
individuals. Kindness, truthfulness, justice, mercy, honesty, etc.,
all imply this. A man by himself -- if we can picture such a thing --
could not be kind; there would be no one to whom to be kind. He could
not be truthful; there would be none to whom he could tell a lie. He
could not be honest, or generous, or loyal; there would be none to
whom these qualities would have any application. Every moral quality
implies the existence of a group of which an individual is a member.
And as the group enlarges so moral qualities take on a wider
application. But this cardinal fact, that ethical qualities, whether
they be good or bad, have no significance apart from group life,
remains constant throughout.
Now let us revert to man as a theoretically solitary animal, a
condition that has nowhere existed, for the sociality of man is only a
stage in advance of the gregariousness of the animal world from which
man has descended. But as an animal he must develop certain habits and
tastes in order to merely exist. Somehow man must usually avoid doing
things that threaten his existence. Even in matters of food he must
develop a taste for things which preserve life and a distaste for
things that destroy it; and, as a matter of fact, there are a number
of capacities developed in the body that automatically offer
protection in the case of food against things that are too injurious
to life. But it is quite obvious that if a man developed a taste for
prussic acid, such a taste would not become hereditary.
Human life, in line with animal life in general, has to develop not
merely a dislike for such things as threaten life, but also a liking
for thier opposite. The development of this capacity means that in the
long run the actions which promote pleasure, and those which preserve
life, roughly coincide. This is the foundation and the evolutionary
basis of the theory of Utilitarianism, or one may say, of Neo-
utilitarianism.
But man never does exist as an individual only, one that is fighting
for his own hand, and whose thoughts and tendencies are consciously or
unconsciously concerned only with his own welfare. Man is always a
member of a group, and the mere fact of living with others imposes in
the individual a kind of discipline that gives a definite direction to
the character of his development. The law of life is, that to live an
organism must be adapted to its environment, and the important part of
the environment here is that formed by one's fellow-beings. The
adaption need not be perfect, any more than that the food one eats
need be of the most nutritious kind. But just as the food eaten must
contain enough nutrition to maintain life, so conduct must be such as
to maintain some kind of harmony between and individual and the rest
of the group to which he belongs. If an individual's nature is such
that he will not or cannot adapt himself to his fellows then he is, in
one stage of civilization, killed off, and in another he is subjected
to pains and penalties, and various kinds of restraints that keep his
antisocial tendencies in check. There is a selective process in all
societies, and even more rigid in low societies than in the higher
ones, in which those ill-adapted to the common life of the group are
placed at a disadvantage even in procreating their own kind.
And side by side with this process of selection within the group there
is going on another eliminative process on a larger scale in the
contest of group with group. A group in which the members show little
signs of a common action of loyalty to each other, is most likely to
be subjugated, or wiped out and replaced by a group in which the
cohesion is greater and the subordination of purely individualistic
tendencies to the welfare of the whole is greater.
The nature of the process by which man becomes a moral animal is
therefore given when we say that man is a social animal. Social life
is in itself a kind of discipline, a training which fits a man to work
with his fellows, to live with them, and to their mutual advantage.
There are rules of the social game which the individual must observe
if he is to live as a member of the tribe. Man is not usually
conscious of the discipline he is undergoing, but neither is any
animal conscious of the process of the forces which adapt it to its
environment. The moralizing of man is never a conscious process, but
it is a recognizable process nonetheless.
It may also be noted that the rules of this social game are enforced
with greater strictness in primitive societies than is the case with
later ones. It is quite a mistake to think of the live of savages as
free, and that of civilized man as being bound down by social and
legal rules. Quite the opposite is the case. The life of uncivilized
man is bound by customs, by taboos, that leave room for but little
initiative, and which to a civilized man would be intolerable.
But from the earliest times there is always going on a discipline that
tends to eliminate the ill-adapted to social life. Real participation
in social life means more than an abstention from injurious acts, it
involves a positive contribution to the life of the whole. A type of
behaviour that is not in harmony with the general social
characteristics of the groups sets up an irritation much as a foreign
substances does when introduced to the tissues of an organism. Thus we
have on the one hand, a discipline that forces conformity with the
social structure, and on the other hand a revolutionary tendency
making for further improvement.
There are still other factors that have to be noted of we are properly
to appreciate the forces that go to mould character and to establish a
settled moral code. To a growing extent the environment to which the
human being has to adapt himself is one of ideas and ideals. There are
certain ideals of truthfulness, loyalty, obedience, kindness, etc.,
which surround one from the very moment of birth. The society which
gives him the language he speaks and the stored-up knowledge it
possesses, also provides him with ideals by which he is more or less
compelled to guide his life.
There are endless differences in the form of these social ideals, but
they are of the same mental texture, from the taboo of the savage to
the "old school tie".
The last phase of this moral adaption is that which takes place
between groups. From the limited family group to which moral
obligations are due, we advance to the tribe, from thence to the group
of tribes that constitute the nation, and then to a stage into which
we are now entering that of the relations between nations, a state
wherein in its complete form, there is an extension of moral duties to
the whole of humanity.
But wherever and whenever we take it, the substance of morality is
that of an adaption of feelings and ideas to the human group, and to
the animal group so far as they can be said to enter into some form of
relationship with us. There is no alteration in the fundamental
character of morality. Its keynote is always, as I have said,
efficiency, but it is an efficiency, the nature of which is determined
by the relations existing between groups of human beings.
If what has been said is rightly apprehended, it will be understood
what is meant by saying that moral laws are to the social group
exactly what laws of physiology are to the individual organism. There
is nothing to cause wonder or mystification about moral laws; they
express the physiology of social life. It is these laws that are
manifested in practice long before they are expressed in set terms.
Human conduct, whether expressed in life or formulated in "laws",
represents the conditions that make social life possible and
profitable. It is this recognition that forms the science of morality
and the creation of conditions that favour the performance of
desirable actions and the development of desirable feelings
constitutes the art of morality.
Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates
very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already
exists. That is the path of all evolution. Feelings of right and wrong
are gradually expanded from the group to the tribe, from the tribe to
the nation, and from the nation to the whole of human society. The
human environment to which man has to adapt himself becomes even
wider. "My neighbour" ceases to express itself in relation to those
immediately surrounding me, begins to extend to all with whom I have
any relations whatsoever. It is that stage we are now entering, and
much of the struggle going on in the world is due to the attempts to
adapt the feeling already there to its wider environment. The world is
in the pangs of childbirth. Whether civilization will survive those
pangs remains to be seen, but the nature of the process is
unmistakable to those who understand the past, and are able to apply
its lessons to the present and the future.
There is, then, nothing mysterious about the fact of morality. There
is no more need for supernaturalism here than there is room for it in
any of the arts and sciences. Morality is a natural fact; it is not
created by the formulation of "laws"; these only express its existence
and our sense of value. The moral feeling creates the moral law; not
the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has
nothing to do with a future life. Its sphere of application and
operation is in this world; its authority is derived from the common
sense of mankind and is born of the necessities of corporate life. In
this matter, as in others, man is thrown back upon himself and if the
process of development is a slow one there is the comforting
reflection that the growth of knowledge and of understanding has
placed within our reach the power to make human life a far greater and
better thing. If we will!!
chhotemianinshallah
The Meaning and Value of Freethought
by Chapman Cohen
I will commence with a definition. Freethought may be defined as the
rejection of authority in matters of opinion. It sets the persuasion
of fact against the coercion of force. A Freethinker is one who forms
his own opinions on the facts as he sees them. Right or wrong, his
opinions are his own. He is a voice, not an echo.
Historically, freethought has become identified with the rejection of
religious doctrines. This is because it is from the side of religion
that the impulse to intolerance has come. Human society is born in the
shadow of religious fear, and in that stage the suppression of heresy
is a sacred social duty. Then comes the rise of a priesthood, and the
independent thinker is met with punishment in this world and the
threat of eternal damnation hereafter. Even to-day it is from the
religious side that the greatest danger to freedom of thought comes.
Religion is the last thing man will civilise.
Considerable progress was made in the old Greek and Roman
civilisations in the way of establishing freedom of thought. Neither
had anything in the shape of a sacred book warning men not to eat of
the Tree of Knowledge, and, in Greece particularly, every question of
religion, ethics, science and philosophy was discussed with the
freedom that Europe subsequently lost and has never altogether
regained. Indeed if it were possible to revive an Athenian of, say,
the time of Socrates and place him in the centre of Europe at any date
from the 5th to the 16th century, and if he had seen the prison, the
stake and the torture chamber being used to prevent criticisms of
religion, he would have thought that the world had been overtaken with
an epidemic of insanity.
The intellectual freedom of Europe died with the establishment of the
Christian Church. Bible in hand, the Church met every new idea with a
"Thus saith the Lord." On the ruins of the ancient civilisation, she
placed the flag on an interested dogmatism, and opened one of the most
hideous chapters in the history of mankind. Enquiry was forbidden,
freedom of speech was taboo, a premium was offered for cowardice and
hypocrisy, a tax was placed upon intellectual sincerity. Intolerance
became a virtue and persecution a habit.
Nothing more demoralising has ever existed. Where religious heresy was
concerned, no man could feel himself safe. In the name of religions, a
man was taught to denounce his neighbour, a wife her husband, a child
its parent. The Church went further, and made man a policeman over
himself, until men feared to think, lest they should be led to doubt.
The thinker was everywhere suspect. The credulous fool was held up as
the model of religious perfection. It was the vilest system the world
has ever known.
In prohibiting the free play of ideas the Church struck at the
foundation of progress. Throughout the whole of animate nature
variation is one of the conditions of development. The opposite
process is elimination, by which unfavorable or undesirable variations
are weeded out. The Church adopted the latter policy. Every variation
against its teaching was crushed. It imposed conformity on all with
the result of achieving stagnation -- and worse. A sheep-like attitude
was inculcated, and where men are trained like sheep they share the
fate of sheep -- they are sheared and eaten.
Had a bench of Bishops existed amongst our simian ancestors, the human
race would never have arisen. The first variations toward a more human
type would have been crushed as a blasphemous innovation.
In the history of every institution where is a time when it has to
face the challenge of new knowledge. The man who makes this challenge
is an asset of great social value. He compels us to something like a
mental stocktaking, to get rid of unusable goods and to restock on
better lines. The greatest need of to-day is to create an environment
that is completely hospitable to new ideas.
The vote spreads political power over a wide area but carries no
guarantee of its right use. All can read, but reading without the
critical habit is of but small value. The Press flashes its lightning,
and the mass of the public are without a conductor that will protect
them from its dangers. There never was a time when there was greater
need for independent thinking than there is to-day. Unfortunately,
fifteen centuries of Christian rule have made intolerance of
unorthodox opinions fatally common.
In Christian mythology, it is noted that man's primal sin was an act
of disobedience. He ate of the Tree of Knowledge, and the Gods cannot
forgive that offense; yet knowledge is the greatest need of mankind.
It is that which has raised him from savagery to civilisation. It is
that which makes him more than the equal of the Gods. It lifts him
above them. But you cannot acquire sound knowledge without the courage
to examine, modify and reject what is already established. This is a
painful and troublesome process; but the pain is that of a new birth,
the trouble that if clearing away things that have outlived their
utility.
Freethought, then, claims the fullest possible freedom of thought,
speech, publication and action. It asks for these, not as luxuries,
but as necessities; it asks not for their toleration, but for their
encouragement. They must be the unquestioned and inalienable rights in
a society where men and women can exist with dignity and self-
respect.
chhotemianinshallah
Albert Einstein on: Religion and Science
The following article by Albert Einstein appeared in the New York
Times Magazine on November 9, 1930 pp 1-4. It has been reprinted in
Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc. 1954, pp 36 - 40. It also
appears in Einstein's book The World as I See It, Philosophical
Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.
Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with
the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One
has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand
spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the
motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however
exalted a guise the latter may present themselves to us. Now what are
the feelings and needs that have led men to religious thought and
belief in the widest sense of the words? A little consideration will
suffice to show us that the most varying emotions preside over the
birth of religious thought and experience. With primitive man it is
above all fear that evokes religious notions - fear of hunger, wild
beasts, sickness, death. Since at this stage of existence
understanding of causal connections is usually poorly developed, the
human mind creates illusory beings more or less analogous to itself on
whose wills and actions these fearful happenings depend. Thus one
tries to secure the favor of these beings by carrying out actions and
offering sacrifices which, according to the tradition handed down from
generation to generation, propitiate them or make them well disposed
toward a mortal. In this sense I am speaking of a religion of fear.
This, though not created, is in an important degree stabilized by the
formation of a special priestly caste which sets itself up as a
mediator between the people and the beings they fear, and erects a
hegemony on this basis. In many cases a leader or ruler or a
privileged class whose position rests on other factors combines
priestly functions with its secular authority in order to make the
latter more secure; or the political rulers and the priestly caste
make common cause in their own interests.
The social impulses are another source of the crystallization of
religion. Fathers and mothers and the leaders of larger human
communities are mortal and fallible. The desire for guidance, love,
and support prompts men to form the social or moral conception of God.
This is the God of Providence, who protects, disposes, rewards, and
punishes; the God who, according to the limits of the believer's
outlook, loves and cherishes the life of the tribe or of the human
race, or even or life itself; the comforter in sorrow and unsatisfied
longing; he who preserves the souls of the dead. This is the social or
moral conception of God.
The Jewish scriptures admirably illustrate the development from the
religion of fear to moral religion, a development continued in the New
Testament. The religions of all civilized peoples, especially the
peoples of the Orient, are primarily moral religions. The development
from a religion of fear to moral religion is a great step in peoples'
lives. And yet, that primitive religions are based entirely on fear
and the religions of civilized peoples purely on morality is a
prejudice against which we must be on our guard. The truth is that all
religions are a varying blend of both types, with this
differentiation: that on the higher levels of social life the religion
of morality predominates.
Common to all these types is the anthropomorphic character of their
conception of God. In general, only individuals of exceptional
endowments, and exceptionally high-minded communities, rise to any
considerable extent above this level. But there is a third stage of
religious experience which belongs to all of them, even though it is
rarely found in a pure form: I shall call it cosmic religious feeling.
It is very difficult to elucidate this feeling to anyone who is
entirely without it, especially as there is no anthropomorphic
conception of God corresponding to it.
The individual feels the futility of human desires and aims and the
sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves both in nature
and in the world of thought. Individual existence impresses him as a
sort of prison and he wants to experience the universe as a single
significant whole. The beginnings of cosmic religious feeling already
appear at an early stage of development, e.g., in many of the Psalms
of David and in some of the Prophets. Buddhism, as we have learned
especially from the wonderful writings of Schopenhauer, contains a
much stronger element of this.
The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this
kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived
in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings
are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age
that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious
feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as
atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like
Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one
another.
How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to
another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no
theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and
science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are
receptive to it.
We thus arrive at a conception of the relation of science to religion
very different from the usual one. When one views the matter
historically, one is inclined to look upon science and religion as
irreconcilable antagonists, and for a very obvious reason. The man who
is thoroughly convinced of the universal operation of the law of
causation cannot for a moment entertain the idea of a being who
interferes in the course of events - provided, of course, that he
takes the hypothesis of causality really seriously. He has no use for
the religion of fear and equally little for social or moral religion.
A God who rewards and punishes is inconceivable to him for the simple
reason that a man's actions are determined by necessity, external and
internal, so that in God's eyes he cannot be responsible, any more
than an inanimate object is responsible for the motions it undergoes.
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the
charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually
on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis
is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be
restrained by fear of punishment and hopes of reward after death.
It is therefore easy to see why the churches have always fought
science and persecuted its devotees.On the other hand, I maintain that
the cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest motive for
scientific research. Only those who realize the immense efforts and,
above all, the devotion without which pioneer work in theoretical
science cannot be achieved are able to grasp the strength of the
emotion out of which alone such work, remote as it is from the
immediate realities of life, can issue. What a deep conviction of the
rationality of the universe and what a yearning to understand, were it
but a feeble reflection of the mind revealed in this world, Kepler and
Newton must have had to enable them to spend years of solitary labor
in disentangling the principles of celestial mechanics! Those whose
acquaintance with scientific research is derived chiefly from its
practical results easily develop a completely false notion of the
mentality of the men who, surrounded by a skeptical world, have shown
the way to kindred spirits scattered wide through the world and
through the centuries. Only one who has devoted his life to similar
ends can have a vivid realization of what has inspired these men and
given them the strength to remain true to their purpose in spite of
countless failures. It is cosmic religious feeling that gives a man
such strength. A contemporary has said, not unjustly, that in this
materialistic age of ours the serious scientific workers are the only
profoundly religious people.
Science and Religion
Return to Top
This article appears in Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, pp.41 - 49. The
first section is taken from an address at Princeton Theological
Seminary, May 19, 1939. It was published in Out of My Later Years, New
York: Philosophical Library, 1950. The second section is from Science,
Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on
Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic
Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
1.
During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely
held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and
belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time
that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that
did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to
be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of
education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school,
as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that
end exclusively.
One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic
standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would
see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it
is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to
clear up one's mind as to its nature.
It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and
clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the
extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however,
this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for
our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid
scientific way.
For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts
are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward
such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is
capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle
the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it
is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door
directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most
complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that
what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge
provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain
ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must
come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the
view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the
setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge
of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting
as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value
of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face,
therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our
existence.
But it must not be assumed that intelligent thinking can play no part
in the formation of the goal and of ethical judgments. When someone
realizes that for the achievement of an end certain means would be
useful, the means itself becomes thereby an end. Intelligence makes
clear to us the interrelation of means and ends. But mere thinking
cannot give us a sense of the ultimate and fundamental ends. To make
clear these fundamental ends and valuations, and to set them fast in
the emotional life of the individual, seems to me precisely the most
important function which religion has to perform in the social life of
man. And if one asks whence derives the authority of such fundamental
ends, since they cannot be stated and justified merely by reason, one
can only answer: they exist in a healthy society as powerful
traditions, which act upon the conduct and aspirations and judgments
of the individuals; they are there, that is, as something living,
without its being necessary to find justification for their existence.
They come into being not through demonstration but through revelation,
through the medium of powerful personalities. One must not attempt to
justify them, but rather to sense their nature simply and clearly.
The highest principles for our aspirations and judgments are given to
us in the Jewish-Christian religious tradition. It is a very high goal
which, with our weak powers, we can reach only very inadequately, but
which gives a sure foundation to our aspirations and valuations. If
one were to take that goal out of its religious form and look merely
at its purely human side, one might state it perhaps thus: free and
responsible development of the individual, so that he may place his
powers freely and gladly in the service of all mankind.
There is no room in this for the divinization of a nation, of a class,
let alone of an individual. Are we not all children of one father, as
it is said in religious language? Indeed, even the divinization of
humanity, as an abstract totality, would not be in the spirit of that
ideal. It is only to the individual that a soul is given. And the high
destiny of the individual is to serve rather than to rule, or to
impose himself in any other way.
If one looks at the substance rather than at the form, then one can
take these words as expressing also the fundamental democratic
position. The true democrat can worship his nation as little as can
the man who is religious, in our sense of the term.
What, then, in all this, is the function of education and of the
school? They should help the young person to grow up in such a spirit
that these fundamental principles should be to him as the air which he
breathes. Teaching alone cannot do that.
If one holds these high principles clearly before one's eyes, and
compares them with the life and spirit of our times, then it appears
glaringly that civilized mankind finds itself at present in grave
danger, In the totalitarian states it is the rulers themselves who
strive actually to destroy that spirit of humanity. In less threatened
parts it is nationalism and intolerance, as well as the oppression of
the individuals by economic means, which threaten to choke these most
precious traditions.
A realization of how great is the danger is spreading, however, among
thinking people, and there is much search for means with which to meet
the danger--means in the field of national and international politics,
of legislation, or organization in general. Such efforts are, no
doubt, greatly needed. Yet the ancients knew something- which we seem
to have forgotten. All means prove but a blunt instrument, if they
have not behind them a living spirit. But if the longing for the
achievement of the goal is powerfully alive within us, then shall we
not lack the strength to find the means for reaching the goal and for
translating it into deeds.
II.
Return to Top
It would not be difficult to come to an agreement as to what we
understand by science. Science is the century-old endeavor to bring
together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of
this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible. To put it
boldly, it is the attempt at the posterior reconstruction of existence
by the process of conceptualization. But when asking myself what
religion is I cannot think of the answer so easily. And even after
finding an answer which may satisfy me at this particular moment, I
still remain convinced that I can never under any circumstances bring
together, even to a slight extent, the thoughts of all those who have
given this question serious consideration.
At first, then, instead of asking what religion is I should prefer to
ask what characterizes the aspirations of a person who gives me the
impression of being religious: a person who is religiously enlightened
appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated
himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied
with thoughts, feelings, and aspirations to which he clings because of
their superpersonalvalue. It seems to me that what is important is the
force of this superpersonal content and the depth of the conviction
concerning its overpowering meaningfulness, regardless of whether any
attempt is made to unite this content with a divine Being, for
otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as
religious personalities. Accordingly, a religious person is devout in
the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of
those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are
capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and
matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-
old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of
these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their
effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these
definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For
science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and
outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary.
Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human
thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and
relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-
known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be
ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been
described.
For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on
the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible.
This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of
science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the
doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand,
representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at
fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of
scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition
to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.
Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are
clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between
the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though
religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless,
learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will
contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science
can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the
aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling,
however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also
belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for
the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to
reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound
faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without
religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict
between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify
this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the
actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do
with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's
spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image,
who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at
any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the
disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and
prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a
sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic
character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the
Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their
wishes.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an
omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord
man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it
is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand,
there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which
have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if
this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human
action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is
also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible
for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving
out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing
judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and
righteousness ascribed to Him?
The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of
religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is
the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the
reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For
these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is
required--not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the
possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on
partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny
these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The
fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the
temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision
and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern
man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of
those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the
solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the
basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not
with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the
mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a
wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a
phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases
fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction
even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts
that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal
components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are
beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors
in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining
within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to
sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the
systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for
instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still
lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not
a knowledge of order in itself.
The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the
firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side
of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him
neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an
independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a
personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted,
in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take
refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been
able to set foot.
But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the
representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal.
For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but
only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with
incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical
good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the
doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and
hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.
In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces
which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful
in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an
incomparably more worthy task. (This thought is convincingly presented
in Herbert Samuel's book, Belief and Action.) After religious teachers
accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize
with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound
by scientific knowledge.
If it is one of the goals of religion to liberate mankind as far as
possible from the bondage of egocentric cravings, desires, and fears,
scientific reasoning can aid religion in yet another sense. Although
it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which
permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only
aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the
smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements.
It is in this striving after the rational unification of the manifold
that it encounters its greatest successes, even though it is precisely
this attempt which causes it to run the greatest risk of falling a
prey to illusions. But whoever has undergone the intense experience of
successful advances made in this domain is moved by profound reverence
for the rationality made manifest in existence. By way of the
understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the
shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that
humble attitude of mind toward the grandeur of reason incarnate in
existence, and which, in its profoundest depths, is inaccessible to
man. This attitude, however, appears to me to be religious, in the
highest sense of the word. And so it seems to me that science not only
purifies the religious impulse of the dross of its anthropomorphism
but also contributes to a religious spiritualization of our
understanding of life.
The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more
certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not
lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith,
but through striving after rational knowledge. In this sense I believe
that the priest must become a teacher if he wishes to do justice to
his lofty educational mission.
Religion and Science: Irreconcilable?
Return to Top
A response to a greeting sent by the Liberal Ministers' Club of New
York City. Published in The Christian Register, June, 1948. Published
in Ideas and Opinions, Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1954.
Does there truly exist an insuperable contradiction between religion
and science? Can religion be superseded by science? The answers to
these questions have, for centuries, given rise to considerable
dispute and, indeed, bitter fighting. Yet, in my own mind there can be
no doubt that in both cases a dispassionate consideration can only
lead to a negative answer. What complicates the solution, however, is
the fact that while most people readily agree on what is meant by
"science," they are likely to differ on the meaning of "religion."
As to science, we may well define it for our purpose as "methodical
thinking directed toward finding regulative connections between our
sensual experiences." Science, in the immediate, produces knowledge
and, indirectly, means of action. It leads to methodical action if
definite goals are set up in advance. For the function of setting up
goals and passing statements of value transcends its domain. While it
is true that science, to the extent of its grasp of causative
connections, may reach important conclusions as to the compatibility
and incompatibility of goals and evaluations, the independent and
fundamental definitions regarding goals and values remain beyond
science's reach.
As regards religion, on the other hand, one is generally agreed that
it deals with goals and evaluations and, in general, with the
emotional foundation of human thinking and acting, as far as these are
not predetermined by the inalterable hereditary disposition of the
human species. Religion is concerned with man's attitude toward nature
at large, with the establishing of ideals for the individual and
communal life, and with mutual human relationship. These ideals
religion attempts to attain by exerting an educational influence on
tradition and through the development and promulgation of certain
easily accessible thoughts and narratives (epics and myths) which are
apt to influence evaluation and action along the lines of the accepted
ideals.
It is this mythical, or rather this symbolic, content of the religious
traditions which is likely to come into conflict with science. This
occurs whenever this religious stock of ideas contains dogmatically
fixed statements on subjects which belong in the domain of science.
Thus, it is of vital importance for the preservation of true religion
that such conflicts be avoided when they arise from subjects which, in
fact, are not really essential for the pursuance of the religious
aims.
When we consider the various existing religions as to their essential
substance, that is, divested of their myths, they do not seem to me to
differ as basically from each other as the proponents of the
"relativistic" or conventional theory wish us to believe. And this is
by no means surprising. For the moral attitudes of a people that is
supported by religion need always aim at preserving and promoting the
sanity and vitality of the community and its individuals, since
otherwise this community is bound to perish. A people that were to
honor falsehood, defamation, fraud, and murder would be unable,
indeed, to subsist for very long.
When confronted with a specific case, however, it is no easy task to
determine clearly what is desirable and what should be eschewed, just
as we find it difficult to decide what exactly it is that makes good
painting or good music. It is something that may be felt intuitively
more easily than rationally comprehended. Likewise, the great moral
teachers of humanity were, in a way, artistic geniuses in the art of
living. In addition to the most elementary precepts directly motivated
by the preservation of life and the sparing of unnecessary suffering,
there are others to which, although they are apparently not quite
commensurable to the basic precepts, we nevertheless attach
considerable imporcance. Should truth, for instance, be sought
unconditionally even where its attainment and its accessibility to all
would entail heavy sacrifices in toil and happiness? There are many
such questions which, from a rational vantage point, cannot easily be
answered or cannot be answered at all. Yet, I do not think that the so-
called "relativistic" viewpoint is correct, not even when dealing with
the more subtle moral decisions.
When considering the actual living conditions of presentday civilized
humanity from the standpoint of even the most elementary religious
commands, one is bound to experience a feeling of deep and painful
disappointment at what one sees. For while religion prescribes
brotherly love in the relations among the individuals and groups, the
actual spectacle more resembles a battlefield than an orchestra.
Everywhere, in economic as well as in political life, the guiding
principle is one of ruthless striving for success at the expense of
one's fellow. men. This competitive spirit prevails even in school
and, destroying all feelings of human fraternity and cooperation,
conceives of achievement not as derived from the love for productive
and thoughtful work, but as springing from personal ambition and fear
of rejection.
There are pessimists who hold that such a state of affairs is
necessarily inherent in human nature; it is those who propound such
views that are the enemies of true religion, for they imply thereby
that religious teachings are utopian ideals and unsuited to afford
guidance in human affairs. The study of the social patterns in certain
so-called primitive cultures, however, seems to have made it
sufficiently evident that such a defeatist view is wholly unwarranted.
Whoever is concerned with this problem, a crucial one in the study of
religion as such, is advised to read the description of the Pueblo
Indians in Ruth Benedict's book, Patterns of Culture. Under the
hardest living conditions, this tribe has apparently accomplished the
difficult task of delivering its people from the scourge of
competitive spirit and of fostering in it a temperate, cooperative
conduct of life, free of external pressure and without any curtailment
of happiness.
The interpretation of religion, as here advanced, implies a dependence
of science on the religious attitude, a relation which, in our
predominantly materialistic age, is only too easily overlooked. While
it is true that scientific results are entirely independent from
religious or moral considerations, those individuals to whom we owe
the great creative achievements of science were all of them imbued
with the truly religious conviction that this universe of ours is
something perfect and susceptible to the rational striving for
knowledge. If this conviction had not been a strongly emotional one
and if those searching for knowledge had not been inspired by
Spinoza's Amor Dei Intellectualis, they wouid hardly have been capable
of that untiring devotion which alone enables man to attain his
greatest achievements.
chhotemianinshallah
China and America: the economic Odd Couple
Stephen Roach provides some useful, counterintuitive insights into the
economic relationship between America and China, but too often uses
the term ‘global imbalance’ as a euphemism for ‘US decline’.
by Sean Collins
In recent years there has been much debate among economists about the
so-called ‘global imbalances’, mainly between the US and East Asia,
especially China.
On one side, America has been consuming more than it has been
producing, importing more than it has been exporting, and borrowing
rather than rely on internal savings to pay for it all. On the other
side, China has been producing more than it has been consuming,
exporting more than it has been importing, and lending to the US
through purchases of US government debt and other means. It is
certainly odd that China, a still-developing and relatively poor
country, has been effectively subsidising and keeping afloat the US,
the world’s largest and richest economy.
The US-China economic relationship has assumed greater salience with
the financial and economic crisis. China’s capital flows to the US
allowed for low interest rates in America, which underpinned the
housing boom and bust and which, in turn, triggered the broader
financial unravelling. The recession has reduced both America’s trade
deficit and China’s surplus, but the imbalance still exists. Many
wonder if the crisis will lead to an adjustment, and in particular
whether China will continue to purchase American debt and other
financial assets. The recent summit of the G20 nations in Pittsburgh
included a call for global economic imbalances (which are wider and
more complex than just US and China) to be addressed.
In 2002, Stephen Roach began to identify the significance of the
global economic imbalances, making him one of the first to do so.
Roach, the former chief economist at Morgan Stanley and now the head
of the investment bank’s Asia subsidiary, has long argued that the
arrangement is problematic and ultimately unsustainable. Now, as the
global imbalances are an important topic in policy circles, Roach has
published The Next Asia, a collection of articles written between 2006
and mid-2009. The book’s title is in fact somewhat misleading: it is
really more about China than Asia generally, and focuses on the
economic ties between China and the US.
For many years, Roach argued that the US is the main force behind the
imbalance. In The Next Asia he refers to Asia’s export-led growth as
‘a second-order bubble – in effect, a derivative of the one in US
consumption’. This perspective aligns him with the so-called ‘money
glut’ school of thought (1). The money-glut theorists see low interest
rates in the US as the driving force behind the imbalances. Roach
certainly lays a large part of the blame on the Federal Reserve under
its former head Alan Greenspan. The Fed, according to Roach, was ‘led
by market libertarians who condoned an insidious succession of asset
bubbles and ignored its regulatory responsibility in an era of
unprecedented financial engineering and excess leverage’.
“The Chinese economy’s reliance on exports is one-sided and
unsustainable, says Roach”
This understanding leads Roach to criticise US officials for seeking
protectionist trade measures against China, or demanding that China
make changes, such as letting the Chinese yuan increase in value
versus the dollar. The US should not scapegoat China when its own
house is not in order, Roach argues, citing in particular America’s
low domestic savings. If anything, the US should be thanking China,
for without its large purchases of dollar-based assets, US interest
rates would have to be higher to attract buyers.
When the discussion of global imbalances first emerged earlier this
decade, the ‘money glut’ outlook was the predominant explanation.
However, in a 2005 speech, BenBernanke (who became chairman of the
Federal Reserve) turned the issue on its head (2). Bernanke argued
that the primary cause of the imbalances was excess savings in Asia –
a so-called ‘savings glut’. China in particular produces more than it
consumes, and surplus funds make their way into Western capital
markets. China’s state policy of pegging the yuan to the dollar –
which then requires China to purchase dollar-based assets to maintain
– is cited as evidence that the imbalance is the result of Chinese
‘manipulation’ rather than a natural outcome of financial flows. From
this point of view, the onus for reform is on China and Asia
generally, not the US, which has effectively been doing the world a
service by absorbing the surplus funds.
Roach’s earlier pieces in the book are critical of Bernanke and other
‘savings glut’ theorists. In a 2006 article, he says that Bernanke’s
speech ‘downplayed America’s role in fostering the problem – unchecked
structural budget deficits, a plunge in the income-based savings rate
of US households, and a record consumer debt binge’. Moreover,
according to Roach,Bernanke’s critique failed to appreciate that China
is still a developing country, one that mixes both state and private
ownership and has a fragmented financial system: ‘The Fed chairman is
offering advice as if China was a fully functioning market-based
system – perfectly capable of achieving policy traction with the
traditional instruments of monetary and currency policies. Nothing
could be further from the truth.’
But as we follow the development of Roach’s arguments in The Next
Asia, we find a subtle shift in his views over time. He increasingly
characterises the relationship between the US and China as ‘symbiosis’
rather than pinning most of the blame on the US. Instead, he sees both
countries contributing to the imbalances. The Chinese economy’s
reliance on exports is one-sided and unsustainable, he argues. Roach
says China is desperately in need of reforms to boost internal
consumption. For example, he recommends that the Chinese state
overhaul welfare assistance, providing retirement and health benefits,
so that households do not undertake ‘precautionary savings’ and
instead spend its income.
Roach is initially optimistic about China’s ability and willingness to
carry out the kind of reforms he suggests. He gains confidence from
the statement made by WenJiabao , China’s premier, to the National
People’s Congress in March 2007, that China’s economy was increasingly
‘unbalanced, unstable, uncoordinated, and unsustainable’. But over
time, as it becomes clear that China is not implementing Roach’s
favoured reforms, his frustration mounts. In near-exasperation he
writes: ‘There are worrisome signs that China just doesn’t get it and
that it is clinging to antiquated policy and economic growth
strategies.’
Roach believes the crisis has the potential to be a ‘wake up’ call for
China and Asia generally. But he despairs that China’s response to the
crisis appears to be more of the same: for instance, he describes
China’s massive $585billion stimulus (which at 13 per cent of its GDP
is more than twice the impact of the US stimulus package) as an
‘infrastructure programme’ that bolsters the existing investment in
production and exports, while ‘little is being done to stimulate the
Chinese consumer’.
“Roach believes the crisis has the potential to be a ‘wake up’ call
for China and Asia generally”
In an article in the Financial Times following publication of his
book, Roach evaluates the crisis responses globally and concludes:
‘Far from rebalancing, an unbalanced world again appears to be
compounding existing imbalances.’ (3) The Pittsburgh summit adopted
the goal of ‘sustained and balanced growth’, but Roach argues that
this is an empty statement that lacks an enforcement mechanism.
Roach is an astute observer of global trends, and The Next Asia is
full of insights. Today, when many economists and policymakers are
focused on emergency measures and financial reforms, Roach provides a
useful counterweight, stressing that there are underlying structural
problems that need to be addressed. And compared to those who
superficially focus on the financial sphere, and pin the blame for the
crisis on greedy bankers, complex financial instruments or lax
regulators, his emphasis on global imbalances gets closer to the
point.
But Roach goes too far when he describes these imbalances as ‘the root
cause of the current crisis and recession’; they are a symptom rather
than a cause. The real issue underneath the imbalances – which Roach
and most other participants in the debate overlook – is the decline of
productive industry in the US. As a recent report byCrossBorderCapital
found, US profitability has been falling for some time, in contrast to
China and other parts of Asia (4). The discussion of ‘imbalances’
usually refers to who is borrowing (the US) and who is lending
(China); or who is consuming (the US) and who is not (China). But the
fundamental ‘imbalance’ is between who is creating new value in
productive industries (China) and who is relying on credit to cover up
for a lack of dynamism (the US). Overall, the term ‘imbalance’ is too
much of a euphemism for what should really be called US decline.
Roach’s calls for China to reform are also problematic. As mentioned,
he bemoans China’s lack of action on the reform front, but he never
seeks to try to explain this inactivity. He displays a lack of
curiosity to try to find out why China never gets around to promoting
consumption. It leads to no re-evaluation of China’s interests, or the
barriers to reform.
There are in fact a number of good reasons behind China’s reluctance
to change, some of which Roach himself points to, but never fully
develops. For instance, the build-up of currency reserves among Asian
nations was a response to the late Nineties financial crisis in that
region. Countries whose debt was denominated in dollars found that it
ballooned when the value of their currencies fell; in response, many
Asian nations vowed ‘never again’ and built up dollar reserves and
relied more on internal savings. China was not a victim of this
process, but it learned from observing what happened to its
neighbours, and also began loading up on dollars.
Likewise, there is a rational basis for Chinese purchases of US
Treasury securities, even though there are relatively low returns from
such investments. Specifically, such purchases support China’s dollar
reserves and provide a relatively liquid form of investment (as
opposed to foreign direct investment, such as buying assets or
investing in companies, which requires a longer commitment). Moreover,
there is a geopolitical dimension, which many economists overlook or
downplay. China is essentially a statusquo power rather than a
challenger, a country that seeks to grow within the context of a US-
led world order. The Chinese government is certainly aware that a
drastic withdrawal of investment in the US could upset the foundation
of that order, to China’s detriment.
“China is still a rising industrial power, and it would be
understandable if it ignored the West’s calls to be more like it”
In a recent discussion of his book on the website of Foreign Policy
magazine, Roach says ‘the shift to internal demand is really Beijing’s
only option’ (5). Not really. By ‘internal demand’ Roach means
consumption. If the US consumer will no longer buy imports from China,
then China must create new consumers at home. But this emphasis on
personal consumption is myopic. As the examples of industrialising
Britain and America show, profitable growth creates its own demand; in
particular, from new surplus being spent on the next round of
investment, or businesses buying from other businesses. In both the
British and American examples, personal consumption eventually rose,
but it was secondary to business consumption. In neither case did
governments adopt policies to provide special boosts to personal
consumption.
Indeed, when Roach calls upon China to prop up consumer spending and
shift the economy away from industry and towards services, from the
‘quantity to quality dimension of the growth experience’, he sounds
like he wants China to embrace the policies that the US and other
Western countries have adopted to offset industrial decline. The West
may need to deploy such strategies after decades
ofdeindustrialisation , but China is still a rising industrial power,
and it would be quite understandable if it ignored the West’s calls to
be more like it.
It is clear that Roach disagrees with those in the US and elsewhere
who blame China solely for today’s economic problems. Perhaps the most
passionate passages in The Next Asia are his testimonies before
Congress, where he bluntly tells American politicians they are wrong
to scapegoat China: ‘By going after China, you in the Congress are
playing with fire.’ And it’s also clear that his concept of
‘symbiosis’ is meant to be even-handed. But his neutral-sounding,
‘both need to look in the mirror’ framework ultimately overstates
China’s problems and underestimates America’s weakness. And his
assumption that the goal of economic policy should be ‘global
balance’, rather than the dynamic growth of productive industry, leads
Roach down the same path as the US officials he criticises – lecturing
China.
Sean Collins is a writer based in New York.
Stephen Roach on the Next Asia: Opportunities and Challenges for a New
Globalization, by Stephen Roach, is published by John Wiley & Son.
(Buy this book from Amazon(UK).)
(1) Daniel Ben-Ami provides a very useful discussion of the different
explanations for the global imbalances. See A balancing act, Fund
Strategy, 17 August 2009
(2) ‘The global savings glut and the US current account deficit,’
March 2005 speech
(3) ‘An unbalanced world is again compounding its imbalances,’
Financial Times, 7 October 2009
(4) CrossBorderCapital, ‘Re-thinking emerging markets – another look
at the next twenty years,’ Emerging Markets, May 2009
(5) ‘No turning back for The Next Asia,’ foreignpolicy.com, 8 October
2009
Books discussed:
Stephen Roach on the Next Asia: Opportunities and Challenges for a New
Globalization, by Stephen Roach
October 2009
Why pedagogy is in peril
The anti-smoking ‘truth regime’ that cannot be questioned
Farewell, Norman Levitt
The drawn-out decay of the capitalist class
Seeing Sweden through the eyes of Stieg Larsson
Cooking up a new theory of evolution
State intervention is no substitute for innovation
A book to set democratic alarm bells ringing
spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP Tel:
+44 (0)207 40 40 470 Email: email spiked
© spiked 2000-2009 All rights reserved.
chhotemianinshallah
Why pedagogy is in peril
Frank Furedi, author of the new book Wasted: Why Education Isn’t
Educating, talks to Jennie Bristow about the politicisation of
education and the crisis of adult authority.
by Jennie Bristow
Everyone has a view on the crisis of education.
Cover illustration by
Jan Bowman
Politicians point the finger at outdated attitudes, mess about with
the curriculum, prescribe new teaching methods and seek to involve
parents in the project of schooling. Teachers blame interfering
politicians alongside parents who don’t discipline their children or
help them with their homework; parents blame teachers for being too
hard or too soft on children, too modern or too traditional.
Classically trained university professors bemoan the annual intake of
students who can barely read a book, write a sentence or formulate an
equation, while employers castigate schools for turning out young
people who lack the basic life skills necessary for the world of work.
Even for somebody like me, born into a family of educators and with
two young children embarking on their all-important schooldays, all
this educational angst can get a bit tedious. Do we really need
another book on the subject? What could Frank Furedi say about
education that has not already been thought and said?
“Formal education is the process by which society transmits its values
and intellectual legacy to the younger generation”
‘All the big debates about pedagogy – how children learn to read,
whether English literature is superior to media studies, whether
history teachers should focus on the Napoleonic wars or the Holocaust
– all these are really secondary issues’, says Furedi. ‘Yes, these
questions are important, but how well any teaching method works
depends on the recognition that education is an intergenerational
dynamic, which relies on the assumption of adult authority. Today, we
have an inability to give meaning to education because we struggle to
give meaning to adulthood. My book Wasted is an attempt to understand
that fundamental problem.’
The struggle to give meaning to adulthood is expressed in a number of
familiar ways. From parents struggling to know how to tell a two-year-
old to behave to teachers feeling threatened by ‘violent’ four-year-
olds and politicians threatening parents of truanting teenagers with
jail, discipline is one area of life that used to be taken for granted
but has now become an endless source of conflict and anxiety. The fact
that it is now questioned whether adults have the moral right to
discipline children in the way they see fit, and that their attempts
to do so are met with scrutiny and contestation, is a stark example of
the way that the very assumption of adult authority has been thrown
into question both at school and at home.
A related trend is that which Furedi terms ‘socialisation in reverse’.
Socialisation, he notes, ‘is the process through which children are
prepared for the world ahead of them’. This is a responsibility that
‘is carried out by adults at home and their communities, and in the
formal setting of the school’. Today, however, this intergenerational
responsibility is being usurped by a new breed of professionals, so-
called experts ‘who transmit values by directly targeting children’.
Parents will be only too aware of the way that children now come home
armed with advice for their parents about how to eat healthily and
recycle their rubbish correctly, while teachers find their own
authority on this front trumped by specialist interlopers who
parachute into schools to teach pupils about sex, drugs and ‘life
skills’.
Furedi’s seminal 2001 book Paranoid Parenting highlighted the grave
consequences of the devaluation of adult authority for the role played
by parents and the extent to which they are accorded autonomy in their
private family lives. In Wasted, he explores the meaning of this
infantilising trend for teachers, and for the project of education as
a whole. Teachers will identify with the everyday frustration and
humiliation that arise from such practices as having their discipline
techniques closely monitored and questioned, or finding themselves
interviewed by pupils on the grounds that the children should be
‘given a voice’ in deciding which staff the school recruits. But such
practices are only symptoms of the process by which the core idea of
education as a transaction carried out between generations has been
called into question.
Formal education is the process by which society transmits its values
and its intellectual legacy to the younger generation. Drawing on the
work of the philosopher Hannah Arendt, Furedi argues that ‘it is
through education that society both preserves and renews itself’. It
is for this reason that a traditional, liberal education has been an
essentially conservative project, designed to teach children what is
known, thought and agreed upon, rather than attempting to challenge
the received wisdom. ‘The conserving function of education is not an
attempt to indoctrinate children into conservatism – it is about
giving them the resources to create a new world’, explains Furedi.
Only when children are taught about the world as it is, by an
authoritative source, can they develop the knowledge and critical
faculties necessary to shape their world as adults. In this sense, a
conservative education should be understood as the necessary
foundation for a generation that is capable both of transforming
society and holding it together.
One result of the devaluation of adult authority is that ‘the proper
relationship between education and society has been turned upside
down’, and ‘education is used as the site where the unresolved issues
of public life can be pursued’. As adults are infantilised and
children are treated as mini-grown-ups whose voice must be expressed
and heard on every matter from the content of the curriculum to the
attributes of their teachers, education becomes viewed as a place
where political debates can and should take place. As Furedi argues:
“If learning is something that people can do at any point in their
lives, what’s so special about what teachers do?”
‘In public life, politicians and policymakers play it safe and tend to
avoid substantive issues and serious debate. But often problems that
are avoided in the domain of politics appear as a subject for the
school curriculum. So the problem of political apathy and
disengagement is accepted as a fact of life in public life only to
reappear in the form of citizenship education in schools. Solving
problems and changing attitudes is assigned to the institutions of
education.’
In this respect, the politicisation of education has gathered pace in
recent years as politics and public life have become exhausted. Modern
society’s retreat from politics, from the notion that we have choices
about how to organise our existence, was examined in Furedi’s 2005
book Politics of Fear. One key consequence of the discrediting of
political authority is that those who seek to manage society
increasingly do so by attempting to manipulate pre-political relations
of authority: those that exist within education, and the family.
This is a dangerous process, argues Furedi, because all forms of
authority in society draw upon the basic relationship between adults
and children. The authority of parents has historically been
considered paramount, not because politicians of the past had a
particularly elevated view of parents or respect for their autonomy,
but because childrearing was understood as the one area of life where
natural necessity forces adults to protect children. So while
established relations of authority have historically been contested in
the name of democracy, freedom or science, and these have had largely
progressive consequences, pre-political forms of authority were
generally perceived as areas in which reformers meddled at their
peril. But as Furedi explains, over the past 50 years or so this
assumption has come unstuck: what has increasingly been contested is
not one or another particular form of authority, but ‘the authority of
authority itself’.
This is sharply revealed by the extent to which the authority of
adults – parents and teachers – over children in everyday life is
blithely challenged by parenting experts peddling tips on toddler-
taming, or educational consultants training teachers in the use of
‘motivational techniques’ that rely upon flattery rather than
authority to encourage the child to pay attention. Today, says Furedi,
‘society has become as uncomfortable with the authority of parents and
teachers as it was with the absolute monarch of the eighteenth
century’. But unlike rebellion against inherited privilege, there is
no positive or democratising outcome to our present-day discomfort
with the authority of adults: its consequence will be further
confusion, where ‘the lines between generations become very arbitrary,
and the process of socialising generations is incomplete’.
Furedi is currently focusing his work around the historical evolution
of authority relations, as part of an attempt to understand the way
that society responds to problems when it lacks clarity and meaning
about its own purpose. With Wasted, Furedi considers that he has
finished the first phase in this programme of work – and in this
respect the book could be read as one that is not really about
education at all. But the coherence of the book’s focus on the
intergenerational dynamic of education provides the basis for
demystifying some of the specific debates and initiatives about
education that worry and perplex many parents and teachers.
For example, once the importance of society renewing itself through
the education of its young is appreciated, some of the problems with
the contemporary mantra of ‘lifelong learning’ become easier to
understand. While it is true, and right, that people learn things
informally in the course of their lives and that intellectual
development does not stop at the age of 18, the politicised promotion
of ‘lifelong learning’ as an educational endeavour that exists on a
par with schooling implicitly devalues both the role of adult teachers
and the importance of formal education. If learning is seen to be
something that people just do at any point in their lives, what is so
special about the job that teachers do – and why should we insist that
children leave school with qualifications at all? As with the vogue to
redefine headteachers as ‘lead learners’, and to talk about the
importance of ‘teaching and learning’ in one breath, the educator is
robbed of his or her status and equated with the pupil who has
‘learning skills’. No wonder good, authoritative teachers are finding
themselves insulted and turned off by their erstwhile profession.
“Therapeutic education takes emotions out of their historical context
and promotes dogmatic rules about acceptable feelings”
The therapeutic turn that education has taken in recent years, where
managing children’s feelings and behaviour has come to be seen as
being of paramount importance, has caused some consternation – but
little direct objection. Partly, this is because it is difficult to
oppose such initiatives as ‘happiness education’ without becoming
caricatured in a ridiculous counter-position: that it is fine for
children to be unhappy, for example, or that teachers should stick to
dry facts about maths and leave the emotional side of life for the
home. But as Furedi explains, the distinction is not between taking
children’s emotions seriously or not: it is between a proper
appreciation of academic education and a de-intellectualised form of
therapeutic education.
‘A good school will make every effort to attend to the moral,
spiritual and emotional needs of a child, and good teachers recognise
that the cultivation of the intellect is linked inextricably to the
education of a child’s disposition and behaviour’, he says. The way in
which schools have traditionally ‘educated the emotions’ is through
the arts, introducing children to a world in which the human condition
is explored and certain norms of feelings and behaviour promoted. By
contrast, the anti-academic approach taken by therapeutic education
takes emotions out of their human, historical context and promotes
narrow, dogmatic rules about acceptable and unacceptable feelings and
behaviour.
When education is understood as a process by which the values and
intellectual legacy of society are transmitted to its young, the
significance of the subject-based curriculum becomes more profound. If
the teaching of literature is superseded by literacy skills, or the
teaching of science becomes a vehicle for ethical debates rather than
practical experiments or the acquisition of the scientific method,
children are not merely being taught the same thing by other means.
The fragmentation and politicisation of the curriculum represents a
defensiveness about the cultural achievements of the past, and a
reluctance to transmit even the awareness of society’s intellectual
heritage to its children.
Every time politicians fiddle with the school curriculum, or insist on
schools following the latest ‘new idea’, they demonstrate their
willingness to dump centuries of knowledge, creativity and thought for
the sake of political expediency. What is ‘wasted’ as a consequence of
the philistine policy churn of educational reform is not just the
potential of young children to appreciate the gains of the past in
order to transcend them, but human history itself.
Jennie Bristow is author of Standing Up To Supernanny, published by
Societas in 2009) (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).) She edits the
website Parents With Attitude and is speaking in the session Standing
up to Supernanny: why we need a Parents’ Liberation Movement at the
Battle of Ideas festival, 1 November 2009.
Wasted: Why Education Isn’t Educating, by Frank Furedi, is published
by Continuum on 29 October 2009. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).) To
see the media discussion provoked by the book, go to Frank Furedi’s
website here.
chhotemianinshallah
Farewell, Norman Levitt
With the passing of Norman Levitt, a rigorous defender of scientific
truth against the relativism and cowardice of the ‘academic left’, we
have lost a modern Enlightenment hero.
by Stuart Derbyshire
Norman Levitt died from complications related to heart failure this
past weekend (24 October). He was professor of mathematics at Rutgers
University and a friend of spiked. He wrote some excellent articles
and essays for spiked and some angry letters, too – which is just the
kind of friend spiked welcomes.
His 1994 book, Higher Superstition: the Academic Left and its Quarrels
with Science, co-authored with Paul Gross, caused a minor sensation
(1). Levitt and Gross noted the disconcerting rise of what they called
the ‘academic left’ and particularly the hatred that the academic left
directed against science. They saw the hatred of the academic left as
not just stemming from a distrust of how science has been abused – to
justify the Holocaust, build nuclear weapons and so forth – but also
from hostility towards the very structure of how science is done and
communicated. Thus the academic left openly attack the content of
science and question the very foundation of scientific belief.
Under the banner of feminism and anti-racism the academic left attack
science for being poisoned by sexism, racism and a vicious cultural
imperialism. The very pursuit of scientific knowledge is a form of
aggression against minorities and other cultures, they believe.
Handily, having adopted this highly dubious and negative stance
against science, the academic left is liberated from the grubby and
difficult task of actual scientific study. Scientific knowledge must
be wrong and can thus be discarded without any further study. Any
attack on the academic left for their determined self-imposed
ignorance is brushed off by their presumed moral authority that
guarantees the validity of their critique. As Levitt and Gross wrote:
‘Thus we encounter books that pontificate about the intellectual
crisis of contemporary physics, whose authors have never troubled
themselves with a simple problem in static; essays that make knowing
reference to chaos theory, from writers who could not recognise, much
less solve, a first-order linear differential equation; tirades about
the semiotic tyranny of DNA and molecular biology, from scholars who
have never been inside a real laboratory, or asked how the drug they
take lowers blood pressure.’ (Higher Superstition)
The hostility and ignorance of the academic left were an enormous
irritation to Levitt because he viewed science as the crowning glory
of intellectual endeavour and the only means by which we can properly
interrogate and understand the world around us. Abandoning science,
and maybe giving it a good hiding to boot, doesn’t just desecrate a
technical exercise in understanding; it also undermines the
possibility of human freedom. Science increases the scope for human
action because it makes new things possible. Science gives us new
options to solve problems. Of course, we may use science to create
rather than solve problems, since how we use science is political not
scientific – but to condemn the entire exercise is to condemn
humanity. Without science we are condemned to continued ignorance and
mysticism.
Most famously, the publication of Higher Superstition triggered Alan
Sokal to submit his joke paper, ‘Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards
a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity’, to the journal
Social Text. The paper was published despite, or maybe because of, its
call to end ‘the dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony
over the Western intellectual outlook, which can be summarised briefly
as follows: that there exists an external world, whose properties are
independent of any individual human being and indeed of humanity as a
whole; that these properties are encoded in “eternal” physical laws;
and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and
tentative, knowledge of these laws by hewing to the “objective”
procedures and epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-
called) scientific method.’ (2)
The publication of Sokal’s paper – which came to be known as ‘the
Sokal hoax’ – caused an international storm. More importantly, it
provided a punctuation mark for Levitt’s argument regarding the sheer
audacity of the academic left and their tendency to go along with any
pitiful drivel so long as science was admonished. It also earned
Levitt some prestigious enemies amongst the social constructionists,
including Steve Fuller, professor of sociology at the University of
Warwick in England, who just happened to have an article in the same
edition of Social Text as Sokal… Fuller has not forgiven Levitt even
in death (3). Levitt, I’m sure, would not care less.
Levitt was brilliant at uncovering attacks on science made under the
guise of ‘democratisation’. He rightly pointed to the absurdity of
advocating teaching intelligent design or creationism alongside
evolution in American schools. Many on the academic left, and Steve
Fuller, support this campaign on ‘democratic’ grounds. Levitt
correctly observed that teaching creation as science whitewashes the
rigours of science and threatens to reduce science to a popularity
contest about belief.
His distaste for the use and abuse of populism by the academic left
possibly explains why Levitt was keen on the idea of insulating
science from the influence of public opinion. That, I believe, was an
error. Only by engaging schools, and the public, on the need for
teaching evolution as a science can the argument against creationism
in schools be won. If Levitt were alive today he would doubtless now
be typing an angry letter to spiked explaining his public engagements
promoting the teaching of evolution in schools. The world has lost a
fierce defender of science and a modern Enlightenment hero.
Stuart Derbyshire is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University
of Birmingham. He will be speaking in the debate Nudge Nudge, Nag Nag:
the New Politics of Behaviour at the Battle of Ideas festival on
Sunday 1 November at the Royal College of Art in London.
(1) Higher Superstition: the Academic Left and its Quarrels with
Science, Paul Gross & Norman Levitt, John Hopkins University Press,
1994
(2) Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative
Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity, Alan D Sokal, Social Text, Spring/
Summer 1996
(3) Norman Levitt RIP, Steve Fuller, 28 October 2009
chhotemianinshallah
Wednesday 28 October 2009
Brendan O’Neill
Why they love to hate Mother Teresa
The radical-atheist assaults on the late sister of Calcutta are the
intellectual equivalent of mugging an old woman.
You know how some cowardly muggers target little old ladies because
they’re usually slow, frail and unlikely to fight back? Well, the
exact same dynamic, though in intellectual rather than bag-grabbing
terms, can be seen in the radical-atheist assaults on Mother Teresa.
Attacking the wrinkled, hunched-over sister of Calcutta, accusing her
of being a goggle-eyed fanatic and a mad and disgusting celebrator of
poverty, is the atheistic equivalent of mugging an old woman. And a
dead one, to boot. These anti-Teresa tirades reveal far more about the
bluster of contemporary atheism than they do anything surprising about
the antics of old Catholic women.
Hating Mother Teresa has become a de rigueur dinner-party prejudice.
As the Vatican speeds up its canonisation of Teresa, having already
beatified her in 2003, feminists, atheists and liberal commentators
are engaging in games of Teresa-denouncing one-upmanship, to see who
can slate her in the shrillest, most outrageous terms. She was a
‘charlatan’ and a ‘master of her own mythology’, said Ian O’Doherty in
the Irish Independent last week. No, she was a ‘wicked
fundamentalist’, said a feminist contributor to a BBC TV debate last
weekend. In fact she was a ‘disgusting fraud and a hypocrite’, says a
columnist for the UK Independent, and ‘if there is a hell, Mother
Teresa is already there’.
Much of this Teresa-baiting springs from the work of arch atheist
Christopher Hitchens. In his 1995 book The Missionary Position,
Hitchens described Mother Teresa as a ‘religious fundamentalist, a
political operative, a primitive sermoniser and an accomplice of
worldly secular powers’. He exposed her backward beliefs on poverty –
it is ‘beautiful’, she said, and the poor should embrace it – and her
shoulder-rubbing with dictators and other dodgy individuals. She
should never have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, Hitchens
said, or granted audiences with US presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill
Clinton, because she is little more than an ‘untouchable in the mental
universe of the mediocre and the credulous’.
Of course, much of the criticism is justified. I am an atheist who has
no truck with Mother Teresa and her kind. Having been schooled by nuns
who thought Mother Teresa was the best thing since sliced bread (and
thus that her patronising pieties were a better thing for poor people
to live on than actual sliced bread), I have suffered my fair share of
BS about this woman’s saintly wonderfulness. But why is atheistic
criticism aimed so squarely at Mother Teresa these days, rather than,
say, at the Vatican itself, or at other religious leaders like the
Dalai Lama or Bishop Desmond Tutu?
Mother Teresa is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only
religious leader to have sipped tea with dictators or to have been
more interested in promoting her self-image than in seriously helping
poor people. The Dalai Lama has done adverts for Apple, for Buddha’s
sake, and once guest-edited French Vogue, which I don’t think is a
widely read publication in the poorer parts of his homeland of Tibet.
Teresa is also not the only religious figure to have bigged-up poverty
as beautiful and life-affirming. Ever since Jesus wandered around
Palestine in rags and described riches as ‘thorns’ which ‘choke up the
good seed’, Christians have promoted poverty as something godly.
Mother Teresa’s celebration of poverty in Calcutta sprang not only
from her own religious fanaticism, but also from the dire social and
economic conditions in that city: like so many Christians before her,
she was effectively adding a religious gloss to a social reality,
which is not a nice thing to do but it doesn’t mean she was somehow to
blame for poverty.
No, the reason Teresa has been elevated by radical atheists above
everyone else in the League Of Evil Religious Crackpots is because
she’s an easy target. Today’s New Atheists, more interested in getting
their religion-hating rocks off than in actually Enlightening anyone,
love crusading against Teresa because she indulged in a so-
unsophisticated and foreign form of Christianity. Religion in the
Third World, with its old-fashioned figureheads and its sometimes
desperate adherents, makes for a far easier, and far more fun, target
than the subtle religious practices of modern Western society. For
today’s campaigning atheists, the sight of a little old woman in an
off-white habit providing hammocks for poor, wide-eyed Indians is too
bizarre and backward to let pass by. And lacking the intellectual
faculties and old-style atheistic humanity to explain such practices,
they merely mock them, denounce them, laugh at them over their £3
lattes.
Indeed, much of the Teresa-baiting is aimed not at the woman herself,
but at her thick and gullible followers. Hitchens described his book
about Mother Teresa as an argument ‘not with a deceiver but with the
deceived’, her ‘credulous and uncritical’ followers. ‘In the gradual
manufacture of an illusion, the conjuror is only the instrument of the
audience’, he said. A favourable review of Hitchens’ book, written
while Mother Teresa was still alive in 1996, said ‘one can only be
appalled by the lack of intellectual sophistication of her admirers
who hold her in such high esteem and who seize upon her every asinine
comment as a sign of her astuteness and philosophical depth’. This is
not a serious or intellectual dismantling of the meaning, impact and
structures of religion; it is fundamentally fun-poking at dumb
Indians.
The ongoing war on Mother Teresa reveals what lies at the heart of the
New Atheism. A million miles from the humanistic atheism of Marx,
Darwin and others, today’s screechy anti-God squad is more interested
in hectoring the religious – those stupid believers in anything they
are told – than it is in creating an Enlightened culture that might
give people something else, something more profound, to think about
and contribute to. Darwin, the hero of so many of today’s New
Atheists, refused to partake in cheap Christianity-bashing, believing
that ‘direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly
any effect on the public – and freedom of thought is best promoted by
the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance
of science’. Today, lacking any serious attachment to freedom of
thought or any belief in their ability to illuminate men’s minds,
gradually or otherwise, the New Atheists not only spend their whole
time directly attacking Christianity, but take aim at its crudest
forms.
The lack of Enlightened thinking in the mugging of Mother Teresa can
be seen in the way campaigning atheists seek to replace Teresa’s
backward beliefs with their own. So one critic attacks Teresa’s
opposition to contraception and abortion on the basis that it inflamed
one of the alleged great evils of our age: overpopulation.
‘Overpopulation is one of the factors that can lead to war, [and
therefore] Mother Teresa’s opposition to any effective limitation on
the growth of population [implicated] her in war rather than peace.’
This is a battle of misanthropies. Where Teresa held to the
misanthropic belief that women should be forced to take every
conception to term, the Teresa-bashers believe that unchecked
population growth – whisper it: too many black and brown babies –
gives rise to madness and mayhem. One side seeks to limit poor
people’s choices, the other demonises poor people’s breeding habits as
the harbinger of doom.
In their cheap assaults on Teresa and fundamentalist religion,
campaigning atheists completely overlook, yet again, some of the more
powerful backward trends in our society. Take the celebration of
poverty. At a time when wealthy Westerners buy Fairtrade chocolate and
fruit because they love the thought of eating earthy stuff produced by
back-broken Africans, at a time when buzzphrases like ‘sustainable
development’ are used to justify hard labour over economic progress in
the Third World, and at a time when we are frequently told by greens
that our greedy habits of consumption are bringing about the fiery and
flood-ridden end of the world, it seems pretty clear that the Mother
Teresa-style celebration of poverty has not a patch on the
contemporary secular elevation of the eco-life. Today’s mainstream,
insidious and grotesque justifications for non-progress in the poverty-
stricken Third World make Mother Teresa’s sermons look like the silly
ramblings of a daft old nun.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. His satire on the green movement
– Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other Eco-Dilemmas – is published by
Hodder & Stoughton. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK).) This article was
first published in forth magazine in Dublin.
Previously on spiked
Stuart Derbyshire reviewed Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity?.
Nathalie Rothschild refused to jump on the atheist bus. Catholic
atheist’ Michael Fitzpatrick was repelled by Richard Dawkins’ book,
The God Delusion, and critiqued the secular intellectuals who are
baiting the devout. Dolan Cummings wanted to be counted out of
atheism’s creed. Neil Davenport argued that it’s not the devout who
are the real enemies of reason. Or read more at spiked issue Religion.
chhotemianinshallah
Stuart Derbyshire
Mother Teresa and the ‘me, me, me’ culture
The new book Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity? shows that the nun was
as ruthless as any other celeb in protecting her public image.
Mother Teresa: Saint or Celebrity?, Gezim Alpion, Select Books,
British edition 2007.
Mother Teresa is arguably the most famous religious icon of the late
twentieth century. Her legacy and work continue to generate huge
levels of debate and interest. Gezim Alpion’s book Mother Teresa:
Saint or Celebrity?, which seeks to address the nature of her fame,
celebrity and devotion to faith, is unique in locating the appeal of
Mother Teresa within today’s broader celebrity culture. He also
provides previously unknown and quite striking information about her
personal life.
For Alpion, celebrity culture is a modern form of religion and Mother
Teresa was the ultimate religious celebrity of the modern era. Unlike
the many saints recognised by the Catholic Church, Mother Teresa’s
apparent sanctity took root and flourished during her lifetime. Her
beatification in 2003, just six years after her death, propelled her
further towards actual sainthood. Alpion points out that the
beatification of such a contemporary figure was as much a consequence
of her growing stardom as it was of her devoted religious practice.
The Indian media took an interest in Mother Teresa from the early
1950s, not long after she had set up her mission within the slums of
Calcutta. Here was a white, Western, Roman Catholic nun showing
compassion and providing support for those typically impoverished and
abandoned by the old class-conscious and caste-ridden Indian society.
Mother Teresa was used to highlight the new, tolerant and welcoming
India that was imagined to be born from independence and the
separation from Pakistan in 1947.
Mother Teresa was noticed by the American Catholic media apparatus
towards the end of the 1950s, and her usefulness to political
campaigns was also gradually exported around the world. By the 1980s
she was a staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan’s attempts to curb
abortion, and she also urged the relatives of those who lost their
lives in the Bhopal disaster of 1984 to forgive Union Carbide, which
was widely held to be responsible for the disaster.
It was Mother Teresa’s encounter with British journalist Malcolm
Muggeridge in the late 1960s which brought her to the attention of a
global mass audience. Muggeridge first interviewed her by telephone in
1968 and subsequently shot a documentary of her life in Calcutta in
1969. His book, Something Beautiful for God: Mother Teresa of
Calcutta, was published in 1971. Muggeridge was originally sceptical
towards Mother Teresa, yet when he returned from filming he was
zealous in his promotion of her, amply demonstrated by his efforts to
spread the news of the ‘miracle’ that occurred while making the
documentary. Muggeridge says in his book that filming inside the Home
for the Dying Destitute, which Mother Teresa had founded in Kalighat
in 1952, was problematic because of poor light. The film crew shot
some footage but expected it to be useless. When the footage was
processed in London, however, they were pleasantly surprised that the
film was impressively well lit. While the cameraman put it down to the
performance of the new Kodak film he had used that day, Muggeridge
offered an entirely different explanation: ‘It’s divine light! It’s
Mother Teresa. You’ll find that it’s divine light, old boy.’
Muggeridge did his best to spread news of this ‘miracle’, much to the
tireless amusement of his and Mother Teresa’s critics. But Muggeridge
was perhaps not simply ‘under the spell’ of Mother Teresa, as it is
usually explained. He was, at least partly, playing the role he had
been handed by Mother Teresa herself. His early tele-conversation with
Mother Teresa had provoked global interest and had given new impetus
to his journalistic and writing career. He had every reason to be
grateful to Mother Teresa and to maintain her saintly image.
Like other celebrities, Mother Teresa was remarkably keen to keep her
private life private, rarely ever saying anything about her childhood
and her immediate family. In his book, Muggeridge honours her wish to
say nothing of her early years or to provide any true biographical
details. This is a peculiar agreement from an investigative
journalist. He justified the lack of biographical detail by suggesting
Mother Teresa had no biography; she merely lived within and for
others.
Muggeridge was one of many would-be biographers who were denied access
to Mother Teresa’s early years. Her efforts at safeguarding her past
and her private details from investigation were ruthless. She
studiously avoided discussing any such details with her many aspiring
biographers, and maintained editorial control over almost all the
written material. Those who wrote about her life endorsed this
censorship, either because they didn’t want to jeopardise the obvious
career benefits of writing about Mother Teresa or because they had a
painfully sycophantic attachment to their subject.
It wasn’t just her early years that were protected; Mother Teresa
successfully guarded almost all controversial aspects of her life from
public discussion. Between 1946 and 1948, for example, she entered
into a protracted argument with her convent over her proposal to leave
the convent and work on her own in Calcutta. During this time she kept
a diary and a long correspondence with Father Van Exem. When she later
achieved her aims she destroyed her diary and pursued Van Exam for
several years in an effort to have him return her letters. Eventually
he conceded, and Mother Teresa destroyed the letters, too.
It is not entirely clear why she did this. One possibility is that she
wanted to protect the myth that she had set up the order of the
Missionaries of Charity entirely alone, and the diary and letters
would have revealed critical help from many priests and from her
convent. Another possibility is that she wanted to protect the image
of the church and her relationship with it. Whatever the reason, her
actions expose a remarkable single-minded focus to protect her growing
international reputation and image.
Alpion laments that a proper biography of Mother Teresa is still to be
written: ‘Thus far…in spite of some serious attempts to offer an
informed and impartial picture of this famous woman, attempts which
have intensified especially after her death in 1997, it would be
impossible to claim that any book has succeeded in giving us the
“complete” and the “real” Mother Teresa. Perhaps, such a book will
never be written. Perhaps, such a book cannot be written. And there
are people who obviously believe that such a book should not be
written.’
Since Mother Teresa often had the final say on what should and should
not go into the numerous books devoted to her, and since she routinely
avoided any discussion of her early life and motivations, the many
‘biographies’ of her life routinely fail to provide any true insights
into what made her tick. There is nothing that reveals her character,
her life. Also, past biographies have been shamefully lax with regard
to those factual details of her early life that are publicly
available. Several biographies, for example, misquote her birthday and
according to various different biographers Mother Teresa was born in
Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, Bosnia and Yugoslavia. In part, these
misidentifications of her birthplace reflect various attempts by
several Balkan states to appropriate Mother Teresa into their history
and folklore. There is still considerable competition over the legacy
of Mother Teresa within the Balkans.
But the lax attitude towards biographical facts also reflects a
sycophantic approach to Mother Teresa, an indulgence of the myth that
she was born into the hands of religion by a purely, other-worldly
religious calling. Alpion argues that allowing this view to propagate
is the biggest failing of past biographies, and perhaps the biggest
victory of Mother Teresa in her ceaseless attempts at controlling and
protecting her celebrity image.
Alpion’s important contribution to the literature on Mother Teresa is
to reveal that she was almost certainly motivated to enter the mission
by the death of her father, Nikolle Bojaxhiu. He died at the age of 45
in mysterious circumstances. A known and vocal supporter of Albanian
independence, he was almost certainly poisoned by Serbian opponents.
Mother Teresa, then known by her Christian name of Agnes, was nine
years old and she struggled to cope with the loss. Rather than any
religious teaching as a child or a calling as an adult, it was this
loss that turned Agnes Bojaxhiu into Mother Teresa. Unable to
reconcile the loss of her father, Agnes turned to Jesus as a father
figure who would never abandon her. This childish retreat into
religious certainty stayed with her throughout her life, yet, partly
to protect the image of Mother Teresa and partly to protect Agnes from
the pain, the details surrounding her early life were walled off from
public scrutiny.
This kind of revelation has the power to change the popular image of
Mother Teresa, and Alpion intends his investigation to be accessible
by a broad audience. Unfortunately, the first part of the book has a
finger-waving quality to it as Alpion laments the ‘tabloid journalism’
of other Teresa scholars and the lack of understanding of the Balkans.
It’s all a bit grinding, especially as Alpion provides standard-issue
prejudice against the Serbs as the creators of every modern problem in
the Balkans.
Nevertheless, readers who can get past the somewhat pompous and turgid
start will find some striking information with quite uncomfortable
implications for supporters of Mother Teresa. Her devotion to Jesus
was a personal attempt to deal with grief, and her dedication to the
poor of Calcutta part of her effort towards self-salvation. Similar to
many celebrity figures, it was all about me, me, me. This puts her
work into a whole new and rather less flattering light.
Stuart Derbyshire is a senior lecturer in psychology at the University
of Birmingham, England.
chhotemianinshallah
Nathalie Rothschild
All aboard the atheist bus? No thanks
The plastering of God-doubting adverts on buses and trains captures
the preachy attitude of the New Atheists.
Waiting for the bus in the freezing cold on your way to work, would
the thought that there probably is no God bring a smile to your face?
That’s what British comedy writer and creator of the ‘atheist bus
campaign’, Ariane Sherine, hopes. She and a bunch of celebrity God-
deniers hope that their advertising drive, launched yesterday on buses
across Britain and on the London Underground, will encourage people to
‘come out’ as atheists. Apparently being non-religious today carries
with it a social stigma akin to homosexuality before the 1960s. Their
ads declare: ‘There’s probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy
your life.’
When Sherine saw a bus ad last summer with the Bible quote ‘When the
son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth?’, she was not
amused. When she followed the web link accompanying the quote from
Luke, she was positively alarmed. The website, jesussaid.org, warns
that those who reject the anointed one’s musings will face the wrath
of God and all the unpleasantness that entails, including torment in
hell.
Rather than succumbing to a sudden urge to throw herself under the
bus, Sherine sought guidance from that secular arbiter of right and
wrong, the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The ASA
informed the comedienne that the Advertising Standards Code – which
with its 10 sections of do’s and don’ts reads like a modern-day
version of the ten commandments – does not prohibit advertising
religious messages. Then, Sherine had a revelation. The brewer
Carlsberg famously claims in its ads that its lager is ‘probably the
best beer in the world’, so she, a devout atheist, should surely be
allowed to claim that ‘there’s probably no God’. Under the influence
of Carlsberg, Sherine decided to pen an article for the Guardian,
urging fellow godless travellers to donate a fiver towards a counter-
ad campaign on London’s red ‘bendy buses’.
Atheism advert displayed on the side of a bus in Sheffield.There was a
flurry of excitement around ‘the atheist bus campaign’, with nearly
1,000 individuals pledging money to counter what they saw as a pro-
religion bias in the advertising world. The British Humanist
Association (BHA) agreed to administer donations, and the
distinguished British scientist and bestselling author of The God
Delusion, Professor Richard Dawkins, agreed to match all contributions
up to £5,500. In the end, the fundraising drive raised more than
£140,000.
Observant London commuters will notice a web address at the bottom of
the ads, to atheistcampaign.org – a rather slick and colourful
website, adorned with pretty flowers and links to other God-unfriendly
sites.
There will also be 1,000 advertisements on the London Underground from
next Monday and on a pair of LCD screens on Oxford Street. The posters
will have quotes from famous figures, including Albert Einstein,
Douglas Adams, Katharine Hepburn and Emily Dickinson. The organisers
say these have been selected because they endorse atheism or at least
express scepticism about the existence of God.
The atheist gospel has spread across the world, inspiring similar
campaigns in Barcelona, Italy and Australia, though it fell through in
Oz when the country’s biggest outdoor advertising company rejected
posters with slogans such as ‘Atheism – sleep in on Sunday mornings’.
Across the Atlantic, fellow atheist travellers have jumped onboard the
atheist bus campaign, too, with the American Humanist Association
(AHA) launching its own ads last month. Before the holiday season, the
rather uncatchy slogan ‘Why believe in god? Just be good for goodness’
sake’ could be seen on buses across Washington, DC. The AHA, too, has
a website (whybelieveingod.org) which apparently crashed twice – not
because of divine intervention, but because of the huge media flurry
around the campaign leading to a sudden, high volume of visitors to
the site.
The question is, why do humanists feel the need to preach the
(probable) non-existence of the Lord to the commuting masses of
London, Washington and beyond? After all, ours has been hailed as a
godless age and the influence of religion is at a low ebb. The past
couple of years have seen a steady stream of anti-religious books,
many of which have topped bestseller lists on both sides of the
Atlantic, by a range of atheists, agnostics and secular humanists. The
most prominent of them – Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris
and Christopher Hitchens – are now referred to collectively as ‘The
New Atheists’. They have launched a zealous, no-holds-barred attack,
not so much on God, as on the devout.
Dawkins, for example, demonstrates convincingly in The God Delusion
that Darwin’s theory of evolution, rather than the Book of Genesis,
provides the plausible answers to the emergence of human life on
Earth. But as his books, as well as his television documentaries The
Root of All Evil? and The Enemies of Reason, have shown, in Dawkins’
mind, preachers and charlatans would not form such a threat to
rational thinking if it weren’t for the gullible masses that
apparently so easily fall for their quackery.
It is true that the forces of unreason are still very much in play
today – as the widespread popularity of New Ageism, continuous
environmental doomsday mongering and the salience of pseudo-scientific
scare stories demonstrate. Yet the New Atheists on the one hand seem
unable to explain just why religion continues to play an important
role for many in the twenty-first century. (Dawkins for instance takes
an ahistorical approach in explaining the continuing existence of
religion through evolutionary psychology.) And on the other hand, they
do not recognise that the celebrities, commentators, politicians and
others who warn daily of climate chaos being visited upon Mother Earth
are simply preaching a secular version of Kingdom Come – and,
paradoxically, many of them would not hesitate to dismiss religious
people as backward Bible-bashers. Hitchens, in his book God is Not
Great, talks about ‘heat death’ as a result of global warming, while
denouncing religious ‘visions of apocalypse’.
It seems that the New Atheists, their fans at the British and American
Humanist Associations, and others who fear the popularity of god, fall
back on religion-bashing rather than trying to convince others that
there is merit in their own secular values. Really what irks them
about the religious is that they have a grand vision and are committed
to live by it – something that is sorely lacking in society at large.
Sherine, writing in the Guardian, says that ‘there’s no doubt that
advertising can be effective, and religious advertising works
particularly well on those who are vulnerable, frightening them into
believing’. This assertion really brings out what is behind the
atheist bus message: the secularists believe they must take it upon
themselves to shine a guiding light and steer the easily-duped masses
away from the darkness of unreason. The atheist campaigners, rather
than trying to engage with the public, are simply preaching at us.
Nathalie Rothschild is commissioning editor of spiked.
Previously on spiked ‘Catholic atheist’ Michael Fitzpatrick was
repelled by Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, and critiqued the
secular intellectuals who are baiting the devout. Dolan Cummings
wanted to be counted out of atheism’s creed. Neil Davenport argued
that it’s not the devout who are the real enemies of reason. Or read
more at spiked issue Religion.
spiked, Signet House, 49-51 Farringdon Road, London, EC1M 3JP Tel: +44
chhotemianinshallah
Michael Fitzpatrick
The Dawkins delusion
'Catholic atheist' Michael Fitzpatrick finds himself repelled by
Richard Dawkins' crass and prejudiced polemic against religion.
The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins, Bantam, 2006.
There is an old Irish joke, retold here by Richard Dawkins, about
somebody in Northern Ireland who responded to a survey question about
religious affiliation by declaring himself an atheist. ‘Would that be
a Protestant atheist or a Catholic atheist?’ came the insistent reply.
Faced with a similar inquiry, I would be obliged to declare myself a
Catholic atheist. By this I mean that I am an atheist by conviction,
but a Catholic by upbringing and tribal affiliation.
I know that some people raised as Catholics blame the Church of Rome
for their difficulties in later life, nourishing a particularly
degenerate literary genre. As a child taught by nuns and brothers, I
endured a fair amount of pious claptrap and casual corporal punishment
and some inappropriate sexual interest. But any detriment suffered was
far outweighed by a sound education and by exposure to a rich cultural
heritage – of art and music, scripture and ritual. For this I retain
gratitude, affection and respect.
Though as an atheist I feel I should welcome Dawkins’ diatribe against
religion, as a Catholic atheist, I find myself repelled by his crass
polemic – and I am not alone (1). In his comments on Catholicism,
Dawkins reveals a combination of old-fashioned Protestant anti-Popery
with the fashionable contempt of the liberal intelligentsia for any
kind of religious faith. Thus he refers to the ‘semi-permanent state
of morbid guilt suffered by a Roman Catholic possessed of normal human
frailty and less than normal intelligence’ (p167). Discussing the
consequences of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland, he suggests that
‘horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less
than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the
child up Catholic in the first place’ (p317). These are statements of
such unmitigated prejudice – and indeed absurdity – that it is
shocking to find them in a serious book by a reputable author.
Dawkins’ patrician scorn for all forms of religion leads him to miss
the essential point. Religious faith cannot be dismissed as a
manifestation (or as a cause) of psychopathology or stupidity.
Religion, in Marx’s words, is ‘the fantastic realisation of the human
essence because the human essence has no true reality’ (2). It is ‘the
self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not found
himself or has already lost himself again’. In a world in which human
beings are estranged from themselves and from others and lack control
over their own destiny, they seek refuge and consolation in the
worship of divine forces. Religion provides a distraction, an alibi,
an evasion, an abdication of responsibility. The persistence of
religion poses a range of specific historical and political questions
which Dawkins’ resolutely ahistorical approach does not even begin to
answer.
Where he sticks close to the terrain of science with which he is
familiar, Dawkins is at his most convincing. He shows that God is a
much more improbable hypothesis for the origin of the universe than a
scientific, materialist theory. He confirms that Darwin’s theory of
evolution provides a more plausible account of the emergence of human
life on Earth than the Book of Genesis. Yet his attempt to deploy
evolutionary psychology to explain the continuing salience of
religious faith in the twenty-first century is as unconvincing to me
as I found Brother Alpheus’ exposition of Aquinas’ five proofs of the
existence of God when I was 13. When Dawkins reduces diverse political
conflicts – in Northern Ireland, in Israel, in the former Yugoslavia –
to religious causes, he reveals the vacuity of his ahistorical
approach (while confirming popular prejudices). When he seeks to
explain the terrorist outrages of 9/11 and 7/7 in terms of ‘Islamic
fundamentalism’ he obscures the more important determinants of these
events in the ideology of multiculturalism (part of the liberal
consensus regarded by Dawkins as the pinnacle of evolutionary
progress).
The most curious feature of Dawkins’ crusade against religion is that
it is mounted at a time when the social influence of religion is at a
low ebb. In the USA, Dawkins follows liberals in grossly exaggerating
the influence of the religious right as a way of avoiding any
reflection on the lack of popular appeal of their own agenda. In the
UK, Dawkins concentrates his fire on one school in Gateshead where
creationism has crept on to the curriculum (allowing him to sneer at
Peter Vardy, the vulgar ‘car salesman’ millionaire who has bankrolled
the school). Yet, while he happily tilts at windmills, Dawkins ignores
much more influential currents of irrationality – such as the cult of
environmentalism – which has a far greater influence on the national
curriculum than notions of ‘intelligent design’.
While Dawkins can readily identify common features between South
Pacific cargo cults and the Christian churches, he seems oblivious to
the religious themes of the environmental movement. Just like
evangelical Christians, environmentalists preach a ‘repent, the end is
nigh’ message. The movement has its own John the Baptist – George
Monbiot – who has come out of the desert (well, Oxfordshire) to warn
us of the imminent danger of hellfire (in the form of global warming)
if we do not repent and embrace his doctrines of austerity and
restraint (3). Beware – the rough beast of the apocalypse is slouching
towards Bethlehem to be born!
Far from challenging the pervasive influence of this bleak outlook,
Dawkins goes so far as to endorse the abjectly anti-humanist theories
of Peter Singer, one of the movement’s most fundamentalist apostles
(4). Though this movement’s promotion of the anti-scientific
‘precautionary principle’ constitutes a greater threat to scientific
experimentation than the pathetic attempt of a few evangelicals to
return the teaching of biology to the Old Testament, it is entirely
ignored by Oxford’s professor ‘for the public understanding of
science’. While university theology departments are in decline,
courses in various schools of ‘alternative health’ (which share only a
foundation in pre-scientific thought) have grown apace in recent years
– but Dawkins is too busy berating the bishops to notice.
In the turbulent years before the First World War, Jewish anarchists
in London’s East End provoked riots by picketing the synagogue in
Brick Lane on holy days, baiting the faithful while they fasted, by
publicly eating ham sandwiches (5). In a similarly self-indulgent
fashion, Dawkins seems to revel in causing offence to the devout. But
this sort of posturing against religion does nothing to challenge the
roots of religious faith. The Brick Lane synagogue was built as a
Christian church and is now a mosque: while much else has changed
around it, it is clear that the need for religious worship endures.
‘Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves around man as long
as he does not revolve around himself.’ (6)
The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is published by Bantam Books (buy
this book from Amazon(UK)).
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is a GP and author of MMR and Autism: What
Parents Need to Know (buy this book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).
(1) Terry Eagleton, ‘Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching’, London Review of
Books, 19 October 2006
(2) Karl Marx, Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right, 1844
(3) George Monbiot, Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning, Allen Lane,
2006; see James Heartfield’s review on spiked: A secular version of
kingdom come
(4) See The new priesthood of the kitchen, by Michael Fitzpatrick
(5) William J Fishman, East End Jewish Radicals, Five Leaves, 2004
(6) Karl Marx, Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s
Philosophy of Right, 1844
chhotemianinshallah
Baiting the devout
It is because secular intellectuals have lost their own belief in
progress and liberation that they are turning venomously on those who
retain a vision of the good society: the religious.
by Michael Fitzpatrick
When I first came across Christopher Hitchens’ diatribe against Mother
Teresa I enjoyed its knockabout exposure of this unctuous old fraud
and her preposterous celebrity networking (1). But I increasingly
found myself wondering why it was that such an able polemicist of the
old left had been reduced to taking on such a trivial and demeaning
target. The question ‘Why bother?’ returned with greater insistency
when I discovered the recent flurry of popular anti-religious books by
a range of atheists, agnostics and secular humanists (Sam Harris,
Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins, who are now referred to collectively
as ‘The New Atheists’), to which Hitchens has now added his own
contribution: God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion (2).
Readers of these books will learn little about religion; they are much
more revealing about their authors’ own insecurities. Lacking much
knowledge of religious faith, its contemporary critics focus on its
superficial aspects and extreme manifestations (notably, Christian and
Islamic fundamentalism). Once-influential radicals, now condemned to
the margins of society, tend to exaggerate the importance of religious
authorities, who in reality have little more legitimacy than the
politicians who patronise them, in the (often mistaken) belief that
they provide links to the masses. Having lost their own belief in
progress and liberation, secular intellectuals are irked by their
encounters with people who, on whatever basis, retain a vision of the
good society and a commitment to realising it. They clearly feel
rebuked by the undaunted practice of those who have not given up.
Indeed, in their own state of confusion and demoralisation, old
radicals give too much credit to religion, in this respect, and
furthermore, they often misinterpret as religious fervour popular
affiliations that are largely pragmatic and instrumental.
Moving from his childhood alienation from conventional Christianity to
his adult disillusionment with Marxism, Hitchens leaves little doubt
that this book is not so much about religion as about himself. His
current state of bewilderment is profound. On one page he confesses
that his ‘own secular faith has been shaken and discarded’, only to
tell us a couple of pages later that he has ‘not quite abandoned’
Marxism. He admits that ‘those of us who had sought a rational
alternative to religion had reached a terminus that was comparably
dogmatic’. Hitchens here makes a conventional nod towards the
ascendancy of Stalinism (though this was a terminus that many of us,
including Hitchens himself, never accepted). However, this statement
could also serve as a characterisation of his personal apostasy -
culminating in his notoriously dogmatic endorsement of Western
military intervention in Iraq.
“Environmentalism is the most influential ‘cult of death’ in
contemporary society”
In trying to explain the failure of the quest for an alternative to
religion, Hitchens retreats into the sort of sociobiological notions
favoured by some of his fellow anti-religious propagandists: ‘What
else was to be expected of something that was produced by the close
cousins of chimpanzees?’ In his foray on to the terrain - and the
temporal scale - of the neo-Darwinians, Hitchens moves further from
his leftist traditions. Marxism was rooted in the present, and in its
concern for the proximate transformation of society, it sought social
and historical explanations and political solutions. By contrast,
theorists of evolution work in the disciplines of biology, geology and
cosmology: the scope of humanity is diminished by adopting a cosmic
timescale and emphasising the contingent character of the emergence of
human life and the prospect of its ultimate disappearance. ‘Probably
the most daunting task that we face, as partly rational animals with
adrenal glands that are too big and prefrontal lobes that are too
small, is the contemplation of our own relative weight in the scheme
of things’, writes Hitchens.
Hitchens is so taken with this formulation that it appears twice in
his book, leading to the sombre reflection that ‘the awareness that
our death is coming and will be succeeded by the death of the species
and the heat death of the universe is scant comfort’.
Here we find what the youthful Hitchens would have called ‘a
contradiction’. On the one hand, he endorses the misanthropic notions
of environmentalism: the cosmic insignificance of humanity, the
constraints of biology and the prospect of planetary climatic doom. On
the other hand, he saves some of his harshest condemnations of
religions for the way they ‘look forward to the destruction of the
world’. He has nothing but ‘contempt and suspicion for those who
beguile themselves and terrify others with horrific visions of
apocalypse’. Yet he appears oblivious to the fact that by far the most
influential ‘cult of death’ in contemporary society is not to be found
in mainstream denominations or even in millenarian sects, but in the
all-pervasive environmentalist movement with its eager anticipation of
diverse global ecological catastrophes. Indeed, ‘heat death of the
universe’ is pure ‘hell-fire’ bombast.
“‘The criticism of heaven turns into the criticism of earth’, said
Marx”
In his introduction, Hitchens complains - rightly - that Marx’s famous
statement that religion is ‘the opium of the people’ has generally
been misquoted and taken out of context. Yet Hitchens, too, has missed
a key point about these historic paragraphs written by Marx in 1844
when he was still in his mid-twenties. Marx believed that once the
true nature of religion as spiritual compensation for social
alienation had been revealed, it had been exposed as a secondary
phenomenon dependent on socioeconomic circumstances and therefore
merited no further independent criticism: ‘The criticism of heaven
turns into the criticism of earth, the criticism of religion into the
criticism of law and the criticism of theology into the criticism of
politics.’ (3) Hence, in his subsequent theoretical and political
writings over nearly 40 years, he rarely returned to the subject.
Given the recent anti-religious convergence of old Marxists and neo-
Darwinians, it is interesting to note that Darwin shared Marx’s
disdain for baiting the devout. In the early 1880s, Marx’s shady son-
in-law, the radical atheist Edward Aveling, sought Darwin’s
endorsement for a book on evolutionary theory he was editing (4). In
his fascinating account of this episode, the late Stephen J Gould
records the terms in which Darwin, who ‘understood Aveling’s
opportunism and cared little for his anti-religious militancy’,
explained his refusal:
‘It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments
against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the
public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual
illumination of men’s minds which follows from the advance of science.
It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion,
and I have confined myself to science.’
What a pity that the followers of Marx and Darwin have not followed
their wise example.
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick is author of MMR and Autism: What Parents Need
to Know (buy this book from Amazon UK or Amazon USA) and The Tyranny
of Health: Doctors and the Regulation of Lifestyle (buy this book from
Amazon UK or Amazon USA).
God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion by Christopher Hitchens
was published by Atlantic. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK))
(1) The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice,
Christopher Hitchens, 1995
(2) The Dawkins delusion, by Michael Fitzpatrick; The New Atheists, by
Ronald Aronson, The Nation, 7 June 2007
(3) Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, Karl
Marx
(4) ‘The Darwinian Gentleman at Marx’s Funeral: Resolving Evolution’s
Oddest Coupling’ in I Have Landed: Splashes and Reflections in Natural
History by Stephen Jay Gould, 2002, pp113-129
chhotemianinshallah
‘I was the greatest writer of the twentieth century’
Colin Wilson, one of the original Angry Young Men, talks to spiked
about the time Kingsley Amis tried to kill him, glimpsing Marilyn
Monroe's tits, and why he's so cocky.
by Brendan O’Neill
The Biblical line turned cheesy cliché – ‘How the mighty have fallen!’
– could have been written for Colin Wilson.
In 1956, when he was a 24-year-old, floppy-haired, black polo-neck
wearing self-proclaimed genius – the closest thing Britain had to its
very own beatnik – his first book, The Outsider, was published to
heady critical acclaim. A collection of essays that explored the
psyche of ‘the outsider’ through the works of Kafka, Camus, Sartre,
Hemingway, Nietzsche and others, the book propelled the precocious
Leicester-born working-class-boy-done-good to the kind of celebrity
status which is today reserved for footballers and footballers’ wives.
He was lauded in the broadsheets. When his father-in-law, wielding a
horsewhip, knocked on the door of Wilson’s London home and threatened
to give him a jolly good thrashing (the father-in-law thought Wilson
was a ‘queer’ and a pervert who had corrupted his nice middle-class
daughter) it made the tabloids. Imagine an up’n’coming writer knocking
Kerry Katona from her drink- and drug-based pedestal on the front page
of the Sun nowadays. Fat chance.
Wilson and John Osborne – whose play Look Back in Anger opened at the
Royal Court in London in the same month The Outsider was published –
were hailed as the founding members of a new literary movement: the
Angry Young Men. These young turks, with their novels and plays about
the grittier side of life in postwar Britain, lit a fire under the
arse of the fey and quirky Noël Coward-dominated literary scene.
Wilson became a celeb and literary London swooned around him. Except
Kingsley Amis, who tried to murder him. At a literary do, Amis spotted
Wilson standing on a balcony and said: ‘There’s that bugger Wilson.
I’m going to push him off.’ He was held back by a fellow partygoer.
Marilyn Monroe had a fleeting crush on him, or so Wilson hints. He
tells me he met her backstage at a London production of Arthur
Miller’s A View from the Bridge (‘her tight dress kept slipping down
over her tits’, he tells me) and he was surprised to find there was a
‘connection’. Monroe clasped Wilson’s hand when their party escaped
through the crowds thronging outside the theatre into their waiting
cars.
He even found himself taking a piss alongside Aldous Huxley. Both were
attending a lunch at the Athenaeum in London when they bumped into
each other (not literally, one hopes) at the urinals. ‘I never thought
I would take a pee at the side of Aldous Huxley’, said the yoof-ish
writer from up north. Huxley replied: ‘That’s what I thought when I
once found myself standing beside King George V at a urinal.’ Wilson
laughs as he tells me the story, still tickled pink by his WC run-in
with Huxley 50 years after the fact.
“Kingsley Amis had phobias of flying, folk dancing and hailing a cab”
Twenty-four and not bad-looking; his debut book, a bestseller on both
sides of the Atlantic, hailed as ‘truly astounding’ (Philip Toynbee)
and a harbinger of ‘the most exciting literary movement since the
Romantics’, and who were certainly more fun than the modernists: the
Angry Young Men; Marilyn fluttering her lashes and Huxley chatting
with him as they slashed…. It wasn’t at all bad for a young man from
Leicester who left school at 16, never darkened the door of a
university, and who worked in factories and shops and slept rough on a
golf course in Chetworth before finally hitting the big time with The
Outsider in what he remembers as a ‘long hot summer of 1956’.
And then it all went horribly wrong.
His second book Religion and the Rebel, a sequel to The Outsider
published in October 1957, was mauled. Toynbee, who had been so
favourable of The Outsider, called it a ‘rubbish bin’. Time magazine
said it revealed that Wilson was not a young genius after all, but a
‘scrambled egghead’ (1). Wilson fled London for Cornwall. As the
Fifties fizzled out the media got bored with the Angry Young Men.
Osborne, whose play Look Back in Anger spawned the AYM tag, had become
a laughing stock by the end of ‘the angry decade’ (2). His play The
World of Paul Slickey – an, er, musical satire about gossip columnists
that debuted in London in 1959 – was booed by the audience, whose
members included John Gielgud and Noël Coward (perhaps Coward was
secretly pleased that the AYM, who had swept aside his drawing-room
dramas with their kitchen-sink realism, were not so impressive after
all). Angry audience members chased Osborne down Charing Cross Road
screaming ‘bloody rubbish!’, forcing the petrified playwright to leap
into a cab to make his escape. It was anger turned against the
‘Angries’.
Aside from Alan Sillitoe and Doris Lessing, not many of the AYM
fulfilled their potential. In Wilson’s telling: Osborne ended up
bankrupt in Shropshire and was forced to sponge money from the Royal
Literary Fund to get his dodgy teeth fixed; Amis, whose comedic novel
Lucky Jim (1954) was considered a precursor to the AYM movement,
became a red-eyed alco and an anti-humanist with a penchant for
walking around with his flies undone, and was incapacitated by his
phobias of flying, folk dancing, hailing a cab and various other
things; John Braine, author of the still-breathtaking novel Room at
the Top (1957), also turned to booze and became ‘downright stupid’,
Wilson says.
And as for Wilson himself: despite writing more than 100 books over
the past five decades, he never repeated the success of The Outsider.
He’s now best known for his strange interests and habits and for
insisting that he is a genius rather than actually being one. As Lynn
Barber said in a barbed piece for the Observer in 2004, reviewing
Wilson’s autobiography Dreaming to Some Purpose: ‘In 1956, The
Outsider made him an overnight sensation, but ever since Wilson has
been an outsider himself – a knicker fetishist, a social misfit and
the author of 100 books that even his publisher didn’t want. He hopes
his autobiography will finally convince the world of his
greatness.’ (3) Ouch.
Now 76, Wilson is back with a new book, The Angry Years: The Rise and
Fall of the Angry Young Men. Yet again he’s received a mauling from
some critics, but not all – ‘the prose is flatter than a cartoon cat
hitting a wall’, said the Telegraph; it’s ‘sour grapes’, said the
Spectator. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s a punchy, record-
straightening, grave-spitting account of the ‘Angries’ and their
successes and failures. Has he mellowed? Has he become less angry? Has
he got over the idea that he’s up there with Shakespeare in the genius
stakes? Not a bit of it. ‘I was the greatest writer of the twentieth
century’, he tells me. And he’s serious.
* * *
Wilson says he wrote this colourful and personal history of the AYM
partly in response to Humphrey Carpenter’s 2002 book The Angry Young
Men: A Literary Comedy of the 1950s. ‘What an absolute shit’, says
Wilson of Carpenter. ‘He drove the knife into my back as deeply as he
could.’ (Clearly Wilson doesn’t mind speaking ill of the dead:
Carpenter died of heart failure in 2005.) He tells me that in the
early 2000s he invited Carpenter to Cornwall (yes, 50 years on, Wilson
is still there – and yes he’s still married to the nice middle-class
girl of the horsewhip-wielding parentage) so that Carpenter could
interview him for the book. He gave Carpenter ‘a very nice meal and we
drank a very old bottle of wine’. And yet Carpenter had actually
already written his book, including a pretty cutting chapter about
Wilson, and apparently only wanted to meet Wilson to confirm what he
had already committed to paper. ‘The total shit.’
What’s more, Carpenter’s book was ‘lightweight and unobjective’, says
Wilson, in which ‘an influential literary movement was dismissed as a
“comedy” of the Fifties’. Where Carpenter was agnostic over whether
the AYM were actually a proper movement or just a ‘comic bunch of
boozers and fornicators’ (4), in The Angry Years Wilson seeks to place
the AYM in their historical context. He even compares them to great
Enlightenment thinkers whose words inspired revolutions. The angry
movement ‘was based on a real political protest that hoped to get
something done, to change things as Rousseau and Cobbett and Godwin
had wanted to change things’, he writes (5). Take a character like Joe
Lampton, the brilliantly ambitious, womanising hero of John Braine’s
Room at the Top: Wilson writes that such characters ‘expressed the
spirit of rebellion that had kicked and struggled since Rousseau, and
had finally brought about the French Revolution’ (6).
“The Angry Young Man was a label-dodging entity, an indefinable rebel”
That is why Wilson thinks the AYM are far more interesting, and
important, than the middle-class satirists who followed them – the
Oxbridge poshos who, in the 1960s, made the satirical theatre show
Beyond the Fringe and TV series That Was The Week That Was, winning
widespread praise for ‘daring’ to mock the monarchy and stuffy Tory
politicians. In truth, they were riding on the duffel coat-tails of
the properly daring AYM, says Wilson: those working-class or lower
middle-class authors who had already given a very large two-finger
salute to the powers-that-be (the ‘swivel-eyed gets’ who rule over us,
as one of Alan Sillitoe’s characters described them) in the angry
decade of the 1950s. ‘[The AYM] deserve to be taken more seriously
than satirists who fire their arrows and then duck’, says Wilson.
So, the AYM: a funny bunch of wild-haired drinkers who also happened
to write, or rebels in the mould of Rousseau? I think the truth is
somewhere in the middle of Carpenter’s take and Wilson’s view. I have
long been a fan of the AYM, especially Alan Sillitoe and John Braine.
Carpenter – whose rather ripping tale of the AYM is better than the
unforgiving Wilson will allow – is right that these writers were not,
strictly speaking, a movement. Sillitoe, for example, never considered
himself an ‘AYM’; neither did Doris Lessing (or she didn’t consider
herself an ‘AYW’, one should say). Yet Wilson is also right that the
rise (and fall) of various different authors who, for the first time,
wrote about working in factories and offices, getting drunk, fighting
and fucking, thieving and vomiting, revealed something about social
and political shifts in the 1950s.
Here was a new group of writers, many of them from working-class
backgrounds, who felt dislocated from the traditional values of their
parents and society at large: most of them too young to have fought in
the Second World War, they did not feel part of the postwar
‘victorious’ society, the idea that Britons should be ‘happy and
grateful and dutiful’ to their saviours in authority (7). At the same
time, the AYM were suspicious of the alternative: communism. Some of
the AYM, most notably Lessing, had been members of the Communist
Party, but they became disillusioned following the Stalinists’
crushing of the Hungarian Uprising in 1956 – the same year that Wilson
and Osborne swept on to the British literary scene and the AYM were
born (8). In Chicken Soup with Barley, the 1958 play by the EastEnd-
born AYM Arnold Wesker, the young hero turns against his family’s long
commitment to communism after the Hungarian Uprising, angrily saying
to his mother: ‘You didn’t tell me there were any doubts.’ (9) This
sense of the AYM rejecting both tradition and communism is personified
in Arthur Seaton, the hard-drinking, hard-fighting, hard-loving hero
of Sillitoe’s 1958 novel Saturday Night and Sunday Morning. He says:
‘I am me and nobody else; and whatever they say I am, that’s what I am
not, because they don’t know a bloody thing about me.’ (10) His
stirring words – which recently formed the title of the Arctic
Monkeys’ first album – perfectly captured the Angry Young Man as a
label-dodging entity, an indefinable rebel who couldn’t give much of a
stuff for the bastards at the top or the sell-outs agitating for
change from below.
Indeed, for all Wilson’s grand and admirable comparisons between the
AYM and earlier writers who inspired revolutions, in truth the most
striking thing about the cast of characters created by the Angries is
that their rebellions are of the individualistic and experimental
variety rather than having any revolutionary bent. It’s notable that,
although Seaton is pissed off about the conditions in his factory, and
flirts with the idea of becoming a Red, his rebellion takes place
outside of the world of work – primarily in the pub and the bedroom.
He is a ‘bloody billygoat trying to screw the world…because it’s
trying to do the same to me’. When he is not pursuing ‘his rebellion
against the rules of love, or distilling them with the rules of war,
there was still the vast crushing power of government against which to
lean his white-skinned bony shoulder, a thousand of its laws to be
ignored and therefore broken’ (11). He’s one man taking on the world.
In Lessing’s The Golden Notebook (1962), the heroine Anna flirts with
communism, but it is her flirting with men – her sexual swagger – that
really marks her out as a rebel (12).
Joe Lampton, the cocky red-blooded hero of Braine’s Room at the Top,
simply wants to get to the top of the ladder and make a bloody good
living – even if that means bedding the boss’s daughter. Hence the
title of the novel, which comes from the adage: ‘There’s plenty of
room at the top.’ As Braine said of his character Lampton: ‘Joe
doesn’t want to do away with the class system. But he would say that
from now on it’s achievement that counts. It shouldn’t matter who your
father was.’ (13)
“Today, angry young men have their bollocks removed by the
authorities”
If there is an historical context to the AYM, it is the crisis of
tradition coupled with left disillusionment that emerged in the
decades after the Second World War. The literary creations of the AYM,
disrespectful of the powers-that-be and wary of Stalinists, made their
own rebellion: breaking rules, sleeping around, blowing their
disposable income on drink and fags and gifts for their mistresses.
And if anyone tried to claim them – whether it was the Borstal screws
trying to whip the rebellious Smith into shape in Sillitoe’s The
Loneliness of the Long-Distance Runner (1959) or the left claiming
that Braine’s Joe Lampton was a class rebel – then the AYM’s response
was: ‘Whatever you say I am, that’s what I am not.’
This helps explain why the AYM have such an enduring appeal,
influencing the Mods of the Sixties, the more destructive punks of the
Seventies, social realist writers and filmmakers in the Eighties, and
the New Scottish Wave of gritty fiction in the Nineties: in a time of
political flux, the AYM seem to have set the standard for individual
rebellion, for a kicking against the pricks by angry or ambitious
young people who want more from life, but are not entirely sure how to
go about getting it. The AYM can be seen as an early expression of
what has now become, unfortunately, cynicism with politics and the
idea of change. Where the AYM rebelliously declared ‘Don’t let the
bastards grind you down’, today’s AYM – that’s Apathetic Young Men –
are more likely to simply shrug: ‘They’re all bastards….’
* * *
The surviving Angries can still make others angry – and that’s
especially true of Wilson. Why do you get people’s backs up? ‘I am a
writer of ideas and they find that difficult’, he says, sounding 24
and precocious again. One thing reviewers dislike about The Angry
Years is its brutal edge. No detail is spared. We’re told that Kenneth
Tynan, the famous literary critic whose early praise for Osborne
helped to give birth to the AYM, was a fan of spanking: he took out a
lifetime subscription to National Bottom, a magazine ‘which dealt
exclusively with events in and around the anus’. Samuel Beckett was
‘pathologically shy and anti-social’ and wrote ‘dreary rubbish’,
writes Wilson. Other writers are drunks and losers with not a decent
idea to their name (14).
The other thing the literary set dislike about Wilson is his
(admittedly bizarre) self-conviction that he is a genius of twentieth-
century literature, when in fact he will likely be remembered for one
book only: The Outsider. ‘What they don’t understand’, he says, ‘is
that if you come from my kind of background, a working-class
background in the Forties and Fifties, then you have to be quite
arrogant to get ahead. Unlike them, I was not born into writing. I
would never have escaped Leicester and become a writer unless I truly
believed and convinced myself I was one of the greats.’ He has a
point, actually. The working-class-done-good have always needed a
measure of arrogance – of self-belief bordering on cockiness – in
order to smash their way into cultural or literary worlds or the
boardrooms of big business.
For all his faults, we could probably do with a bit more Wilson-style
cockiness around today. If the Fifties were ‘the angry years’ then the
Noughties are ‘the anti-angry years’. Where the AYM celebrated the
anger of ambitious young men and women, today the authorities put
loudmouth youths on anger management courses. Instructions on how to
control your anger are dished out in schools, colleges and workplaces
(15). The sexual experimentation of the AYM (and AYW) would today be
denounced as ‘too risky’. Weekend boozing, an activity beloved of
Arthur Seaton, is now denounced as ‘binge drinking’, and as of next
weekend you won’t be able to light up a fag in any pub in England.
Today, an AYM or AYW would not last very long before having their
bollocks removed by the swivel-eyed gets.
Wilson credits John Braine with turning around a 200-year-long ‘Age of
Defeat’ with the publication of Room at the Top in 1957. Where serious
fiction had been dominated for decades by ‘defeated men’ whose working
premise was ‘you can’t win’, Braine created a character, Joe Lampton,
who was ‘an intelligent hero whose outlook was cheerful and positive’,
writes Wilson (16). It is high praise indeed, and almost deserved (but
then, as a Braine fan, I would say that). The question is: where are
the new Joe Lamptons who will rail against today’s anti-angry Age of
Restraint?
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Visit his personal website here.
The Angry Years: The Rise and Fall of the Angry Young Men by Colin
Wilson was published by Robson Books. (Buy this book from Amazon(UK))
(1) The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books, 2007
(2) The Angry Decade, Kenneth Allsop, 1958
(3) ‘Now they will realise that I am a genius’, Observer, 30 May 2004
(4) Not raging but clowning, Observer, 1 September 2002
(5) The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books, 2007
(6) The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books, 2007
(7) The Angry Young Men, Humphrey Carpenter, Allen Lane, 2002
(8) The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books, 2007
(9) Chicken Soup with Barley was revived at the Tricycle Theatre in
London in 2005. Read a review here.
(10) Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Alan Sillitoe, 1958. See
Brendan O’Neill’s interview with Sillitoe in LM magazine here.
(11) Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, Alan Sillitoe, 1958. See
Brendan O’Neill’s interview with Sillitoe in LM magazine here.
(12) See Chapter 8 of The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books,
2007
(13) See the Preface to The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books,
2007
(14) The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books, 2007
(15) See The anti-angry brigade, by Brendan O’Neill, Spectator, 23
October 2004
(16) The Angry Years, Colin Wilson, Robson Books, 2007
chhotemianinshallah
Neil Davenport
Let's unveil the real enemies of reason
Famed atheist Richard Dawkins’ latest TV attack on tarot-readers and
the mystic-obsessed masses lets some far more dangerous irrationalists
off the hook.
After taking on organised religion in his TV show The Root of All
Evil? in January 2006, the distinguished British scientist Professor
Richard Dawkins challenged other irrational systems of thought in The
Enemies of Reason on Channel 4 last night. His target this time?
Astrologists and clairvoyants, among others.
Dawkins’ complaint is that the horoscopes published in newspapers, and
those mediums seeking to ‘speak to the dead’, are not only misleading
the public – they are actually undermining the very foundations of
Enlightenment civilisation. In order to protect the gullible masses
from these forces, he set out to expose mystic peddlers as cranks and
charlatans and, it seems, to hoist his own books up the bestseller
lists.
But does Dawkins’ proposed ‘Brave New World’ lead a shining path
towards true enlightenment? Or in his rush to denounce ‘non-evidence
based’ fads and thinking, is he in danger of throwing out a dimension
of humanity that cannot solely be reduced to mathematical
calculations?
On the surface, at least, Dawkins’ protestations that religion and
astrology and palm reading are not based in provable facts or reason
are agreeable enough. Indeed, the spiritualists, mediums and New Age
faith healers that were featured on last night’s programme came across
either as deluded or as sly hustlers. Their transparent gibberish
certainly should not be defended or indulged. And yet, they are not a
mortal danger to others; nor are they ‘wreckers of civilisation’, as
Dawkins hysterically suggests. For Dawkins, however, it is not only
the mystics who are beyond the rational pale – so, too, are those
casual horoscope readers and séance attendees, who were effectively
branded as contemptible fools.
In reality, it was Dawkins who came across as shockingly naïve. The
programme also showed that he possesses the sense of humour of a
wooden chair leg.
In debunking astrology, Dawkins adopted a tone of ‘this will be big
news for you, sunshine’, as if the average TV viewer is a complete
dunce who had previously believed everything he read in his horoscope.
Dawkins’ revelation that astrology is impossible to prove, and that
the predictions published in newspapers don’t, you know, have any real
bearing on your day-to-day life, would only be shocking to a five-year-
old.
When he conducted a random survey of Londoners, asking them to outline
their sun sign’s characteristics, we were meant to see how the idiot
public has internalised today’s rampant mysticism. Wrong. What Dawkins
failed to see is that most respondents were giggling as they said
things like: ‘I’m a Leo. I’m meant to spend too much money but possess
leadership skills.’ They weren’t actually taking it seriously, instead
laughing as they listed their star sign’s endearingly daft character
traits. Many of the respondents said that horoscopes are a load of
nonsense.
For the most part, when people do say ‘oh, it’s because I’m a typical
Scorpio’, they are being tongue-in-cheek, and making a throwaway
comment that is only intended to communicate a widely recognisable
character trait to another person. Incredibly, even that banal and
harmless saying ‘touch wood for luck’ was cited as evidence by Dawkins
that we have all gone mad for mysticism. He clearly needs to get out
more.
The trouble is that even when he does get out more, his reductive
approach to humanity means he cannot seem to get beyond his rehearsed
‘these people are stupid’ outlook. So Dawkins approached a meeting
held by a spiritualist medium as if he were carrying out a study of
primitive anthropology. Anyone with a semblance of understanding of
human behaviour will appreciate that séances are usually populated by
lonely, desperate pensioners seeking connections with this world as
much as the ‘next world’. The fact that Dawkins met people who
described themselves as regular attendees at the spiritual meeting
suggested that most of them see it as a social get-together rather
than anything truly mystical.
It took the engaging illusionist Derren Brown to provide some half-
decent insights into why people dabble in hocus-pocus. Brown openly
says he uses psychology and wordplay to trick people into believing
all sorts of things. And his punters mostly know this, but still go
along with his tricks to be amused, entertained or just baffled. It’s
similar to the pitch you get on BBC3’s The Real Hustle, where
experienced scammers and tricksters perform confidence tricks on
people in bars and hotels. The only difference is that, on Derren
Brown’s TV shows and The Real Hustle, there isn’t a professor in the
background denouncing everyone as stupid and superstitious.
Contemporary hi-tech irrationality is definitely a problem. For
example, the idea that long-distance air travel should be banned on
the basis of a belief that CO2 emissions = global warming doesn’t
stand up to rational calculations or proof. How would cutting back on
air travel make much of a difference, when aviation only contributes
about three per cent of global CO2 emissions? Cutting back our carbon
in order to ‘save the world’ is also a form of superstition. Or why
not investigate the tidal waves of doomsday scenarios that also have
no basis in reality or science - such as the headlines that were
common a year ago, which claimed that ‘150 million expected to die
from bird flu’? These outbursts of official irrationality have a
potentially more destructive impact on society than a handful of camp
astrologers and mediums.
To be fair to Dawkins, Enemies of Reason gets better. In the second
episode, which will be broadcast next week, Dawkins attacks
alternative medicines, quack remedies and the irrational MMR vaccine
panic. He’s absolutely right to point out that there is still no
evidence that MMR jabs cause autism in children, but that the panic
about an MMR-autism link has had a detrimental impact on medicine and
society: for a start, we’ve seen the re-emergence of measles for the
first time in years.
In this area of medical science, Dawkins is on solid ground. And yet,
his understanding of the relationship between science and society is
skewed. As a humanist rationalist, I would welcome the development of
scientific enquiry to advance our understanding of the natural world
and improve the quality of our lives in the process. And Dawkins is
almost inspiring when he reels off the triumphs of scientific
discoveries and achievements over the past 300 years. But he is on
somewhat shakier territory when he tries to boil social progress down
to such narrow, technical innovations.
Science alone was not responsible for generating more free time for
humans in the modern era. The expansion of the productive forces, and
the development of a greater capacity to create more life-sustaining
resources in less time, were also key to this advancement. Yet Dawkins
only seems able to conceptualise science as acting alone and outside
of wider social developments. Thus he tends to ignore how human-
centred political thought helped to throw off the shackles of
mysticism and tradition and enable scientific enquiry to flourish. To
attribute social progress to the work of diligent scientists reveals
an outlook that is notably disengaged from the workings of society.
Unfortunately, Dawkins isn’t the only commentator who falls into this
trap today.
Consider the recent attack on humanities A-level subjects such as
English literature, history and sociology. Many bemoan the fact that
while science take-up is declining, these ‘easier’ humanities subjects
are becoming more popular. Behind some of this discussion, there lies
a hostility towards non-instrumental enquiries into understanding
human existence, and our relationships with each other and with
society more broadly. Previously, the humanities were considered to be
a cornerstone of a humanist education; now they are looked upon as a
bit flighty and not really useful to understanding the world. In
truth, the towering figures of literature, from Proust to Dostoyevsky,
have also, alongside the scientists, shed dazzling light on to the
human condition. Dawkins and others seem unable to understand that
some things - love, sexual infatuation, mortality, beauty, existential
angst - cannot be measured by a set of scales or a measuring tape. We
are not, whatever Dawkins might think, merely biological beings.
The real irony of Dawkins’ angry attack on the mystical masses is that
his brand of thinking is actually not under threat; rather, its time
has come. Why else would anyone give this charisma-free professor
primetime TV slots? Last night’s programme was less a celebration of
science than an elevation of scientism, the idea that ‘evidence-based
calculations’ should be the organising principle for human society.
This makes Dawkins less radical than he likes to think, because
scientism is actually in the ascendant. Today’s ‘carbon footprint’
calculations use scientism to lend bogus authority to the climate
change doom-mongers. Smoking and drinking bans are often justified on
the basis of calculating the costs they cause to the National Health
Service. The education system is increasingly judged on cost-effective
criteria, based on student attendance, retention and pass rates.
Far from being a lone maverick, Dawkins’ emphasis on the importance of
evidence-based calculations dovetails nicely with the political
class’s narrow managerialism. At the same time, his tut-tutting about
apparently irrational activities such as gambling, dowsing and séances
has a whiff of New Labour’s ‘stop this nonsense!’ politics of
behaviour. Dawkins’ lab-coated hectoring is profoundly conservative:
denying the importance of meaning and purpose behind human action,
even actions that appear irrational, leads to a naturalisation of the
human subject as merely biological rather than social in character.
I would argue that the ‘enemies of reason’ today are not so much the
cranky mystics offering cut-price tarot card readings, but rather the
more powerful peddlers of doomsday scenarios and health panics that
have minimal foundations in fact. It would have been better if Dawkins
had concentrated his unblinking gaze on those irrationalists.
Unfortunately, by championing scientism as a model for society, rather
than hailing open-ended science as a tool for humanity, Dawkins has
ended up contributing to today’s dead hand of instrumentalism,
philistinism and presentism.
Neil Davenport (Gemini) is a freelance writer and politics lecturer
based in London.
Previously on spiked
Neil Davenport said Richard Dawkins’ TV series, The Root of All
Evil?’, gave atheist humanism a bad name. ‘Catholic atheist’ Michael
Fitzpatrick was repelled by Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion, and
critiqued the secular intellectuals who are baiting the devout. Mark
Vernon thought Dawkins could learn a thing or two from a humbler
‘Darwinian bulldog’. Or read more at spiked issues Religion and TV.
chhotemianinshallah
Mark Vernon
Thomas Henry Huxley: a better bulldog
An agnostic ex-vicar says Richard Dawkins could learn a thing or two
from a humbler 'Darwinian bulldog' of the 1860s.
Richard Dawkins has published a rant against religion. He could learn
much from an earlier Darwinian bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley.
In 1869, Thomas Henry Huxley coined a new term. With the publication
of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species 10 years earlier, this
brilliant Victorian anatomist and zoologist became one of its
staunchest defenders. He approved of his sobriquet, ‘Darwin’s
bulldog’. It earned him one of the most famous putdowns in the
skirmishes following the publication of the groundbreaking book. In
1860, Bishop Samuel Wilberforce, son of the anti-slavery campaigner,
had enquired of Huxley whether he was ‘related to an ape on his
grandfather’s or grandmother’s side?’ Huxley’s reply was equally
withering. He said he would rather have an ape for a grandfather than
a man who substituted ridicule for science.
Today’s Darwinian bulldog is Richard Dawkins. The parallels between
him and Huxley are striking. But although both are passionate
advocates of evolution, and have made distinctive contributions to the
theory, Dawkin’s new book, The God Delusion, shows Huxley to be
different in one key respect. In a word: God. For while Huxley, too,
hoped that science would scotch the mysteries and authority that he
believed Christianity perpetuated to the detriment of human progress,
he knew that science itself was not the final answer. The term he
coined in 1869 is one now frequently forgotten in the tussle between
science and religion. It is the word agnosticism.
His neologism was meant as a rebuke to all ‘gnostics’ who dogmatically
present their beliefs as truth. He wrote: ‘In matters of the
intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not
demonstrated or demonstrable.’ This is important because it expresses
an intellectual humility. With respect to science, it acknowledges
that when it comes to the big questions in life, what science has
established ‘amounts at present to very little’ – Huxley’s words –
compared with the wisdom of, say, history and literature. With respect
to religion, it acknowledges the ethical idealism of the life of
faith: Huxley was theologian enough to realise that the question of
God was one on which he had to remain a committed agnostic.
Dawkins is not an agnostic. In the new book he is a proselytising
atheist. And he tries to claim Huxley for his own, saying he would
have become an atheist in time. This does Huxley a grave disservice.
He was a man who went to no lesser length than inventing a word to
capture his position. And though the word agnostic has come commonly
to mean something of a shrug of the shoulders today, it was not at all
meant by him in that way; rather, it was a rebuke.
Three accusations are often made against Dawkins – that he is an
atheistic fundamentalist, a scientific absolutist, and intolerant.
They are serious accusations that he vehemently denies. Can his
predecessor, the Victorian bulldog, help us decide?
The charge of fundamentalism is that he substitutes the religious
fundamentalist’s convictions with atheistic equivalents. For example,
the religious fundamentalist says that indisputably there is a God.
Dawkins believes that it is beyond dispute that there is not a God. Or
whereas the fundamentalist turns to the presumed inerrant truths of a
holy book to find meaning, Dawkins turns to a secular ‘book of life’ –
decoded DNA – to find indisputable purpose, namely that we are here to
propagate genes.
In The God Delusion he claims not to be a fundamentalist atheist,
arguing that he would change his opinions given proof, something the
true fundamentalist would not do. But the proof is already available:
God’s existence or non-existence is not demonstrable; God just ain’t
that kind of thing. Any number of rigorous scientists – and
sophisticated theologians – could tell him that. Indeed, buried in the
middle of the book is an important admission: ‘God almost certainty
does not exist.’ Note the ‘almost’. In other words, agnosticism is the
scientific position to hold. If he were not a fundamentalist, he would
not be an atheist, let alone one so powerfully evangelical. He would
be an eloquent agnostic.
The charge of scientific absolutism follows on from this. In short, he
is drawn to the belief that science will ultimately answer all
questions worth asking. He puts it this way: ‘I am thrilled to be
alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of
understanding. Even better we may eventually discover that there are
no limits.’ It is the ‘even better’ that reveals the absolutism. It
marks the point at which Dawkins’ advocacy becomes not only
intellectually faulty, but dangerous – on two counts. It undermines
wonder at creation. And, as wonder weakens, it creates a vacuum that
is filled by hubris.
Again, Dawkins claims that he can be filled with as much wonder as
anyone, when listening to Schubert or seeing a sunset. But while his
wonder may leave him open-mouthed, what it does not do is evoke a
sense of the limits of science. Rather, he thinks that the reason
human beings find sounds and sunsets so moving lies within the domain
of evolutionary theory; they must have some adaptive advantage. As he
has written elsewhere: ‘As scientists, and biological scientists, it’s
up to us to explain [feelings of awe], and I expect that one day we
shall.’
Darwin adopted the word agnostic to describe himself: although he lost
faith in formal religious structures, he remained conscious of forces
beyond human knowledge. And that other giant of modern science, Albert
Einstein, thought similarly. Science convinced him that behind the
laws of the universe is manifest ‘spirit vastly superior to that of
man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
humble’. Dawkins’ scientific absolutism is dangerous because it
undermines such a sense of piety towards the world. He toys with a
fantasy of unlimited understanding that in the wrong context or the
wrong hands can easily become a fantasy of complete control.
One is forced to conclude that the primary driver behind Dawkins’ book
is not a concern for truth, as he declares, but a passionate
intolerance of the religious worldview. The Richard Dawkins Foundation
for Reason and Science, his new venture launched this autumn,
compounds the sense that he has been overcome by a zealotry at odds
with the Enlightenment values to which Huxley and others, before and
since, aspired.
For example, the Foundation will campaign against the teaching of
creationism – which is fair enough, except that it is the moral
vacuity of Darwinian absolutism that the families who want their
children to learn of creationism fear, as much as evolution itself:
militant atheism only compounds that fear and will strengthen the
creationists’ case, not undermine it.
Alternatively, the Foundation wants to raise consciousness of the
‘immorality’ of ‘branding’ young children with the religion of their
parents – except that this aim smacks of the same social engineering
that would insert the clumsy hand of government between parents and
their children. It says a lot about the illiberality behind Dawkin’s
proselytising brand of atheism.
Dawkins accuses believers of having minds ‘hijacked by religion’.
Replace the word religion with science, and he could be writing about
himself. Intolerance leads him to fundamentalist rhetoric. He is
entitled to his opinion. But it is time to claim the debate back from
the extremists – scientific or religious. What would be progressive
would be a revival of the humanly richer, intellectually humbler and
socially tolerant terrain of the committed agnostic.
Mark Vernon is author of Science, Religion and the Meaning of Life,
published by Palgrave Macmillan. AMAZON. Visit his website here.
chhotemianinshallah
Brendan O’Neill
The New Atheists’ Easter message? ‘Grow up or die’
Religulous, Bill Maher’s religion-baiting documentary, confirms what
modern atheists hate most about religion: its humancentricity.
Twenty-five years ago this weekend, I was called on to do the job that
every altar boy dreads: the Stations of the Cross.
It takes place on Good Friday and involves following the priest around
the church as he stops at each of the 14 Stations, explains what it
depicts, says a prayer or two, stands in silence, and then moves on.
Wearing sweat-inducing red-and-white vestments, carrying a
ridiculously heavy gold candle that dripped hot wax on to my
fingertips, and battered by sniggers from schoolfriends and looks of
thin-lipped fury from my parents if I so much as looked like I might
yawn, by the time I got to the ninth Station (‘Jesus falls for the
third time’) I knew how He must have felt.
The editor as an altar boy.This Easter, as an atheistic editor rather
than God-fearin’ altar boy, I’ve had to endure something even more
bottom-numbingly dull, hectoring and pious than those Stations, and
without even the promise of redemption that is contained in the
phantom ‘Fifteenth Station of the Cross’ (which is very occasionally
included in some Catholic churches’ décor: ‘Jesus rises from the
dead’): that is, I watched Religulous. In a cinema in Covent Garden.
In my free time. Surrounded by people who, I’m convinced, were not
really laughing at the jokes (there weren’t any) but rather were
audibly guffawing as a way of sending smug signals to one another: ‘I
hate religion, too!’
I felt far more preached at by American comedian Bill Maher’s road
movie-style atheistic documentary than I did by that priest who made
me follow him around the church like a candle-carrying muppet a
quarter of a century ago. Religulous – a hilarious mixture of the
words ‘religious’ and ‘ridiculous’! – confirms what today’s shrill
opponents of religion, variously described as ‘New Atheists’,
‘Darwin’s pitbulls’ or ‘Dawkinites’, really hate about religion: its
humancentricity. Never mind its authoritarianism or obscurantism, it
is its treatment of man as special – as more than a biological being;
as capable of rapture; as having, in the words of Genesis, ‘dominion
over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and every other
living thing that moves on the Earth’ – that really gets their goat.
Religulous goes for laughs so cheap they would be judged too
downmarket for the bargain bucket at Poundland. Maher travels around
America and Europe – more accurately: he visits Alabama, home of crazy
Christians, and Amsterdam, home of crazy Muslims – to try to discover
why people are so stupid that they turn to religion. He visits a
Creationism Museum where exhibits include animatronic Stone-Age
children playing with animatronic dinosaurs. He goes to an admittedly
scary Holy Land Theme Park in Florida where you can walk around
Palestine as it looked 2,000 years ago, only peopled by white
Americans in smocks selling religious tat rather than Arabs selling
sheep or myrrh. He tries to convince Jesus of Florida, an all-singing,
all-dancing Fabio lookalike who is crucified once a day in the Passion
Show, that He – the real JC – never actually existed.
Sometimes Maher thinks being offensive is the same thing as being
funny and clever. He interviews a perfectly reasonable Muslim
spokeswoman in Amsterdam, who says that most Muslims are not violent
and that Mohammed Bouyeri – the nutjob who killed anti-Islamist Dutch
filmmaker Theo van Gogh – was a rarity. How does Maher respond? By
interspersing her words with images of things exploding in Iraq. Or it
might be Afghanistan. It’s some crazy place where Muslims blow things
up. It’s the kind of thing which, if the Sun did it (which, notably,
it doesn’t anymore), Ken Livingstone would haul it before that Pontius
Pilate of contemporary public debate: the Commission for Racial
Equality. Yet when a New Atheist does it, it’s funny apparently, even
insightful, the kind of thing that makes PC cinemagoers in Covent
Garden think: ‘You know what, Muslims are crazy!’
Maher also interviews the imam of a mosque. Halfway through the
interview, the imam receives a text message on his mobile phone and
the filmmakers flash up subtitles imagining what it might say: ‘Ur
orders are: kill that infidel Bill Maher :-)’ Now, I must admit, this
was quite funny, but it’s about as good as the film gets and it
doesn’t explain the accolades it has been receiving, such as from the
British reviewer who said it would make people ‘engage their brains
while choking back tears of laughter’ and might even transform the ‘po-
faced right-wing Christians who still believe God Loves America and
vote accordingly’ (1).
In fact, and ironically, those po-faced Yanks, the spectre in every
good liberal’s nightmares, would probably enjoy the bits of the film
that show Muslims as loons who, in Maher’s seemingly Bush-inspired
words, might create a future ‘decimated by the effects of religion-
inspired nuclear terrorism’ (2). Actually, scrap that: the Bushies in
fact tip-toed around Islam, frequently describing it as a ‘religion of
peace’; it is good, liberal, Democratic-supporting, NPR-patronising,
God-doubtin’ media men like Maher, backed by big atheist players in
DC, NYC and trendy parts of London, who now depict Islam (alongside
Christianity, of course) as the potential destroyer of the world. What
a bizarre turnaround. What a striking insight into the ugly prejudices
that can spring from an atheism built more on fear and sneering than,
in Darwin’s words, on the subtle promotion of ‘freedom of thought’ and
the ‘gradual illumination of men’s minds’ (3).
Maher’s aim is to bring religious people crashing back down to Earth.
He does this by mocking their grandiose claims and arguing that, in
reality, man is nothing special; in fact, he’s a bit shit. In contrast
to the ‘arrogant certitude’ of religionists, Maher describes himself
as ‘humbly’ agnostic. ‘Doubt is humble’, he says, ‘and that’s what man
needs to be, considering that human history is just a litany of
getting shit dead wrong’. The real reason he despises Christianity and
Islam (he’s a bit softer on the Jews) is because they propagate
stories that present mankind as having been created for some purpose,
as having a special role to play on the planet and in history, when in
truth, says Maher, mankind is a fuck-up that continually ‘gets shit
wrong’ and has ‘spawned so much lunacy and destruction’.
Maher shows how depressingly biological, even bovine, the New Atheism
is, and how stultifyingly soul-destroying The Science can become in
the hands of political activism. To counter the wacky Christians’
claim that mankind is profound and has some relationship with a
‘higher being’, he enlists DNA and human-gene experts to tell us that,
in fact, we’re a collection of cell-like data, much like any other
animal. He describes religious belief itself as a ‘neurological
disorder’, a warping of our animalistic internal grey matter (4).
After interviewing a very strange ‘former homosexual’ who now runs a
Christian Conversion Ministry to make other gay people straight, Maher
talks to a scientific expert who claims to have discovered the ‘gay
gene’. See, says Maher, gayness is really a genetic trait and thus not
susceptible to manipulation by Christian homophobes. Here, he
unwittingly exposes how a gene-obsessed view of human nature and
behaviour can be even more backward than the religious outlook. At
least that bit of the Bible which describes homosexuality as an
‘abomination’ that should be avoided by all men recognises the
elements of choice, consciousness, desire, attraction and temptation
contained within human sexual relationships; in the New Atheist, DNA-
sprayed view of mankind, sexuality springs from a pre-programmed gene
and is simply a biological instinct, like going to the toilet. Well,
we are merely ‘the close cousins of chimpanzees’, as that other New
Atheist Christopher Hitchens argued in his book God Is Not Great, and
just as male chimps sometimes fondle and fuck each other, so do male
humans (5).
Having disabused viewers of the idea that mankind is anything more
than a bundle of genes (presumably Maher was born with the Unfunny
Gene), he then argues that the central problem with religion is that
it is distracting us from the real threat facing the planet: no, not
Satan coming to destroy it with hellfire, but, er, manmade global
warming coming to destroy it with hellfire. Without even a whiff of
irony – and I am not making this up – Maher concludes the film by
giving a sermon on a mount in Jerusalem in which he talks about
climate change and war and terrorism and religious craziness, and says
that as a result of these things ‘the world could actually come to an
end’. Humankind must ‘grow up or die’. Here, he echoes other vocal New
Atheists who talk about manmade apocalypse: Hitchens talks about the
coming ‘heat death of the universe’, while Justin Keating of the
Humanist Association of Ireland says, Revelations-style, ‘As never
before, the survival of humankind is threatened. The source of the
threat is human action [destroying the environment].’ (6)
Indeed, Keating says the Bible is ‘wicked’ because, in talking about
man’s ‘dominion’ over nature, it is a ‘validation for all those who
believe in the cult of more growth and more consumption… For two
millennia, Jews, Christians and Muslims have lived by this teaching.
In that period scientific advances in agriculture and medicine have
given us a world not peopled by the pair in the Garden of Eden, but by
something between six and seven billion and growing. We are deforming
the Earth.’ (7) So religion puts too much faith in humanity, gives us
too much credence, is too humanist, when in fact, say ‘the humanists’,
mankind should be more meek and accepting of our role as, well,
animals, living in ‘symbiotic harmony with our surroundings’ (8).
Honestly, you couldn’t make it up.
‘Religion is only the illusory sun which revolves round man as long as
he does not revolve around himself’, said Marx (9). Many of the great
atheists of old recognised that religious stories – of some ‘great
man’ who created us, of our inner souls, of a future paradise – were
attempts by individuals to envision humanity’s greatness at a time
when it seemed impossible, or at least very difficult, to make that
greatness a reality on Earth. Religious belief sprung from our
alienation from our own humanity. The New Atheism represents something
far, far worse: alienation from the very idea that mankind is special
or distinct or rapturous or purposeful; hence it viciously attacks
those who still propagate stories about higher purpose or superhuman
gods: the religious. I would far rather go back to the little church
in north London this weekend and listen to the priest talk about
‘love’ and ‘redemption’ than watch or read or listen to any more
shrill New Atheist propaganda.
Brendan O’Neill is editor of spiked. Visit his website here. His
satire on the green movement - Can I Recycle My Granny and 39 Other
Eco-Dilemmas - is published by Hodder & Stoughton. (Buy this book from
Amazon(UK).)
Read on:
spiked-issue: Film
Watch the trailer for Religulous below:
(1) Why right-wing Christians need to see Religulous, Guardian, 21
October 2008
(2) Religulous: Memorable Quotes, Internet Movie Database
(3) See Rational Atheism: An open letter to Messrs. Dawkins, Dennett,
Harris and Hitchens, Rational Atheism, 19 August 2007
(4) Religulous: Memorable Quotes, Internet Movie Database
(5) God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher
Hitchens, Twelve Books, 2007
(6) ‘The Greening of Humanism’, Justin Keating, Humanism Ireland,
January-February 2009
(7) ‘The Greening of Humanism’, Justin Keating, Humanism Ireland,
January-February 2009
(8) ‘The Greening of Humanism’, Justin Keating, Humanism Ireland,
January-February 2009
(9) See Contribution To The Critique Of Hegel’s Philosophy Of Right by
Karl Marx at Marxists.org
bademiyansubhanallah
BOOKWATCH
Bottoms up
BY ANITA JOSHUA
Happy Hours: The Penguin Book of Cocktails, Bhaichand Patel, Penguin,
Rs. 499.
Barrister Bhaichand Patel draws on his hours behind the bar as a
bartender to put together this heady array of cocktails that opens up
a whole new range of possibilities for the tipplers while engaging the
teetotaller. In fact, he has thrown in some mocktails for
teetotallers; convinced as he is that innovative blends of various
beverages and garnishes make a more interesting drink to nurse than
say a non-alcoholic beer.
Given that social drinking is picking up in India, this book could be
a godsend for those who need to entertain but don’t know where to
start. Patel gets down to the basics; right from the essentials for a
bar, the kind of glasses that go best with different drinks, how to
measure, shake, stir or blend a drink… Besides listing over 600
cocktail recipes, Patel throws in briefs on the origins of each
alcohol, scans the Indian market to rate the brands available here,
lists the dos and don’ts, and provides tips on how to choose wine in
view of the Indian market just opening up. For good measure, he throws
in a chapter on local brews including bhang and toddy and some
hangover cures; thereby turning this book into yet another essential
for a well-stocked bar.
Sangh liturgy
By Anita Joshua
India Battles to Win, Tarun Vijay, Rupa,
Rs. 495
Curiously, the brief introduction of Tarun Vijay on the jacket of his
book India Battles to Win makes no mention of his stint as editor of
Panchajanya — the weekly magazine of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sang h.
Wonder why or is it a candid admission on the part of the author and
publisher that this linkage could affect sales of the book given that
India has demonstrated its preference for `secularism’, a word the RSS
is allergic to.
Admittedly, Vijay acknowledges his Sangh links in the acknowledgements
but that’s a section most people ignore unless the author is a
celebrity. Be that as it may, the book is a reiteration of the RSS
line; viewing everything that has happened in India through the prism
of religion and lamenting the inability of Hindus to think and act as
one collective against the wrongs that have been done to the majority
community in the name of secularism.
For anyone familiar with literature that has come out of the saffron
stables, this book repeats the litany of complaints against the Indian
State which is seen as soft on terror because it is yet to hang Afzal
Guru, an accused in the Parliament attack case; appeases minorities
while going after Hindu godmen and women; celebrates M.F. Husain just
because he denigrates goddesses…
Lyrics with a life of their own By Anita Joshua
100 Lyrics, Gulzar (translated by Sunjoy Shekhar), Penguin, Rs. 499.
100 Lyrics, Gulzar’s collection of songs in translation, shows him
penning something — seemingly poetry — with the Oscar he bagged for
his song “Jai Ho”s in the film “Slumdog Millionaire” on his side.
Surely, the Oscar — he’s the first Indian lyricist to ever bag one —
is not his only claim to fame. His lyrics — be it the maiden “Mora
gora ang lai le”, “Musafir hoon yaaro”, “Humne dekhi hain un aankhon
ki mehekti khushboo” or “Naam gum jayega” — still play on radio
programmes decades after they were first heard while the Oscar-winning
number seems to have dropped off the charts.
This is the first time Gulzar’s come out with a compilation of his
lyrics and poetry; having religiously kept them separate. His
curiosity piqued by Sting’s observation in his book of lyrics that
music and lyrics are dependent on each other, Gulzar “undressed” his
lyrics to find that they survived on their own and in some cases took
the form of poetry.
Translated into English by Sunjoy Shekhar, this bilingual venture
could prove a delight for all those who like to sing these evergreen
numbers but fumble for the words. And, to lend it wider appeal, Gulzar
has thrown in some anecdotes related to the making of some of the
songs; switching in his meanderings from English to Hindi to Urdu with
equal ease.
bademiyansubhanallah
Comic history
Rrishi Raote / New Delhi October 31, 2009, 0:50 IST
I think of Asterix as a comic version of wily Odysseus,” says the
brilliant translator Anthea Bell of the subject of her best-known
work, the Gaulish warrior whose village, forever frozen in 50 BCE,
still holds out against Julius Caesar’s Roman legions. Frankly JC
doesn’t have a chance of completing his conquest of Gaul so long as
Asterix and the rest of the villagers can count on the magic potion
brewed by the druid Getafix, which gives them supernatural strength.
Obelix, Asterix’s best friend, doesn’t need any potion at all —
because he fell into a cauldron of it when he was a baby. Obelix loves
beating up Romans.
I’m sure you know all this — you’re probably perfectly familiar with
René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo’s masterpieces. You may even be
alarmingly nerdy about them — a surprising number of people break into
noises from Asterix and his Francophone fellow, Hergé’s Tintin, at the
mildest provocation. Captain Haddock’s “Billions of blue blistering
barnacles!” is virtually the nerd signature tune, as might be the
Obelixian “These Romans are crazy!” followed by the “toc-toc-toc” of
finger hitting forehead.
But that Bell quote at the top of this column indicates that there’s
something else going on, something longer-term and deeper-rooted than
spunky Gauls and cloddish Romans locked in a comic embrace for the
entertainment of moderns. That something is history — French history.
Neither Goscinny nor Uderzo was native French — one’s parents were
Polish-Jewish and the other’s Italian — but both responded to the
times. Asterix first appeared in the French comics magazine Pilote in
October 1959 (which makes him 50 years old this month). In an essay on
the translation of Asterix, Anthea Bell writes: “Originally the idea
was to make Asterix a genuinely heroic Gaul — a huge hunk of a
warrior. Then René Goscinny thought it would be more amusing to make
him small and weedy in appearance, apparently insignificant but in
fact very cunning, and Albert Uderzo then came up with the idea of his
inseparable friend Obelix who is indeed big and enormously strong, but
is far from bright, and endearingly childlike.”
So the conventional hero gave way to unconventional ones. It was an
apt and timely choice. In the 1960s, when Asterix was already famous,
Charles de Gaulle was president and France was on its way to some sort
of rebirth after the humiliations of the Second World War. In their
determination to protect their own identity and uniqueness against the
forces of uniformity and the rest of the world, for the French the
idea of one village keeping its independence against an empire was
extraordinarily resonant.
“[In] the same way as all British children know about William the
Conqueror and 1066 and all that,” writes Bell, “every French child’s
first history book is supposed to begin with a remark about ‘Our
ancestors the Gauls’. Their ancestors the Gauls were brave and noble
and... stood up to Julius Caesar and his invading Roman army.”
Goscinny had aimed to gently poke fun at the French self-image, but
the affectionate caricature turned out to be all too resonant.
Elsewhere, Bell writes that “all of us in [Western] Europe enjoy
making anachronistic fun of the past”. Not Indians. Our history is
still dreadfully current, . Who would an Indian Asterix be? Which
invader could we safely pick to lampoon, as Goscinny-Uderzo did the
Romans? Not the Turks and Mongols: too risky. Not the Europeans: they
hired Indians to fight for them. Corporations against tribals? Not
funny. Communalists against secularists? Heavy-handed, and overly
metaphorical. The only safe choice is some version of Porus against
Alexander’s Greeks — but that has little resonance today.
Nor do we have the sense of irony that comes from a settled
relationship with our own past. Without that, in fact, irony has no
foundation, and without irony humour remains more or less weak,
shallow and short-lived. We can’t have an Indian Asterix because it
won’t be funny.
bademiyansubhanallah
Swede ending
Jai Arjun Singh / New Delhi October 31, 2009, 0:48 IST
The third book in Stieg Larsson’s Millennium trilogy brings an epic
series to a very gratifying close. Unfortunately, writes Jai Arjun
Singh, it all really does end here.
“It was reassuring. You could tell by holding the book in your hands
that there were many pages to go, many adventures to share” — critic
Roger Ebert on J R R Tolkien’s bulky Lord of the Rings
An epic series usually follows a trajectory that leads from the small
picture to the large; the first book tends to be relatively intimate,
establishing the key characters and their immediate setting, and then,
as the series proceeds, a fuller, grander canvas unfolds. Which first-
time reader, encountering Bilbo Baggins’ eleventy-first birthday
celebrations in the cosy Shire, can possibly anticipate Sauron’s
forbidding wasteland of Mordor, much less the vast mythological
landscape of the Silmarillion?
Stieg Larsson’s posthumously published Millennium trilogy has played
out in much the same way, and now, with the publication of the English
translation of The Girl who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest we have the full
picture in front of us at last. I turned the last page of this book
feeling deep satisfaction as well as melancholy, the latter emotion
heightened by the knowledge that there will be no more sequels
(Larsson died of a heart attack shortly after completing the three
manuscripts, totaling nearly 2,000 pages) — unless it turns out that
the publishers have been withholding information from us!
The first book in the series, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, began
as a standard-issue thriller, centering on the investigation of a 40-
year-old murder, but soon journalist Mikael Blomkvist and his research-
assistant Lisbeth Salander (a.k.a. the girl with the dragon tattoo)
discovered that this was a fragment of a much larger puzzle involving
ritualistic killings and a trend of violence towards helpless women
immigrants. Some of the darker undercurrents of life in contemporary
Sweden stood to be uncovered, including corruption and sleaze in big
corporations, and the limp-wristed collusion of financial journalists.
The enigmatic, startlingly efficient Salander was the most interesting
character in this novel, but her back-story really took centrestage in
the second book The Girl who Played with Fire, which was even more
ambitious in the range of subjects it covered — the story involved an
extensive exposé of the Swedish sex-trafficking industry, the murder
of the enterprising young writer who was to carry it out, and the
revelation of a connection with Salander’s early life. The girl who
played with fire was now officially in the eye of the storm.
The Girl who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest picks up at exactly the point
where its predecessor dramatically ended, with Salander, a bullet
lodged in her head, admitted in the critical care unit of a hospital.
Though soon out of danger, she is still a suspect in three murders and
a high-profile trial awaits. Meanwhile, Blomkvist — who isn’t allowed
to meet her in hospital — must work against time to unearth the
details of an elaborate cover-up by a clandestine organisation within
the innermost circle of the Swedish secret police. Parallel stories
involve the activities of an aged former “spook” named Gullberg, and
the professional life of Blomkvist’s best friend and former Millennium
editor Erika Berger as she tries to cope with a high-stress new job as
editor-in-chief at a daily newspaper. All these strands are adeptly
brought together.
Larsson’s novels are very detailed and full of information about the
workings of, for example, magazine and newspaper journalism, the
police force and big business (to this list, we can now add the
morally ambiguous world of spies, their activities so shadowy that
they are often hidden even from the upper echelons of government). In
fact, it’s possible to offer the mild criticism that the books are too
detailed, sometimes to the extent of being flabby. Some of this
probably has to do with the circumstances of their publication: if
Larsson had lived to discuss them with his editor, I think some of the
deadwood would have been eliminated. (Much as I enjoyed the first two
books, more than once I got the impression that Larsson had written
the manuscripts mainly for his own pleasure, not yet concerned with
tightening them for publication; and that his publishers, excited by
their potential, had rushed the process after his death.)
Happily, The Girl who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest is more compact than
its immediate predecessor, and a genuine page-turner all the way
through. After establishing the background in the initial chapters, it
kicks into maximum gear once Blomkvist (somewhat implausibly) manages
to smuggle in a hand-held computer — along with Internet access — to
the incarcerated Salander (who, as we already know, is an expert
hacker with an army of anonymous online contacts). This is where the
book really delivers: once Salander has that computer, she is as
omnipotent as Salman Khan in Wanted. There’s nothing she can’t
achieve, and a point arrives, around three-fourths of the way through
this 600-page novel, when the reader realises with a warm flush of
excitement that everything is going to turn out all right, that the
bad guys are going to get their comeuppance and that they’ll never
know what hit them.
You might think that such an epiphany would be detrimental to the
effect of a thriller, but this isn’t the case here: the suspense in
this book isn’t so much a matter of what will happen but how it will
happen. Besides, with a character as moody and anti-social as
Salander, you can be sure that things will never be allowed to get too
comfortable or cheery. She’s a compelling protagonist, and it’s a pity
that we won’t get to see the further twists in her complex
relationship with Blomkvist. On the other hand, perhaps the strength
of the Millennium books will lie in their not being extended into an
endless, ultimately compromised series. Three novels aren’t usually
enough to secure an author’s place in genre-fiction history, but this
is what Larsson has achieved, years after his passing.
THE GIRL WHO KICKED THE HORNETS’ NEST
Author: Stieg Larsson
Publisher: Penguin India
Pages: 576
Price: Rs 499
bademiyansubhanallah
Everyday shenanigans
Neha Bhatt / New Delhi October 24, 2009, 0:47 IST
An anthology has its pros and cons: while, in a carefully chosen
collection, literary works can complement each other, or stand out on
their individual merit, in an inconsistent compilation even the good
ones tend to go to waste. It’s a pity, then, that the more competent
artists in the comics collaborative When Kulbhushan Met Stockli may
not get their due.
A glossy compilation of 10 graphic stories by Swiss and Indian comic
book artists, When Kulbhushan Met Stockli at first glance holds
promise.
An introduction explains the premise: a group of Swiss artists were
brought to India to take in the sights and sounds, while their Indian
counterparts (some of who may be familiar: Samit Basu, Anindya Roy,
Orijit Sen), roamed the Alps. Each documented their own experiences.
A sneak preview of the artists’ work was displayed last year in Delhi,
and the slides on show — cheeky and insightful — promised something
interesting. The artists, who expanded their observations into full-
fledged stories for this anthology, were given but one restriction: to
avoid regular travel documentation, and to stay away from the banal
touristy hassles of diarrhoea, pickpockets, taking the wrong tram, and
so on.
Several stories fall into the exact trap they were asked to avoid. “A
Shortcut to India” by Andrea Caprez and Christoph Schuler, for
instance, is downright naive and mundane, illustrating the “dust-
covered cars” in Delhi, the “piercing” traffic noise and the delicious-
smelling dhabas that result in the urgent need for “Imodium, the
universal remedy of Europeans journeying in Asia.”
It doesn’t get better when one reads Kati Rickenbach’s “No Water in O-
Block” — do I need to spell this one out?
At the risk of sounding biased, the work of the Indian comic artists
seems far superior. Delivered in a part-fictional, part-experiential
format, several of them weave their observations into their fiction.
Vishwajyoti Ghosh’s “The Lost Ticket” is a neat piece of work, told
through a mix of narratives: playful poetry, straight prose and
illustration, and bubble-style comic strips. Samit Basu’s detective
story, complemented by Ashish Padlekar’s artwork, is engaging (but for
the painful font size).
Unfortunately for them, the standard set in the book is not high;
examples of real humour are few and far between, a sense of adventure
and perceptiveness even rarer, and the Swiss artists who journeyed to
India for this purpose seem too uninspired to rise above mundane,
pedestrian observations that add no real value to the book. Their
straightforward travelogue-style reportage of everyday shenanigans —
potholes and plumber worries, mehendi wallas and STD/PCO/ISD booths —
make you wish they had dug just a little deeper.
WHEN KULBHUSHAN MET STOCKLI
Editor: Anindya Roy
Publisher: HarperCollins India
Pages: 272
Price: Rs 699
bademiyansubhanallah
Clues to a qila
Rrishi Raote / New Delhi October 24, 2009, 0:44 IST
Madhulika Liddle liked historical detective fiction so much that she
created an amateur sleuth for Mughal Delhi. She tells Rrishi Raote how
she did it.
In Muzaffar Jang, first-time novelist (but award-winning short-story
writer) Madhulika Liddle has invented a new kind of character for
Indian historical fiction — the amateur detective. Muzaffar follows in
an old tradition, as Liddle reveals when she describes her reading
tastes. He is a maverick in Shahjahan’s capital: an aristocrat with
friends in low places. When one lowly friend is wrongly accused of the
murder of a wealthy tax inspector in the Lal Qila, Muzaffar swings
into action and puts himself in harm’s way.
What did you have to read in order to write this story?
Lots and lots of historical detective fiction. There’s this series on
a [medieval] Irish nun called Sister Fidelma by Peter Tremayne. She’s
a princess, a lawyer and a nun — it’s quite interesting. Then there is
Judge Dee, set in medieval China [by Robert van Gulik]. Brother
Cadfael of course [by Ellis Peters], who’s the historical detective.
Another nun is a Russian called Sister Pelagia, by Boris Akunin. He
had another detective [set in late Tsarist Russia] who’s a statesman
and official called Erast Fandorin. There’s Falco in ancient Rome [by
Lindsey Davis]. Quite a lot of people — in fact, that was one of the
reasons why I wanted to create a Mughal detective. There are
detectives from all over the world but no Mughal detectives.
Why, in an imperial city, does your story stay away from the court?
I chose somebody outside of that because I think the court has been a
little done to death in popular culture at least — Mughal-e-Azam!
Everybody is clued in to the emperor and the wives and so on. I wanted
to explore for myself what lay outside the court. I wanted to go into
what the city was like.
How well is the 17th-century city known to us?
You can’t really see very much of it now. What remains are the major
monuments, the Jama Masjid, Fatehpuri Masjid. The houses where people
lived, the katras and kuchas and galis, that has changed a lot. In
Shahjahan’s time the material used to construct houses was actually
very fragile — they used bricks and mud. It doesn’t last. So what we
see today is more 18th-century and 19th-century. A lot of the
buildings are post-1857. It’s interesting to try and find out how it
was.
There are some accounts of European travellers who came to Delhi at
that time... Even though they concentrate mainly on the court,
describing and sometimes inventing what was happening, they did go
into the city and talk a little bit about that, so you do get an idea.
What was your process in writing this mystery novel?
I had a vague idea of what I wanted to do, so I just went on writing
and the plot developed along the way — which meant that I had to keep
going back and saying “This doesn’t fit,” or that I needed to insert a
clue over here. Now I’m writing a series of Muzaffar Jang short
stories. For those I first create an outline of what was the crime,
who are the characters involved, what are the clues, so I have that
sorted out in my mind. I use this software called Free Mind — you can
create your bubbles of characters and who’s connected to whom and
stuff like that.
What was the first plot element?
The fact that all these [provincial] princelings were part of this
empire, yet not. They were sending monies to the Treasury and also
trying to emulate what they saw in Delhi. But they didn’t have the
money to do that, so they basically bled their tenants dry. All the
money from the tenants was not sent on to the Treasury. So they were
having to bribe officials at the centre to keep that hidden. That
struck me as an idea, why can’t we use this as a pivot for a story?
We don’t learn much about Muzaffar himself. Tell us something about
him known only to you.
He has this thing for independent women, for women who use their
heads. It’s going to be there in the next novel. And he’s very fond of
birds, because I am. There’s one story in which one of the important
clues is related to birds.
What else do you do?
I write travel stuff, I blog about old cinema, and I do my research
because there’s lots out there about Mughal India. I keep sifting
through stuff in the hope that something might spark off an idea.
THE ENGLISHMAN’S CAMEO
A MUGHAL MURDER MYSTERY
Author: Madhulika Liddle
Publisher: Hachette India
Pages: 300
Price: Rs 295
bademiyansubhanallah
Vidal, withal
Rrishi Raote / New Delhi October 24, 2009, 0:00 IST
A year or two ago Gore Vidal was expected at the Jaipur Literature
Festival, and was scheduled to make one appearance in Delhi. I was all
ready to arrive early and stick my hand out to have it shaken by the
master. There must have been many others with similar aspirations. But
in the event Gore cancelled his trip to India.
It’s forgiveable: he’s old now (he turned 84 this month). I suspect,
however, that I’ve missed my chance to see the great man in the flesh.
Old does not mean mellow — far from it. Vidal still reaches out from
his wheelchair, through profiles written on him by various Western
journalists, to refresh the stale and circular discourse on current
affairs and the multiple crises afflicting our leading superpower with
statements of surprising force and even, sometimes, viciousness.
Lately there has been a small flood of such articles and interviews,
because Vidal has a new book out. It is not a novel or collection of
essays, the two forms in which he excels, but a picture book, a
“visual memoir” of his life, containing photographs, letters,
manuscripts and so on. It is titled Gore Vidal: Snapshots in History’s
Glare (Abrams, $40) — a remarkably un-euphonious title from a writer
who liked single-word titles.
Not only does Vidal himself figure in this picture book — and he was
an uncommonly goodlooking young man — so do the many famous men and
women of mid-century America whom Vidal knew personally. The Kennedys,
John and Jackie, Eleanor Roosevelt, the playwright Tennessee Williams,
the writer Jack Kerouac, movie stars like Paul Newman and Joanna
Woodward, ballet dancers, politicians and so on — the list is long.
That radiant generation (or two) is more or less extinct, but Vidal
remains, carrying his many memories. He put many of those memories
into his entertaining and impressive memoir, Palimpsest (Andre
Deutsch, 1995), which turned out to be more about the people he lived,
worked, partied and had sex with than about Vidal himself. Yet
something of his peculiar combination of blazing wit and vulnerability
could be sensed.
“Gore Vidal is not only grieving for his own dead circle and his
fading life, but for his country,” wrote Johann Hari, portentously, in
a recent profile for the UK Independent. Further on in the same piece
Hari quoted from the diaries of Kenneth Tynan, a theatre critic and
friend of Vidal’s: “What superb and seamless armour he wears, as
befits one for whom life is a permanent battle for (social and
intellectual) supremacy... Gore could never surrender (ie, expose)
himself to anyone.”
Those are two sides of the many-sided Vidal. Tynan knew Vidal in his
glory days. Those who write about Vidal now tend to fixate on the
first side: that of the novelist and part-time politician (Vidal’s
grandfather was an Oklahoma senator and he himself contested one
election) as participant in and observer of the great affairs and
chief personalities of his time — that is, when they’re not referring
to his being (mostly) homosexual.
Vidal himself helps the journalists along, recently by giving them
robust copy about how Barack Obama has turned out a failure (that made
the headlines) and how America as an empire is doomed. It’s not so
much pessimism as glee — Vidal was never a proponent of war and has
always been mistrustful of the methods by which his nation is run.
Even though he’s old and cranky, there’s such an aura around Vidal
that his words still shake people.
But nobody seems able to represent Vidal quite as the reader sees him,
as, indeed, a palimpsest of complexity, humour, depth and shallowness.
I, for one, read his novels as if they were non-fiction, because
that’s the kind of writer, and man, Vidal is — too good to be false.
bademiyansubhanallah
Author, impresario
Rrishi Raote / New Delhi October 17, 2009, 19:50 IST
Any book that William Dalrymple writes is likely to be a bestseller,
including his latest. Rrishi Raote watches the salesman at work.
Gaanja? I didn’t see any gaanja, did you? I’ve never seen the stuff in
my life!” says William Dalrymple, uproariously. I only asked because
he was describing the celebrations at home after his grand book launch
the previous evening, an event which included a performance by a small
group of Bauls — Bauls who are friends of Dalrymple’s and currently
lodged in a neat beige tent pitched on his lawn. Like many mystics,
Bauls are known to smoke gaanja.
“We chatted with the Bauls, we had Baul khana and we drank whisky.
Truth be told, the Bauls drank Old Monk. No academic text on the Bauls
mentions the important role that Old Monk plays in inspiring the Bauls
to new heights of musical brilliance.” A round of culture, after a
bout with the culturati.
At the launch, after the Bauls a theyyam troupe from Kerala took the
stage. The lead dancer, a man named Hari Das, wore an elaborate
costume and his face was painted to identify the god who had possessed
him and enabled him to perform. A trio of drummers kept up a cracking
pace. It really was a riveting experience, like pouring magic
fertiliser on one’s pagan roots. At one point the possessed dancer
stepped off the stage and danced down the aisle, scattering spectators
and photographers with every twirl.
Glancing towards the wings just then, I saw a memorable sight. There
was Dalrymple in his crumpled kurta, half-hidden behind a towering
poster of the cover of his book — and he was beaming and rocking with
glee.
“What were you thinking at that moment?” I ask now, in the bright
morning light.
“I loved the whole thing,” he says, not quite answering my question.
“So much so that it carried on here afterwards. None of us got to bed
till 2:30.”
Well, if I were the author I’d have been thinking: what a fantastic
and useful stunt.
It may have been called a book launch, but this was more like a high-
quality variety show with Dalrymple acting as host and impresario,
reading aloud portions from his new book between each section. Nine
Lives is about religious experience at the extreme end of the vast
spectrum of faith in South Asia, encompassing Hinduism, Jainism,
Buddhism and Islam.
What’s more, “What you saw last night was round two of what is going
to be, on and off, a year-long book tour and spectacular,” Dalrymple
says. He just spent two weeks in England on a schedule packed with
similar events — a Sufi troupe from Pakistan also took part — and
after India the caravan will move on to Pakistan, and, next year, to
Europe and the USA. I’ve never heard of such an ambitious publicity
exercise for a book.
Why this? I ask. “Partly I think book tours can be quite lonely,” says
Dalrymple, all the while stroking his pet cockatoo, a beautiful white
bird named Albinia (as it happens Alice Albinia, the expert young
travel writer who published a book last year on the Indus river, is a
cousin, so it’s a family name) who can be seen alongside her master on
newspaper pages across the land. “If you’re even quite a moderately
successful international author, a book tour can easily take a year.”
His fellow performers, he says, “are all old friends and we all
thought it would be very nice to promote all our things
simultaneously”.
Of the friends, Paban Das Baul, who led the Baul singers, has a new
album out; so does Susheela Raman, the smoky-voiced British Tamil
singer who wraps up the show with a modernised sung version of ancient
Tamil Thevaram poetry (she gets all the cheers); and Mimlu Sen, who
was Dalrymple’s interpreter with the Bauls, will see her own book
(Baulsphere) published in the UK next year. The publicity may be
useful to them, but Dalrymple remains the headliner.
In mock-marketing speech he adds, “The synergies have worked.” Whereas
a bookshop reading might attract 200 people in the UK, he says, “In a
music venue you’re pulling in everybody else’s crowds as well as your
own, and you might get 2,000. It’s more fun and the publishers love
it.”
Isn’t it rather expensive? “In the Barbican [in London, where they
performed on September 25] we sold 3,500 tickets — we sold out. And
everyone was paying 25 quid. Now we didn’t do much of that, but it
pays for itself, and it’s just much more fun than four scholars
sitting on a panel and picking each other’s books apart.”
And where did he get the idea? “I did a documentary on Sufi music four
years ago called Sufi Soul [for the BBC’s Channel 4]. The guy who
directed it, Simon Broughton, is a music impresario as well as a
filmmaker, and he got all the Sufis to the Barbican, which coincided
with the television release of the film — and it sold out. So we have
a precedent.
“This particular group, though, we got to know each other and saw how
we could integrate music and literature at the Jaipur Literature
Festival,” which Dalrymple co-founded in 2006. “Susheela and Paban are
virtually our house band there. There’s a human link in Sam Mills,
Susheela’s husband, who was Paban’s producer.”
Complicated, but clear. “We may end up hating each other by the end of
the year,” Dalrymple says, “but so far it’s been good fun and made
good business sense.”
Primed for scepticism from Indian reviewers (“Of all the subjects you
can tackle in this country, there’s no subject which is more
surrounded by minefields of cliché, of Orientalism” than mystics and
religion), he adds, in what sounds like another dig at academics, “I
make my living from books. I don’t have a stipend going” — nor, he
says, a university house and pension. “If you have bad reviews, you
die as a critically acclaimed writer, but any writer who lives by his
writing has to promote his books. Plus, it’s hard. I sit in this room
without going out at all for the five months of the final draft. I’m
just writing, writing, writing and frankly I’d like to get out of it
after that!”
No problem with critical acclaim in the UK, I remind him — there, Nine
Lives has fallen on reviewers like rain on parched earth.
“The context I think in the UK was that travel writing used to be a
huge thing,” Dalrymple says. “I was very lucky that my first book, In
Xanadu, caught that wave.” In the last year or so he himself has
written frequently for the British papers on travel writing and the
last, vanishing generation of great travel writers — Bruce Chatwin,
Colin Thubron, Wilfred Thesiger, Freya Stark and his friend Patrick
Leigh Fermor, among others. More recently, he wrote a 4,000-word essay
in the Guardian (“Home Truths on Abroad”, September 19) on the past
and future of travel writing, suggesting that rather than the travel
narratives of the past, in a world weary of superficial travel, the
new travel writing (and here he paraphrases the young travel writer
Rory Stewart) “is that where an informed observer roots and immerses
himself in one place, commiting time to get to know a place and its
languages”. He quotes Thubron: “A good travel writer can give you the
warp and weft of everyday life, the generalities of people’s existence
that are rarely reflected in journalism, and hardly touched on by any
other discipline. Despite the internet and the revolution in
communications, there is still no substitute.”
And indeed, the reviewers have agreed. But the fact is, Dalrymple led
them in that opinion. “As a writer, when you’re launching a book you
sort of try to sow seeds for reviewers, and that Guardian piece was
definitely trying to set the ground,” he says.
One aspect of the response which he doesn’t appear to have picked up
on immediately is a recognition that his nine lives — the life stories
of the nine South Asian mystics and practitioners he narrates in this
book — offer a mild but welcome antidote to the consumer focus of the
modern economy, a reminder that there are still significant spaces,
albeit few and shrinking, where the logic of the market and the
mainstream do not wholly apply.
But, of course, the notion was at the core of Dalrymple’s purpose in
this book, if tilted in a slightly different direction: “This is not a
theory I air in the book” — where there is virtually no theorising at
all — “but I think it’s true that the small cults, the devatas, the
regional variants of the epics... are dying out. Mainstream Vaishnava
cults are taking over from village goddesses, Tantric cults, mother
goddesses, Devi cults, and you’re getting new, standard, urbanised
national gods — Rama, Krishna. The same is true of Islam today, where
you’re getting a Wahhabised, textual, middle-class Islam which is
suspicious and hostile to local saints that have been the warp and
woof of Indian Islam since the 12th century.”
There’s plenty of warp and woof in the book. Dalrymple’s technique,
uncharacteristically, was to absent himself. “The very deliberate task
I set myself in this book was to be a mirror and reflect, not to be a
judge handing out sentences or marks. It’s always been my way as a
writer to let people say their own things and if you disapprove of
something only to show your disapproval by letting them hang
themselves with their own rope, so to speak.” The technique works
admirably with each of these tremendous characters with their hard-won
lives, but leaves the collection as a whole without a common thread of
argument. It is superb narrative journalism, but it doesn’t quite make
a book.
The other thing Dalrymple forgets, or ignores, is that the writer is
never absent. Even a mirror presents a reversed image, after all. He
accessed these nine life stories through interpreters — “Show me any
person who speaks Tibetan, Bengali, Malayalam, Tamil, various
Rajasthani dialects,” he says, justifiably — yet doesn’t properly
account for the multiple filters these stories have passed through
before arriving under the reader’s eyes. At any rate, this creative
and pathbreaking publicity tour will put Dalrymple back at front and
centre once again and redress his supposed absence from the pages of
his book.
NINE LIVES: IN SEARCH OF THE SACRED IN MODERN INDIA
Author: William Dalrymple
Publisher: Bloomsbury
Pages: xvi + 288
Price: Rs 499
bademiyansubhanallah
Godfather Nxt
Kishore Singh / New Delhi October 17, 2009, 0:08 IST
When Immacolata Borelli decides to spill the beans on her family, she
stirs up a hornets nest more powerful than even the Mafia. For the
Borellis are Camorra, a network of criminal clans who control fiefdoms
in Naples, levying their commissions, or charges, or taxes with all
the legitimacy of warlords. Only they’re nastier, scavenging clans who
grow in power through exploitation and ugly death.
The Borellis reign over Forcella, using fear as their whip, their writ
building up their coffers not on custodianship but on control. And now
Immacolata, a third generation Borelli, is in police custody of her
own volition, bent upon giving evidence against her siblings, parents
and grandparents. But she has reckoned without the revenge of
betrayal: Will they let her spill the beans when, even from jail, they
pull the marionette strings that control the district over which they
rule? And how will the other Camorra react — in support of those who
are their own, or viciously as they prepare to fight for control over
one more district to add to their own?
Immacolata, though, has not reckoned on swift vengeance. Already, her
death has been ordained by the Camorra as their trusted headhunter,
Salvatore, seeks retribution. Nor has she thought that the boyfriend
with whom she had a brief but passionate tryst in London, will follow
her to Italy, looking for her, and becoming another pawn in the
Borelli game that must end in vengeance. Eddie Deacon, regular guy,
“loser” even, finds hidden strengths in himself, but is kidnapped,
beaten, almost killed. As cops and detectives and negotiators gather
round for the final assault, Salvatore unleashes his brutality against
the enemies of the Camorra.An exciting thriller that pulls no punches,
The Collaborator is a worthy successor to Mario Puzo’s The Godfather.
Take a bow, Gerald Seymour.
THE COLLABORATOR
Author: Gerald Seymour
Publisher: Hachette India
Pages: 474
Price: Rs 295