Saturday, December 18, 2010

Aspects of Racism

Jews are racists. Israeli rabbis have backed a ruling by Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu that bans renting property to non Jews. This proves that Jews consider non Jews to be beneath them and hence shows that Jews are inherently racist. Obviously this statement - Jews are racists - is far too broad and too general. It condemns many for the attitudes of the few. Uttered in any forum, this statement will rightly provoke a huge outcry. It also ignores that many rabbis around the world who have condemned this ruling.

The controversy stirred by this ruling highlights the multi-faceted nature of racism. People mostly tend to think of this issue in black and white terms. The vast majority of people are racist to some degree. This racism is usually not overt any more. However covert racism exists and this is actually more harmful and hurting. People are quick to point out the racism of others as shown in this, this and this post but will not see their own.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, December 17, 2010

Priorities

What do we consider to be important matters and what are unimportant (or at least relatively less important) matters to us? Our priorities affect us and those around us and the converse is also true; the priorities of the people around us affect them individually and us as well. While we tend to think that our priorities are dictated only by us, the fact is that our priorities are also affected by what we read and see around us. Not only that, there is often a mismatch between the priorities that we think are important and the priorities that would be important to us if we were super rational (or Homo Economicus as economists love to portray us). On top of all this, each of us plays multiple roles in our daily lives. Each role has its own set of priorities and all of these priorities must be juggled on a daily basis - something that is not easy and does not come naturally to most people. As Gema from Florida put it so nicely in this post on priorities "balancing priorities has been like juggling fireballs barehanded and with little training." In essence what is it that the vast majority of personal development sites, articles, blogs etc. are teaching? How to handle all the different priorities that we encounter in our daily lives in our various roles.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, December 13, 2010

Wikileaks

Logo used by WikileaksImage via WikipediaFreedom of expression is a much valued concept. Strongly associated with this is freedom of press. This concept, much beloved of democratic governments, is being tested to the limit thanks to Wikileaks. This was a much lauded site that was doing sterling service for the cause of freedom everywhere until of course it started releasing material that had been classified by the US (or as some people like to put it "the Powers That Be"). At this point, suddenly Wikileaks became an evil organization. The way the Americans have reacted, one would imagine that this was the end of civilization as we know it. Barbarians are storming the gate!

Yet if one actually starts to go through the material released so far, the inescapable conclusion is that this is a storm in a teacup. I have gone through some of the material on the Wikileaks site and read the analysis published in the press. The vast majority of the cables are completely innocuous. One cable I read described a wedding and this was classified as secret! Not only is this secrecy run amok, this is actually insane. One of the key requirements of democracy is an informed citizenry. Classifying material secret regardless of their actual provenance diminishes democracy by making the citizenry less informed and thus less liable to judge material that affects them often vitally on its merits. It is for this reason that one of the first steps of totalitarianism is to restrict information and freedom of information.

Wikileaks has done the world a tremendous service by releasing this information. By shining a bright light on activities that a lot of people would prefer remain dark, it has become harder to indulge in nefarious activities. These are the kinds of activities that eventually generate violent reactions - what is known euphemistically as blow-back. That in turn will hopefully make for a less violent, saner and (dare I say it) a more equitable world.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Is Privacy a Concern in an Online World?

Privacy: the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs. Most people would almost instinctively agree with this dictionary definition. However, in an online, always connected world, can we (or even should we) talk about privacy in any meaningful fashion?

Should we be worried about privacy in an online, always connected world? There is a large amount of concern nowadays regarding privacy issues mainly due to the increasing penetration of computers into our lives. Is this concern justified or is this a concern mainly felt by oldsters who do not "get" the wonderful new world of online connectivity?

Today the basic problem regarding privacy is that the technology that affects our privacy has advanced very rapidly and our laws and more importantly our attitudes have not kept pace. An older generation which grew up in a time when the information gathering capabilities of institutions and individuals was considerably circumscribed feel appalled at the sheer intrusive capabilities of modern technology. A younger generation which has grown up in tandem with this new developing technology is slowly starting to feel that there may be an issue with privacy and the technology that they now take for granted.

Whether this is actually an issue or not is determined by the extent to which we as individuals and as nations are willing to be accept intrusions into our daily lives. Since the birth of empires and states, there has been a tension between those who want to exercise control which involves reducing the amount of privacy and the rest of society which desires at the very least a minimum amount of privacy. In earlier times, the cost of gathering privacy reducing information was high enough to reduce the level of intrusion in most people's lives. This dynamic started to change with industrialization. One of the effects of industrialization was that it steadily reduced the cost of gathering, storing and sorting information about people. This was a major reason why Communism degenerated into a totalitarian society. In an earlier age, Communism simply could not have developed in the fashion it did; the technology of control was just not refined enough. The difference between today and twenty years ago is that the above-mentioned technology of control is now much more subtle than before. In the old Soviet state, control was not merely intrusive, it was obvious and obnoxious. This kind of control eventually engenders a reaction which is all the greater the longer it is imposed. This is why North Korea for example is actually a fragile state whereas Iran which has a less obvious control oriented regime is not to the same extent.

The internet has enabled a dramatic reduction in the cost of gathering and storing all sorts of information. At the same time, developments in hardware specially chip design and storage and developments in distributed computing coupled with high speed links within and between networks have
Enhanced by Zemanta

Fear

We live in a world of fear. Fear, like anger, is a primal emotion. Like anger, fear short-circuits the rational mind. Fear often leads to actions and decisions that viewed objectively do not make sense. Fear also often results in such actions and decisions being perpetuated despite any evidence to the contrary.

Here is an interesting question and one that is linked to the topic of fear: why has the European Union (EU) not accepted Turkey's application for membership? This is a modern country with a strongly secular bias. It is a growing economy. Certainly the country is more advanced than many East European countries. Yet Poland was accepted and Turkey has not been. Why? Is it because the majority faith in Turkey is Muslim? Is there a visceral fear of the dreaded Turk storming the gates of Vienna? Objectively speaking, accepting Turkey makes a lot of sense for the EU. Turkey has a young, dynamic population. It is manifestly not interested in spreading Islam amongst non-muslims. Turks have not been participants in the global Jihadist movement. Turkey will inject much needed fresh blood into the EU. By its own estimates, European countries will very soon need to import thousands of workers every year in order to maintain their growth rates and living standards. This is a consequence of falling birthrates throughout the developed European economies. Where will these extra workers come from? Eastern Europe? Maybe in the short term but over the medium to long term, this source will dry up. The only alternative left are third world countries. Turkey is a logical choice. Yet there is strong opposition to the country joining the EU. What has caused this? It seems to be a fear of the other, the outsider. Again fear is causing people to react not only in an illogical manner but in one that is inimical to their medium to long term interests.

In other areas as well, fear makes people behave strangely. We have the rather strange phenomenon of majorities being afraid of minorities in a large number of countries. Sometimes this fear is economic. In many Asian countries, Chinese minorities enjoy a disproportionate share of the county's wealth thanks to their hard working ethos and strong family and community links. This economic success often breeds resentment and in times of trouble comes out in the form of pogroms against the minority as was seen during the fall of Suharto in Indonesia. Many other times, however, the majority fears the minority because of its religion. This is the case in India where many members of the Hindu majority seem to be afraid of the Muslim minority. It also seems to be the case in Pakistan where there is some fear of the Christian minority even though this is smaller than the Muslim minority in India. The fear that the majority feels for a particular minority sometimes results in (sometimes massive) violence against the latter. It frequently also results in an often unspoken, unacknowledged institutionalized discrimination. Again take the case of the Muslim minority in India. They represent perhaps 12% of the population. Yet their representation in various sectors of the economy ranges from 3-4% at best. Unsubstantiated anecdotal evidence suggests that amongst the general population there is a discrimination against Muslims in a community's daily life. Again fear seems to be a basic motivator.

This level of fear is by no means restricted to third world countries. Developed countries seem to have a particularly acute sense of this. The example of Turkey mentioned above is a case in point. Arizona, USA has passed a law that authorizes police to conduct spot checks on persons deemed to be possible illegal immigrants. Here there is a fear that the country or state is being swamped with illegal immigrants who are taking the jobs of local residents and who are responsible for criminal actions even though the evidence suggests otherwise. Indeed, the USA, the most powerful country in the world and one with the largest economy has been in a collective zone of fear since 9/11. It is because of this fear that ordinary citizens have allowed an extra-ordinary erosion of their civil liberties to take place; an erosion that is steadily continuing.

So fear means that we turn a blind eye to actions and events that in the long term are harmful to our personal and national interests. We are unable to perceive the danger we are in because our rational mind which would warn us is bypassed when we live in a state of fear over a period of time. The interesting aspect is that over time we come to accept living like this as the norm. It is only when we move out of the environment that we realize how warped our thinking and our personality had become due to fear.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, August 16, 2010

The Price of Technological Progress

When we think about the price of technological progress, we tend to think about its dark side. Nuclear fission can be used to generate electricity as well as bombs. Explosives can be used to destroy roads as well as build them. Computer networks bring people together and make larger, more collaborative works possible. They also enable new forms of criminal activities. Countless other examples can be given of how different technologies can be used for useful as well as harmful purposes.

This however is not the only price that we have paid for our rapid and rapidly continuing technological progress. We have paid the price in other forms that we are generally not even aware of. The quickening pace of technological advancement and the social changes that it has engendered has led to a general coarsening of our lives. In many aspects, our attitudes, the things we tend to take for granted and some of the things that we have lost would have horrified earlier generations.

Take the birth control pill for example. This has had positive benefits. Women have gained a greater control over the number and timing of their pregnancies. However, there has also been an unexpected effect; pregnancies out of wedlock are no longer considered shameful. This is an astonishing change that has occurred in the space of a single generation. Ofcourse a question arises: does it matter? I believe it does. I think that marriage brings a stability to society as a whole. Whether marriage is viewed as a sacred construct not to be tampered with under any circumstances or whether it is viewed as a contract that binds two people together and that should not be tampered with lightly does not really matter. A married individual assumes a burden of responsibility that he/she is not likely to disregard easily. It is much easier to walk away from a relationship when there is no marital contract. The result is that a large number of children grow up in one parent households. Research has shown that children growing up in such households are more likely to suffer from poverty than two parent households. The end result is that society as a whole suffers.

Such an effect however is an example that we can generally see and discuss and I will leave discussion of such broad changes till another post. Technological progress has resulted in other more subtle changes in our society and our thinking. These are changes that we are usually not even aware of. The worse thing is that if we do become aware of such changes, we tend to dismiss them as inconsequential but as I mentioned above, the cumulative effect of such changes is a general coarsening of our lives.

A good example of the subtle effects of technological progress is the art of writing. A positive benefit of technology has been that more is now being written on a wider variety of subjects than ever before. The problem is the very ease of writing. In the days when pen had to be physically put to paper, writers needed to structure their thoughts carefully in order to reduce the amount of editing later. This resulted on average in better prose (and perhaps even poetry). Today, the editing effort is relatively trivial thanks to computers and word processors. This convenience can (and sometimes does) result in intricately detailed and beautifully executed story-lines and writing. More often, it results in shoddy thinking resulting in shoddy writing. Most of what is written is thus essentially forgettable.

Another effect that technology has had on writing is that the pace of life has increased over time. Greater complexity in society and our economy comes at the cost of us having to devote increasingly greater amounts of time towards understanding and reacting to these forces. This means that we have less amount of time to devote to any particular task. This has had the effect that we now want our information in sound bites. The effect on writing is that the older style which required leisurely reading is now considered obsolete. Again the question arises: does it matter and again I will argue that it does. Sound bites have the unfortunate effect of reducing complex issues to simplistic slogans which not only do not inform, they actually do the opposite. While this would not matter in the case of fiction, it matters enormously for analyzing information. Why do people in the West largely fail to understand the roots of what they consider terrorism? Why are people not reacting to the financial collapse? Why are people not more alarmed about global warming? I believe this is because most people rely on sound bites that they get from TV and radio. This trend of using sound bites has steadily increased over time. An end result is twitter. Humans talk (and write). Birds twitter. People who twittered were previously considered to be brainless dullards. Even the dictionary meaning of twitter reflects this. Perhaps this is a sign of our times that twitter has become so popular. It is not as though writing a tweet is harmless. Despite what most people would think, going on twitter and writing a tweet can actually be dangerous. This is because twitter encourages writing and publishing spontaneously. As some people have discovered, this can cause job losses.

Related to the effect on writing is the effect on hand writing. People have lost the art of good hand writing and I include myself in this category. My parents generation was actually taught good hand writing. This focus was subsequently lost. Today with the ubiquitous use of computers and the spread of the net, people simply do not need to put pen to paper at all. As a result, the ability to write beautifully has largely disappeared. The most dramatic effect of this has been the loss of the art of calligraphy. This was a labor of love. Even today we admire good calligraphy. However, no one is willing to learn how to do this today. The master calligraphers of old are now in their twilight days. Their children are not willing to learn what was a family trade. Once these people go, the world will be a poorer place for this loss. While this is a subtle effect, its passing is nevertheless something to mourn about.

Then what about the art of conversation? The ability to carry an interesting and elegant conversation on a wide range of topics was considered the hallmark of a gentleman and a lady in virtually every culture in previous times. An educated person was someone who was widely read and frequently widely traveled. Today what is considered an educated person is essentially a technocrat. An insidious effect of this is that there has been a loss of grace. The ability to interact with each other and specially with strangers has degraded over time. What is considered civilized behavior today would to a large extent have been considered boorish in an earlier era.

Technology is wonderful. It has given us many benefits and have enriched our lives in many different ways. It is now difficult if not impossible to imagine life without electricity, running water, computers and the many activities made possible by them, automobiles, airplanes to give just a few examples. All these things have enriched us and opened up a range of possibilities that simply could not have existed before. Personally I would not want to turn the clock back. Yet there has been a price to pay for all these achievements. The tragedy is that as a civilization we are like junkies demanding our latest technological fix and not noticing the subtle loss of beauty and grace.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Events That Changed The World: The Battle of Badr

A little known event in the outside world, the Battle of Badr holds a special significance for Muslims throughout the world. This was the first major battle between the (small) Muslim community and their numerically superior opponents. Literally this battle was a battle for survival not only for the Muslims as a community but for Islam as a religion. The Muslim forces were vastly outnumbered by a ratio of about three to one. Moreover, their opponents, the Quraish were better equipped. All in all, this was a battle that should have gone the other way and the Muslims should have lost. Their victory ensured that Madina - the hub of the burgeoning Muslim community would henceforth be taken seriously as an upcoming power in the Arabian peninsula. From this time onwards, the Muslims were not in a serious danger of being wiped out despite several major struggles within Arabia that still lay in the future.

Why was Badr such a game changer? There have been many battles between embattled communities and a superior foe. Most of them did not result in history changing events. If the outcome had gone in the other direction, in most cases the course of history would have remained unchanged and the world we find ourselves in today would be largely unaffected barring perhaps a few cosmetic changes. What was ultimately so different about Badr?

In a day and age which de-emphasizes religion, a large number of people do not realize the way religion affected our ancestor's thinking and way of life. To a degree, this is still reflected in the Islamic world but elsewhere and even in the Islamic world, religious and non-religious life are viewed as two largely distinct and separate spheres. Most people in Muslim countries today will say that Islam is a complete way of life but this is largely lip service. This was not so in the past when religion played and vital and dynamic role in daily life. Understanding this is the key to understanding why Badr was so important.

As stated above, Badr was the one battle threatened the new religion's survival. Once this challenge was successfully overcome, Islam gained adherents at a steadily increasing rate. By the time the Prophet died, virtually the whole Arabian peninsula had become Muslim. If nothing further had happened, then the subsequent history of the world would have been very different. To understand this, one has to understand not simply political history but also religious history.

Arabia is right next to the Mediterranean Sea. At the time of the Battle of Badr, this area was divided between the Roman and the Persian empires. These two opposing camps were equally matched and for some time now there had essentially been a standoff between them. On the religious front, there was a continuous and steady expansion of Christianity. Till that point, the Arabs had not made any mark on the world scene. So it is not surprising that nobody foresaw the eruption of the Arab armies that was to occur a few years later. What was even less foreseeable was that these same Arab armies would be fighting in the name of a new religion that was to stop the expansion of Christianity in its tracks in the South and East. Thereafter, Christianity would expand to the north and the north-east.

If any Roman or Persian general had actually observed the Battle of Badr, they would probably have laughed at the numbers involved. Yet the repercussions were to be stunning. So lets go back to the question of what could have happened if the Muslims had lost this battle. We can say with a high degree of probability that as a consequence Islam as a religion would have been extinguished. What could be the consequences of that?

The empire that the Arabs established was not just a military one. For a people who were essentially tribal, the Arabs forged an astonishingly cosmopolitan and advanced looking society within an incredibly short period of time. One result of their conquests was that they acquired a large body of knowledge of various sciences. This they preserved. More importantly, this body was translated into Arabic and the work was then extended by Arab scholars. Nor was this the only contribution. The Arab empire also had (relatively) easy access to China and India. Arab rulers actively encouraged the importation and absorption of advanced in various sciences and technologies made by these cultures. So we had the spread of paper making techniques for example or much more importantly the incorporation of the concept of zero into mathematics.

Today, people who want to acquire advanced cutting-edge knowledge try to get admission into various universities in Western countries. At that time, people would try and get admission into various Arab educational institutes for the same purpose. So the Arab Muslim empire not only preserved the ancient knowledge, it extended and transmitted it to a wide range of people who then went back to their countries and set up educational institutes along the same lines. What is the genesis of Oxford and Cambridge? It is to be found in the educational structures that the early Arabs put up. Why did the Arabs do all this? Interestingly enough it was because of Islam. The Koran repeatedly points out to various natural phenomena as evidence of God's power and challenges its readers to study and think about them. The Hadith (collections of sayings of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)) repeatedly emphasize the importance of education for both men and women. I mentioned above that in earlier times, religion was of extreme importance in the daily lives of people. For the Arabs who conquered Persia and vast swathes of the Roman empire, preserving, extending and spreading knowledge was a religiously sanctioned activity. In the process they forged a dynamic, cosmopolitan society at a time when the Church had a stranglehold on all aspects of Christian life.

If the Battle of Badr had been lost and as a result Islam extinguished, the Arabs would most likely not have ventured out of Arabia at all. If they had, they would not have been a coherent military force like they actually were. The most likely result would have been a three way standoff between Persia, Rome and the Arabs. Let's say that they managed to make the conquests that they actually did. Their empire in the absence of Islam would have been a military one much like the Mongol empire which came later. Over time, the Arabs would have been absorbed into the local culture just like the Mongols were. A new culture incorporating and expanding elements of the existing cultures and adding new ones to create something new and unique would not have arisen. Almost certainly important works by the ancient Greek scholars would have been lost; the Church at that time being intolerant of all knowledge which it did not specifically sanction. The important work that Arab scholars did in preserving, translating, extending and transmitting this knowledge would have not have taken place. Universities would not have been established in Europe at the time that they were and in the shape that they were. Indeed there is a possibility that universities would not have been established in Europe at all. This has a direct impact on the modern world since the great universities of the US are direct descendants of European universities like Oxford.

All the lost knowledge would have had to be re-discovered painstakingly over the centuries. Knowledge builds on the works of earlier generations. Re-discovering work done by the ancients would have pushed the existing state of knowledge by several centuries. This has a direct bearing on technology. Technological advancement rides on the back of pure science. We can build a reliable electricity infrastructure because we know the fundamental properties of electricity. In the absence of this we would not have been able to get consistent electricity.

The Arab influence can also be seen in other spheres. The whole concept of chivalry which played such an important role in medieval Europe and which was later to influence the concept of what being a gentleman entailed was heavily influenced by the Arab concept of chivalry. This in turn was influenced by Islamic doctrine. I would say that the Arabs refined their concept of chivalry after Islam. In the absence of Islam, this whole concept would have been different and would certainly not have influenced European notions of chivalry in the way it did. This means that today our idea of what being a gentleman means would have been very different. There are countless other examples of the many different ways in which Islam and the Arabs influenced the development of the modern world. Without Islam, these developments would have been very different both in scope, scale and timeline.

Before I conclude, there is another point to address that can arise in the reader's mind. Without Islam, the world would not be facing the problem of misdirected Islamic fundamentalism. My response to that is that without Islam, the world today would be in a very different form and in my opinion a much poorer place.

We normally tend to view history as a series of grand events. Empires operating on an epic scale. Clashes that are titanic in nature. Yet in the development of the world, it is often the small, unknown event that effects much greater, more far reaching change. The Battle of Badr is just such an event. If the battle had been lost, Islam would have been extinguished and had that happened, the repercussions would have flowed through time causing some events to not happen, others to happen differently and still others to happen which actually did not occur. The world today would have been a different and almost certainly poorer place not only economically but also culturally.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Rituals

Symbol of the major religions of the world: Ju...Image via Wikipedia

Every single one of us living today is governed by rituals. Many of these rituals are not even obvious to us. Nevertheless they are present and persistent.

The most obvious rituals are used in religion. Every single religion regardless of genesis has a prescribed set of rituals. Indeed this is one of the hallmarks of organized religion. A question that often arises in the context of religion is why are all these rituals needed? Are they necessary to connect with God? Quite self evidently, the answer is no. So why the rituals? Does one necessarily have to be religious in order to be spiritual? There are a large number of people who think not; people who think that it is better to be spiritual rather than religious. Since religion also seeks to raise the spiritual level of an individual and in addition has a large number of rituals that must be adhered to, why not cut out the religion and focus on the spiritual.

Every religion, belief, spiritual practice etc. is an attempt to form a connection with the Divine. The ultimate goal is the attainment of a spiritual state where this connection becomes virtually effortless and part of an individual's daily life. Such a connection not achieved easily. It takes consistent major effort and a long duration. Not all people have the inclination or the capacity to put in the hard work (which can be both mental and physical) necessary. Nevertheless this desire remains. There is thus generally a gap between desire and achievable reality. This gap is bridged by rituals. Take for example the five daily prayers of Islam. Does God (Allah) need these prayers. No. The prayers are necessary to remind people of God (Allah). They require a certain amount of time to be set aside from worldly concerns and spend it instead on spiritual contemplation. Similarly other Muslim rituals serve comparable purposes. They are designed to help people gain a greater connection with the Divine through internal spiritual contemplation. What matters is not so much the act of the ritual itself as the state that it engenders in a person. Islam is not alone in this. The other major religions: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism each have their own sets of rituals and mantras. Again the purpose is to help an ordinary believer to at least get started on the path of spiritual attainment. In this regard, rituals serve an important, indeed role.

The importance of rituals is not confined to our religious life only although generally it is perceived in this fashion. Rituals play an indispensable role in our daily lives. Everyone has a set of activities that are practiced to start and get through the day. What are these activities if not rituals? They play an important role by allowing us to do these activities without thinking about them. Then there are the rituals that are undertaken at a community or society level. The set of activities that are undertaken during marriages for instance. Each community has a set of rituals that are performed during a marriage. These rituals can differ amongst member of the same religion based on where they are living. So the marriage rites undertaken by Muslims in India and Pakistan are different from the marriage rites undertaken by Muslims in the Arab world. What about the activities taken during a national holiday? Most nations have unique ways of celebrating these i.e. they have a unique set of rituals that are used to commemorate these occasions. All these rituals play a role in forging a binding link within a community or a nation.

So rituals are not merely useless remnants of a dead past. They are an important link in a chain that joins our present with our past and will join our present with our future. Breaking this link disconnects us and leaves us rudderless.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, July 17, 2010

Events That Changed The World

Map of the World in the year 1 CE.Image via Wikipedia

History in many respects is a fascinating subject. There are so many variables in any particular event. So many things could have gone differently in any era. Even a slight change could well have resulted in a world vastly different from the one we currently live. Events That Changed The World is a series of posts that is going to be my take on different events that I think are significant and that could have resulted in a different world had they turned out to be other than what they actually did.
Enhanced by Zemanta

The Opium Of The People

The inside view of a Shopping MallImage via Wikipedia

Karl Marx got it wrong. His famous dictum is typically rendered as "religion is the opiate of the people". The quote is taken from a lengthy paragraph which appeared in (and this is a real mouthful of a title) in a work titled "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of right" in which Marx is positively lyrical in his anti-religion diatribe.

So why do I think he got it wrong? The (very) short answer is modern society. Let me explain. The whole emphasis of modern society is on the masses doing a limited number of things. We are supposed to work, eat, shop and sleep. There are a few other activities that can also be engaged in but these are the major ones. Oh yes. One other activity. Engage in sex. Lots of it. And not for reproductive purposes either. Think about it. What was the one thing that Americans were encouraged to do after 9/11? Pray? Focus on family? Reflect on their life? reflect on mortality? How about asking why these terrible events took place? Infact it was none of these. The one thing above all else that Americans were encouraged to do was to (drum-roll please) ..... shop!

This my friends is the true opiate of the people. Our true worth is considered in terms of our shopping abilities. Feeling down? Shop for new clothes or shoes or something else. Don't feel like shopping for material goods? No problem. Go to your nearest cineplex. Enjoy a good movie. Oh and don't forget to buy the popcorn and drinks to enjoy while watching the movie and on your way out buy a few movie mementos as a reminder of the good time you have just had. What are the temples of modern life? What are the social spaces where we can go and meet people. What are the events that serve to bind us as a community? The answer to these questions is linked ultimately to shopping. Instead of a traditional market which typically had small shops and was pedestrian friendly, we are expected to go to huge malls which are designed to take us from one outlet to another and discourage us from lingering in the interim. Dubai is a prime example of this. The city is filled with shopping malls - each bigger and more elaborate than the previous one. Each mall is filled with designer shops and each shop is filled with an enticing array of goods. Each mall also has a very similar architecture despite superficial differences in appearance. The shops are all connected by corridors which do not have much seating space. More significantly, there are no areas where people can pause and reflect. In other words, we are being subconsciously encouraged to go into the next outlet as fast as we can. The one space in each mall which does have seating space is the food court. So if we don't shop, then we can eat Mcdonalds or Burger King or Pizza Hut or whatever.

When we are not shopping or going to a movie, we can watch TV in the comfort of our homes where we have access to hundreds of channels. And what choice! American Idol! Desperate housewives! Big Brother! Wimbledon! Golf! The choice is endless and nearly all of it is designed to stop us from thinking. Just think about it. Does watching the latest football (or cricket or rugby or soccer or indeed any sport) match, make you any better off? Are you any better off because you saw the latest episode of your favorite TV show? What will happen if you don't see these? Will your life take a turn for the worse? Will a disaster befall you? Will your wife (or husband or significant other) leave you? All that will have happened is that you will have spent a certain portion of your life in an activity that is essentially meaningless. And remember that this is time gone forever. You are never going to get it back. So are these things not true opiate for the people? We tend to think of ourselves as being so much better than people of old. We are much more sophisticated. Far less susceptible to external manipulations. But are we really? Are we not being manipulated all the time? We are being constantly manipulated to do things that the Government deems to be in our best interest and a major component of that is shopping. Even watching TV is geared towards ultimately getting us into the shops. The average time of a typical TV show has gone down by almost 10 minutes since the 60s. An episode of the original Star Trek is about 50 minutes (the rest of the time is taken by advertisements) whereas an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation is only about 42 minutes. What has replaced the lost minutes? Ads of course. Ads designed to get us into a shopping mode. This has happened gradually. The result is manipulation without us being aware of it. We constantly bemoan the rat race and yet we feel obliged to participate in it. Why? why don't we exit? Because we feel that we cannot? But why do we feel that way?

So this is what modern society does to us. we are worth what we buy. Everything is geared towards getting us into the shops and buy. Another objective is also served by this. People who are mentally geared towards acquiring the latest trappings, the latest greatest thing and who are constantly striving to acquire the material things that they have been convinced constitute "the good life" are people who are not thinking too deeply about what is going on in the world and what is affecting them personally. We have been drugged into a mental slumber through a combination of shopping and entertainment (which includes all forms of sports activities). And always these things are being put just out of our reach so that we have to run harder and harder to remain in essentially the same place.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, May 22, 2010

Freedom of Expression?

The name "Muhammad" in traditional T...

Image via Wikipedia

Freedom of expression is a much touted, almost sacred right especially in Western nations which invoke liberalism in their heritage. So what is freedom of expression? Wikipedia defines it as the freedom to speak without censorship and/or limitation. This basic idea in turn encompasses atleast three other aspects. These are:
  • freedom to seek information and ideas.
  • freedom to receive information and ideas.
  • freedom to disseminate information and ideas
This is a powerful concept and one that is necessary for development and advancement of knowledge. All leading societies have encompassed this freedom; indeed such societies only lost their edge when these freedoms were removed.

However, this freedom is not unrestricted. There are important caveats. There are important limitations on freedom of speech which are placed there for the good of society. These limitations follow the harm principle and the offence principle. So for example, my right to view hate speech is proscribed on the grounds of offence principle. This is most clearly articulated in cases of anti-semitism. People routinely censor themselves in situations where they feel that what they are writing or depicting is verging on anti-semitism. An illustration of the harm principle would be that my right to yell "bomb" in a crowded cinema/theatre/market place what have you is proscribed on the grounds that such an action will cause panic and lead to people getting hurt or worse. These limitations are important for the proper functioning of society. As individuals living in a particular cultural milieu, we willingly accept these restrictions on the understanding that doing so will result in a greater good and the benefits accrued to society and by extension to me as an individual will overshadow the harm done to me by this restriction on my freedom.

Generally speaking, each society defines the acceptable limits on freedom of speech. The problem occurs when actions deemed acceptable in one society impinge on the limitations imposed by another. In an internet age, where information is increasingly not only digital but is rapidly spread throughout the world via the Internet, this is an increasingly common problem.

The one area where such cultural conflicts arouse the greatest passion is religion. For almost 10 years now, there has been a palpable tension between muslim and non-muslim societies and within muslim societies over actions of a resolute minority. A fallout of these tensions has been that Islam and the concerns of Muslims have suddenly impinged on the general consciousness of Westerners. While this has had benefits, there has also been an increase in the number of non-Muslims in Western societies who feel that Muslims are being pandered to a far greater extent than is warranted. Some of these people have then proceeded to attack Islam and specially the prophet Muhammad (PBUH). When this in turn generated a (sometimes violent) reaction amongst Muslim societies, these elements then took the argument that not being allowed to speak against an important religious figure was a restriction on freedom of speech.

The recent fracas over an insensitive group formed on Facebook is a continuation of this dialectic. Speaking out against or making fun of the Prophet (PBUH) is known to elicit a (sometimes violent) reaction amongst Muslims which is then presented as evidence of Muslim intractability. Such people then don a garb of freedom of speech around themselves and present an argument that not being allowed to do so is the thin edge of the wedge towards censorship. However, as has been mentioned above, freedom of speech is not an unlimited right. There are important restrictions that limit this right. These restrictions serve as boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. The question is that when a global platform is used to express an opinion, then to what extent if any should there be limitations on freedom of speech? Like any other peoples, there are differences of opinion as to what is acceptable and what is not. It has to be recognized that what is acceptable in one Muslim country may be unacceptable in another. But it should also be equally recognized that there are some issues that unite all Muslims no matter what their persuasion is. Mocking the Prophet (PBUH) is one such issue as has been made abundantly clear to the world community by now. On such issues, the harm principle and the offence principle that serve as limits to freedom of speech should be applicable on global platforms.

In this regard, the decision by Pakistan to block Facebook is completely justified. the alternate of blocking only the offending pages would not have sent as strong a message as blocking the entire website did. (It is to be noted however, that this blockage needs to be temporary. If it becomes permanent, then that would become unwarranted censorship). With this blockage, Muslims are saying in essence that speaking against or mocking the Prophet (PBUH) hurts the sensibilities of a billion Muslims. Please don't do this to our religion. Muslims understand the importance of freedom of speech. They strive to attain and protect it in their own countries. But actions such as draw Muhammad (PBUH) day serve no purpose. Indeed they actively harm the cause of freedom of speech.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Perspectives on History Part 1

It is said that history is written by victors. What later generations read and learn about regarding history is a particular point of view. Other equally valid points of view are either ignored or suppressed. In an earlier post, I talked about the importance of history. Here I want to talk about how the same event is viewed by the various protagonists and how that view changes over time.

Perhaps one of the best places to start in this regard are the Crusades. These were a defining event in the history of Christian and Islamic interactions. From the Christian and Western perspective, the crusades were events of enormous importance. The Crusaders were fired by the religious polemic of Pope Urban II who urged them to liberate the holy land from the clutches of the infidel. The Crusades resulted in the establishment of Christian states in the Levant area. The interaction with the scientifically and culturally more advanced Muslim civilization galvanized West European thought and laid the foundation for the so-called Enlightenment period.

This perspective of the Crusades: that they were events of seminal importance is the one that has become what may be called accepted wisdom. What was the perspective of the other side regarding the Crusades? As it turns out, initially very different. Amin Maalouf in an excellent book (The Crusades Through Arab Eyes) has gone back to primary Arab sources to reveal what the Muslims living at that time thought of the Crusades. The perspective on the other side initially was not that of a religious war unlike the view of the Crusaders. Originally, the Westerners (or Franks as the Arabs called them) were viewed as another set of conquerors similar to the many such conquerors who had come before. The Crusades were essentially viewed as a land grab and the Outremer (as the Crusader states that were established as a result of the First Crusade) was quickly incorporated into the politics of the region. It was only gradually and primarily as a result of the sustained religious fervor of the Franks that the Muslim population came to view the struggle with their opponents as something religious. It should be noted that this view was not sustained after the Crusader states were destroyed and the Franks driven out. So from the Muslim perspective at the time and for a long time thereafter, the Crusades were not viewed as a majorly important event. So what caused Muslims to also view the Crusades as a seminal event? In a word: colonialism.

People in the West (and here I use West as a convenient shorthand for the states that established colonies including the US) in general do not appreciate the impact that colonialism had on the rest of the world. Generally speaking, most conquerors were militarily strong, culturally weak entities that occupied militarily weak, culturally strong entities. In cases where the occupied peoples were also culturally weak, they tended to get wiped out. Another feature of most conquerors was that the area they captures was generally contiguous. Not only that, the conquered became part and parcel of the state that the conquerors established. Western colonialism was different. The conquerors were militarily and culturally strong. They established overseas empires i.e. territory that was not contiguous and the conquered lands and people were generally speaking not considered to be part of the mother country i.e. the country of the conquerors. Also the conquerors almost invariably considered the culture of the conquered as inferior. Not only that, the former were convinced that they had a "civilizing" mission. The result was that the Western colonial powers tried their best to raise a generation of natives who were essentially divorced from their own culture and steeped in a foreign one. After independence, these natives formed the elite of the new states and specially in the beginning tried to stamp out local culture (which they regarded as inferior). So one effect of colonialism was not just loss of independence. It was also what can be considered as loss of soul. Part of the reason why a generation of third worlders is angry is that this generation feels a loss and disconnection in a way that their parents and grandparents did not. It is in this context that the Crusades were eventually reconstructed in the Muslim world as a fight between Christianity and Islam. Ironically, this view, which was the motivating factor for the original Christian protagonists, was by this time being downplayed in the West. So, one set of events; two completely different perspectives.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Monday, February 15, 2010

Avatar

I recently saw the latest, greatest movie on the block - Avatar. This is a technical masterpiece. The quality of the special effects is truly on a different scale altogether. James Cameron has managed to create a lush world peopled with characters, animals and plants that look real. For me perhaps the biggest technical achievement is in the eyes. The eyes are very realistic and give the blue skinned Na'avi a full range of emotions. A huge amount has been written about the movie and will continue to be written. Notwithstanding the special effects, the actual story of Avatar is pretty weak; in this respect, Titanic's story was much superior. So viewing it from a straight forward story point of view, the movie is actually disappointing.

However, confining oneself to just the story or even the special effects actually does Avatar a disservice. This movie has several layers to it. To understand what this movie is about, one needs to at the very least acknowledge the different levels at which it operates.

At the most obvious level, Avatar is a love story set in a different planet. Like nearly all Hollywood love stories, this movie has a predictable happy ending. Watching the relationship evolve from the beginning, it was soon clear that there was not going to be any unrequited love nonsense. However, dig a little deeper and the movie actually asks several questions.

For example, to what extent should organizations be allowed to go in search of profits? This is not something abstract or imaginary. Entire societies have been devastated physically an unalloyed pursuit of profit. Neither is this something that happened in the past and does not happen today. This devastation is going on even today. Why are indigenous Indian tribes being slaughtered in the Amazon? Why did the native Indian population of the Caribbean islands essentially die off soon after their discovery? What about the African slave trade? Slavery is a reprehensible activity which needs to be stamped out in all its aspects. However, the African slave trade had been going on for several centuries before the arrival of the Europeans without devastating local societies. What changed when the Europeans came? Why was European demand for African slaves so much greater than what had come earlier that the local societies were destroyed?

Another question: do native societies have any value or are the values of a society that has greater material power more important? This question specially reverberates amongst formerly colonized peoples. Almost without exception, colonialism had the insidious effect of alienating native people from their culture. Stronger cultures were able to absorb the cultural effects of colonialism better than weaker cultures; none were immune from it. Throughout the colonial period and even till today, the underlying assumption has been that Western culture is superior to anything else in the world. While this is not generally not stated explicitly in the West anymore, nevertheless, it is there unstated and implicit in the writings of many Western analysts and writers. This for instance is the reasoning behind American's view of themselves being superior to the rest of the world. That someone would not necessarily want to live in an approximation of US society much less its clone is something that generally does not seem to occur to most Americans.

Yet another question: do material needs trump the environment? This is actually a rather subtle question that the movie poses. Why are the bad guys behaving in the manner that they do? They want to obtain unobtainium (or something like that) which is an energy rich material presumably not obtainable anywhere else. This material is needed to power the material needs of the society back home. The question is should this material be obtained at any cost regardless of impact of local society or environment. Is there a chance of a possible trade-off? Lest people think this is an abstract question, a direct analogy can be drawn at what is going on today in the real world. In the US Appalachian mountains, companies are engaged in mountaintop removal mining which physically removes a mountain in order to access a coal seam buried underground. The removed material is dumped down the mountain where it destroys streams and generally causes environmental havoc. In many oil producing countries, highly polluting methods of extraction are being used without regard to the environmental impact. How about using dynamite to kill fish? This method not only kills the fish in which the fishermen are interested in, it also kills other fish in addition to destroying the environment for all the fish. Why would companies and people behave in such destructive manner? To feed to appetite of the global material culture.

One point that I should note here is that people in developing countries are in many respects more sensitive to the issues raised by Avatar. The reason for this is that large numbers of them have experienced first hand or they personally know someone who has experienced firsthand many of the issues raised by the movie.

So Avatar operates at many levels. The more obvious levels are actually the less interesting ones. It is the deeper levels at which the movie operates that are more interesting and have far greater consequence.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Disaster in Haiti

Haiti has suffered from a terrible earthquake which has flattened its main city and left thousands dead and many more homeless. This is also the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. As such, its ability to cope with a disaster of this scale is severely limited. Disasters, whether natural or otherwise tend to test the mettle of the affected society to the utmost. Haiti seems to be unusually ill equipped to deal with a disaster of this scale. Much of the blame for this seems to rest with interference by outside powers.

Most societies have a natural resilience that enables them to recover fairly quickly from disasters and disturbances. Most of the affected areas of the countries that were affected by the Tsunami of 2004 were well on the road to recovery with a fairly short span of time. Sometimes, outsiders are surprised by the extent of the ill preparedness of societies that one normally thinks would be fairly well prepared. Thus the outside world was surprised by the inept response of the US government to Hurricane Katrina.

In recent time, the scale and speed of natural and man made disasters seems to have increased enormously. Partly this is due to larger number of people living in disaster prone areas. Thus for example, there is an increase in the number of people living in flood prone riverside areas. This in turn is driven partly by a larger number of people seeking housing on increasingly scarce land, partly by developers opening up marginal areas for developers and partly by increasing land prices in areas that are considered desirable. Then there are the disasters which are accentuated because of development. Economic forces have increased pressure on all types of natural resources. A major reason why the Asian Tsunami was so devastating was that the mangrove swamps that would have absorbed the force of the waves had been cleared in the name of development and tourism. Similarly in Haiti, forest cover was denuded in the name of development. In urban landscapes, the effect of disaster is heightened as a result of greed. Land developers in a bid to push up profits and complete projects quickly cut corners. This results in unsafe structures which collapse when something like an earthquake or a storm strikes. When entire infrastructures collapse, relief work becomes extremely difficult.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Hypocrisy

Young healthy couple in swimsuits wade in the ...Image by mikebaird via Flickr

What is hypocricy and how do we as individuals and as a society define it? Do we have separate standards of behavior in our personal and public lives? Do we not as a society exercise hypocrisy when we demand a higher standard of conduct from public personalities than what we ourselves are willing to exercise?

Interesting questions all. This is an issue of import to discuss. Later.

Incidentally, incase you are wondering what is the relevance of the picture to the topic at hand; there is none. I just happened to like the picture and decided to put it in.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Friday, January 8, 2010

A Purpose Driven Life

What is the meaning of life? OK, I know this is philosophical question and many brilliant minds have pondered over this and generally failed to come to a satisfactory (or even adequate) answer. However, I am not asking this question in the sense of why are we in this world or in the sense of is there a point to living; interesting though questions of such nature may be. I have something else in mind. Let me explain.

Nearly all of us acquire our values through an essentially osmotic process. We see the behavior of our parents, siblings, teachers, other people in authority. We are told the broad values that society expects through our schools. So we learn that it is considered bad to cheat or steal or lie etc. and we start avoiding those kinds of activities that were large numbers of people to do them would result in the larger society becoming dysfunctional. This is adequate during our childhood and teen years. These are times when we are learning and have not become mature enough to formulate our own set of values. However, our moral/ethical development tends to freeze at this point. Having integrated basic values into our psyche, we don't proceed further in our moral/ethical development. The net result is that we tend to stumble our way through life.

Modern society presents us with choices that test our moral/ethical boundaries. Is stealing bad? Nearly all of us will say yes. So shoplifting is bad and most people will avoid the temptation of doing so. What about downloading a song via file-sharing? Is that bad? Now we have entered a gray area. Some people will say yes, some will say no and most will not have thought about the issue. For those who say yes, how many will have thought through the issue? Not many I suspect. Similarly we have the case of stem cell research? Good or bad? There are some people who have thought through this issue, come to a conclusion one way or the other and are vocal about it. There are others (perhaps a larger number) who merely express what they perceive the majority opinion to be and still others (perhaps the largest number) who have not thought about this at all.

While all this may sound abstract, the ramifications of frozen moral/ethical development are many and are serious. Take the case of Tiger Woods. Brilliant sportsman who achieves stunning success early in life. Marries a beautiful woman. Makes a billion bucks literally. A good looking, decent clean living guy. Until we learn that he's been cheating on his wife and carrying on a double life. This is I think a good illustration of a frozen moral/ethical development. The temptations were there obviously. But Mr. Woods did not have the moral capacity to not succumb to them. The consequence of his risky behavior was that he lost lucrative sponsorship deals, he had to take an indefinite moratorium on playing golf - a sport that he clearly loves and excels at and there is a strong chance that he may have destroyed his marriage.

Lest one thinks that this is remote from him/her, consider the situation where you are offered some money as a "gift". Morally/ethically wrong or not? Or what about the situation of a salesperson who is pursuing an account and the account makes it clear that a "gift" would not be unwelcome. Not making the "gift" could mean not making the sale which will impact your target. So the same question. Morally/ethically wrong or not? Or take the case of non alcoholic drinks being sold in Muslim countries. Consumption of alcohol is forbidden to Muslims by Islam. Non alcoholic drinks clearly do not break the letter of the ban but are they not breaking its spirit?

The point is that all of us individually as adults need to think about and clarify the moral/ethical dimensions of our life. Failing to do so results in us wandering haphazardly through our existence. We are likely to engage in actions that we later look back with regret. Even worse, we may look back on our life and think what a waste.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Thursday, January 7, 2010

I Am Back! (Hopfully)

Its been a long absence. Part of the blame is on me and part of the blame is on a mental block that I suddenly suffered from. However now (hopefully) I will be updating this more regularly.