A deep sense of culture is a big part of the Indian lifestyle. Each Indian lives his life drenched in it, surrounded by its multitudes, shadowed by its constant towering presence. It serves the role of the ground one stands upon, the background that draws one’s life into focus, and the breeding ground for one’s morals and values.
Values hold just as significant a meaning as culture for Indians. Each Indian lives by their values (as one should, not disputing that), carrying out their tasks as per their system of values that have developed over the years from childhood to adulthood. Into adulthood, these values should theoretically have deeper penetration into one’s psyche, but it can often be commonly observed that it is not so. Or if it is, then they take on a mutated (or mutilated) form of sorts.
While both values and culture may have been a lighthouse for the Indian masses that would go out into the sea, they have now become a dilapidated building, so run down that their own shapes have turned from lighthouses of prestige to silos of utility to ruins of abandon. Rampant destruction has occurred to those structures that once brought everyone back home, connected them with their selves as well as the selves of others, and they now remain only to serve to the cycle of decay, as happens with most systems of behaviour or of thought.
To draw an analogy, I will mention the thought experiment of the Ship of Theseus — at what point is the ship not the same ship anymore? How does one know? And who decides?
This article discusses the modern form of hooliganism that plagues, primarily, the Indian society, and might be a cause for concern for other countries and cultures as well. It tries to highlight the contrasts and discrepancies between the culture and values that were dominant at one point of time and those that are dominant today. It tries not to give any solutions to the problems, only suggestions, or just to engage people in thinking so they can dig themselves out of any holes they might have fallen into, or prevent any such falls in the future.
Chapter I — The Past and The Present
Acculturation refers to the cultural and psychological changes resulting from contact with other cultures (Textbook for XI Standard, NCERT). Acculturation occurs via 4 strategies namely Integration, Assimilation, Separation, and Marginalisation. Among these, assimilation is important for the context of this text: it refers to an attitude where people do not wish to maintain their cultural identity, and they move to become an integral part of the other culture. In this case, there is loss of one’s culture and identity (Textbook for XI Standard, NCERT).
The culture that encases us today does not share much resemblance with the culture that encased us a few decades ago. The same is applicable for our values as well. This change is not unusual as societies change from time to time due to factors like progeny, improvements in technology and medicine and thus, quality of life, internal and external migrations, trade, etc. Change sits upon the shoulders of these factors and nests itself in the new lands and prepares to breed. If anything, it would be unusual for change not to occur.
What is unusual is the extent to which this culture regulates our lives now in comparison to how much it regulated our lives then. Some might think it the fault of developments in the recent decades that have exposed Indians en masse to new cultures and ideas of a global metropolis, leaving the world to be a much smaller place than it really is, opening avenues for new morals, values, and thinking patterns to seep into the Indian culture. Such a thing could be damaging if and only if one’s sense of self (identity; esteem; efficacy; confidence) is not properly developed, vulnerable to external influences, easily swayed.
Another thought could hold responsible the characteristic features of Indian culture which include mainly, but not limited to, extraordinary importance given to community, family, friends, and society as a whole. In and of itself, importance given to these parts of one’s life is not harmful. But when it comes at the cost of one’s sense of self, it ages like milk. It builds room for feelings of apathy, distrust, hatred, resentment, and even violence, in some cases, towards those individuals or elements of society that inhibit the self and facilitate the community.
My premise for this article rests upon the assumption that the sense of self for Indians IS damaged, as exhibited in the behaviour of people today, you can see traces of colonial shame (eating with a fork is better than using your hands; fair complexion is better than a darker complexion; people from foreign countries being objects of awe and fantasy primarily due to the colour of their skin; coffee is better than tea), hints of one’s own cultural confusion (seeing as objects of veneration or fear relatives, adults, elderly, or anyone who comes above you in the chain of hierarchy, age, or social standing, and letting these individuals have their way when they equate disobedience with moral incompetence — more on this later), and erratic behaviours (unjustifiable instances of violence as acts of prejudice, hatred towards a particular individual or groups, or discrimination towards minorities/specific genders/vulnerable sections; insensitivity to matters that deserve seriousness; comments about physical characteristics of individuals in a very loose and carefree manner; and other acts committed while hiding behind the guise of online anonymity).
Why is this problem arising now? India opened its doors with its globalisation reforms from 1991 onwards which opened the economy for trade with external parties. With this, the doors also opened for the transfer of cultures and delivered to Indians a deadly cocktail ready to be served. A communal and conservative (only in the sense it prioritised others over self) culture met an individualistic and radical (only in the sense it prioritised self over others) culture and there were two groups to affect — the youth and the adults. What added fuel to the fire was the coming of the internet which allowed one sitting in one part of the world to observe (and potentially admire) the life of another in some other part of the world.
Those who grew up post-1991, or I should say post-1999, judged their lives based upon different ideals than those who came before. They understood, if only to a certain extent, the value of the self and the care that it demands. The communal life offered in the land south of the Himalayas was not enough — sure, it was good to pass the time, form bonds, and gave more than enough purpose to one’s life by making sure they lived for others and not themselves. But a time would come soon when the culture and the people afflicted by it would have to either grow outwards or inwards, decide whether they choose the self or the community, or learn how to balance.
It is not the fault of the pre-1991 generation as they could not have anticipated such a change to come, and if it came, for it to be this drastic. A lack of knowledge about the internet (and technology as a whole) and its harms and the prominence of a rapidly changing world around them forced them to be more involved in the external matters than in the internal. What was lost in the process was a generation that was told to take care of others and live for others while they wanted to break out and do things for themselves. A sourdough of confusion fermented by the yeast of individuality and the flour of community.
What could one do, but last out?
Baumeister & Boden (1998) examined correlates between aggression and the self and found that inflated self-opinions and a lack of self control were primary causes of aggressive behaviour, as these both exhibited an inability to regulate behaviour. What better example to demonstrate the causal linkages that led to the disaster that is Indian society presently, full of individuals who like to ‘back-seat’ (term borrowed from the gaming community that refers to people who want to play games for the people who they are watching; essentially, dictating how to do a job in a specific way to individuals who might already know how to do it), make snarky comments, and in general display hostility towards anything and everything.
I call such a society confused. It is a confusion of being, not a confusion of doing. Such confusion may be problematic for one but it can be lethal, in more ways than physical, for those around them. And it should also be noted that a confusion of being may not entirely be caused by a lack of a sense of self, but it may also lead to one, eventually causing a cyclic pattern of stupidity. In such a society, the individuals are likely to be just as confused, unhappy, and deliriously jumpy towards everything. Look around you and think about who comes to mind, for I’m sure someone does.
Chapter II — S/He who must not be named
In one of my most adored chapters in the novel Dune, Frank Herbert tells a story through a character: The scene has various characters sitting at a dinner table and conversing. One character is shown to push another into a precarious situation only to save himself. A third character mentions a story that when fishermen go out to the sea and their boat sinks, they drown, and the bodies are recovered to reveal stab marks on their heads impaled by the spiky shoes of other fishermen. The character remarks that while it is not uncommon for a drowning man to climb onto the heads of his mates to save himself, it is highly unusual when someone tries to do that on land, even rarer to see it happen at a dinner table.
This, of course, is more fitting in the context of the story and Herbert portrays the tensions in the scene with masterful skill. But it goes to show the ways in which individuals would often try to get their way at the cost of others, even in harmless social situations which need no such gesture. The notions of ‘coming out on top’ or ‘leading the conversation’ or ‘being the most important one in the room’ become drivers of motivation for the actions of such individuals who would rather they win, even when there is no competition. A constant urge to prove themselves can be observed in their behaviour and you would not have to look too hard or too long to notice it.
One would think one might have to prove himself only in the presence of those who oppose them or think lowly of them. One would think that a person who does not think lowly of himself would also feel comfortable enough in his own skin to just be, no matter the clothes or amount of money or social standing they have. One would think that such a person often employs many behaviours as a last ditch effort to get the high ground, because looking up at things might strain or even break their necks. One would think…
But maybe that’s just me. Who knows?
I’ve observed a new form of hooliganism in the Indians of today. It is characterised not by physical, but rather social and psychological violence. I have seen ideologies being pushed upon me, unsolicited advice given to me, and a general disregard for my self as I witnessed the imposition of their selves upon mine. I have stood firm and fought it off as much as I could and as a result, I have upset people or broken ties with them. I do not mind.
I’ve heard my friends talk about similar issues. Those who are not currently present in India face these problems in a very small quantity, if at all. Meanwhile, those present in India have been suffering coworkers or seniors in their workspaces act the same, landlords or tenants act the same, neighbours or people in public transport act the same, etc. Much of it has come without provocation of any sort, and has resulted into considerable deliberation on the ends of my friends thinking whether something really is wrong with their behaviour (spoilers: it is not). Much of it has been a display on the parts of others as they exhibit a need to control someone else’s life. Maybe because they cannot control their own? Maybe because they care so little about their own that they’d rather give inputs to someone else?
It might not be easy to defend this behaviour but it becomes polarising when it is justified under the banner of Indian culture. An action doesn’t remain an action at that point, it is given a historical dimension, it is made to be seen as virtuous in a temporal context and provided a significance that it may not entirely deserve. In doing so, it is forced to be weighed on a new scale which would put these additions on its side and tip it in its favour. Anyone who opposes it is considered deviant — from society, from the community, from even one’s own values!
Justifications of this sort do more harm than good. They rob the mind of its thinking capabilities, they erase any scope for reason being employed in the discussion, and obedience becomes the law. Much like in religious governments where a crime is also a sin, deviations from a culture having deep roots in a communal lifestyle results in terms like ‘outcast’ or ‘black sheep’ thrown around carelessly, not conscious of the effect they might have on people. Conformity becomes the norm and a person who might have given their entire life to their society/community/family is shunned in an instant (those having the XX chromosomes, give me a cheer!).
Another segment of the populace it impacts is the pre-1991 Generation that is trying to change, trying to break out of this cultural prison. They are worse off than the youth, having experienced a systemic process which ingrained into them these rules since birth. How do you change something that you have known your whole life? How do you live for yourself when you have always lived for others? Since such avenues remain closed to them, they find it difficult to let the youth (or those around them) carry on on this path.
Simone de Beauvoir in her work The Second Sex explained the master and slave gazes when writing about rival consciousnesses wrestling for dominance. She believed that one played the role of the ‘Master’, perceiving the world from his point of view, a view/gaze that is natural. But incidentally, the ‘Slave’ does the same and perceives the world and himself from the view/gaze of the ‘Master’, leading to an alienated perspective of oneself. The context in which she explained it was the oppression women have to face from birth to adulthood to death, as they are taught to be ‘objects’ rather than ‘subjects’ of their own lives. They see themselves as ‘suspended-in-a-space’ rather than ‘present-in-the-space’ where they can take hold of their physical environments and make use of them.
This is a fascinating understanding of one’s culture and how it impacts even those who do not consider themselves to be a part of it. In the context of this text, however, I would like to draw attention to one point in particular: individuals of the modern hooligan variety tend to operate from a disposition that the world does function with the Master-Slave gazes as given by Beauvoir. As per them, each consciousness is constantly wrestling for dominance and the wait is to see which is which. It breaks a piece off me every time I see this demonstrated, either as a party trick or jest or as an invitational to a bout.
If you ask me, this hooliganism of the psyche is an animal of a new breed. It drinks from the trough of culture and it pisses in the fields of intellect. It feeds on the grass of reason and it shits on the soul of individuality. Culture is weaponised and dysregulated actions are defended in its name. It does not matter who wins because humanity loses. People lose. India loses.
It is possible that you might be able to understand and relate to what I mention, or not. It is possible that you know some such person or persons in your own lives who fit the mould like a prototype. A Stoic idea by Epictetus in his Discourses mentions: “For a rational being, only what is contrary to nature is unendurable, while anything that is reasonable can be endured.” Using this piece, all I do is shed light upon what might be in accordance with ‘nature’ and what might not be. If one wishes to define ‘nature’ in a manner that it suits their motives, consider this quote by Marcus Aurelius:
“If anybody shall reprove me, and shall make it apparent unto me, that in any either opinion or action of mine I do err, I will most gladly retract. For it is the truth that I seek after, by which I am sure that never any man was hurt; and as sure, that he is hurt that continueth in any error, or ignorance whatsoever.”
Chapter III — The Ship of Theseus
Are you you?
What makes you you?
Is it the way you were raised? The friends you had? The books you read? The songs you heard? The movies you watched? The knowledge you gained? The values you inculcated?
Every individual is a diverse mix of external and internal influences (nature vs nurture!), so much so that at some point it becomes difficult to answer the question of the nature of being. Is it transient or concrete? Is it mendable? What influences it?
Repeated questioning forces individuals to one of two paths — either they find their answer (or make one up) and stick with it, or they stop looking for an answer altogether. This act of repetition renders the question inapplicable, and in consequence, the being itself is rendered redundant.
“What does it matter who I am? Or what I am? I’m alive and that’s enough.”
You’d think it is, right? It has to be! Otherwise… otherwise, what’s the point?
When children are younger, a common question they are asked is what they’d like to be when they grow up. A child’s thoughts explore all avenues — superhero, astronaut, policeman — and give an answer that feels true and honest to their selves. Then the child starts growing up and realises it’s not that simple. A lot goes into being something. Something worthwhile, at least.
This awakening about the nature of being is further extrapolated by interactions with other beings. Again, a path diverges into two — one can either realise one’s own potential to be and set on a road to be-coming, or one can sink into the manhole of doubt and uncertainty, arising from a multitude of factors. For the sake of sanity of this text, it matters not what factors affect them, only the consequences that arise from them.
The children of the latter variety grow to be adults of the same characteristics. They make their lives harder for themselves by not realising their own beings, and the ripples of their actions unsteady the seas and muddle it up with sediments of the past for those around them. Fixations, obsessions, passions, and impulses make up a majority of their lives that are led in dysregulated fragments which give them nothing but the illusion of control. This illusion is the most peculiar as it is not broken even when assisted, called out, or shamed.
A stage comes when the individual prefers the illusion of comfort to the truth of hardships. They’d rather excuse their culture for transforming them into a certain creature and use the same excuse when they try to force someone to be the same as them, or dance on their whims and fancies. Anyone who refuses and exhibits and imposes their selves in their own lives, they are termed aberrants, typhoons in the calm seas, when in truth, they may be the lessening of the evils around them.
The Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment which states that if you start taking out planks from a ship and replace them with new planks until all the planks in the ship are replaced, at what point is the ship not the same ship anymore? Is it at the last plank? The first one? Or somewhere around halfway?
I believe that the thought experiment does not ask the right question — it matters not when the ship stopped being the original ship or whether it is the same ship at all. I believe that the right question should be about the nature of being, i.e., whether it still is a ship or not. When considering human behaviour, we often try to focus on what or where it all went wrong. Maybe the focus should be on why it went wrong or what could be done to fix it.
I’d draw an analogy of these people to massive ships of an insurmountable size and shape going where the currents and the waves take them. They obtain such sizes solely because it is necessary to survive the mean seas. Their freeflow obliterates everything in their paths, which is mostly smaller ships.
The smaller ships may be made of more expensive materials, may be carrying more expensive cargo, may be belonging to an individual of a great social standing. But the waves demand it so that the bigger crashes into the smaller, leaving wreckage and a pile of what was floating upon the sea. The heavy luggage of the why sinks to the ocean floor, perhaps to be discovered by those yet to come, perhaps ever to rest there and dissolve and disintegrate over time.
Pride in oneself, the need to prove oneself, the compulsion to be superior to others, and the urge to control others are all behaviours that will remain with the person until the person himself takes initiative to change them. Others will come, interact with them for a while, either stay and endure the madness, or leave to make a better life for themselves. In the end, all will end, so take my words with a grain of salt.
Marcus Aurelius narrates this beautifully in one of his meditations:
“Alexander of Macedon, and he that dressed his mules, when once dead both came to one. For either they were both resumed into those original rational essences from whence all things in the world are propagated; or both after one fashion were scattered into atoms.”
