call it globalisation or hyper-capitalism or even a condition of our times. ever since world war 2, the world has changed in every major field- be it the sciences, economics, geographies, cultures, psychologies and social/power structures.
note that when i say power structures, i don't mean political systems. surprisingly, democracy as a political system hasn't changed with the times. and it is this failure of an archaic democracy (among other problems) that is causing issues all over the world.
much as i'd like to take each issue apart and analyse it- at this point in time, in the face of the 2008 terror attacks in mumbai with elections a few short breaths away, i think we need to seriously pull up our socks and consider our democratic system.
many people consider democracy in india a marvel, considering the inherently pluralistic nature of this country. they are in awe of the multi-party system and (wrongly) assume that people across different factions of society have a say.
the fact remains that indirect democracy does nothing for the people of a country. it gives people what marx calls a 'false consciousness'- the feeling that as individuals, they are making a mark and ushering in change when they vote for one political party or the other. the sad truth is that this system does not view people as anything beyond a mass, a collective, a vote bank. there is no place for individualism and human dignity.
it is a farce.
in terms of what this means for mumbai as a city, i think the time has come for mumbai to kiss india goodbye and stand on its feet. this is the second time in two years that this country is failing the city which has contributed so much to it, not just in economic terms but in intangible cultural terms as well.
consider this- mumbai as a city state, much like singapore. only, unlike singapore, there'll be a different political system- perhaps, direct democracy or even anarchy.
maybe it's just crazy talk from the shock but then, it's the crazy talk that changed the world and the inconceivable that becomes reality.
Showing posts with label academics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label academics. Show all posts
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
universally speaking..
there are things that cut across time, cultures, economic status, place and individual psyches... death is one such phenomenon, dreams another... of course, experiences surrounding death and dreams vary but every human has experienced the two...
some people claim that they don't dream so i'll make a counter-claim to this regard:
1. dreams are a way to deal with the discrepencies between your existence as you are living it and your existence as you'd like to live it. thus, though, there are people who manage to bridge the two, at some point in life, every human has dreamed.
2. it is entirely possible that you've dreamed and not remembered the dream(s).
the existence of these universal phenomena make me briefly wonder if there is such a thing as The Universal Truth... however, my interest lies less in similarities and a grand theory of everything and more in differences and the root causes thereof...
the other day, a young lady who was born and brought up in rural madhya pradesh was talking about how dreaming of weddings or food or wells was an indicator of something "bad" while dreaming of dead people was an indicator of "good" things... the wedding dream, in particular, interested me... i have always assumed dreaming of weddings was an indicator of a person's own desire for committment... and not of "bad news".
it was then that i realised that our cultural conditioning affects us in far deeper ways than mere conscious thought processes... i wonder if migrants continue to interpret their dreams the way they used to even if the context and the elements of their dreams change with the culture... however, i do believe that while dreaming is universal, dream interpretations are culturally rooted... economically too, perhaps...
studying dreams and dream interpretations as a cultural exercise could have some pretty interesting social implications... for one, it could lead to a deeper insight on what is socially acceptable to communities... another implication, of course, would be to understand what issues concern the community in question...
as for how to define the community, feel free to group people any way you want... the identity standpoint assures you that monotony and boredom will be kept at bay...
some people claim that they don't dream so i'll make a counter-claim to this regard:
1. dreams are a way to deal with the discrepencies between your existence as you are living it and your existence as you'd like to live it. thus, though, there are people who manage to bridge the two, at some point in life, every human has dreamed.
2. it is entirely possible that you've dreamed and not remembered the dream(s).
the existence of these universal phenomena make me briefly wonder if there is such a thing as The Universal Truth... however, my interest lies less in similarities and a grand theory of everything and more in differences and the root causes thereof...
the other day, a young lady who was born and brought up in rural madhya pradesh was talking about how dreaming of weddings or food or wells was an indicator of something "bad" while dreaming of dead people was an indicator of "good" things... the wedding dream, in particular, interested me... i have always assumed dreaming of weddings was an indicator of a person's own desire for committment... and not of "bad news".
it was then that i realised that our cultural conditioning affects us in far deeper ways than mere conscious thought processes... i wonder if migrants continue to interpret their dreams the way they used to even if the context and the elements of their dreams change with the culture... however, i do believe that while dreaming is universal, dream interpretations are culturally rooted... economically too, perhaps...
studying dreams and dream interpretations as a cultural exercise could have some pretty interesting social implications... for one, it could lead to a deeper insight on what is socially acceptable to communities... another implication, of course, would be to understand what issues concern the community in question...
as for how to define the community, feel free to group people any way you want... the identity standpoint assures you that monotony and boredom will be kept at bay...
Thursday, September 4, 2008
research is the opium of academicians.
you know your research isn't going anywhere when...
there is a very fine line between genuinely beneficial research and mental masturbation. i don't know how many researchers actually bother listening to that squeaky inner voice which says, "how's this helping anybody?" or variations thereof.
definitely not the guy who's doing/did research on the iyers of matunga. i kid you not. there is such research happening. worse even. and before the natural scientists start getting all smug, there's pointless research happening on that side as well.
my question before embarking on any research, then, is this: "is it as pointless as the study on the iyers of matunga?"
curbing the urge.
economics, the queen of the social sciences demands that her researchers provide policy implications of their studies. sweet but i think it still isn't as effective a deterrent as it ought to be. people still come up with ridiculous research and gosh awful policy implications, thanks basically to shitty institutions that encourage these by means of awarding degrees.
the other ineffective method of doing this, of course, is awarding scholarships for research in specific fields. problem here is that it narrows the scope for research and people essentially keep churning the same research over and over with little or no variation.
it is interesting, however, to note the technique that sociology employs to curb shit research. sociology, through its very discourse, encourages research of the marginalised/the sub-altern. so, even if there are people who specialise in culture, they often have done their studies on tribes/marginalised sections of societies. this covert technique of channelising research actually achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do- it only produces more trash.
ladies and gentlemen, here's a revelation: india has not come up with a single comprehensive sociological theory on anything (not counting caste theories). this is because research subjects have been narrowed through overt and covert mechanisms.
self-discipline is the key
there's only one way to do this. researchers must practise self-restraint instead of spraying their intellectual cum all over the body of existing studies, which is a lot of dried cum, at any rate.
it helps that the researcher looks into what appeals most to him/her, to begin with. institutions need to encourage studies right across the spectrum. and the guides need to care enough to read up on the latest happenings on the subject and thus, guide the researchers down that path of the divine light- practical, applicable and liberating knowledge.
there is a very fine line between genuinely beneficial research and mental masturbation. i don't know how many researchers actually bother listening to that squeaky inner voice which says, "how's this helping anybody?" or variations thereof.
definitely not the guy who's doing/did research on the iyers of matunga. i kid you not. there is such research happening. worse even. and before the natural scientists start getting all smug, there's pointless research happening on that side as well.
my question before embarking on any research, then, is this: "is it as pointless as the study on the iyers of matunga?"
curbing the urge.
economics, the queen of the social sciences demands that her researchers provide policy implications of their studies. sweet but i think it still isn't as effective a deterrent as it ought to be. people still come up with ridiculous research and gosh awful policy implications, thanks basically to shitty institutions that encourage these by means of awarding degrees.
the other ineffective method of doing this, of course, is awarding scholarships for research in specific fields. problem here is that it narrows the scope for research and people essentially keep churning the same research over and over with little or no variation.
it is interesting, however, to note the technique that sociology employs to curb shit research. sociology, through its very discourse, encourages research of the marginalised/the sub-altern. so, even if there are people who specialise in culture, they often have done their studies on tribes/marginalised sections of societies. this covert technique of channelising research actually achieves the opposite of what it sets out to do- it only produces more trash.
ladies and gentlemen, here's a revelation: india has not come up with a single comprehensive sociological theory on anything (not counting caste theories). this is because research subjects have been narrowed through overt and covert mechanisms.
self-discipline is the key
there's only one way to do this. researchers must practise self-restraint instead of spraying their intellectual cum all over the body of existing studies, which is a lot of dried cum, at any rate.
it helps that the researcher looks into what appeals most to him/her, to begin with. institutions need to encourage studies right across the spectrum. and the guides need to care enough to read up on the latest happenings on the subject and thus, guide the researchers down that path of the divine light- practical, applicable and liberating knowledge.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
marx forever!
around the turn of the previous century, two gentlemen noted with increasing concern the effects of a new world order.
one was the brain and the other was all soul. friedrich engels and karl marx went on to achieve what snotty mortals like us can only laugh at cynically- they changed the world.
their works have been misconstrued, leading to the rise and fall of the socialist experiment. in fact, the seeds of error lay in their very analytical technique of dialectical materialism, their lack of precision in definition and their unsound prediction of the fall of capitalism but that's not why they are highly regarded by the academia even today. where they lacked for in technique, they made up in passion.
their love of humanity can reduce even the most stoic capitalist to think for a moment about the fallacies in the system in which he lives, breathes, sleeps and fucks. reading marx is as reassuring an evidence of life as listening to the beating heart of a loved one. in a world where god has been declared dead by nietzsche and the writer's obituary written by foucault, they are the proof that armageddon hasn't come knocking yet.
it's no surprise, then, that even today, in the state of globalisation which they had failed to predict, they have taught yet another generation to yearn for a humane race, if not at the very least, pause to ask...
what's going on?
one was the brain and the other was all soul. friedrich engels and karl marx went on to achieve what snotty mortals like us can only laugh at cynically- they changed the world.
their works have been misconstrued, leading to the rise and fall of the socialist experiment. in fact, the seeds of error lay in their very analytical technique of dialectical materialism, their lack of precision in definition and their unsound prediction of the fall of capitalism but that's not why they are highly regarded by the academia even today. where they lacked for in technique, they made up in passion.
their love of humanity can reduce even the most stoic capitalist to think for a moment about the fallacies in the system in which he lives, breathes, sleeps and fucks. reading marx is as reassuring an evidence of life as listening to the beating heart of a loved one. in a world where god has been declared dead by nietzsche and the writer's obituary written by foucault, they are the proof that armageddon hasn't come knocking yet.
it's no surprise, then, that even today, in the state of globalisation which they had failed to predict, they have taught yet another generation to yearn for a humane race, if not at the very least, pause to ask...
what's going on?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)