Role of Society in one's life
Does the society have a role in the first place???
A couple of weeks back, an uncle of mine had a longish chat with me on this subject. At the outset, some background info:
- This uncle is a smart, intelligent, mature, soft-spoken, caring, eminently lovable senior citizen. Therefore, it is very difficult to either dislike him or to say "Get lost", "Climb a tree and jump", "Take a walk off the cliff", etc.
- However, by certain parameters, it is easy to perceive that he is rather orthodox and old fashioned. For instance,
- Some of the things that he considers "wrong" include:
- Drinking, smoking, etc.
- Living together, inter-caste / inter-religious marriages, etc.
- Disbelieving in or questioning the existence of God
- Men or Women choosing a dress code or hair style which is different from the so-called norms defined by the society at large
-
- Some of the things that he considers "right" include:
- Being "traditional" - getting the "right" education, taking up a "decent job", being "an obedient son/daughter", etc.
- Choosing a life partner from one's own caste / religion / background etc. in consultation with one's parents (possibly with their consent!!??!??!?)
- Being "bothered" about the opinions of the society at large, and, by and large, sticking to the broad norms laid down by society
-
-
Now, here, I've got some very serious objections to virtually all of the above views expressed by this uncle of mine.
Reasons:
- A rose, called by any other name, smells as sweet. Merely being soft, nice, etc. does not give a person any right to "poke one's nose" into others' affairs. Had it been a less polite individual, I'd have been tempted to be downright rude
- So-called "Norms of Society" changes from:
- Century to century
- Country to country
- Religion to religion
- State to state
-
- Such being the situation, what's right according to one person, often, is far from acceptable to the other
- Also, what's right or wrong is often driven by perspective, circumstance, overall situation, etc. After all, we're aware of what happened to the guy who said that we're not at the centre of the universe. We're also aware of famous statements by "Wise folks" that this entire planets possibly needs half-a-dozen computers. We're conscious of how Amitabh Bachchan was rejected on grounds of looks, voice, etc.
- Look at some examples:
- Wearing slippers to God's abode is quite OK in some religions, geographies, but not acceptable in other societies
- Tuesday is considered auspicious by some, unlucky by others
- Monogamy is appropriate in some places, "not-a-must" elsewhere
- Being "fully clothed" with trousers, shirts, etc. is considered apt to enter a divine abode in certain places. The top half of the body needs to be "kept open" (Shirts not allowed, must at best have a towel or Angavastram) in certain other divine abodes.
- Crossing your legs while sitting is "Arrogant / Impolite" in certain places, "Introverted / Self-conscious" in other places
- Calling elders, bosses, etc. by their names is OK in some societies, taboo elsewhere
- Differentiating based on gender, age, physical abilities, etc. is OK in some places, virtually illegal elsewhere.
- Abortion is illegal in some places, perfectly acceptable elsewhere
- Living together, same sex union, etc. are increasingly being accepted in different corners of the globe.
- Asking an interviewee about his personal health condition, family details, etc. is OK in certain nations, illegal elsewhere
- Scantily clad men and women enjoying a day in the beach is the norm in certain places, taboo elsewhere
- Ahimsa is the "right way" in certain societies, "An eye for an eye" is considered an active deterrent in certain others
- Capital Punishment is OK in certain nations, a "horrendous medieval practice" in other nations
- And, believe me, I've not even scratched the surface with the above examples. If you spend a few minutes, you'll come up with a dozen examples off the cuff!
- The fact of life is that we're living in a multi-cultural society, where tolerance is passe, and whole-hearted acceptance of people as they are is warranted. That's also the civilised thing to do. - Oh, here, I become judgemental! After all, who are we to judge what's wrong and what's not!
- The moment we start pre-judging with a what could potentially turn out to be a perfectly jaundiced mind - though entirely unintentionally so.
- To know the implications of pre-judging, just take a look at a couple of examples that I could think of:
- If you knew a woman who was pregnant, who had 8 kids already, three who were deaf, two who were blind, one mentally retarded, and she had syphilis, would you recommend that she have an abortion?
If your answer is "Yes", you just killed Beethoven, the great musician - It is time to elect a new world leader, and only your vote counts. Here are the facts about the three candidates.
- Candidate A. Associates with crooked politicians, and consults with astrologers. He's had two mistresses. He also chain smokes and drinks 8 to 10 martinis a day.
- Candidate B He was kicked out of office twice, sleeps until noon , used opium in college and drinks a quart of whiskey every evening.
- Candidate C He is a decorated war hero. He's a vegetarian, doesn't smoke, drinks an occasional beer and never cheated on his wife.
Which of these candidates would be your choice?
Please think before you look at the names of the candidates ... ... ... ... ... ...
Candidate A: Franklin D. Roosevelt
Candidate B: Winston Churchill
Candidate C: Adolph Hitler
-
-
My own take on the entire subject of society's role in our life:
- We ought not to indulge in judgemental behaviour
- Nor should we be unduly perturbed by judgemental behaviour among people we interact with.
- I'm not suggesting that we can all follow this
- I certainly don't, nor can I even claim that I even try all the time.
- But I certainly do try a good chunk of the time.
Guess that I've given enough to think about for a while! Good luck with your introspection!
- The role of society in one's life? I guess that it is restricted to:
- Giving us the context, background info, intellectual inputs, "facts of the case", etc.
- Laying down the law of the land so that the sweep of one's hand does not land on the other guy's nose
- And that's that - Probably, nothing more, nothing less!
Regards,
N
I asked my father on your chat, and he said:
ReplyDelete“According to N., a man can do whatever he thinks is right, and that anyone else, be it father, mother, friend, any other person, or any shastras/norms/traditions/practices need not have any bearing on what a man does. N. says that others can express their opinions and give their inputs, and there the matter should rest.
In this context only, the question was raised as to what, if at all, any other person or anything else should have to do with an individual in society.
If everyone were to behave and act based on the presumption stated in para. A. we will end up in having a group of people highly individualistic and not having or even accepting or even acknowledging the role of the other. That may culminate in the dangerous premise that what is might is right, what suits me best is the only thing that matters, and that all others be damned.”
(will write some thoughts next)
As far as paragraph 1 is concerned, it is not revolutionary in our local society - “our” meaning the mylapore or madras circles. I mean, that the general things my father is complaining about, with regard to traditional norms, do not have legal implications either way, or more in particular, he is not seeking legal authorization of his views or the views of tradition, etc. He is seeking to impose his opinion of right and wrong against yours, and vise versa. There really, this matter rests, and you should be fine with that.
ReplyDeleteNow if we go to another era in our society, or perhaps to certain village-societies today, or to Islamic countries, we may find that these points of “tradition” have legal sanction and their neglect warrants legal punishment. Those who believe in a certain social right, or who believe in society’s right, may find solace if the society as a majority (or dictatorial-minority) demands and makes that norm the “Law” of the land. This gives stability to that social behavior (or lack thereof) and authorizes it. The individual is still free to go against that Law; but now there are consequences which in his own opinion will not be preferable, and he therefore aligns his behavior to suit that law-bound norm of society.
Now why does a person think about how another in society should live? One answer can be that the society is conceived as a larger Whole of whom the individual is a part. Each individual’s behavior contributes to/affects the well-being/integrity of the society, and hence indirectly, the lives of other individuals in that society. Thus if person A’s behavior affects person B adversely, then person B will seek for person A to change.
Both A and B work within the practical constraints of their body and mind, as developed in their lives. They are not jnanis, as the saying goes – that is, their actual inner conception of self is limited and time bound, in spite of intellectual capacity to see beyond. They are subject to desire, anger, self-love and delusion, and these consequences of agnyana colour their determinations of dharma and adharma, in spite of all professions otherwise. Thus we could be in a situation where a certain behavior may in fact affect social (& individual) stability in the long-run, and yet person A’s short-sightedness does not acknowledge it. His outer reasons may appear grand and noble, and yet the fundamental cause for his seeking of “freedom” through certain behavior may be traceable to agnyana. The long-term consequence might be unexpected and regrettable even for person A.
Similarly it is equally possible that person B’s complaint is simply an expression of fear and delusion, and have nothing to do with dharma. Dharma should lead to Moksha, in the sense, that abiding by dharma in the “karma yoga” sense gradually cleanses the mind of impurities (clinging to various levels of delusion) and prepares it for the assimilation of jnana/Truth (thus actual awareness of freedom). That is the technical basis for shastraic suggestions of dharma. Whether we accept all that or not, person B here may not in general be thinking in this context, and as such, many of the social norms he suggests of may not be fruitful to the life of another individual or of society.
(Of course, person A and B are general characters, not necessarily implying yourself and my father.)