Reflections: Anthem

I thought my days of reading Ayn Rand were behind me. But a good friend recommended this book as a “gentle” version of Ayn Rand. I couldn’t resist reading a book that received such a rare adjective about Ayn Rand!

Everybody is familiar with Rand’s philosophy. This book espouses the same principles of Objectivism. But since it’s a novella, it’s short and effective in succinctly conveying the crux of her philosophy. The setting of the book is reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984, and Lois Lowry’s The Giver. Humanity has regressed in the name of cooperation, equality, and order. It’s a society that results from an extreme form of Communism that eradicates an individual’s basic rights, freedom, and even identity. Everything is decided by the Council, everyone is forced to be equal to one another, forced to put the collective needs of the society ahead of their own, forced to follow the profession decided by the council, forced to stop thinking independently, etc. What might have been founded to bring about equality to all fellow human-beings is shown to have robbed the very spirit of freedom, identity, progress, and humanity.

The protagonist writes about how he eventually breaks out of the shackles of this society to embrace freedom. He discovers the meaning of the word “I” and connects with the truth that the individual spirit needs to be revered and followed, not ignored and bent to someone else’s will.

In principle, I do agree that the human spirit should be celebrated, appreciated, and respected. Self-interest is a key component of progress - both individually and collectively. It makes no sense for an Utopian world of complete equality between human-beings to exist, for all of us are different, and will remain different. A homogeneous world of equality is unnatural. And it’s absurd for socialistic principles that try to equalize quality of life for all, to turn civilization into the very opposite of their beliefs. It’s like morality and moral principles punishing the innocent. Everything makes sense in principle. But when they are executed literally, and taken to extreme forms, they all fail and end up resulting in a condition that contradicts the very same principles in the first place.

I dread such stifling forms of socialism or communism where basic individuality and freedom is lost. But, I also dread extreme forms of capitalism where basic compassion is lost. I think a similar dystopian story can be written about the disintegration of human civilization due to extreme capitalism, ego, greed, and callousness. In extremes, every principle and theory fails and reverts to its antithesis.

Every aspect of Nature’s design has a delicate balance of cooperation and competition. This balance is supremely vital. From a “selfish” standpoint, we all need to think of our fellow human-beings and care for their welfare as much as we need to honor our own independence and will. Neglecting one over the other will not work. Human society will not progress in either extremes.

This is a good introduction to Ayn Rand for those of you who would like to ease into her philosophy :). I am always impressed by her vociferous, passionate words. She writes with so much conviction and confidence. Her words are great motivation when we need to summon the courage and confidence to follow our heart, stand-up for our principles, and express our freedom.

Reflections: The God Of Small Things

Sometimes, books that I revisit help me understand how much I’ve changed, grown, or fallen back over the years. When I first attempted to read this book, several years back, I was a wide-eyed teenager who lived in her bubble of idealism. I found the writing to be choppy, and the story to be disturbing. It bothered my world-view of moral-idealism, and I abandoned the book. Last week, years later, the book had stared at me from an abandoned bookshelf. On a whim, I decided to read it again till the very end, only to discover how much I have changed, and how much I haven’t.

Rahel and Estha are fraternal twins snared in a web of complications weaved expertly by the big strong adults of their world. Their childhood is ruthlessly entangled in society’s biggest issues, the most vociferous debates, when all they tried to do was indulge themselves in the small pleasures of childhood. It is this perspective - how the small and big issues of life coalesce and drastically alter the course of small things, while hardly creating a ripple in the big things, that puts this book in its special place. It is the age-old discussion of individual versus community, and how the individuals always lose out, unwittingly, innocently.

The twins are born out of the unfortunate union of a Malayali Syrian Christian mom, and a Bengali dad, both of whom have their own personal scars and misgivings. Their intentions were masked by impulse and rash hope, only to soon wither away as reality shined through. The twins and their mom, Ammu, are forced to seek refuge in Ammu’s home in Ayemenem, Kerala. An eloped daughter, divorced, with two children, returning home in disgrace, forms the exemplar of ridicule and forced-humiliation for the Ayemenem household members, who view themselves as staunch upholders of morality. Ammu and the children struggle to find their place in the household and in the community, but in vain. They hunger for love and acceptance. Each is caught in their own suffocating insecurity of their bleak future. Like a pile of dried leaves, their insecurities slowly mount from little incidents, which by themselves might seem insignificant. However, driven to the edge, they take a daring little step to reach out for love, only to dearly pay an incredibly torturous price.

Roy fiercely brings to life the hypocrisies of the Indian society, especially, in the 60s, when Communism was at its incipient, boisterous stages in Kerala. Notions of equality and freedom did not fit with the community’s model of a moral society. Morality was a vacuous term, muddled by people’s distorted beliefs and bloated egos. Each person was tainted by his own selfish agendas, rationalizing them as being moral and for the greater good. Such a society, clouded by prejudice, deems who can be touched, and who cannot be. And what their role in society ought to be.  Even as communism burgeons, there is a double-standard on who is worthy of its principles, and how much of it. This becomes the moral-mantra to base all their rational and irrational deeds.

I never expected this book to leave such an intense emotional impact on me. The mix of heady emotions overwhelmed me so much, that I had to wait for a few days to write this post. In some ways, I still am that wide-eyed girl, hoping for harmony and kindness in every path that humanity takes. It still pains me to see the remnants of colonialism and caste-distinctions wreaking havoc in personal lives, and individual happiness. It pains me even more when children are mercilessly involved in cruel, complicated, moral dilemmas. It isn’t fair that their lives are scarred irreparably due to moral implications beyond their grasp of understanding. From a child’s lens, everything is simplified and seen for what it truly is. If only adults could simplify, and experience the smaller, delicate things in life that build up to the bigger causes. What a refreshing objective it would provide.

This time, I found the writing to be deeply moving, and incredibly imaginative. It a took me awhile to connect with the writing style, but when I did, I was hypnotized by it. I marvel at Roy’s ability to pick out the most subtle, yet the most deepest of emotions and thoughts and convey them through metaphors that are both ingeniously creative and simple. She brilliantly defines each character with their unique personality. The writing cuts through with sarcasm and insight, and tender descriptions. Her descriptions are intensely vivid, sometimes cruelly vivid. I think it was her writing that really brought the story closer to my heart.

Some parts of the book - especially how the twins resolve their hollowed emotional angst, was a little hard for me to accept. I could empathize with their scars and the need to fill their void with love, but the Freudian theories of repression that Roy unravels, somehow didn’t hold water with me.

Except for that quibble, the book has endeared itself nicely. The characters and the intense emotions pulsing through the book have been etched into my heart and memory.

Reflections: All Under Heaven

In addition to bombarding this space with my sudden splurge of thoughts on books, what's with this marathon on Coelho's and Buck's? Lets just call it Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and going by esteemed recommendations :)

All Under Heaven is a book that deals with the acceptance of human beings as belonging to just one kind - Humankind, under the all encompassing and loving heavens. A distinguished American diplomat, having served in China for twenty five years, returns home to America with his loving Russian wife and two children. The family's sudden return was due to the imminent Communist Revolution that threatened to destroy many such foreign and noble families, merely because of their social standing. The McNeil family loved China and was integrated in it's rich culture. Except for Mr. McNeil, the rest of the family were as much Chinese as they were not Americans. Even Mr. McNeil, despite his American descent, felt more of a stranger after all his years away from the country. Added to this, was Mrs. McNeil's Russian heritage, intermingling a culture into the family that was founded out of love and the energy to bring forth peace and harmony. The book is a realistic recount of this "mixed" family's struggles and challenges to integrate into America, and their lessons on what it takes to be accepted as true Americans.

Our identities have their roots in the land in which we are nurtured. Our ways of thinking, cultural orientations, and ways of living get tainted by the experiences of the people and traditions of the land. When we enter a new land, our identities are forced to be reformed, to desperately fit in. There ensues a very familiar conflict between our torn personalities - one apprehensive of losing our essence and roots, and the other eager to fit in, to be accepted. In the process, some parts of us get subdued, dormant, fading away into a corner of the soul; some we integrate to form a clarified version of east and west, as a consolation of the best of two worlds, while some parts of our identities grow afresh, sprouting entirely as children of the new land and culture. Pearl Buck brings out these aspects in the book, as the diverse family struggles to be part of America, while fearful of not losing their true self. The adolescent children of the family find it more easier to grow into Americans and are eager to shed away their prejudiced associations, while the parents fear the integrity of such a growth.

Most of us have faced the challenges of entering a new country, a new culture and way of living. America as it is today, is seen as reasonably welcoming, speckled with diverse culture, cuisines and acceptance of liberal and independent ways of living. The transition has been made almost seamless. But more than five decades before, when revolutions were at their hilt and the world kept breaking and patching up, entering a new country that was wary of foreigners from Communist countries, did not promise such a welcoming experience. The book introduces the America of the yesteryear's - conservative and closed. Pearl Buck delicately brings out the prejudices towards communists, and ignorant beliefs towards them. She openly laments on how America shielded itself from world affairs and history, and people led their quick judgments to isolate anyone with a remote association with China or Russia. Warm hearted young men wanted to bomb, without wanting to think, reason, or find a harmonious solution, while the white peasants were complacent to not worry about what was happening across the oceans.

The book touches upon Communism's impact on those intellectuals like the McNeil's family who desired harmonious existence, but were branded and discriminated due to their social class and heritage. In addition to the misunderstood concepts on Communism, the family's struggle to culturally fit in, forms a realistic and insightful tale.

The Lifeboat

Roger, the self-appointed captain of the lifeboat, proclaimed, "So this boat can hold twenty people, and there are only twelve of us on the boat, and we have plenty of rations to last us till the rescue team arrives, which won't be more than 24 hours. So we can safely allow ourselves to relax and enjoy on some warm cocoa. Any objections?" "Err...this is indeed a reassuring situation, but rather than enjoy on extra cocoa, shouldn't we try to rescue that drowning lady who's been shouting for help?", asked Mr. Mates. A few people bent their head down to avoid confrontation, while others couldn't care less. "I thought we had agreed that it's not our fault that she's drowning! If we picked her up, we wouldn't be able to enjoy our extra rations! Why should we unsettle the cozy set up here?" And there were surprising nods of agreement to this. Mr. Mates retorted angrily, "Because she is dying and it's our responsibility to save her!! Isn't this reason enough?" "Life is a bitch, if she dies it's not because we killed her", said a cold-hearted Roger. (Source: 'Lifeboat Earth', by Onora O'Neill, republished in "World Hunger and Moral Obligation", edited by W.Aiken and H.La Follette)

Quite a coincidence that I conjured up a similar scenario a couple of posts before, but of course the context in which I used it was different. But nice to know that even I can sometimes think like some well known people ;)


I know that this scenario is so appalling and I'm sure I will hardly come across anyone who might argue that the woman shouldn't be rescued. And the objective of this post/analysis is not to pour over reasons as to why one needs to offer help. This scenario is but an allegory - the boat can be likened to an affluent country with surplus resources, and the dying woman is a metaphor for the thousands of people from war-torn developing countries dying everyday of hunger. In a country like India, the disparity is so stark, that the boat can very well be compared to huge corporations and wealthy merchants. Put in such a manner, isn't it the moral obligation of such affluent sections to help the underprivileged?


Having expressed so, one can notice obvious undertones of communism/socialism. To me this was the biggest revelation. I have always discussed communism in the light of equality, but never from such a stern angle of moral obligation. Philanthropy is heralded as a righteous deed, praised and encouraged. But the above allegory suggests that it's one's mere responsibility, there's nothing to be praised! It's the duty of those people on the boat to rescue the woman; doesn't matter if the resources belong only to them, and was earned by them. It's a crime if they didn't rescue! So if we didn't actively strive to help those in need of help, are our occasional splurges of charity work, half-baked realizations of our moral code?


Is our life indeed such a plain comparison to the people on the boat? One might argue that we hardly get to witness someone suffer and die before our eyes. The reaction of seeing someone die in close quarters is different from seeing those heart-wrenching images on TV millions of miles away, that leave us with a sense of helplessness and disconnect since we don't have the direct means to offer fruitful help as in the case of the allegory, wherein the concrete solution is to jump into the waters and save. But in India we see these images right outside our comfortable homes, and yet there are still very few who actually venture out to at least offer a morsel of food... not leftover food that is "generously" thrown, but actual food. Also, these problems are not as simple and straightforward as a one-time offer of help with food, money or shelter. The problems in the real world require a long-term solution, a sustained effort at uplifting other lives, and a continued resolve to dip into our own resources without a feeling of possession. It requires long-term commitment to the cause. Reaching out and finding ways to help and to keep at it, are the main challenges. Such challenges are deterrents, but it doesn't seem fair if they are converted to comfortable excuses. If no one in the boat knew swimming, it still doesn't justify them not even trying to help.


Having argued that the lifeboat scenario presents minimal challenges as opposed to the real-world, do I still view philanthropic gestures to be nothing more than moral responsibilities? Yes, in a way I do. There are always levels of philanthropy obviously... it all depends on how much a person detaches from their possessions and ego. If I choose to share 3 of my 10 apples, I can't laud myself, but if I give away all 10 and choose to remain hungry a day without looking forward to any ego satisfaction, then that goes a little above moral obligation. Most of the Hindu scriptures prescribe the act of giving and sharing without expecting returns. Maybe in this jungle of a world it's a little too idealistic, but it's nonetheless a good exercise to discipline oneself to work towards more meaningful causes.

The Veil of Ignorance

Imagine 20 civilians being selected to go and live on Mars. There would be a number of goods on the planet, including accommodation, food, drink and luxury items. The people who were selected to live on Mars had to decide how the goods should be distributed amongst them. All of these people knew they were going to be living on Mars for an extended period of time and they had to do tasks that were part of the Mars colony (which is one of the main reasons for them being sent there). However none of these people knew what sort of tasks awaited them in Mars, and if they were equipped for them. All the work could be manual, or none of them. So the first suggestion was to equally divide the goods amongst everyone on the colony: from each according to their abilities to each according to their means. However there was an objection - what if there were some who neglected their work, failed at their work, or worse, refused to do their share? Wouldn't it be unfair to give them a share of the goods they didn't deserve? Isn't incentive a good way to make people contribute? As much sense as the objection made, it lead to more problems on resolving what fairness really meant. Is fairness different from giving everyone the same share? (Source: A Theory of Justice, by John Rawls)


This is quite a popular piece. I remember having read this is in one of my Ethics books in the context of Rawl's popular Social Contract Theory, but I don't remember if I ever had a discussion.


The Social Contract Theory emphasizes the need for a social contract amongst people coexisting within a country/colony/community, to ensure liberty and equality for all. In simpler terms, the contract is a set of duties and responsibilities that people need to abide by, and this brings forth the basic principle that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. It also emphasizes reciprocity of 'good' deeds. The people being sent to Mars are in the process of figuring out their Social Contract, or so it seems to me. But here is their core problem - all of them are shrouded in a metaphorical veil of ignorance since none of them have any clue of how their talents and abilities will benefit them in Mars. For all they know, a person who is a scholar on Earth maybe reduced to a nobody on Mars, and a bus driver on Earth maybe the most sought after person on Mars, based on the needs and work conditions. With such bleak understanding of life on another planet it now is a challenge to come up with a Social Contract.


Rawl's philosophy is that, given such a situation, people's general tendency is to be cautious from the danger of ending up in the lower rungs of the new society. Hence everyone would try to come up with a contract that ensures maximum/equal benefit to the least advantaged (the maximin rule). This, in his view is a good experiment for determining democracy - the liberal form of democracy. Is this form of equality really fair? Or are there prejudices despite the veil of ignorance which get carried onto framing the new Social Contract?


I've been putting off writing about this for a while now, for all I know about political "science" are the meaning behind capitalism, socialism, communism, democracy, dictatorship, monarchy and anarchy... enough to have some opinions, but probably not deep and robust enough. I'm not a person who follows enough of the political arena or analyzes history to have opinions on what works when, how and what fails, when and how. Therefore, with this limited extent of knowledge I try to analyze this chapter.


In my view (political definitions apart), I think it is impossible to guarantee equality to all... it is inherently impossible with the way the world is structured. I say this by popping onto a higher level, if we are to assume ourselves to be ruled by God/Nature. Call it Karma, or any other term, I believe one is entitled to what he deserves through his actions/deeds, and not every person can receive the same form of equality. Not all of us can be rich, none of our lives can be "equal" in the truest sense. None of the guys who will land in Mars have the same type of "equal" opportunities awaiting, and therein equality starts to crack even before there can be a contract.


So, would being behind the veil of ignorance help in shaping better social contracts that at least mitigates the state of the lower rungs? Yes, it appears so. Isn't our existence the survival of the fittest? Why bother rescuing those who can't survive on their own, by compromising on what the winners truly deserve? Well, I think this question borders on the principles of Capitalism versus Communism... or probably Socialism to some extent.


My view is that each person should have all the basic rights and basic amenities available. But then, how much of the share he is entitled to is dependent on how much he contributes to society/community, for rights and duties do go hand in hand. Every person will/and should have some way to contribute to the community. If one cannot contribute due to severe disabilities then is he doomed? No that is unfair. So should he get the same share as a person who works and toils everyday. No that's not fair either. He should still be entitled to basic amenities (out of dignity and empathy to his life), but the person who works will be entitled to more than just the basic. Now what exactly is the definition of "basic"? What if there aren't enough resources to help the disabled? Should the rest pool in and compromise on their rewards to be shared with the rest? Is that the true meaning behind the maximin rule? Maybe.


It takes a humanitarian turn. So yes, being behind the veil does give us a sense of uncertainty, of the need to save ourselves if we become helpless, and that attempts to tug at our humanitarian conscience, which is necessary to be in place while framing Social Contracts.


Those with more political insight, I would love to hear your views! :)