Ryan murder case and dreaded everydayness: Foucault bites back

Can anyone remember the last major reform in the performance appraisal of the students, or mechanisms of measurement of merit in the education system? Frankly there isn't any! There are instances of development of reform like trends, such as, making learning more informative - the advent of surface learning by making students to mug up information - which in my opinion is meaningless because now we have google to do that! There seems to be increasing emphasis on 'training' rather than education. Yes, the coming generation are trained to do certain precise things which is at per with the increasing mechanisation of the nature of work force. Hence, as a student you are supposed to know a hell lot of things. You are supposed to memorise them and reproduce them like a computer without virus capable of giving prints to a billion flawless copies.

What if that computer fails? Yes, we look for potential 'problems' that stops the machine to do what is expected from it. If it can be fixed it is fine, if not it adds to the huge lump of electronic waste! What if a child fails in a similar way? Yes, we become equally frustrated add extra private tutor (like adding an additional RAM) and compare them with others who are performing better. If the child is failing repeatedly to perform as expected, what we do is finely shown in the movie Taare Zameen Par. See the clipping below.

Repeated failure and there is a chance of a complete disaster. There is hardly any space left where the child can vent out her/his accumulated frustrations. Their natural games are also been replaced because of lack of playground and too many engagements and tuitions. In one of my earlier post I wrote extensively on this. It is a fact that while in many urban centers there is a vanishing space for children to play, in rural places there is vanishing number of playmates hence the picture is gloomy everywhere (click here). The little games they are allowed to play is under strict supervision of the coach - which is not much different from the ways they are supposed to study. In art school they are supposed to paint according to the art teacher who (usually) only guides them to colour within the countour of the drawing and anything that goes beyond the boundary is considered mistake. Similarly, those who swim are frustrated with their coaches because before they could love water and their body within it, the coach is asking them to rectify the butterfly strokes! Come'on not everyone is going to become Sachin, nor everyone is going to be a Olympic swimmer. We are thankful Vincent or Leonardo didn't have a coach to 'discipline' them.

The murder of a 7-year-old child allegedly by a class XI student perhaps shows all the symptoms of an outcome of present everydayness of late capital child rearing practices. The class XI student wanted to delay the examination because he was ill prepared. I remember whenever there were some examinations approached that too of serious ones I used to pray to make some kind of natural calamity (rainfall or storm) so that the exam gets deferred and so that I can prepare! These were wishful thoughts but then I used to think okay, whatever! There will always be another exam where I can do well. My friends from school (apart from the consistent first ten ranking students or so) more or less used to have similar thought pattern. Our parents demanded us to secure qualifying marks in subjects where we were weak. For the rest, above 50% would have been sufficient for us to satisfy them. They would only say "okay, perform better next time, play less and concentrate." That's it, everything remained the same. This, dear readers, have changed a lot. I knew a few of my friends who used to score top marks and then failed to do so had faced hardship from their parents. They had set the expectations and their parents reciprocated. I guess, these forms of expectations like conspicuous consumption have percolated everywhere. Now, even the bottom most pupil are facing similar pressure that the top one of his/her class faces.

For Foucault let me begin by quoting him from his monumental "Discipline and Punish" (read the book here). Foucault (1975) writes :

"Historically, the process by which the bourgeoisie became in the course of the eighteenth century the politically dominant class was masked by the establishment of an explicit, coded and formally egalitarian juridical framework, made possible by the organization of a parliamentary, representative regime. But the development and generalization of disciplinary mechanisms constituted the other, dark side of these processes. The general juridical form that guaranteed a system of rights that were egalitarian in principle was supported by these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical that we call the disciplines."" (222)

Now extend the idea of "formally egalitarian judicial framework" a little further to see the egalitarianism and supposed equal opportunities among the pupils of an institutions. The basic logic is that each student's performance is now measured in some supposedly objective measure through gradation (it is even more objective with Multiple Choice Questions), hence, a student's performance will indicate her/his position. The mechanisms of 'discipline' demands to "follow what coaches ask!" "...these tiny, everyday, physical mechanisms, by all those systems of micro-power that are essentially non-egalitarian and asymmetrical..."

What happens when you cannot cope with the 'Coach' or the disciplining practices! You know what is waiting for you at domestics. You have no playground to vent out emotions, and you are surrounded by a number of threat perceptions!

No one knows "how many deaths will it take 'til he knows/ That too many people have died?" The system will remain the same be it gradation, judgement of merit or potential. On the top of which there will be pressures for 'disciplining' because that is what suits the late capital utility maximisation. There will be blood! More cases like Ryan murder and Foucault will keep on shouting from a distant past!


For the detailed case - click here

Pic Courtesy: NDTV. https://www.ndtv.com/gurgaon-news/ryan-international-school-murder-case-16-year-old-grilled-as-cbi-tries-to-fill-gaps-in-gurgaon-schoo-1773258

Evolution is flawed

If evolution is to be seen as a species's ability to transmit genes and continue to propagate then among mammals Humans happens to be one of the most successful animals, or at least this is how the species perceives it since the time Darwin. The second best performers in this definition happens to be those who has some purpose to serve to the species of Homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, cow, chicken, pigs are evolutionarily more successful than their wild varieties or the rest of the animals which lack purposive connection to humans.

Frankly, the whole idea of evolution under this definition is now worthless. Kaleidoscope knows he might receive a heavy blow from his friends from biological disciplines because come on evolution cannot be flawed! He knows the luxurious life that he leads is a fruit of evolution and he also knows even poorest of the poor of this world is leading a luxurious life if it is compared to the Homo erects - and credit goes to evolution. However, as it is said "idea of evolution is flawed" it also demands some explanation. Evolution in terms of passing on genes to the next generation to continue the species happens to be the primordial drive and also the source of most of the problems in the world! - well this is not the reason for which evolution is flawed! Evolution as a concept of passing genes is flawed because it lacks subjective dimensions - the dimension that has never looked upon seriously. The basic question that needs some reflection is something like this "Do I need this life to pass on genes?" Any reader might say - well its like Cartesian ideology. Some other might say "okay, that is only true for Homo sapiens sapiens and not for the rest of the animals, because they are yet to reach the cognitive revolution. Kaleidoscope will say its not so and will refer to an old post on Civilisation and Question of Love series "Brutality on animals".

 Think about hens having complex world of behavioural needs and drives. They want to run around, find hierarchy, make nest lay eggs and groom. Think about intelligent and inquisitive pigs. Think about dairy cows. These animals spend almost their entire allotted life inside a confined space. Calves, piglets are kept away from their mothers. all of them are fed with perfect dose, given hormone injections and so on an so forth. Just to pass on their genes for the superior species Homo sapiens (Benson and Rollins 2004, Appleby Mench Hughs 2005). Yes, Kaleidoscope knows it might seem a laughable logic. Okay, fine, lets go back to the age of slavery. Or assume the role of any minority population in today's world. Even better think about your life in front of a computer screen for 12 - 15 hours a day for 12 months a year and then think about the significance of evolution on Homo sapiens sapiens. You can pass on your genes only to be exploited by others.

Pic courtesy: https://www.pinterest.com/explore/evolution-cartoon/

Glassy Selfie World - Narcissism and Postmodern architectures

The selfie world

The one glassy building:

Once there was a glass building with completely different and attractive looking architecture near Ultadanga - the VSNL building. Kaleidoscope, an aimless roamer in his neighbourhood was for the first time asked by an elderly fellow 'where do you want to take up your job?' Kaleido replied 'at that glass building near ultadanga'. 'Do you know which office is there inside the building' the fellow continued. Kaleidoscope replied 'yes VSNL' 'And what is that?' - yes of course kaleidoscope  didn't know the answer. He said 'i dont know but i would be happy  to see the graveyard nearby from the top of that office during tiffin time!' Kaleidoscope can't  remember the rest of conversation, but he does remember the attraction of that glassy architecture.

Many glassy buildings:

Later on he has seen many of such buildings coming up at different places of his city. Then there came shopping destinations which he thought he would never be able to go to buy. Now that there are many and that he has grown up, he doesn't have much aspirations or options to take up a job in the glassy buildings. However, looking from any of the top buildings, remains an important part of his fantasies.

While these glassy buildings are encroaching his city space, mushrooming everywhere to replace many of the thickly historical experiences, kaleidoscope stsrred seeing them differently.  There is one beside National Library and kaleidoscope is deprived of experiencing the colonial feel which was as precious as the books that took hours to appear from some hidden cave in the library. The postmodern bhasa bhawan replaces National Library. All of a sudden renovation means replacing mosaic floors with tiles, windows with sliding glass panels which reduces the open space to half and walls with wallputty!

Selfie world:

Hence kaleidoscope's world is now converted to a space that reflects your image too often. When you look at them they make you look at yourself - perhaps the front camera clad selfie mode in action everywhere. A world where there is no escape from selfie. You have to be narcissistic, you must be able to fall in love with and then transform the body according to your wish! You are made not to love everything of your body because there are other better bodies to see nearby, and you are more and more trying to change it. Yes, you chose to look 'good' because so many times you are compared with your heroes possessing 'ideal types'. 

As Kaleidoscope looks up beyond the glassy buildings there seems to be the outer atmosphere - the sky. Only attaining that high demands him to go through a series of colourful backlit flexes. Will they ever allow kaleidoscope or for that matter others to trespass them?

Perhaps trespassing is not a possibility without getting into 'properly' shaped. One should not only live but should also die sexy.

The fleeting worlds:

The glassy buildings not only makes your world a selfie world, but also makes you believe the transient nature and lack of permanence and depthless presents. Hence, there once was hometown mall now central mall and no one knows perhaps may be in a few years it would be office space like Gariahat mall. Who knows how long IBM clad DLF I or the like will stay? Glasses are easy to leave as they are! Aren't they? Additionally they easily breakable and replaceable by something new. Therefore, here it is, a transient depthless successions of architectures, or do they redefine depth in time, depth in stratigraphy in a dynamic way in a way we can say postmodern!

Meanwhile, its again the sky from above and a tall building calling! Meanwhile,  kaleodoscope knows attaining that high is restricted as the roofs are dangerous in high buildings. Is it true? or does the glassy world hold you back, because you are supposed to live (consume) and not rush for the sky! Not yet, because you cannoy die till you aren't sexy!

The newly converted central mall in an extreme angle.

Raindrops and emptiness

No matter how critical he might be about the late capital existence, kaleidoscope wont deny the fact that its wonderful to see outside in the middle of a rainy day from a built-in-space, that too when empty.  Drenched in a rain, a cup of darjeeling tea and sometime alone in the middle of a coffee shop is a chance to indulge late capital self to explore the details of civilisation.

The shop happens to be empty, only a person waiting at one corner, a gang of college friends carrying engineer's hallmark 'T scale' and a wonderful couple looking at each other! The outside is melting down through the glasspanels. Once and all none of them are involved in their mobile phones, weather does wonder.

Suddenly, there is Bryan Adams 'Rescue me' followed by 'have you really loved a woman'.

What if the rain drops are coming from all the rivers Kaleidoscope fell in love with, what if they have come to make love with the space, always meant for love - friendship- companionship. When rain comes so does the wind to make the drenching complete, to make the melting worth melt for.

Kaleidoscope sometimes do feel love is often about the space and moments - all equalising raindrops from all the rivers makes it even more prominent - more liveable.

Postmodern encounters: Juxtapositions from classrooms to shoppingmalls

What makes culture so fascinating? Several answers you might encounter but the most fascinating one for Kaleidoscope is the filter effect that culture entails!

Kaleidoscope, when started studying diffussionism and later on encountered Rirzer with globalisation and mcdonaldisation always wondered what makes people from all over the world become the same? and then he encountered glocalisation as an accomodative space. However in postmodern times while there is a rise of global spread of capitalism and forces that make seemingly dissimilar people to become similar to a large extent, there is also a parallel rise of identity consolidation and rise of newer  and micro identities.

School days 1995-1996

Kaleidoscope can remember one of his teachers at his rural and least known school, who always promoted anti-superstitious narratives. He often talked of how easy it is to explain things scientifically. Kaleodoscope often relives that day when the teacher showed both of his hands saying "see boys, i dont wear any ring containing fortune bringing stones! Do you think that i am any less fortunate than those who bear them?"  Yes the impact was massive! The teacher along with several others brought 'Viggyan Manch' - the platform for promotion of science and rational mind to the school. It institutionalised such mindselt among many!

Kaleidoscope, however, lost that impression as he could also remember the same teacher uttered 'you know muslims are by race a bit aggressive'. Kaleidoscope couldn't relate this statement with his muslim friends and their families but nevertheless he continued to have a mixed and confused impressions.

Mall Days 2017s and the like

Kaleidoscope in continuation to his yearly marketing extravaganza today went to one of the important malls 'Mani Square.' When his store instructed him to comeback after 30 mins for the items he bought needed alteration, he went to food court and found what is presented in the photograph (see below).

Yes, a palmist and fortune teller in a shopping mall with an immediate backdrop of Coca-Cola. Kaleidoscope took the photo when the person left the chair for a moment- yes, no prsonal game here lets accept reality Sui generis!

Juxtaposed Kaleido

The filtering effect is continuing with all forms of juxtapositions, multiple realities and expressions of dominant forms of cultural filters. Capitalism makes it all possible in 2017. All are sold, from crossword to palm reading from potatoes to pizza.  Kaleidoscope could feel the strong presence of essentiality of cultural filters. Filters always surrounding you - filters that shapes you - makes you and breaks you.  While belief and cultural filters in 1990s have enabled the Viggyan manch inspired teacher to discard stone bearing rings but embrace the stereotypes about Muslims today one can actully read Einstein or Marx in the second floor order a piza at food court and explore his/ her palm and then take a ola to go back home and count number of likes on the facebook life. Meanwhile kaleidoscope like many othrs knows it is postmodern chaos wrapped in late-capital wrapper with jucy layers of feudal past.

Bluewhale game: Experiments of civilisations

While there is something called a "Blue Whale Game" that pushes people to commit suicide and like HIV AIDS we are believing in "Jankari hi Bachaw" - i.e. Knowing is preventing. It simply makes you trust on the good will of the civilisation that if you know what "Blue Whale Game" is you can survive just by not playing it! Is it that simple? or is it something much more complicated? Kaleidoscope usually believes in history and he strongly believes in the Baudrillard's claim that "Everything has already happened... nothing new can occur, there is no real world!" Kaleidoscope firmly believes in the existence of simulacra and its endless layers of signifiers.

Blue Whale Games as Civilisation's Brutal Experiments:

Well you can term them negative, you can term them as curse of civilisation, you can condemn such games and its curators as the worst products of human society and civilisation, but yes they do exist and there is no point denying that. Kaleidoscope believes that they exist because of increasing differentiation between sub-cultures to such an extent that just like the colonial period now for another time in human history two (or more) completely different human types are facing with each other.

Lets remember a case that happened in 1835 in Chatham Islands, 500 miles east of New Zealand. Kaleidoscope belongs to a society which has always taught that atrocities are committed by the so-called powerful people like the Britishers. He has studied a discipline that is suffering so deeply with ethnographic romanticism, and these two are precisely the reasons Kaleidoscope has chosen to use this case of civilisation's experiment with two different forms of people who are otherwise "tribals", exotic and supposed to be less violent than the British people or other power centres. Sadly, it is not so! Therefore, in 1835 after a hundred years of separation of two goups of people who were actually brothers and sisters a hundred years ago had a face off!

These two are the Maori and Moriori. 500 Maoris arrived in Chatham Island travellign by the first ship and then another 400 in the second ship. They started to roam around and Moriori's settlement areas and declared that Morioris were their slaves. Morioris were still large in nuber and they could actually defeat the Maoris with their knowledge of the terrain and geography but because of their culture of non-violence they thought of offering the Maori people a fair share of their resources. Morioris were however a different breed of human beings. They launched attack, killed, cooked and ate hundreds of Morioris over next one week. There were hardly any Moriori fighter left. As a result two groups separated from wach other only a hundred year ago had a faceoff and Moriori was literally eaten away by their old kins.

Such an outcome were actually predictable. Morioris were not warriors, they had harmonious relationship with their island's natural resources, they were relatively small in number and isolated hunter-gatherers. They lacked strong leaderships - to be honest they didn't need one and when they needed one they lacked because such things does not come overnight!

Today's civilizational confrontations:

Clearly the result of that clash in 1835 was a clash between two different sets and levels of knowledge and culture. Todays' Blue Whale game as a mechanism of killing people by trapping them is not much different than what happened in 1835. Today, the civilisation is for another time facing two or more different types of species. One is superior in certain kind of Knowledge than others. Hence, one level of population is dwelling with only the surface of the Internet knowledge and access. There are others who are dwelling with Deep internet surfaces where things are quite 'dark.' It was okay until the two had a faceoff - and this is perhaps the time when these two different kinds of species are having a faceoff. Bluewhale or the like will continue to kill, promote hatred and we the Moriris are not ready, are not equipped to face this civilisation's confrontations!

Kaleidoscope has a bad news from history, Blue Whale game is not AIDS and "Jaankari hi Bachao" is not what is required.

See if you like:

 King, Michael (1989) On the Chatham Island. Auckland: Penguin

Kirch, Patrick (1984). The Evolution of Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Data is NOT that Sexy - Civilisation and Illusion of Freedom

Kaleidoscope is failing miserably to cope up with the rapid progress of policies in post 2014. He has failed to be present for his UID - Aadhar which he could eventually obtain as it was made mandatory. He failed to link his Aadhar with LPG and lost the little benefit he could get which soon will disappear. He has tried his online banking and even through his most trusted ATM kiosks to link his Aadhar with his bank account.

Kaleidoscope know even if he has to take a few days of leave it would be okay to continue at pace with the policy changes that runs parallel with dataism! Its not the loss of time-energy-money that makes Kaleidoscope believe that Data is NOT that Sexy - it is rather quite deep rooted that this.

Data flow and vanishing qualitative dimensions: 

Kaleidoscope believes that he is a serious researcher and hence, he is expected to be fond of data. Wouldn't it be wonderful to work on food-habit of people by clicking your mouse once they make Aadhar mandatory to buy daily groceries and vegetables! Yes, it would be - for some, perhaps for many! But how about going to different places, actually tasting and smelling them, actually feeling them - getting people's lived experiences of interaction with food and then write something qualitativde? 

Dataism doesn't want you to do that. Dataism doesn't want you to go for consciousness and subjectivity that has so long continued to make Kaleidoscope's species human! 

No, this is only one reason for which Kaleidoscope finds Data is NOT that Sexy!

What dataism says?

Dataism says that universe consists of data flows and value of any phenomenon or entity is determined by its contribution to data processing (Kelly 2010, Hidalgo 2015). Think about Darwinian discoveries in his series of wonderfully written "descent of man" (Kaleidoscope started translating them but failed in the midway) and think about the invention of computers as data processing machine. It was not a problem when computers could tell in a moment the number of words that my article has so that I can quickly reply to the editor of the journal. It was okay when our bed-partner laptop and tablets could easily say algorithms of chemistry! Yes, it was sexy, but it is not sexy any more when it can calculate and predict the behavioural algorithms of Kaleidoscope's species. 

The problem is it strives for the concentration of immense power to the owner of the means of data sources and analytics. 

How do we contribute? 

Perhaps Kaleidoscope's species is already into one of the major revolutions after the farming/neolitic, urban/writing, industrial/scientific. Yes, data processing revolution. Today one can process data of a lakh people within a moment and can better understand a thing or two and better predict behaviours than what he could do or can do even within families  - in face-to-face interaction. When Kaleidoscope's species goes through a number of behaviour patterns including:

Selfie mania

Keeping the Location tracker on

 

Reviewing restaurants or places 

through a popular mechanism of Record-Upload-Share the entire species is allowing superpowers to access data, to govern and to shape the species' choices more actively than ever before.

These are the things Kaleidoscope's species wishes to share the rest which they do not want to share are taken through UID-Aadhar. 

Remember terminator III dialogue

The dataism wont go beyond functionalist attitude. Wish Kaleidoscope's readers remember this sequence from the movie terminator III.

[John is holding a gun to his head]

Terminator: You cannot self-terminate.

John Connor: No, you can't. I can do anything I want. I'm a human being, not some god-damn robot.

Terminator: [correcting him] Cybernetic organism.

John Connor: Whatever! Either we go, and save her Dad, or so much for the Great John Conner. Because your future, my destiny, I want no part in it, I never did.

Terminator: Based on your pupil dilation, skin temperature, and motor functions, I calculate an 83% probability that you will not pull the trigger.

Now think about the whole future we are dealing with such functional interpretation of data processed through every part of our behaviour? Does it sound Sexy?

The future with freedom struggle looks gloomy:

Science is going to be an all-encompassing sphere seeing and making us behaving as data processor and manufactured behaviours

Algorithms may soon know us better than we know ourselves. Thus Kaleidoscope's blood sugar level might make him unable to buy liquors even if he has the money and will!

...and yes such quantative and functional way of life is definitely not sexy!

See if you like:

Kelly, Kevin (2010) What Technology Wants. New York: Viking

Hidalgo, Cesar (2015) Why Information Grows: The Evolution of Order, from Atoms to Economics. New York: Basic Books

Image credit: http://download-wallpaper.net/content/top-hdq-live-terminator.html

Post-structural liberation - are we embracing newer prisons?

The  most dangerous philosophical idea in recent times has to be the post-structuralism. Kaleidoscope learned it with much care and attention at one point of his life because it suited his otherwise bohemian self. Post-structuralists demands you question everything in the name of deconstruction and allows you to do things in your way, your own way. It sounds creative, isn't it? It gives you the freedom to do whatever pleases you and gives you power to claim it as your own way of doing things and point your fingers towards anyone who is questioning you. Perhaps this is the beauty and most deadly force of the theory.

Why was it required?

Lets make it straight, we have had enough with uncles and aunties from the neighbourhood lecturing us what to do, how to do and when to do. Similarly, we have had enough with the professors with wrinkles demanding us to follow their template of positivism or whatever philosophy. Yes, Kaleidoscope too was bored and exhausted everywhere, listening to some stereotypes of doing certain things in some supposedly known pathway, seriously!

Yes, the disgust was not for people like Kaleidoscope only, even scholars of highest reputation (whom people refer to but never actually read) were equally frustrated and they challenged it. The most prominent among those Kaleidoscope can remember is that of logocentrism - the search for universal idea about certain things like beauty (Kaleodsocope knows the definition of sexy, like you do!), truth, right and so on. Well Derrida (1978) (dont worry hardly anyone reads him) wanted to dismantle logocentric attitude of our practices. Imagine a theatre - what is there? A set of actors representing a situation. The situation has some cue to the real life. Yes, you heard it right, Kaleidoscope is taking a materialist stand here and firmly believes that everything in idea or in mind has a real - material cue. So, the resulting theatre is a combination of real life experience and ideas of the director. Derrida wanted to have a theatre where actors are not guided by any director, any text of any author! Yes, a state of condition where logocentric forces are withdrawn. Although Derrida was less sure about the actual condition of such a stage where script will absent, Foucault (1980) searched for "rules that determine the conditions of possibility for all that can be said within the particular discourse at a given time" Hence, when Kaleidoscope thoroughly read him he could actually see the existence of governmentality within his very self as a set of conduct of all possible conducts.

Yes, whatever Kaleidoscope does is scripted, foretold and whatever he does not do is forestalled. Kaleidoscope like all others continue to live in a prison-house of words (for Derrida) of conducts (for Foucault).

Therefore when Kaleidoscope sees a young girl shouting out Jeans ka Haq... jine ka haq (right to jeans right to live) in Lipstick Under My Burkha he finds a liberation. The black is beautiful, the acid attack victim is beautiful in the ugly face of society in which Kaleidoscope strives to live, the fat is desirable, one's own body and self even if doesn't match logocentrically is beautiful - is meaningful - is worth a life to live happily. Happiness is happiness, love is love you term it straight, gay whatever - that's your logocentric problem!

Kaleidoscope wont let the aunties and uncles determine what he wants from his life and how does he want that. Kaleidoscope knew for sure what post-structuralism meant to him, but less sure about it what it means to his generation but could sense what it means to the coming generation, which even if has never read Derrida or Foucault would continue to practice "post-structural" way of life. Why is that so? simply, because its an era of mass and rapid diffusion and weathering away of old logocentrisms - does it bring and form new logocentrisms? Yes it does, and here lies the problem.

The post-structuralism of present time

Even the prominent post structuralists like Derrida or Foucault didn't know clearly how that stage without script was possible - surely Derrida didn't claim it to be anarchic - anarchy in itself has numerous logocentrisms. What they did was demanded and trained us to question the very foundation of knowledge as logocentric and attempted to discover the alternatives. Knowing fully well, the alternatives would also create newer logocentrisms and hence the prison cell can only be altered not that Kaleidoscope's species can ever make every prison to dust and enemies of logocentrism free!

Hence, the cycle would continue.

Meanwhile everything that is happening in the name of post-structuralism is not post-structural. It is rather a play of different logocentrisms originated from different societies. The whole idea of cultural diffusionism can be seen as origin and dispersion of logocentric traits from one place to another. Hence, what Kaleidoscope's time experiencing is an ever complicated and complex interplay of logos which were hitherto unknown. Therefore, instead of liberating, Kaleidoscope's species from logocentrism the present mode of existence is embracing newer logocentric traits and actually binding the species even with newer dimensions and micro identities. Earlier it was the primordial identities of country, religion, caste and the like. Now we have increasingly newer identities like Nationalist and antinationalist countrymen, Nationalist/Antinationalist Hindu/muslim country men and the like. There are JNU breeds, JU breeds, IIT breeds, IIM breeds among the aspiring academicians and an even more complex classifications among the left-out 'subalterns' from lesser known universities. There are beer lovers and whisky lovers. Beef lovers and beef haters - you want logocentrism you get it everywhere.

There actually is no post-structural world surrounding Kaleidoscope but the reflections of such world in the name of post-structuralism dangerous:

take these few examples:

"What is corruption? It is just a system of getting things done?"
"I will do it in my way, fuck your morality!"

the arguments continue.

Kaleidoscope knows he is inhabiting in a peculiar world of the games of ever increasing number of logocentrisms which are often legitimised in the name of post-structuralism!

Sarahah, "social selection" and the vanishing boundaries of selves

Kaleidoscope's never ending supply of field knowledge concerning the peculiarities of his species has never been better since the inception of Orkut. He was an Orkut addict at that time, then he reluctantly joined facebook and now a third revolution is in its inception the Sarahah.

Facebook and symbolic interactionism:

Kaleidoscope is watching old and almost forgotten scholars of sociology coming alive with facebook. The school of though which looked at human being as symbol creating and interacting species - the symbolic interactionism. How does his species satisfies symbolic interactions possible is by making a series of ideas of self. The self is Social and individual. It is social in so far it is objective and hence requires a particular mode of presentation. On the other hand there is an individual and subjective self which is constantly there - some call them as the true self.


Kaleidoscope, however, is sceptical about the existing boundary between so called subjective and social self. Does they differ? As pragmatists might say actors and world are in constant dynamic process of interaction and creation of each other and with facebook boundaries between self and world is in a constant process of juxtaposition and perhaps started to blur years ago.


For example facebook page gives you space to nurture your objective self - social self to get its fullest and acceptable presentations. You never present what you are. For example in any given day you are not going to upload your profile picture randomly. You usually chose from the best ones. The category best has a social meaning within. Hence, in a process of "Social selection" you put on layers of make up. You tend to be happy unless a different presentation is needed, participate in a cause, think for future and whatever suits you.

Sarahah and the rise third order constructs:

Now that you are completely immersed in postmodern endless succession of depthless presents through presentation of your layered self suddenly there is a resurgence of your subjective self through "Sarahah." Sarahah is asking you have honest feedback from your friends anonymously. No matter how you have presented yourself towards the world, your presentation of self had another layer of meaning - another layer of objectivity - another layer of "social selection." Now you know what people 'actually' think of you - now another camouflage. People will never say what they really think about you - they will only say what they think you need to listen to or perhaps what would make them feel better to say about you. Moreover, when you tend to repost what people have said about you in Sarahah you (most likely) tend to select those which pleases you.


Now Let us allow Kaleisdoscope to make it little clearer


In facebook:


Reality - Your thought - Your presentation - others reception - your 'socially selected' presentation (second order in facebook) - others' reception (second order) - continuation of your social selection, the cycle continues.


With Sarahah:


Reality - your thought - your presentation - others' receptions - your 'socially selected' presentation (second order in facebook) -  others' reception (second order) - Others' 'mentally filtered' (since anonymous) reactions - your (filtered) repost in facebook (third order).




The third order construct will continue.


Kaleidoscope would love to end by remembering Manning (1992)


The overall tenor of The Presentation of Self is to a world in which people, whether individually or in groups, pursue their own ends in cynical disregard for others... the view here is of the individual as a set of performance masks hiding a manipulative and cynical self.

See if you like:

Manning, Philip (1992) Erving Goffman and Modern Sociology. Stanford University Press.


Goffman, Erving (1959) Presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor

Civilisation and new academic religion

Early dangerous exposures:

Kaleidoscope because of his years of training in Social-Cultural Anthropology has acquired a peculiar understanding of cultural differences. In the beginning of his study it was his conscious attempt to learn the cultural differences and learn go beyond the 19th Century scientific explanation of Social evolution. This was particularly the time when Kaleidoscope started reading Boas and his students in the very serious National Library, Kolkata. At that time it was okay to take a nap in the library unless you are not snoring. Kaleidoscope was almost half of his present body size then and there was no question of snoring. Therefore, with intervals of nap and reading Kaleidoscope has successfully installed the magical programme called Cultural Relativism. Once its installed you tend to question every assumptions of your culture. You become tolerant for cultural differences but over a period of time you tend to develop particular disgust about them who failed to installs such tolerance.

Eventual transformations:

Moreover, Eventually, with most of the Kaleidoscope's friends especially with people not within the circles of social sciences, Kaleidoscope started to speaking in a quite different language. While his friends continued to ridicule people from different parts of his country with nick names such as Chinkies (designating North East), Meros (designating Marwaris), Khatua or Khotta (Designating people from Bihar) and Ure (designating people from Odisha), Kaleidoscope found these to be offensive. Kaleidoscope always thought that he belongs to a society which is actually not much racist like some of the countries where Kaleidoscope's friends would love to go and never come back (a few have actually done that) or Casteist like some of the other parts of his country, which is of course not true.

Kaleidoscope started taking these languages as offensive. In the beginning he started to counter his friend. But he has actually failed to make them understand why these are offensive and why ethnocentrism is bad for a country like India which has so many variations. Later on, Kaleidoscope has been termed as the 'serious type' - something that he has never been. In much later times Kaleidoscope is designated as "Buddhijibi" literally meaning intellectual but the common usage, obviously is a derogatory sense.

Origins of problems:

Kaleidoscope with such an year long transformation have become a person with near zero tolerance with hypocrisy (although he is not free from it), racist, sexist assumptions (he does not know for sure if he is free of such qualities). Kaleidoscope was happy with it for years and trained himself to become even more intolerant towards such issues.

What Kaleidoscope internalise was an extreme form of cultural relativism. The first problem came when he was asked by University of Calcutta to deliver a course on Human Rights to Post Graduate students. While he developed his course material on Anthropology and Human Rights (http://sumananthromaterials.blogspot.in/2010/06/anthropology-and-human-rights.html) he felt uncomfortable about such a grand narrative. It was brutally against his so long faithful friend of cultural relativism. Even, Kaleidoscope thought, this was so badly distant from the idea of postmodernism!

However, as Kaleidoscope grew, he also understood the problematics of rights of an individual and impositions of society. He could understand them through his own fleeting identity, through his relationships and life course. Hence, accommodating some basic universal principles was no longer problematic for him. However, he nevertheless continued to remain sceptical about the interface of cultural relativism and human rights or any universal grand narratives. The inner conflict is not resolved. Sadly, while Kaleidoscope is forever unsettled in nature, he is quite settled about his intolerance towards a few categories, most conspicuously the communal, the racist, the casteist, the classist and the sexist.

The civilizational taboos:

As the civilisation grew, at least as Kaleidoscope thought that he grew or nurtured civilisation within himself, he internalised certain taboos - no not those incest taboos but something more subtle and serious. The academic taboos which easily gets translated into everyday life. Like taboos of humorous exchanges about the issues of religion, cultural difference and gender difference. Kaleidoscope has increasingly took up an identity which is Atheist and against all 'derogatory' statements and jokes which concerns religion, race, cast, class and gender!   

Yes, Kaleidoscope is happy with such an academic 'elitist' identity of intolerance towards all forms of racist, communal, sexist, casteist and the related jokes, riddles and ridicules. The question however is , where does it take Kaleidoscope?

Yes, Kaleidoscope is careful not to hurt any one's sentiments attached to his identity and culture.

Yes, Kaleidoscope is in a better position to take a stand against anyone doing it because he is clear about his identity of belonging to the so called 'liberal' and 'relativist'

Yes, Kaleidoscope continues and will continue to make people understand the reasons for which one should always avoid such predispositions.

The new religion of academic taboos:

Finally, what are the things that happen hand in hand with Kaleidoscope's 'intellectual', 'educated', 'tolerant' and civilised being? It is that Kaleidoscope has developed  particular disgust towards those who are not as careful as Kaleidoscope is about such things as discussed. He is belonging to a group of touchy, thin skinned, intolerant and humourless species. Now Kaleidoscope thinks actually he has developed a personality which is as consolidated as the extreme as identities which call for riot or warfare. He knows he belongs to a civilizational notions which is so ingrained and he is so involved that even writing this piece can be seen as heresy.

Academic taboos are becoming new religion and Kaleidoscope knows he is living in a society which is barbaric in basic instinct. Even with his slightest inclinations towards such personality predispositions in front of some self declared civillions he could be attacked because of being a "muggle blooded" social scientist.

Meanwhile, Kaleidoscope has taken the risk of asking himself and revisiting some of his assumptions with an imaginary data of a country (think about India) which is loosing humors and becoming touchy. Just like Kaleidoscope but in a much greater scale his fellow countrymen are loosing humors and consolidating identities through outrages on films like PK and vandalism of Hussain-Dosi Gufa.

Fellow academicians can think of Kaleidoscope as muggle blooded but he nevertheless continue to ask such questions and revisit his identities.

 

An imaginary graph representing inverse relationship between Humor and Identity in Kaleidoscope's society