Of Everyday Gossiping and Over-rated Civilisation

"The mad tea party" by Mark Bryan, Taken from https://www.artofmarkbryan.com/politics/

Kaleidoscope belongs to a species which is highly ethnocentric in its character. It thinks that it is superior than any other species of the earth.

Enormous divisions and inequalities:

The species within itself is divided based on a variety of symbolic attainments and value perceptions. It thinks, strongly believes and makes it natural that the ability to run a computer is far superior thing than to be able to run itself! Hence, it has a detailed and infinite divisions of the feeling of superiority. Most often it hates each other in the name of certain bodily,  behavioural and fictional differences. It is so important for the species that it adopts symbolic cannibalism! The sense of hierarchy usually ends at an individual level and sometimes even within individual levels divisions are there. Imagine such statements as "I have become a much superior person than what I was a year ago!" Hence Kaleidoscope's species is always going through at least three things:

1. A growth story
2. A classification story
3. A criteria story.

The Gossip theory:

The curious case is it's everyday practices in present time when it attempts to adopt mechanisms to sustain the fictional nature of hierarchy. It usually loves to form group, group within a group, group within a group within a group. The critical problem that Kaleidoscope's species faces is primarily of two kinds, first, the problems of information processing. Imagine when the size of the group is fifty, there are 1225 different combinations of one-to-one relationships! These 1225 individuals in a complex society - such as the one in which Kaleidoscope firmly believes that he lives, has other relationships as well. Therefore,the amount of information that the human brain needs to process in unimaginable. Second, the problems of dealing with heterogeneity and instability.  Even when Kaleidoscope's species is settled (but not sure) about each of the individuals they tend to remain sceptical and seek information to participate in a continuous process of system update, because of insatiable suspicious curiosities. Even in Chimpanzee society groups seldom cooperate (Frans de Waal 2000).

Therefore Kaleidoscope's species tend to form groups and seek information. How to seek information? It is by gossiping. For early humans it was important to know and constantly keep tracking "who hates whom?" "Who sleeps with whom?" "Who is reliable and who is a cheat" - Kaleidoscope's present society continues to remain the same. Kaleidoscope's fellow members continue to gossip through each an every medium of communication! (Dunbar, 1998) 

The re-incarnation of primordial gossips:

What makes present species different through civilisation is its incredible ability to imagine things. Behind the back gossips are often sexually charged or are in a way or other linked to essential nature of the species - looks, Body features (size and shape of breasts, for example!), smell and smile!

Now, when there is rarely any significant data about the rival groups the species tend to imagine things. Remember rivalry can come through a variety of sources: a) rival for different nature/culture/looks b) rival for different opinions, c) rival for conflicts of interests, d) rival for attraction and lack of availability, and so on. When there is a serious lack of substantive data to 'rationalise' rivalry, imagined gossip game helps achieving it. The easiest way in the society in which Kaleidoscope lives in, is to spread rumors about flaws in the imagined standard of living (society calls it morality). Such gossips usually carry sexually charged content and hence become easily popularised. Kaleidoscope would like all his readers to remember the most popular gossips in their office or neighbourhoods. Yes, you know it, its about flaws in the imagined standard of morality- it does not have to be sex only, every culture has different sets of standards and so does different mechanisms of imagined gossips.

The classification of re-incarnated group mobilisers:

1. The frequent oscillators: These are the people who changes their positions according to the actors and agencies with which s/he is interacting. They usually lack strong personalities and usually able to sense the pulse of group dynamics well. Therefore, these are the people who attempts to remain in good book of every power centres.
2. The power cravers: These are the members who compromise anything to retain certain imagined positions of authorities.
3. The open bookers: Represent those who continues to remain open about their positions and orientations and opinions
4. The opportunists: are those who look for self interest maximising opportunities in every situation
5. The strategic silent beings: never speak unless something involves their personal interests, but when anything does involve personal interests they raise their voice and take a stand.
6. Unopinionated: represents those who never gives opinions.
7. The black and whites: those handfuls who manage to remain relatively unattached with any of the subgroups and continue to criticise everything which in their opinion is wrong.

All these players usually love an equilibrium - which is hard to get. One can remember Foucault's notion of power as a net-like organisation where the concentration of power is never settled and extremely situational.

The changing power terrain:

Usually, in a rapidly changing power terrain the "frequent oscillators" initially exchange information between groups and then change their group affiliations. The "power cravers' usually are driven out of the power centres or are given relatively less important but ornamental positions. The 'open bookers" does not experience much of a stress and remain intact. "The opportunists" seeks new opportunities and usually forgets old power centres. "The strategic silent beings" remains silent unless something disturbs their inner equilibrium. "Unopionated" and "black and whites" remains the same, only the later continue to make new enemies.

It continues, in your family, office, schools, clubs and in nations. Kaleidoscope's species could only mask the primordial craves in the name of over-rated imagination of Civilisation.

See if you like

Dunbar, Robin (1998). Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Frans De Waal (2000). Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex Among Apes. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hegemonic Hypocrasy: From Body to State

The broader question of this quasi technical essay is to understand to whether our hypocritical selves help sustaining order of things which we technically call structure. There is a significant scope of using Gramsci's (1971) concept of "cultural hegemony" as the structure is a structure of  dominant groups that maintain their power by gaining the consent of the populace. Ideological manipulation has been the primary technique of doing that. Dominant groups use “symbolic violence” to encourage subalterns to adopt a worldview that is consistent with their own interests (Bourdieu 2001). Public perceptions are influenced by disseminating national ideology—a state-sponsored system of beliefs— across various societal outlets including education, media, religion, and folk wisdom (Omi and Winant 1994). 

The central concern (may be difficult to accept) of my argument is that primary mechanism of such hegemony that dictates to a large extent over how we live is hypocrisy. When I refer to "how we live" I refer to how we the people of semi-urban, formally educated, middle class Bengali people live in and around Kolkata. To establish this argument I will refer to some of the posts made by Kaleidoscope in this blog.  

The private parts and eagerness to share:

Kaleidoscope in his if it is private post explains why he sometimes write private issues in his blog. He reports "Kaleidoscope wants to share what is personal... but he does not want to share it with people who physically know him... In web world, with crores of pages, Kaleidoscope's words are kept as safe and secure, with a hope that there are people who read them... may empathise them..." The interesting part of this hypocrisy is the amount of risk involved. I am told in an "interview" that Kaleidoscope has never been asked any question regarding what shit he writes in the blog - because no one cares to read them, and bothers to take them seriously. Yet Kaleidoscope feels relieved from the burden of not carrying all the "irrepairable stuffs" (click here) with him (?). He occasionally dumps them to the Worlds and words. Kaleidoscope smiles and says its a risk well taken.

Therefore, Kaleidoscope successfully fits himself in the stereotypes of proper. Now if Kaleidoscope is burdened with some emotional vulnerability, why cannot he simply speak the truth and not hide himself in the mask of "messy text" (Click here for a detailed study of Kaleidoscope's messy texts). I think it has something to do with his definition of proper/improper, order/chaos, good/bad, love/hate, sex/heresy. This is precisely the reason we are taught that we are born because god wanted us to born (not sex), we should have sex only with one person (even if you do otherwise keep it secret), we should love a single person (even if you have romantic feeling for others, hide it, let it go). And ultimate triumph is not over the land or wealth but over the sexual rights of the women of land. Therefore incidents of rape continues and we tend to stigmatise a rape victim and often not the rapists. For a similar reason we tend to scandalize "improper" love affairs. 

Therefore, we learn to be hypocrite in our maintenance system and we manifest a fine tuned hypocrisy in our projective systems. 

The caste and religion dilemma:    

There is no caste based hierarchy in West Bengal -  at least that is what we are taught to believe with long years of "communist rule". Theorising this issue has been championed by Dwaipayan Bhattacharyya. He writes about party-society, which has over the last three decades displaced the older patron-client form of relationships. Bhattacharyya (2009) argues:

“Land reform legislations and local government bodies (the panchayats) were the tools and the CPI (M) (as well as its peasant wing, the Krishak Sabha) was the primary agent to bring about this change. The new politics set new norms of transaction to which every political outfit – the ruling side as well as the opposition – had to conform, willingly or unwillingly. In this organizational grid … [the] political party was largely accepted as the chief mediator, the central conduit, in the settling of every village matter: private or public, individual or collective, familial or associational.”

Now as Bhattacharyya noticed the dominating nature of party which has effectively displaced older caste and religion based networks which is apparently true in most of the cases, but what happens when this political network is under challenge with the rise of new political or other forces? When the dominating political power group is loosing its grip, perennial classificatory systems rejuvenate. Therefore, Kaleidoscope in his field visits noticed:

1. Teli-Bagal caste based conflict related to access to land and water in West Medinipur

2. Dominance of kinship networks in Bardhaman through the oligopoly of cold-storages

3. Caste-tribe dilemma and use of tribal sentiments to make a political change and sustain skewed allocation of resources in Bankura

4. withdrawal of support from the "harmad bahini" because of involvement of Muslims in Paschim Medinipur.

The Hypocrisy is when we are told to believe that West Bengal is a secular country where communism is not impossible to achieve, we are actually taught not to speak (remain silent) regarding the issues of communalism, caste-religion political games. Silence and silencing discourses can play an important role in the perpetuation of legitimizing myths and the social order (Bhattacharya 2009; Clair 1998). Some scholars have even asserted that secrecy is indispensable to power (Foucault 1978) and lies at its very core (Canetti 1962). 

He-who-must-not-be-named is real Lord Voldemort(s): 

While our greatest Sita is associated with Agni Pariksha- Inspector Clouseau seeks to know whether there was "Not even a little smoochie-woochie?" happened between Nicole and another detective who took his chances with Nicole in Pink Panther 2. This apparently fun-filled dialogue exchange once again reinforces the stereotypes a) you must make love with a single person, b) being faithful means you are monogamous, c) love is singular, d) your right on your body is defined by the structure and settings, blah blah blah!

In a similar tune we are taught not to trust our fellow citizens hence we fail to make Rizwanur a hero, villagers misrecognise Kaleidoscope and his HoD, and there is unnecessary religious view points come out in everyday discourses. 

The puzzle which pushes me is that the situation in which we live in is not a perfectly fitted hegemonic false consciousness (hope someday social scientists would find a true consciousness!), because we know what we make out of caste, religious, and class differences. We know about our romantic feeling, bodily involvements. If this is precisely the case then social silencing of everyday realities cannot be equated with hegemony, or similar dynamics that imply false consciousness. On the other hand yet silencing, of ethnic difference or monogamy per se is compatible with understandings of hegemony, as the process of silencing clearly reinforces power structures. 

At least in "Worlds and Words's" present state of condition, my interview and association with Kaleidoscope I would rather define Kaleidoscope's present state of being Hegemonic Hypocrasy.

PS. After reading this draft Kaleidoscope continue to remain silent, and I think it is better not to poke unnecessarily

    

Construction work, empty space and sex: emptiness and harmony

Kaleidoscope because of his never-ending process constructing a space for living in literal sense continues, he keeps in touch with professionals: plumbers, carpenters, painters and what not. Kaleidoscope is also thinking of starting a new consultancy on arranging people to get those work done. Then he discovers the existence of a website "modernmistry.com" and drops the plan.

Now, because of his insatiable desire to talk to people and know about their life experience - a few days back he could arrange something that can technically be referred to as Group Discussion during the lunch hour. Participants were two painters, a carpenter and two plumbers. The prominent issue has been empty space and sex. When Kaleidoscope used to board the first train from his sub-urban railway station regularly in his students life he could see men and women throwing funny bones filled with sexually charged comments to each other and enjoying their journey. Often aided with touching, hugging, sitting closely, sitting on each other's lap have made Kaleidoscope wonder about the nature of constructs regarding sexuality among these people.

These people living with so called "low" cultural capital indeed have lesser inhibition regarding sex. Each five of them has experienced sex (not always penetration) in empty space: in newly built apartments, incomplete houses and rarely in completed homes, on freshly installed furniture.

"Having fun with female co-worker has never been this easy - every now and then I have seen my colleagues at the construction work build up good relationship with their female co-workers which often end up in having sex... I have tried twice and has been successful once" - reports one of the young painters with a distinct smile.

The relationship is often long lasting and mutually beneficial. After coupling, often these partners refuse take up work if both of them are not allotted work together. "not always because of the bodily need... its often emotionally enriching and fulfilling too... like you high class people we too have emotional problems, and lack of sex in our life" - one of the plumbers report.

"what we enjoy the most is when we see young people come and spend quite a long time in the semi-complete apartments, you can readily read the purpose of their visit... earlier in such occasions we used to sneak around - just to have pleasure you know, but now I try to stop my co-workers from doing this - two adult people have rights to spend time together..." the painter adds and starts laughing. One of the age old painters - who happen to be my contractor reports that before the construction of the apartments these things were not there. "It is happening because now there is a space... this is happening among 'mistry community' because now women folk are increasingly participating in our 'line'... ! 

The technical session could continue hours, but the time for lunch was over. One thing that Kaleidoscope finally asked "what would you do if similar thing is done by your wife?"

Each five of them stopped and then the contractor smiled and replied "this is why we do not send our wives to work"

   

Inserted lens: do we seek a deeper perspective? Or just a habit of insertion.

Kaleidoscope walks along the sea beach and finds sandy dunes along the beach. He finds it interesting and plans to explore. The first vision is like this

When he starts exploring, he finds a flowering spiked tree - cactus. Kaleidoscope thinks it a rare event when cactus has flower.

kaleidoscope takes a few snaps like this

and this

Until this

The last one Kaleidoscope takes involves setting his camera to super macro mode, firm held hand and insertion of lens in the flower to capture most intimate details of the instrument of production. He keep taking details and the frequency of the inserted photos compared to other photos is like this.

Now Kaleidoscope is unsure whether it is his pursuit is perfection (but kaleidoscope is not a perfectionist)? Or, if its the image that attracts him? Or, if he has the tendency to explore and seek deeper? Or, its another manifestation of patriarchal pursuit of insertion?