Saturday, January 10, 2015

What do I do, Marriage and other things... A



You have sometimes asked what I do. Or, rather, what I want to do.

You have always seen me in flux. Always in transition, doing things ad hoc. As if I am waiting for something else. As if I am deferring my real job.

You have seen me in politics, as student, in the role of teacher, as film critic and magazine editor.

You have seen me shooting ads, music videos, feature films. You have seen me writing.

Each time you have seen me referring to my work as the path to my goal. None of what I ever did seemed to be the end in itself.

Yeah, you were correct!

So, what do I do? Or, rather, what do I want to do?



My real job is to go deep inside cultural practices and see their origins, how they developed, how they changed. Their anatomy.

This sounds much like science - how chemists play with the elements and compounds in labs. These days, based on scientific understanding of cells and other organic elements, and inorganic, they prepare complex models, and environmental simulations in computers. That is also a kind of lab practice. However, much of cultural close readings (just like chemists read the results and values of experiments based on known parameters, I read culture) is guesswork. We really don't have any option to know how marriage started, how the first religions began, or how the respect for the elder came to establish itself as a natural behavior.

Much is guesswork, much deduction. There is a field of knowledge called Culture Studies. This is an interdisciplinary field. Practitioners from different disciplines - anthropologists, historians, literature experts, sociologists, economists, linguists, psychologists, archaeologists, religion experts, geologists, evolutionary geographers, geneticists and even biochemists, neuroscientists, physicists and chemists work together in the field of Culture Studies.

From the name, you can understand, Culture Studies include everything that contributes to human culture. That possibly means everything. So, you may ask, Why do I need another name for the whole field of knowledge? If Culture Studies just means Knowledge, why is there another name?

Actually, it's partially a misnomer. Culture Studies was the name given to a particular academic routine started in Birmingham University, UK, in the 1950s, by two British sociologists, Richard Hoggart and Stuart Hall. While their program was initially to study social behavior and social machine through models of hegemony, agency and State apparatus, Culture Studies influenced different American, Canadian and European universities to study ideology and culture as a field of study distinct from academic philosophy.

One way of studying culture is through its everyday effects. Literature, newspaper, TV channels, Soaps, Advertisements, music, dance, sports, food culture, fashion, Public speeches, Cinema, Law, Morality and morality legality institutions such as school/college/universities, police, press/media. 



But, why Culture Studies? Weren't we always studying culture?  Why do we need such a pin-pointed approach?

There is a reason. Long back, in the beginning of every civilization, there were philosophers and mystics. Philosophers wanted to know what, why and how. Deductive logic - the same logic that we follow in Mathematics - came from that. This also led to experimentation and discovery of new things - another name for inductive logic.
Mystics received flashes - almost like inductive logic. They discovered new things through intuition. But, nobody knew how they received wisdom. Nobody, including the mystics themselves, knew the steps of it. Sometimes, extremely rarely, the same person became philosopher and mystic both. Gautama Buddha was someone like this.

In our times, in a specialized field of knowledge, Einstein was like that.

However, most of the population, 90% or more, were neither philosopher nor mystic. They just followed whatever norm prevailed in society. They followed leaders, and after the leader's death ghost of the leader, until another great leader came.

Great leaders sometimes were born in the population itself. They also came from outside, from other communities. Individual migration was always there. I have seen there were always two types of people in any population - settlers and migrants. Migrants are not gypsies, or nomadics, in the popular use of the latter terms, although they shared some common traits with gypsies or nomadics.

Migrants, by nature of the lifestyle, were philosophers or mystics. As they were always on the move, they had to be skilled in different things for survival. They had to go deep into different cultures for the same reason. As they went deeper into many different cultures, they could see similarities and differences. They were the first comparatists.

Comparatists are people who compare among cultures. I probably had some interest in cultures and societies since childhood. But, as I randomly got into Comparative Literature for five years, in the university, I had basic training as comparatist almost unwillingly.

As I had been training myself to be a physicist since the beginning of teenage, I had questions which most fellow students never had. When most others were taking notes and copying from references in library and classroom, I became impatient with repetition of literature. I also had problems with reading long works in English. So, I kept reading books on popular sciences. As many of them as I got. Gradually I became interested in biology and the theoretical part of general biology, especially in Evolution and genetics. I had no guide. So, my study was random.

As I read the six volumes of Stephen Jay Gould's Reflections in Natural History, Richard Dawkins' The Blind Watchmaker and The Selfish Gene, Steven Pinker's three books (Visual Cognition, How the Mind Works, The Language Instinct), a lot from Darwin's own writing, some Russian books and finally regular textbooks works from the sixties and seventies, the idea of psychogenetics slowly developed in my mind.

I remembered from plus-2 classes that an individual is specificity of characters-characters are specificity of proteins- proteins are specificity of genes-genes are specificity of nucleotides. You know I stopped studying in plus-2. So, I didn't really understand the meaning of this chain at that time. But, with the renewed knowledge, it became clear to me. I studies Steven Rose's Not in Our Genes. The interaction between environmental pressure and genetic makeup of an individual became clear to me.

I also read  E O Wilson's Sociobiology at that time. The idea that human behavior is also naturally selected, and just like geological evolution it can have precise manifestation, became clear to me.

By this time, my courses in Comparative Literature got over, and I was largely unsuccessful in the university because of my personal journey. But, I came back. This time with Film Studies.

I saw literature, cinema and any other cultural expression as specific outlet of naturally selected behavior working under cultural pressure. 

Cultural pressure and cultural selection are very similar to natural pressure and natural selection; but there are differences too.

I guess you know although I never clearly told you. I have genuine interest in bipolar disorder, and some types of neuroses. I got chances to watch and live closely with such patients. I know certain genes in their bodies switch themselves and others on and certain others off, to produce certain hormonal makeup, under certain environmental conditions. That produce uneasiness in body, which leads to uneasiness of mind, and that produces a never-ending feedback loop.

I am not a physician. I don't know exactly how the endocrine system changes with external inputs, for such patients.

The only part in this chain known to me was environment. I came to know this because of personal experiences. I saw, one solution is  avoiding environments which start off this chain. Warm and dry climate, lots of sunlight, and being surrounded by people with positive outlook kills the electro-chemical circuits which cause depressive behavior.

I was interested in knowing how the normal and the depressed people behave differently in getting imbibed in the same culture.

I also saw that Jung's introvert and extravert division have some real merits. They are not fiddler's imagination.

Personality type is partially genetic, and partially shaped up by the culture at the time of growing up, early socializing, schooling, peer pressures, parental influence, family environment and many other factors.

In time, a full grown personality adds to the cultural pool, with his/her own idiosyncrasies. 

As the culture, or the person him/herself, is not a fixed entity; as s/he is always changing, reshaping, the personality can change from one type to another without limit, at any age.

I needed to compare, among different individuals, and among groups. That brought me to academic study of psychology, and partially, to the study of behavioral economics.

A comparatist is commonly known as a cultural critic. Here, critic means someone who closely reads the culture, tries to find out the origins and see that nothing is final.

In that sense, I call the mythological figure Krishna a comparatist. It is significant that he didn't take a warrior's role in the war. He was a critic.

I finally found out my job a decade and a half after plus-2. I was a comparatist, and my job was to make films and write about what I find.

I was almost a scientist. But, unlike the definite history and properties of elements and their interactions, a lot of my materials were guesswork, or deductive logic from minimal finding. It was not strictly scientific. Yet, it was not pseudoscience like astrology.

Quite naturally, I grew interested in psychology and its different branches. I also wanted to see how different cultural expressions such films, literature, painting, dance and music affect individual minds and groups; how they create a feedback loop.

As I came to see through different expressions of culture, I started losing deep belief in their stability. 

Marriage was one of these.

I was never interested in marriage for marriage's sake. State is interested in that. If there is no sexual union, there would be no next generation. However, if there is promiscuous sexual union, children would be born outside fixed families. They would be burden for a single person - mother. But, it's meaningless to force any male person to take care of any child. So, the society needed a way to ascertain who is linked biologically for the birth of the child. This started the process of sexual union under the sanction of the society. Powerful leaders in the society gave that sanction. To make the process more accepted to most people, such leaders connected marriage to divine things and gods. However, the sole reason behind marriage was always economic.

However, personally for me, finding my partner was important. Marriage was practically non-existent for me. I was ready to marry my partner if she wants. But, marriage was not something divine. It was just a social sanction; and I see social sanctions for what they are - social sanctions only.

It is interesting, as the ideas are getting clarity to myself, Indian judicial systems are opening up to liberal inter-personal sexual relationship too.

I change my field so often, as I go out of my comfort zone to look for answers, through new experiences. Yeah. I need more disciplined approach for my exploration to be fruitful to others. I'll keep that in mind.

Why don't you join me too? May not be full time. This doesn't pay in short term. We need payment. We need to survive.

This is a long road.