There are four basic types of work:
1. Working with things
2. Working with money
3. Working with people
4. Working with ideas
Accordingly, ancient Indians designed and built a social system (the Varna system) in which different groups of people specialised in each of the four basic types of work:
1. Working with things - Farmers/Workers (Shudras)
2. Working with money - Merchants/Traders (Vaishyas)
3. Working with people - Rulers/Administrators (Kshatriyas)
4. Working with ideas - Scholars/Priests (Brahmanas)
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Society. Show all posts
21 April 2020
23 March 2019
Thinkers And Workers
There are fundamentally two types of activities:
1. Working with people and things - ie, 'Working'
2. Working with ideas and information - ie, 'Thinking'
1% of humans are thinkers and 99% of humans are workers. The job of thinkers is to supply ideas. The job of workers is to implement those ideas.
This is the most fundamental division of labour in society. A society/country prospers when it gets this division of labour right. And it decays when it gets this division of labour wrong.
1. Working with people and things - ie, 'Working'
2. Working with ideas and information - ie, 'Thinking'
1% of humans are thinkers and 99% of humans are workers. The job of thinkers is to supply ideas. The job of workers is to implement those ideas.
This is the most fundamental division of labour in society. A society/country prospers when it gets this division of labour right. And it decays when it gets this division of labour wrong.
09 October 2018
India's #MeToo Movement
INDIA'S #MeToo MOVEMENT
For a long time, a man could do anything to a woman if he had money or power (or both). So a lot of rich/powerful men did a lot of wrong things to a lot of women - and kept getting away with it. This has been a great evil in our society. Now - after all these years of Adharma - finally Dharma seems to be coming. Everybody has started talking about the problem and - more importantly - the victims have started exposing their abusers. Hopefully this is the beginning of a process that will deliver justice to the victims and punishment to the culprits. Hopefully this will bring an end to rich/powerful men abusing women and getting away with it. From now on at least, let all men treat all women with respect - if not out of decency, then at least out of fear . . .
यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः।
यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः।।
yatra naaryastu poojyante ramante tatra devataah ।
yatraitaastu na poojyante sarvaastatraafalaah kriyaah ।।
Where women are worshipped, there the Gods are happy ।
Where women are not worshipped, there all work is useless ।।
- MANU SMRITI [3.56]
For a long time, a man could do anything to a woman if he had money or power (or both). So a lot of rich/powerful men did a lot of wrong things to a lot of women - and kept getting away with it. This has been a great evil in our society. Now - after all these years of Adharma - finally Dharma seems to be coming. Everybody has started talking about the problem and - more importantly - the victims have started exposing their abusers. Hopefully this is the beginning of a process that will deliver justice to the victims and punishment to the culprits. Hopefully this will bring an end to rich/powerful men abusing women and getting away with it. From now on at least, let all men treat all women with respect - if not out of decency, then at least out of fear . . .
यत्र नार्यस्तु पूज्यन्ते रमन्ते तत्र देवताः।
यत्रैतास्तु न पूज्यन्ते सर्वास्तत्राफलाः क्रियाः।।
yatra naaryastu poojyante ramante tatra devataah ।
yatraitaastu na poojyante sarvaastatraafalaah kriyaah ।।
Where women are worshipped, there the Gods are happy ।
Where women are not worshipped, there all work is useless ।।
- MANU SMRITI [3.56]
14 August 2018
India's Anti-Knowledge Society/Culture
The 21st century will be the knowledge century. Knowledge will play a central role in this century. A country's success or failure in this century will be decided by knowledge. So to succeed in this century, a country must give importance to knowledge. And all the countries of the world are doing this: China, America and many others. All, that is, with one exception: India.
In no other country is knowledge as disrespected as it is in India. Among professions, research/academics is the least respected profession. And education has neither value in the market nor respect in society. A doctorate has less value/respect than a post-graduate, who in turn has less value/respect than a graduate. An anti-knowledge culture pervades our society. People with knowledge are treated with hostility at worst and indifference at best. In the 21st century, this disrespect for knowledge is suicide. Yet we are doing it. Why?
The reason/cause is simple: Our guilt about the caste system. The caste system was a hierarchical and hereditary social system. And it put the knowledge-workers (Brahmanas) at the top of the hierarchy. When India was invaded, conquered and ruled by foreigners (Turks, Mughals, British) for 1000 years, this system became rigid and led to inequality. When we became free in 1947 and started to modernise, we rightly decided to abandon the degenerated caste system. That (again, rightly) meant giving equal respect to a) people of all castes and b) people who do all types of work. So far, so good. But in our over-eagerness to repair the inequality of the degenerated caste system, we (wrongly) took one more step: We stopped giving respect to knowledge itself. The result is the anti-knowledge culture that pervades our society today.
We must distinguish between a hereditary social group (ie, caste) and a social function (here, knowledge). It is one thing to refuse to give special privilege to a hereditary social group who historically performed the knowledge-function in society (ie, Brahmins) -- which is right. It is another thing to refuse to give respect to the social function of knowledge -- which has always been important and is most important in the 21st century. But this is exactly what we are doing. And its consequences are disastrous.
Some people say that our lack of respect for knowledge is due to our systems -- ie, we don't have the right systems in place. (Example: We need more money for research -- both from government and industry) True. But who will build those systems? The Chinese? The Americans? Nobody will do it for us. We have to build our systems ourselves. And we can build the right systems only if we have the right mindset/culture (because everything begins with mindset/culture). So first we must change our anti-knowledge mindset/culture to a pro-knowledge mindset/culture. That is, we must start giving knowledge the respect it deserves in the 21st century world.
PS: A parallel phenomenon (which has the same root-cause) is our attitude towards excellence/quality. We think excellence/quality is anti-equality and mediocrity is pro-equality.
In no other country is knowledge as disrespected as it is in India. Among professions, research/academics is the least respected profession. And education has neither value in the market nor respect in society. A doctorate has less value/respect than a post-graduate, who in turn has less value/respect than a graduate. An anti-knowledge culture pervades our society. People with knowledge are treated with hostility at worst and indifference at best. In the 21st century, this disrespect for knowledge is suicide. Yet we are doing it. Why?
The reason/cause is simple: Our guilt about the caste system. The caste system was a hierarchical and hereditary social system. And it put the knowledge-workers (Brahmanas) at the top of the hierarchy. When India was invaded, conquered and ruled by foreigners (Turks, Mughals, British) for 1000 years, this system became rigid and led to inequality. When we became free in 1947 and started to modernise, we rightly decided to abandon the degenerated caste system. That (again, rightly) meant giving equal respect to a) people of all castes and b) people who do all types of work. So far, so good. But in our over-eagerness to repair the inequality of the degenerated caste system, we (wrongly) took one more step: We stopped giving respect to knowledge itself. The result is the anti-knowledge culture that pervades our society today.
We must distinguish between a hereditary social group (ie, caste) and a social function (here, knowledge). It is one thing to refuse to give special privilege to a hereditary social group who historically performed the knowledge-function in society (ie, Brahmins) -- which is right. It is another thing to refuse to give respect to the social function of knowledge -- which has always been important and is most important in the 21st century. But this is exactly what we are doing. And its consequences are disastrous.
Some people say that our lack of respect for knowledge is due to our systems -- ie, we don't have the right systems in place. (Example: We need more money for research -- both from government and industry) True. But who will build those systems? The Chinese? The Americans? Nobody will do it for us. We have to build our systems ourselves. And we can build the right systems only if we have the right mindset/culture (because everything begins with mindset/culture). So first we must change our anti-knowledge mindset/culture to a pro-knowledge mindset/culture. That is, we must start giving knowledge the respect it deserves in the 21st century world.
PS: A parallel phenomenon (which has the same root-cause) is our attitude towards excellence/quality. We think excellence/quality is anti-equality and mediocrity is pro-equality.
27 August 2016
Segregation of Sexes in India
An important difference between agricultural society and industrial society is the relationship between the sexes.
20th century India was an agricultural society. One feature of an agricultural society is the segregation of the sexes. Boys and girls sat separately in schools and colleges. They did not talk to each other. If a boy talked to a girl (or vice versa) it would make news. As a result, boys and girls grew up without interacting much with each other. This situation continued into adulthood. Women did not work much outside the house. Their participation in the workforce was low. So men and women also did not interact much with each other.
21st century India is an industrialising society. It is completely different from 20th century India. It is not yet an industrial society. But it is no longer an agricultural society either. Today boys and girls sit together in schools and colleges. They talk to each other all the time. And more women are now working outside the house and participating in the workforce. So men and women also interact much more with each other.
This seems like a trivial point (and today's youth will find this description of 20th century India bizarre). But it may have some relevance. Social scientists say that violence against women is mainly due to the segregation of the sexes. How? One, boys/men don't know/understand girls/women. So they don't respect/appreciate them enough. Two, boys/men don't have normal and healthy relationships with girls/women. So this leads to frustration - which in turn leads to violence. Now if this theory is correct, then increasing industrialisation/modernisation will lead to decreased violence against women.
20th century India was an agricultural society. One feature of an agricultural society is the segregation of the sexes. Boys and girls sat separately in schools and colleges. They did not talk to each other. If a boy talked to a girl (or vice versa) it would make news. As a result, boys and girls grew up without interacting much with each other. This situation continued into adulthood. Women did not work much outside the house. Their participation in the workforce was low. So men and women also did not interact much with each other.
21st century India is an industrialising society. It is completely different from 20th century India. It is not yet an industrial society. But it is no longer an agricultural society either. Today boys and girls sit together in schools and colleges. They talk to each other all the time. And more women are now working outside the house and participating in the workforce. So men and women also interact much more with each other.
This seems like a trivial point (and today's youth will find this description of 20th century India bizarre). But it may have some relevance. Social scientists say that violence against women is mainly due to the segregation of the sexes. How? One, boys/men don't know/understand girls/women. So they don't respect/appreciate them enough. Two, boys/men don't have normal and healthy relationships with girls/women. So this leads to frustration - which in turn leads to violence. Now if this theory is correct, then increasing industrialisation/modernisation will lead to decreased violence against women.
28 February 2015
Society/System: Sheep & Wolves
People go to work and make money.
They go to malls and spend money.
They live in nice houses.
They drive nice cars.
This is the system called 'society'.
Nothing runs on its own.
Especially a system.
It has to be run.
By some people.
99% of people simply live in the system.
They make money.
They spend money.
They are the sheep.
1% of people run the system.
They are the wolves.
They control the sheep.
Sheep are good.
Wolves are bad.
It is the existence of wolves that allows sheep to exist and to be good.
They go to malls and spend money.
They live in nice houses.
They drive nice cars.
This is the system called 'society'.
Nothing runs on its own.
Especially a system.
It has to be run.
By some people.
99% of people simply live in the system.
They make money.
They spend money.
They are the sheep.
1% of people run the system.
They are the wolves.
They control the sheep.
Sheep are good.
Wolves are bad.
It is the existence of wolves that allows sheep to exist and to be good.
01 December 2014
Middle Class Indians' Marriage Obsession
Middle class Indians are obsessed with marriage. But there is a small exception to this rule:
Why is it so?
In ancient/traditional India, there were two types of people:
1. Grihasthas (householders)
2. Sanyasis (ascetics)
The vast majority of the people were Grihasthas. They married, had children and took care of their families. That is, they pursued Kama and Artha. Then there were a few Sanyasis. These stayed single and devoted themselves completely to working for society or to spirituality. That is, they pursued either Dharma or Moksha.
Both these options were open to all the Varnas. But since only Brahmanas had knowledge, only they (ie, a few of them) became Sanyasis. Since non-Brahmanas did not have knowledge, none of them became Sanyasis; they were all Grihasthas only. Thus society became like this:
This system has existed for 3000 years. So today's society is a result of 3000 years of social programming – which is very powerful. Therefore we have the situation described by the first table. Non-Brahmins (most of them) know only one thing: make money, marry and have children. But Brahmins (a few at least) are aware of an alternate path: devote oneself completely to society or to spirituality.
Thus the middle class Indian marriage obsession has a small Brahmin exception. But among non-Brahmins, it is total.
The Sanyasi system is and should be an exception. If everybody becomes a Sanyasi, then society will cease to exist.
| Brahmins | |
| Non-Brahmins |
Why is it so?
In ancient/traditional India, there were two types of people:
1. Grihasthas (householders)
2. Sanyasis (ascetics)
The vast majority of the people were Grihasthas. They married, had children and took care of their families. That is, they pursued Kama and Artha. Then there were a few Sanyasis. These stayed single and devoted themselves completely to working for society or to spirituality. That is, they pursued either Dharma or Moksha.
Both these options were open to all the Varnas. But since only Brahmanas had knowledge, only they (ie, a few of them) became Sanyasis. Since non-Brahmanas did not have knowledge, none of them became Sanyasis; they were all Grihasthas only. Thus society became like this:
| Brahmanas | ||
| Non-Brahmanas |
This system has existed for 3000 years. So today's society is a result of 3000 years of social programming – which is very powerful. Therefore we have the situation described by the first table. Non-Brahmins (most of them) know only one thing: make money, marry and have children. But Brahmins (a few at least) are aware of an alternate path: devote oneself completely to society or to spirituality.
Thus the middle class Indian marriage obsession has a small Brahmin exception. But among non-Brahmins, it is total.
The Sanyasi system is and should be an exception. If everybody becomes a Sanyasi, then society will cease to exist.
01 September 2014
Education in the Agricultural Age/Society
In the Agricultural Age, there were 4 groups in society:
1. Scholars
2. Warriors
3. Merchants
4. Farmers
This was true for all civilisations (India, China, Europe, etc).
Knowledge in the Agricultural Age was low. The knowledge required in people for the effective functioning of society was also low. Whatever knowledge existed was required only for the scholars. It was not required for the other groups – ie, warriors, merchants, farmers. So in all civilisations, only the scholars got education. The others (warriors, merchants, farmers) did not get education.
In India, these social groups were nothing but the Varnas:
1. Scholars – Brahmanas
2. Warriors – Kshatriyas
3. Merchants – Vaishyas
4. Farmers – Shudras
Thus in ancient India, only the Brahmanas had education. The others (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras) did not have education.
1. Scholars
2. Warriors
3. Merchants
4. Farmers
This was true for all civilisations (India, China, Europe, etc).
Knowledge in the Agricultural Age was low. The knowledge required in people for the effective functioning of society was also low. Whatever knowledge existed was required only for the scholars. It was not required for the other groups – ie, warriors, merchants, farmers. So in all civilisations, only the scholars got education. The others (warriors, merchants, farmers) did not get education.
In India, these social groups were nothing but the Varnas:
1. Scholars – Brahmanas
2. Warriors – Kshatriyas
3. Merchants – Vaishyas
4. Farmers – Shudras
Thus in ancient India, only the Brahmanas had education. The others (Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras) did not have education.
01 August 2014
India's Middle Class: Money, Marriage, Family
India's middle class is obsessed with two things: money and marriage. Why?
An industrial society (US, Europe, Japan) has welfare systems like social security, social welfare, etc. An agricultural society (like India) has no such systems. Because there is no social security, people must rely completely on their savings. Because there is no social welfare system, people must rely completely on their family (ie, wife/husband and children). Therefore people in agricultural societies are obsessed with money and marriage. Obsession with money and marriage is a feature of the agricultural mindset. People with a truly modern/industrial mindset are not obsessed with money and marriage.
As India industrialises and becomes an industrial society – and builds the systems of an industrial society, this obsession will reduce.
An industrial society (US, Europe, Japan) has welfare systems like social security, social welfare, etc. An agricultural society (like India) has no such systems. Because there is no social security, people must rely completely on their savings. Because there is no social welfare system, people must rely completely on their family (ie, wife/husband and children). Therefore people in agricultural societies are obsessed with money and marriage. Obsession with money and marriage is a feature of the agricultural mindset. People with a truly modern/industrial mindset are not obsessed with money and marriage.
As India industrialises and becomes an industrial society – and builds the systems of an industrial society, this obsession will reduce.
13 April 2014
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Purusharthas
Correspondence between Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Purusharthas:
| 1. Basic/Physical | |
| 2. Security | |
| 3. Emotional | |
| 4. Success | |
| 5. Self-actualisation |
20 December 2012
India: Ordinary Men Vs Great Men (Society/Family)
A brilliant psychological analysis* of how the Indian society/family is designed to produce a mass of ordinary men and only a very few great men (like Swami Vivekananda and Mahatma Gandhi):
"Almost all students of Indian personality have been struck by the extreme indulgence of the Indian child, principally by the mother but also by other members of the family. This gives rise to a sense of omnipotence in the infant, a feeling that is fortified by nursing practices and physical proximity with the mother for an extended period of time.
An important consequence of this is that there develops in the Indian child a strong individual ego. As a result, moral energy does not come from the pressure of guilt feelings arising from a failure to live up to the social ideal, but depends crucially on a self-cultivated individual ideal. Fulfillment of the ideals set for the individual – rather than social obligation – becomes the main drive for moral action.
This creates wide gaps in individual capacities. For the average Indian, as morality has reference to self-directed and introspective perfection, the compulsion to perform is not very great. On the other hand, the culture develops high and universalist ideals with which the creative and power-motivated individuals strongly identify: the theme that the individual itself is the Absolute drives them to ever higher levels of perfection.
This gulf between the drives of ordinary men and those of great men results in abstract concepts of duty and morality, and a personality ideal that is high and remote – realisable only by exceptional men whose authority derives from their capacity to embody virtues that are lacking in ordinary men. Hence the exaggerated role of the guru, the ascetic, the warrior, and indirectly of a hierarchy of roles, and charisma."
*Politics in India – Rajni Kothari (1970)
See Nietzsche's "Superman" Theory
"Almost all students of Indian personality have been struck by the extreme indulgence of the Indian child, principally by the mother but also by other members of the family. This gives rise to a sense of omnipotence in the infant, a feeling that is fortified by nursing practices and physical proximity with the mother for an extended period of time.
An important consequence of this is that there develops in the Indian child a strong individual ego. As a result, moral energy does not come from the pressure of guilt feelings arising from a failure to live up to the social ideal, but depends crucially on a self-cultivated individual ideal. Fulfillment of the ideals set for the individual – rather than social obligation – becomes the main drive for moral action.
This creates wide gaps in individual capacities. For the average Indian, as morality has reference to self-directed and introspective perfection, the compulsion to perform is not very great. On the other hand, the culture develops high and universalist ideals with which the creative and power-motivated individuals strongly identify: the theme that the individual itself is the Absolute drives them to ever higher levels of perfection.
This gulf between the drives of ordinary men and those of great men results in abstract concepts of duty and morality, and a personality ideal that is high and remote – realisable only by exceptional men whose authority derives from their capacity to embody virtues that are lacking in ordinary men. Hence the exaggerated role of the guru, the ascetic, the warrior, and indirectly of a hierarchy of roles, and charisma."
*Politics in India – Rajni Kothari (1970)
See Nietzsche's "Superman" Theory
01 September 2012
The Most Important People in Society
The most important people in society are:
1. Farmers
2. Teachers
3. Soldiers
But they are given the least importance.
The most useless people in society are:
1. Movie stars
2. Cricket players
3. Politicians
But they are given the most importance.
1. Farmers
2. Teachers
3. Soldiers
But they are given the least importance.
The most useless people in society are:
1. Movie stars
2. Cricket players
3. Politicians
But they are given the most importance.
17 June 2012
India's Caste/Varna System: An Economic System
The four inputs (factors) of production are land, labour, capital and knowledge. Efficiency can be achieved by specialisation. In ancient India, different social groups (Varnas) specialised in handling the different factors of production:
Thus the Varna/caste system was born, based on economic specialisation.
See The Origin of the Varna/Caste System.
| Varna | |
| Brahmana | |
| Kshatriya | |
| Vaishya | |
| Shudra |
Thus the Varna/caste system was born, based on economic specialisation.
See The Origin of the Varna/Caste System.
07 December 2011
Shibumi: Age of the Warrior Vs Age of the Merchant
The contrast between the Age of the Warrior and the Age of the Merchant is one of the themes in Trevanian's 1979 thriller "Shibumi". Some quotes:
General Kishikawa: "All wars are lost ultimately. By both sides, Nikko. The day of battles between professional warriors is gone. Now we have wars between opposing industrial capacities, opposing populations. The Russians, with their sea of faceless people, will defeat the Germans. The Americans, with their anonymous factories, will defeat us (Japanese). Ultimately."
General Kishikawa: "They (Americans) are very skilfull merchants, and they have a great respect for fiscal achievement. These may seem thin and tawdry virtues to you, but they are consonant with the patterns of the industrial world. At best, they are a mannered technology. In place of ethics, they have rules. Size functions for them as quality functions for us. What for us is honour and dishonour, for them is winning and losing. In the world of the future, a world of merchants and mechanics, the base impulses of the mongrel are those that will dominate. The Westerner is the future, Nikko. A grim and impersonal future of technology and automation, it is true – but the future nevertheless."
He (Nicholai) came to recognise that all Americans were merchants, that the core of the American Genius, of the Yankee Spirit, was buying and selling. They vended their democratic ideology like hucksters, supported by the great protection racket of armaments deals and economic pressures. Their wars were monumental exercises in production and supply. Their government was a series of social contracts. Their education was sold as so much per unit hour. Their marriages were emotional deals, the contracts easily broken if one party failed in his debt servicing. Honour for them consisted in fair trading. And they were not, as they thought, a classless society; they were a one-class society – the mercantile. Their elite were the rich; their workers and farmers were best viewed as flawed and failed scramblers up the middle-class monetary ladder. The peasants and proletariat of America had values identical to those of the insurance salesmen and business executives, the only difference being that these values were expressed in more modest fiscal terms: the motor boat rather than the yacht; the bowling league rather than the country club; Atlantic City rather than Monaco.
But it was not their irritating assumption of equality that annoyed Nicholai so much as their cultural confusions. The Americans seemed to confuse standard of living with quality of life, institutionalised mediocrity with equal opportunity, bravery with courage, machismo with manhood, liberty with freedom, wordiness with articulation, fun with pleasure – in short, they had all the misconceptions common to those who assume that justice implies equality for all, rather than equality for equals.
Major: "You deny that he (Kishikawa) was a part of the Japanese military-industrial machine?"
Nicholai: "He was a soldier." The more accurate response would have been that he was a warrior, but that distinction would have meant nothing to these Americans with their mercantile mentalities.
Nicholai recognised the haggling tone of the market place. Like all Americans, this Major was a merchant at heart; everything had a price; and the good man was he who bargained well.
Nicholai: "It's not Americans I find annoying; it's Americanism: a social disease of the post-industrial world that must inevitably infect each of the mercantile nations in turn, and is called 'American' only because your nation is the most advanced case of the malady, much as one speaks of Spanish flu or Japanese encephalitis. Its symptoms are a loss of work ethic, a shrinking of inner resources, and a constant need for external simulation, followed by spiritual decay and moral narcosis. You can recognise the victim by his constant efforts to get in touch with himself, to believe his spiritual feebleness in an interesting psychological warp, to construe his fleeing from responsibility as evidence that he and his life are uniquely open to new experience. In the latter stages, the sufferer is reduced to seeking that most trivial of human activities: fun."
No prizes for guessing which side Trevanian is on!
General Kishikawa: "All wars are lost ultimately. By both sides, Nikko. The day of battles between professional warriors is gone. Now we have wars between opposing industrial capacities, opposing populations. The Russians, with their sea of faceless people, will defeat the Germans. The Americans, with their anonymous factories, will defeat us (Japanese). Ultimately."
General Kishikawa: "They (Americans) are very skilfull merchants, and they have a great respect for fiscal achievement. These may seem thin and tawdry virtues to you, but they are consonant with the patterns of the industrial world. At best, they are a mannered technology. In place of ethics, they have rules. Size functions for them as quality functions for us. What for us is honour and dishonour, for them is winning and losing. In the world of the future, a world of merchants and mechanics, the base impulses of the mongrel are those that will dominate. The Westerner is the future, Nikko. A grim and impersonal future of technology and automation, it is true – but the future nevertheless."
He (Nicholai) came to recognise that all Americans were merchants, that the core of the American Genius, of the Yankee Spirit, was buying and selling. They vended their democratic ideology like hucksters, supported by the great protection racket of armaments deals and economic pressures. Their wars were monumental exercises in production and supply. Their government was a series of social contracts. Their education was sold as so much per unit hour. Their marriages were emotional deals, the contracts easily broken if one party failed in his debt servicing. Honour for them consisted in fair trading. And they were not, as they thought, a classless society; they were a one-class society – the mercantile. Their elite were the rich; their workers and farmers were best viewed as flawed and failed scramblers up the middle-class monetary ladder. The peasants and proletariat of America had values identical to those of the insurance salesmen and business executives, the only difference being that these values were expressed in more modest fiscal terms: the motor boat rather than the yacht; the bowling league rather than the country club; Atlantic City rather than Monaco.
But it was not their irritating assumption of equality that annoyed Nicholai so much as their cultural confusions. The Americans seemed to confuse standard of living with quality of life, institutionalised mediocrity with equal opportunity, bravery with courage, machismo with manhood, liberty with freedom, wordiness with articulation, fun with pleasure – in short, they had all the misconceptions common to those who assume that justice implies equality for all, rather than equality for equals.
Major: "You deny that he (Kishikawa) was a part of the Japanese military-industrial machine?"
Nicholai: "He was a soldier." The more accurate response would have been that he was a warrior, but that distinction would have meant nothing to these Americans with their mercantile mentalities.
Nicholai recognised the haggling tone of the market place. Like all Americans, this Major was a merchant at heart; everything had a price; and the good man was he who bargained well.
Nicholai: "It's not Americans I find annoying; it's Americanism: a social disease of the post-industrial world that must inevitably infect each of the mercantile nations in turn, and is called 'American' only because your nation is the most advanced case of the malady, much as one speaks of Spanish flu or Japanese encephalitis. Its symptoms are a loss of work ethic, a shrinking of inner resources, and a constant need for external simulation, followed by spiritual decay and moral narcosis. You can recognise the victim by his constant efforts to get in touch with himself, to believe his spiritual feebleness in an interesting psychological warp, to construe his fleeing from responsibility as evidence that he and his life are uniquely open to new experience. In the latter stages, the sufferer is reduced to seeking that most trivial of human activities: fun."
No prizes for guessing which side Trevanian is on!
06 December 2011
Agricultural Vs Industrial Society: Martial Vs Commercial Society
In the Agricultural Age, the primary production system was agriculture. The main input for agriculture is land. So whoever controlled land had power. The king controlled land, and hence had power.
Now the king belonged to the warrior class (Kshatriyas). Each class has its own values. The values of the warriors were strength, courage, duty and loyalty. These constituted the warrior ethic.
Since warriors were the dominant class in agricultural society, their ethic – the warrior ethic – was the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, agricultural society was a martial society*. And the Agricultural Age was the Age of the Warrior.
*The French social thinker Auguste Comte (1798–1857) used the term "military society" to describe agricultural society.
After the Industrial Revolution everything changed.
In the Industrial Age, the primary production system is industry. The main input for industry is capital. So whoever controls capital has power. The capitalists control capital, and hence have power.
Now capitalists belong to the merchant class (Vaishyas). Merchants have only one value: wealth/money. This constitutes the merchant ethic.
Since industrialists/businessmen are the dominant class in industrial society, their ethic – the merchant ethic – is the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, industrial society is a commercial society. And the Industrial Age is the Age of the Merchant.
Today there is no victory and defeat; only success and failure. Today there is no honour and dishonour; only profit and loss.
1. Gurcharan Das approves of this change.
2. Watch The Last Samurai (2003) for a beautiful argument in favour of the Age of the Warrior and the warrior ethic.
Now the king belonged to the warrior class (Kshatriyas). Each class has its own values. The values of the warriors were strength, courage, duty and loyalty. These constituted the warrior ethic.
Since warriors were the dominant class in agricultural society, their ethic – the warrior ethic – was the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, agricultural society was a martial society*. And the Agricultural Age was the Age of the Warrior.
*The French social thinker Auguste Comte (1798–1857) used the term "military society" to describe agricultural society.
After the Industrial Revolution everything changed.
In the Industrial Age, the primary production system is industry. The main input for industry is capital. So whoever controls capital has power. The capitalists control capital, and hence have power.
Now capitalists belong to the merchant class (Vaishyas). Merchants have only one value: wealth/money. This constitutes the merchant ethic.
Since industrialists/businessmen are the dominant class in industrial society, their ethic – the merchant ethic – is the dominant ethic in society.
Thus, industrial society is a commercial society. And the Industrial Age is the Age of the Merchant.
Today there is no victory and defeat; only success and failure. Today there is no honour and dishonour; only profit and loss.
1. Gurcharan Das approves of this change.
2. Watch The Last Samurai (2003) for a beautiful argument in favour of the Age of the Warrior and the warrior ethic.
07 March 2011
Modern India: Society and Social Change
I had once written a post about the "India vs Bharat" divide. In it I had talked about the "Agricultural Age mindset/worldview" and the "Industrial Age mindset/worldview". But what are these exactly?
In the series of posts on the 19th century Western social thinkers, I have tried to answer this question. After the Industrial Revolution (1775–1800) the West industrialised/modernised in the 19th century. India was then under British rule; so we could not industrialise. In 1947 we became free, but we adopted the wrong industrial system – socialism – and hence industrialised very slowly. In 1991 we switched to a a more efficient industrial system – capitalism – and started industrialising faster. Thus India started industrialising properly only from 1991.
As India industrialises/modernises now, in the 21st century, our society is going through vast and rapid changes. Are these changes unique? Are they unprecedented? No, they are not. If we read about the works of 19th century European social thinkers, we realise that they describe the same changes that we see in India today. That is, 21st century India is going through the same changes that 19th century Europe went through. Thus, by reading the ideas/theories of 19th century Europe's social thinkers, we can understand the social change taking place in modern India. (That was the point of the posts on Marx, Tönnies, Durkheim and Weber.)
Among these thinkers, the most interesting is Tönnies. His concept of "community" (Gemeinschaft) and "association" (Gesellschaft) accurately describes the changes taking place in India today: from "Bharat" to "India". "Bharat" is "community", and "India" is "association".
As India industrialises/modernises, "Bharat" will decrease in size and "India" will increase Some say this change is good; others say it is bad. What do you think? Please let me know your views :-)
In the series of posts on the 19th century Western social thinkers, I have tried to answer this question. After the Industrial Revolution (1775–1800) the West industrialised/modernised in the 19th century. India was then under British rule; so we could not industrialise. In 1947 we became free, but we adopted the wrong industrial system – socialism – and hence industrialised very slowly. In 1991 we switched to a a more efficient industrial system – capitalism – and started industrialising faster. Thus India started industrialising properly only from 1991.
As India industrialises/modernises now, in the 21st century, our society is going through vast and rapid changes. Are these changes unique? Are they unprecedented? No, they are not. If we read about the works of 19th century European social thinkers, we realise that they describe the same changes that we see in India today. That is, 21st century India is going through the same changes that 19th century Europe went through. Thus, by reading the ideas/theories of 19th century Europe's social thinkers, we can understand the social change taking place in modern India. (That was the point of the posts on Marx, Tönnies, Durkheim and Weber.)
Among these thinkers, the most interesting is Tönnies. His concept of "community" (Gemeinschaft) and "association" (Gesellschaft) accurately describes the changes taking place in India today: from "Bharat" to "India". "Bharat" is "community", and "India" is "association".
As India industrialises/modernises, "Bharat" will decrease in size and "India" will increase Some say this change is good; others say it is bad. What do you think? Please let me know your views :-)
27 February 2011
Max Weber: Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Max Weber (1864–1920) was German social thinker.
In "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905) Weber tried to answer the question: Why did the Industrial Revolution take place in Europe? Why did it not take place in other civilisations like India and China – which were scientifically more advanced? According to Weber, the answer was religion. India's religion was Hinduism, China's was Confucianism, and Europe's was Christianity. Weber said the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe due to Christianity.
Weber asked a further question: Why did the Industrial Revolution spread rapidly in north Europe (Britain, Germany), but not in south Europe (Spain, Italy)? Again, his answer was religion. North Europe was Protestant, while South Europe was Catholic. Weber tried to show how Protestantism (and not merely Christianity) was responsible for the Industrial Revolution.
See Max Weber: The Iron Cage of Capitalism
Max Weber (1864–1920) was German social thinker.
In "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905) Weber tried to answer the question: Why did the Industrial Revolution take place in Europe? Why did it not take place in other civilisations like India and China – which were scientifically more advanced? According to Weber, the answer was religion. India's religion was Hinduism, China's was Confucianism, and Europe's was Christianity. Weber said the Industrial Revolution took place in Europe due to Christianity.
Weber asked a further question: Why did the Industrial Revolution spread rapidly in north Europe (Britain, Germany), but not in south Europe (Spain, Italy)? Again, his answer was religion. North Europe was Protestant, while South Europe was Catholic. Weber tried to show how Protestantism (and not merely Christianity) was responsible for the Industrial Revolution.
See Max Weber: The Iron Cage of Capitalism
20 February 2011
Emile Durkheim: Organic Solidarity and Mechanical Solidarity
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) was a French social thinker.
In "Division of Labour in Society" (1892), Durkheim – like Tönnies – tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. Durkheim said that agricultural society is characterised by "organic solidarity", and industrial society is characterised by "mechanical solidarity"*.
Turgot had given the theory of economic stages of history. Each (economic) stage is more complex than the previous stage. That is, the number of tasks/roles in a society increases as it moves from one stage to the next. Efficiency requires division of labour and specialisation. Thus, greater complexity results in greater division of labour and specialisation. Therefore industrial society is more complex than agricultural society, and has a higher degree of division of labour and specialisation.
Durkheim went further. Industrial society is not only more complex than agricultural society, its nature – how its different parts fit together and their relationship with one another – is also different. These "parts" may be:
a) Parts of the social "super-system" (technology, economy, society, politics, culture)
b) Sub-systems of society (family, education, etc)
c) Units of the social system (castes, classes, etc)
d) Or simply, individuals
Agricultural society is like an organism. It is simpler, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another naturally, or "organically". Example: a family. Industrial society is like a machine. It is more complex, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another artificially, or "mechanically". Example: a corporation.
Thus Durkheim's "organic solidarity" and "mechanical solidarity" correspond to Tönnies' "community" and "society". His work can be seen as a continuation of Tönnies' analysis.
*Durkheim used the terms the other way around. I am using them here in their correct sense.
Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) was a French social thinker.
In "Division of Labour in Society" (1892), Durkheim – like Tönnies – tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. Durkheim said that agricultural society is characterised by "organic solidarity", and industrial society is characterised by "mechanical solidarity"*.
Turgot had given the theory of economic stages of history. Each (economic) stage is more complex than the previous stage. That is, the number of tasks/roles in a society increases as it moves from one stage to the next. Efficiency requires division of labour and specialisation. Thus, greater complexity results in greater division of labour and specialisation. Therefore industrial society is more complex than agricultural society, and has a higher degree of division of labour and specialisation.
Durkheim went further. Industrial society is not only more complex than agricultural society, its nature – how its different parts fit together and their relationship with one another – is also different. These "parts" may be:
a) Parts of the social "super-system" (technology, economy, society, politics, culture)
b) Sub-systems of society (family, education, etc)
c) Units of the social system (castes, classes, etc)
d) Or simply, individuals
Agricultural society is like an organism. It is simpler, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another naturally, or "organically". Example: a family. Industrial society is like a machine. It is more complex, but its different parts fit together and interact with one another artificially, or "mechanically". Example: a corporation.
Thus Durkheim's "organic solidarity" and "mechanical solidarity" correspond to Tönnies' "community" and "society". His work can be seen as a continuation of Tönnies' analysis.
*Durkheim used the terms the other way around. I am using them here in their correct sense.
13 February 2011
Ferdinand Tönnies: Community and Association (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft)
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Ferdinand Tönnies* (1855–1936) was German social thinker.
In "Community and Association" (1887) Tönnies tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. The first he called "community" (Gemeinschaft), and the second he called "association" (Gesellschaft).
In agricultural society ("community"), an individual interacts with a small number of people – the people in his village. He has close relationships with them. The relationships are personal and informal, based on familiarity and friendship. But in an industrial society ("association"), an individual interacts with a large number of people. However these interactions are functional in nature. Thus the relationships are impersonal and formal; they are commercial and business-like.
Thus "community" is characterised by a small number of primary (private) relationships. "Association" is characterised by a large number of secondary (public) relationships.
*The English spelling is not "Tonnies", but "Toennies".
Ferdinand Tönnies* (1855–1936) was German social thinker.
In "Community and Association" (1887) Tönnies tried to analyse the differences between agricultural/rural/traditional society and industrial/urban/modern society. The first he called "community" (Gemeinschaft), and the second he called "association" (Gesellschaft).
In agricultural society ("community"), an individual interacts with a small number of people – the people in his village. He has close relationships with them. The relationships are personal and informal, based on familiarity and friendship. But in an industrial society ("association"), an individual interacts with a large number of people. However these interactions are functional in nature. Thus the relationships are impersonal and formal; they are commercial and business-like.
Thus "community" is characterised by a small number of primary (private) relationships. "Association" is characterised by a large number of secondary (public) relationships.
*The English spelling is not "Tonnies", but "Toennies".
06 February 2011
Karl Marx: The Industrial Revolution and "The Capital"
Ref: Sociology, Modern Society and Social Thinkers
Karl Marx (1818–1885) was a German social thinker.
A R J Turgot, an 18th century French economist, had seen history as a series of economic stages (hunting-gathering, pastoral and agricultural). Marx extended this theory – he added one more stage to it: the industrial (ie, modern) stage.He realised that mankind had entered a new Age in its history: the Industrial Age (Modern Age).He also said that when technology (production system) changes, everything also changes: the economy, politics, culture, and indeed society itself. Thus the Industrial Revolution, which was a change in production system from agriculture to industry, was leading to fundamental economic, political, cultural and social changes as well. He tried to analyse the new industrial/modern economy and society in "The Capital" (1867).
See:
1. Marx: The Modern/Industrial Age and Modernity
2. Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture - 2
Karl Marx (1818–1885) was a German social thinker.
A R J Turgot, an 18th century French economist, had seen history as a series of economic stages (hunting-gathering, pastoral and agricultural). Marx extended this theory – he added one more stage to it: the industrial (ie, modern) stage.He realised that mankind had entered a new Age in its history: the Industrial Age (Modern Age).He also said that when technology (production system) changes, everything also changes: the economy, politics, culture, and indeed society itself. Thus the Industrial Revolution, which was a change in production system from agriculture to industry, was leading to fundamental economic, political, cultural and social changes as well. He tried to analyse the new industrial/modern economy and society in "The Capital" (1867).
See:
1. Marx: The Modern/Industrial Age and Modernity
2. Technology, Economy, Politics, Culture - 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
