The Reality of Change 
How does one go about 'changing the world'? Historically speaking, there have been two major types of response to this question. The first I shall refer to as the 'extrinsic' one. It says that we human beings are born into hierarchical and oppressive systems of power-relations in which there is one group that exercises domination over another, and uses up all possible resources in legitimising, strengthening, and furthering this dominative relationship. But if you demolish the foundations of the structures which promote such oppression, the world will become a better place, indeed, the best possible place, for there would then be nothing left to be changed. Certain forms of Marxism, some versions of feminism, and a few types of ecologisms come close to espousing such an extrinsic method for making the world a more habitable place for us all : remove the external impediments in the form of socio-economic structures that have settled down, over the centuries, like a thick layer of crust over human beings, and they shall then become truly free to cooperate with one another in a world where all inter-personal relationships will have become transparent.
The second I shall call the 'intrinsic' response, and this says that there is nothing really wrong with the world 'out there', all the terrible things exist, and happen, only within the private theatre of the mind. After all, one does not have to be a psychiatrist to know that some of the greatest demons in human history have existed not in the world 'out there' but in the strange dark recesses of the mental life 'in here'. Therefore, there is no need to waste one's time to make the futile attempt of changing the world; one should first start with oneself, and change oneself for the better. If everyone does this, the world will automatically become a better place to live in. Some classical forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, various patterns of New Age thought, and certain versions of 'humanistic psychology' advocate this approach to the question of 'civilisation and its discontents' : you must first cast out the darkness from your mind, and when you do so, the world will become a better place at once, for the change is inside you and not in the world which requires no change.
History itself has taught us that both these responses, carried to extremes, will get us nowhere. The extrinsic response is based on too optimistic a view of human existence, and it fails to notice that even when genuinely oppressive structures have been removed through external measures, human beings do not start behaving in a benevolent manner all at once. Quite often, even when there are no power asymmetries that are legitimised by 'external' social norms, terrible ills can take place in 'privatised' zones that are shut off from the public gaze. For example, in most countries in the contemporary West, gender discrimination is being slowly phased out through legal measures, but there still persist high levels of domestic violence in several European countries. On the other hand, however, it is often not enough to (try to) change oneself without at the same time trying to change the external structures which favour the systemic oppression of certain groups of people. To take the example of the Indian cases of bride-burning over the failure to pay dowry, it is not sufficient to go around 'internally' changing the men (and, quite ironically, the mothers-in-law) involved in the matter : one must, in addition, uproot through legal measures the 'external' socio-cultural institutions that support this practice.
How does one go about 'changing the world'? Historically speaking, there have been two major types of response to this question. The first I shall refer to as the 'extrinsic' one. It says that we human beings are born into hierarchical and oppressive systems of power-relations in which there is one group that exercises domination over another, and uses up all possible resources in legitimising, strengthening, and furthering this dominative relationship. But if you demolish the foundations of the structures which promote such oppression, the world will become a better place, indeed, the best possible place, for there would then be nothing left to be changed. Certain forms of Marxism, some versions of feminism, and a few types of ecologisms come close to espousing such an extrinsic method for making the world a more habitable place for us all : remove the external impediments in the form of socio-economic structures that have settled down, over the centuries, like a thick layer of crust over human beings, and they shall then become truly free to cooperate with one another in a world where all inter-personal relationships will have become transparent.
The second I shall call the 'intrinsic' response, and this says that there is nothing really wrong with the world 'out there', all the terrible things exist, and happen, only within the private theatre of the mind. After all, one does not have to be a psychiatrist to know that some of the greatest demons in human history have existed not in the world 'out there' but in the strange dark recesses of the mental life 'in here'. Therefore, there is no need to waste one's time to make the futile attempt of changing the world; one should first start with oneself, and change oneself for the better. If everyone does this, the world will automatically become a better place to live in. Some classical forms of Hinduism and Buddhism, various patterns of New Age thought, and certain versions of 'humanistic psychology' advocate this approach to the question of 'civilisation and its discontents' : you must first cast out the darkness from your mind, and when you do so, the world will become a better place at once, for the change is inside you and not in the world which requires no change.
History itself has taught us that both these responses, carried to extremes, will get us nowhere. The extrinsic response is based on too optimistic a view of human existence, and it fails to notice that even when genuinely oppressive structures have been removed through external measures, human beings do not start behaving in a benevolent manner all at once. Quite often, even when there are no power asymmetries that are legitimised by 'external' social norms, terrible ills can take place in 'privatised' zones that are shut off from the public gaze. For example, in most countries in the contemporary West, gender discrimination is being slowly phased out through legal measures, but there still persist high levels of domestic violence in several European countries. On the other hand, however, it is often not enough to (try to) change oneself without at the same time trying to change the external structures which favour the systemic oppression of certain groups of people. To take the example of the Indian cases of bride-burning over the failure to pay dowry, it is not sufficient to go around 'internally' changing the men (and, quite ironically, the mothers-in-law) involved in the matter : one must, in addition, uproot through legal measures the 'external' socio-cultural institutions that support this practice.
In, short, then, you may very well believe that all real change in the world starts inside you, but even if you believe this, you better make sure that others around you feel the same way!
posted by The Transparent Ironist @ 6:10 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home