The Anarchy of Thought

Charity begins at home. Perhaps. But then so does the long revolution against the Establishment.

Sunday, August 07, 2005

The Gospel According To The Transparent IronistPosted by Picasa


Now that it is Sunday, the chapel clock strikes fifteen to nine and it is time for a Cambridge story. Not to worry, it will be over just in time for high tea and the Ashes at Lord's.
A fresh graduate from the mediaeval (British spelling, not American) university of Cambridge, with a diploma in Social Anthropology, breathing the air of the so-called heady idealism of youth, once voyaged into the dark hinterlands of Africa to study a distant tribe called the Bakarazande. He spent five years in their midst in the course of which he learnt a couple of the most amazing beliefs, tricks, and practices that had hitherto remained unknown to the civilising gaze of the Western Man. He became so intimate with the tribals that after a while it was quite impossible for them to distinguish between him and them : not only did he speak their dialects consummately, he often participated in their festivals and eagerly celebrated their religious ceremonies.
Indeed, one night at the camp-fire the Old Man of the tribe stood up before everyone and spoke thus to the congregration, in a voice quivering with emotion : 'This White Eye has now become one of us. I think we should formally accept him into our community through a great celebration this Spring when the rains flow down to us from the bounties of the Great Spirit.'
The next morning, however, the Cambridge graduate was nowhere to be seen. The tribals scoured the brown hills and the barren plains for miles around but not a trace of him remained anywhere. In the meantime, the graduate moved on to another tribe called the Yarobu who lived five hundred miles up the river Zarokho, settled down with them, learnt a handful of their dialects, and mingled into their midst so intimately that they could hardly think of him as someone from another place. One evening in the orange autumn, when the yellow leaves were falling thick in the exhausted late summer wind, the village chief came up to him and offered his daughter's hand(s) in marriage to him. Flummoxed by the offer, he asked the chief what that word 'marriage' meant in the local dialect, and received the reply that the entire tribe would join in a public celebration before the mists of winter set in.
The next morning, the Cambridge graduate was (by now, predictably) nowhere to be seen. He moved yet higher up this time and arrived at the fearsome gorge of the river Mikimakoo at sunset. There he sat down upon a rock and began to contemplate, somewhat in the style of an armchair anthropologist cosily ensconced in Neville's Court, Trinity.
'I have been trained as a social anthropologist by my stiff upper-lipped peers in Cambridge, many of whom have never ventured one inch outside their Junior Parlours. Everytime I go to study to a tribe I must not be a mere observer, I must also be a participator. That is why I learn their languaes so thoroughly, speak the same way that they do, listen to their stories, eat their food, sing their songs, laugh with them (though some of their jokes are rather sick), and cry with them (though some of their women are a bit too sentimental). And yet, what prevents me from actually becoming one of them? Why can't I, to use the currently fashionable Britishism, go native?'
The graduate received so answer to this question of cosmic proportions (if not implications) that sunset. The next morning, however, he arrived at the outskirts of a small village in the valley of the Sukitukamikaloo where he saw two little girls carrying a heavy load on their arched backs. He went up to them and asked them who they were and where they were going to.
'We are going to receive education', they said.
'But why are you carrying a sack on your backs?'
'Those are our text-books.'
'Why don't you just throw them away to the winds and run to the fields and play the whole day long?'
'Oh, we dare not do that! Our parents will punish us severely for that. The other night my sister Zooniya wanted to watch Simpsons but my father was enraged that she was not doing her sums, and a whack! was what she received.'
This rather surreal (and admittedly Americanised) conversation in an African village had a profound impact on the graduate's mind, and he slowly walked away from them pondering over the reply that he had heard. That evening, he entered a ramshackle pub, The African Grape, to replenish his stock of white wine when he overheard a young teary-eyed woman complaining to an old woman who had lots of grey hair on a head that nodded so vigorously that the graduate feared it might fall off any moment.
'I want to get married to Hirantouroo from across the distant hills of Kolimazoo, but he belongs to a different tribe than ours. Now my parents are compelling me to marry some stranger I have never even seen.'
'But why can't you just throw your parents to the winds and run away to Hirantouroo?'
'Well, I have thought of doing that at times but I really can't. I feel this strange bond with my parents.'
'You stupid woman! Can't you see that this bond you speak of is simply genetic? All women feel this biological connection with their parents, but do you seriously want to remain enslaved to your genes all your life? Consider men, on the other hand. The family is entirely dispensable and a prodigal waste of time for men (that is, those men, if any of such exist [Editor's note : The Transparent Ironist is an incurable optimist], who have not already been brainwashed by the family), and how rightly so! Unless we women learn to give up the family we shall never become free from the primordial tyranny of men.'
'Is that the reason why in the parables of our sacred scriptures only sons are allowed to be prodigal?'
'Precisely so! A daughter who dared to be prodigal (God forbid!) would at once be reformed within two days, normalised within three, civilised within four, married off within five, and institutionalised within six.'
The Cambridge graduate filled up his sack with three bottles of vintage white wine and slowly moved out from the pub. The words of the old woman were reverberating in his ears as he watched the sun setting over the ancient Banalooka hills. There were layers upon layers of grey clouds that had accumulated over the horizon, the women were busy gathering their half-dried clothes, the children were playing a raucous game, and some of the men were trying to light their Marlboros that they had smuggled across the (non-existent) border. The graduate paid no heed to them but started walking towards the hills when suddenly he heard a massive thunderclap in the skies and it began to rain dogs and (their) cats. There was a burst of brilliant light in the foreground and he could see the vague outlines of an old man with his back turned towards him.
'Who are you?'
'I am who I am, and I am who shall be. But then, I can't really give you my true Name.'
'So what do we do?'
'-----------------'
'All right, fair enough. Now what do you want from me?'
'I want you to go forth into the world and spread my lost Gospel!'
'But I cannot. I am a man of unclean lips. I fear that I shall not be able to bear the weight of the task that you have marked me out for. I crumble to the ground in dust and ashes. Please choose someone else from this world and spare me!'
'Go forth! I shall be your guide, your strength, and your comforter until the end of this world.'
'What is this secret Gospel that I shall take forth into the world?'
'Thus it has been said by many sages of yore : the family is a haven of peace, joy, and warmth. But I say unto thee : the family is a sinister instrument invented by men (and subsequently assimilated by women) for punishing children and dominating women. So all ye who live in families, the Lord's Day of Wrath is now at hand : repent and run away from the family as if you had accidentally stepped on a poisonous snake!'
The Cambridge graduate could not speak or see anything for three days on end after this climactic (and admittedly a tad vituperative for his British sensitivities) encounter with the Lord of Judgement who had spoken to him through the clouds of darkness. Finally, on the third morning, however, he began to regain his vision and started walking down from the heights of Mount Gozoonami in the Banalooka hills.But he could not understand how he would go about accomplishing the Herculean task of spreading this Gospel in a world where almost everyone around him seemed --- at worst --- to be attached to their families and --- at best --- to be indifferent towards them.
At the foot of the mountains, however, he saw a tiny girl trying to draw something on the parched earth with a little brown twig. She was drawing rings of concentric circles emerging outwards from a point and touching these circles there were tangents flying off in all possible directions.
'What are these tangents doing here?'
'Well, you know it is a bit hard on me. Give me a break, will you?'
'What is hard on you?'
'I mean what you are doing to me right now. You have deliberately put me in this place so that you can use my replies for your blog, haven't you? I mean, come on. A five year old girl wouldn't even know what a damned tangent is, for Christ's sake! For all your high-talk about men dominating women in their families and all that shit, can't you see that this is what you are doing to me right now? Dominating me by using my imaginary replies for your readers?'
'Hmmmm. But does this mean that whenever I blog I can only speak tangentially?'
The girl picked up her twig from the ground, and made a menacing little circle above her head.
'Oh, well, life sucks anyway. Whateva. I think it's in your best interest to keep out of this. It's a chic(k)-thing, you know?'
'Hey, where are you going up there into the hills? Don't you have family and stuff like that?'
'Hah! Now look who's talking!'
And now it is Sunday again, and the chapel clock strikes fifteen to eleven. Another Cambridge graduate allows himself the luxury of a smile over the very existence of the English language. After all, it is this that has enabled him to disguise his great prejudice so beguilingly in the form of a most fanciful, extremely surreal, and crudely hyperbolic fairy-tale that lost in its labyrinthine mazes his readers are still trying to answer the question : So was this 'really' The Gospel According To The Transparent Ironist? That the Family is a redundant legacy from the barbarism of a feudal age, and that it must now be consigned to the dustbin of history?

37 Comments:

  • At 7.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    what prevented the social anthropologist from becoming one of them totally? That thread was left dangling and you broke into the other narrative of the tyranny of the family...

     
  • At 7.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    To have become 'one of them totally' the social anthropologist would have had to become a part of someone's family. Now that is a totally claustrophobically disgusting idea for him.

     
  • At 7.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    But why do you return time and again to your tirade against the family? The point I tought has been made and long time ago too. Repeat it too often and it becomes an advert.

    BTW- loved the tale and especially the names of the hills and rivers

    :)

     
  • At 7.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    I do not 'return' to this tirade : it is simply a fundamentally constitutive aspect of who I am and consequently it stays with me in whatever I write. And yet --- unfortunately --- how few are the people who would be willing to buy this advert wholeheartedly.

     
  • At 7.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    sell and it shall be bought

     
  • At 7.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    yes! I am ready to buy it.

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    You will be surprised to know how difficult women can find it --- beyond the flourish of the initial euphoria --- to really buy this anti-Family package down to the last dot.

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    But why is it the case then that so many people on this planet are attached to their families?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    The Mediaeval theologian Ockham had an exegetical rule which has come to known as the Rule of Ockham. According to one version of it, the Rule says : 'Do not multiply entities beyond necessity'.
    Now different people will 'read' this Rule in their own specific ways. For atheists, this Rule will refer to 'God', 'religion' and 'spirituality'; for Marxists to 'capitalism' and 'imperialism'; for capitalists to 'Communism', and so on and so forth.
    But for me, this Rule clearly applies to the Family : it is a hang-over from an outdated feudal age and must be done away with as soon as possible. However, everything/everyone else is accepted/acceptable.

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What is family?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    The family is a sinister instrument invented by men (and subsequently assimilated by women) for punishing children and dominating women.

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If a man in a system will not be dominating and if children will not be there to be dominated by anybody either a man or woman (as once children are there they can be dominated by anybody) but still if the man and woman are together with love then what you will call that as?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    Are the man and the woman related to their parents?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ummm.....since their parents gave them birth so may be yes. But what is this a question as an answer to a question?
    What do you mean by then related to parents?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    Are they in touch with them? Do they phone them, talk to them, write to them or stay with them?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Both of them they might be orphans or might not. Might be calling their parents or might not. What makes the difference?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    If they are orphans, that is the ideal case. However, if they are in touch with their parents it implies that they are still a part of some family. And the same problems return to haunt the discussion.

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    How??

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    If they are in touch with their families, they are still associated with the family. And that is a claustrophobic nightmare.

     
  • At 8.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    i am against the family for what it stands- selfishness and self propagation
    what do you think of units though? A man and his dog, a man and his machine, a girl and her scarp book, a woman and her man?

     
  • At 8.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    As an anarchist, I believe in the existence only of individual atoms; no collectivities such as the 'family', 'society', or the 'state' exist except as hallucinatory reifications that must be dissolved as soon as possible.

     
  • At 9.8.05, Blogger Shantisudha said…

    But for atom as well there is a collectivity. It contains electrons, neutrons and protons. So it is contradictory. An atom is a family of protons, neutrons and electrons.

    I think you are just running away from realities. Human body itself is an example of collectivity. Collection of bones, flesh, blood. Collective nature is quite natural and nobody can deny it.

    One must be against all the descriminations which lead to selfishness and pain.

     
  • At 9.8.05, Blogger Shantisudha said…

    Even any book you read is an example of collectivity. The air in which you breath is an example of collectivity. I am sure 'you' can't live without these two on this planet. So for 'your' existance itself you need a collectivity. Then how it will be possible to dissolve all sorts of collectivities??

     
  • At 9.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    You are being a tad pedantic here. Though in my blogs I revel in surreal flights of fantasy, while commenting I choose my words very carefully. Note the phrase : "no collectivities such as the 'family', 'society', or the 'state'".
    I am specifically talking about these Three collectivities and not just any possible under the proverbial sky. Otherwise, I agree that even a biscuit that I consume is a collectivity of carbohydrates, the oxygen that I breathe is another one of electrons and quarks, and the books that I read is one of printed words.
    However, I am not referring to 'natural' collectivities but social ones that are constructed by human beings. Of these, I point out once again, the 'family', 'society' and the 'state'.
    To the second one though it must be asked : "But how is it that you live in society?"
    To which I would reply : "I do not 'live' in it; I simply endure it with a passive resignation".

     
  • At 9.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    TI: If they are orphans, that is the ideal case.

    Then what will be the name given to that? It must be a family...isn't it? or what?

     
  • At 9.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    If they are orphans, it means that their parents are dead.
    Dead parents = no more claustrophobia = no more nausea from the family.

     
  • At 9.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think you have missed my question or purposefully you are overlooking it.

    What you will call a man and woman who marry because they love eachother? In that relationship there are no children and may be both of them they are oraphans.

     
  • At 9.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    'Marry'? That very word stinks of the family and must be excised from the English dictionary.

     
  • At 9.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    If that be so, why do the men and the women they get married?

     
  • At 9.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ....However, I am not referring to 'natural' collectivities but social ones that are constructed by human beings. Of these, I point out once again, the 'family', 'society' and the 'state'.
    To the second one though it must be asked : "But how is it that you live in society?"
    To which I would reply : "I do not 'live' in it; I simply endure it with a passive resignation".....

    So do you really think that 'social' is not natural??
    I would say no to that, but I agree with you to the extent that the 'family', 'society' and the 'state' are ideas, but ideas are not born out of the blue (they are rooted in some very 'real' basis) and for this reason I will not call them merely 'hallucinatory reifications'. And that is probably why you say that "I do not 'live' in it; I simply endure it with a passive resignation".....
    If you really thought that it was merely a hallucinatory reification (and nothing more), then you could not have said that.

    You are right, the idea of the family as it exists today especially in the more conservative societies has become very 'rigid' and even if it may be less of a reality and more of an idea (the words 'more' and 'less' to be noted), it can surely weigh down on an individual (given the repeated conditioning that he/she must have been subjected to since childhood) by presenting itself as more real than it actually is (many more ideas like the the idea of 'future time' also adopt the same trick). And doing away with words (and before that and more importantly the concepts)like 'marriage'(and many tags associated with the word) can prove to be very helpful especially to such societies (if you will excuse me for using this word) and will help break the rigidity and bring down a lot of weight that this word (which people who take it as realer-than-it-is are giving life to everyday) confers on people's lives.

    But coming back to the 'family' however, people will always live in some sort of a 'family'. Just like you do too - the Divinity department is also a family of sorts. So is Trinity colllege. So is United Kingdom. (And all of these are man-made). Now dont you think that University of Cambridge might be in a chaos if they decided not to put people wishing to study similar subjects into one categorized department? And I suppose you do comply with most of the rules of these families without feeling exactly suffocated (even when some of the rules are as wierd as not letting people walk on the grass). So my point is that family, society and the state, are not merely ideas (just as the Department of Divininity isn't) but more like useful divisions. Man-made yes, but indespensiblly useful. Even if an Anarchy is declared (or rather enforced)in the world tomorrow in each and every arena of life, one can't (or at least I can't) deny that there is 100% probability (as long as human beings exist in the world, even if in their divinest form) that some sort of family/ society/state would crop up.

    But yes, the difference between the family that consists of parents and children and the rest of the families is that chiildren do not choose their own family when they are born. And when they do start making their own choices, they face resistance from other members of the family (read parents), who have by now been consumed by the real 'idea' of THEIR family which now faces a threat of disintegration. So the problem really is not so much family but MY family. Now this is a NATURAL problem, because children will always be born to parents and will always be raised by them or in your ideal orphan case, somebody (or a group of somebodies). And there are only two ways of becoming free from a problem - either avoid it or find a solution to it. Though avoiding is not really becoming free of it - even if one escapes his/her parents by not talking to them, by not being in their geographical vicinity etc. etc. he is already being dominated by his parents in a certain sense. They are now governing his very lifestyle, although in a different manner now. Another way of avoiding is that one kills his parents (something that I personally do not reccomend) because not all of them shall die early. But if we try to think of another, er.. more practicle solution then it is not too complicated (albeit more arduous and hence is not implemented or even considered by many). One can just live his own way irrespective of what his parents expect. But yes, for that one will have to discover and constantly keep discovering (I see it more like a flux) what his OWN way is. Mostly people are restricted not physically by their parents (at this point I also want to add to the list members of all other kinds of families that one is a part of - friends, teachers, colleagues, lovers etc.) but by means of the parents' (and of those listed above and many more not listed but come under the 'etc.')expecations (which most parents and people UNCONSCIOUSLY confer on their kids and fellow human beings). And a lot of times these expectations are not even unconciously conferred, they are not conferred at all, but the conferree imagines it (now that is more closer to a hallucination). So the only way out seems to be that one should try and KNOW what one wants out of life and then follow it irrespective of real or imaginary expectations. But most people would rather not do that because that throws the RESPONSIBILITY their shoulders, and that means that they will have to WORK HARD on themselves, and man does that itch or does that itch and are we cowards or are we cowards!

     
  • At 9.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    There is a fundamental difference between the family and associations such as the Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge. The former is something one is condemned to being born into whereas the latter is entirely voluntary. One may not feel suffocated in associations that are non-genetic but thoroughly claustrophobic in relationships whose base is genetic.I am one such person.

     
  • At 10.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Now don't you Dawkin me! Genes have nothing to do with the clustrophobia associated with certain relationships - genetic or non-genetic. Otherwise, you should feel claustrophobic with every existing human being since all of us are very closely related in a genetic sense. And I cannot agree with you on the point that there is an intrinsic fundamental difference between the family and Faculty of Divinity - they both stand on the same foundation (organization, categorization, labels, rules, utility) and one can feel equally claustrophobic in a family of the latter kind - maybe if you were to be put in (say) the faculty of physics, you would feel claustrophobic. But here you got it right that the difference lies in being able to excersice one's OWN choice. Faculty of Divinity does not make you feel claustrophobic because YOU have CHOSEN to be in it. And you can choose to opt out anytime you want. And one can opt out of a genetic family as well (not always in an absolutely physical but in a more psychological sense....one can opt out of the family even while one is living under the same roof with other members of it) but yes, it is harder to opt out of a genetic family, again not because genetic family is has something intrinsically different form the Div Fac, but becasue many people would rather hold on to the imaginary coccoon of security that
    the family provides than go out and stand for themselves ALONE in the seemingly cruel world.< For example, people do not marry (read promise to fulfill their partner's expectations for the entire lifetime)not because they are condemned to do so, but because they want to run from insecurity (and they want to make a lifetime arrangement for that at one go).

    So I cannot imagine a world where the concept of 'family' (immidiately gentic or otherwise) will be annihilated but I too yearn for one where an individual's CHOICE would be of supreme value to the rest who surround an individual and more importantly to every individual him/herself.

     
  • At 10.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    The way I see it though : it is fundamentally easier to opt out of the genetic family than from the Faculty of Divinity. The latter is a place where one revels in uninterrupted voyages of thought; the former is a frigid dungeon for punishing children and dominating women.

     
  • At 10.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    You still have not answers the questions I asks yesterday : "If that be so, why do the men and the women they get married?"

     
  • At 10.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    does all of this mean that you are a Naxalite?

     
  • At 10.8.05, Blogger The Transparent Ironist said…

    Not an easy question to answer for I am not quite sure about the semantic range that the term 'Naxalite' covers (or is supposed to cover). However, if you propose the following as a 'working definition' of a 'Naxalite' : "A person who believes that the biological family is a primitive relic from a feudal age and must now be abandoned in favour of non-genetic and voluntary associations of anarchists", I am a 'Naxalite' in this specific sense. This does not necessarily mean, therefore, that I accept without qualification(s) the Marxist-Leninist analyses of history or their related socio-economic theories.

     
  • At 10.8.05, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    mi,
    another parable soon...puhleeez

     

Post a Comment

<< Home

 
Free FAQ Database from Bravenet Free FAQ Database from Bravenet.com
The WeatherPixie