Modernity speaks about inclusion and the melting pot. Willy nilly, it celebrates loss of identity. Human beings and communities need identity which demands being exclusive in clothing and language and food and habitation. Are we willing to be ‘modern’ at the cost of ‘culture’ or are we willing to be ‘cultured’ at the cost of ‘modernity’? To say that there can be peaceful coexistence between the two is wishful thinking. -- Devadutt Pattanaik in one of his articles.
As Devadutt asks, surely we are willing to be 'modern' at the cost of 'culture,' not only willing, but are already implementing it fully. And as for his next question, I find many people in my immediate surroundings who believe Indian culture is the greatest and should be followed assiduously, wear Indian clothing for functions and visit temples in row, take up fashionable yoga, readings of great Indian philosophers... but regularly follow pizza culture, wear foreign clothing whenever occasion arises, go on foreign tours for enjoyment, indulge in all objects of comfort. Why this duality? May be they are cultured, but not at the cost of modernity. Or is it just 'a culture of convenience'?
As Devadutt asks, surely we are willing to be 'modern' at the cost of 'culture,' not only willing, but are already implementing it fully. And as for his next question, I find many people in my immediate surroundings who believe Indian culture is the greatest and should be followed assiduously, wear Indian clothing for functions and visit temples in row, take up fashionable yoga, readings of great Indian philosophers... but regularly follow pizza culture, wear foreign clothing whenever occasion arises, go on foreign tours for enjoyment, indulge in all objects of comfort. Why this duality? May be they are cultured, but not at the cost of modernity. Or is it just 'a culture of convenience'?
hmm ... whatever is the need of communities & individuals to be exclusive, but for basic instincts of under-evolved psyche?
ReplyDeleteIsn't how individuals choose to live is best left to be a matter of their free-will, and, awareness of its implications on the environment & other living beings at large ?
robust evolution for the better of all, but rooted in reality, could happen by experiencing & transcending, not by suppression ...
Seems, the 'duality' is in the mind of the observer - is it fair to condemn evolving free will with a choice of either 'modern'(un-cultured?) or 'culture'(un-modern?) - guess any such either/or position is diagnosed to suffer from psychological tunnel vision...
ReplyDeleteOR, is it just the usual myopic view of comparing only good things of culture and bad things of modern?
I am all for 'free will', but if free will is to be supported, then there should be no force to follow a set culture, either Indian or western or Chinese or African. There should be no preachings from the 'all-knowledgeable' ones to the 'less-knowledgeable' and there should be no rules to follow other rules.
ReplyDeleteWhen what we want to do is 'free will' and what others choose is an assault on culture and aesthetics, then there is no meaning to free will.
yep! expression of free-will of course includes freedom to reject preachings and freedom to protest when forced as much as one has freedom to preach through whatever media ... guess expression of free-will has no limits but for ones own integrity, responsibilities & sensitivities ...
ReplyDelete