Blissful Life

When you apply skepticism and care in equal amounts, you get bliss.

Month: July 2021

  • x + y by Eugenia Cheng – a Roadmap to Collaboration Between Social Justice Movements

    Spoiler alert: I discuss the central theme of the book x + y by Eugenia Cheng in this post. In the book, this theme isn’t revealed till the middle. In the first chapters, the author explains the context from which the book is written so as to eliminate bias from those who believe in social justice and those who oppose it. If you are a person who makes quick conclusions, you are better off skipping this post and directly reading the book.

    —

     

    It sometimes happens that feminists are accused of casteism, anti-caste activists are accused of sexism, etc. How can that be? Can someone who understands the oppressive ways in which patriarchy works not understand the same oppression in caste system? Or vice versa?

    What is the lowest common denominator of various schemes of oppression?

    Why do scientists lie? How can we replace competition with collaboration?

    Why does capitalism seem to be the “natural” state of society?

    Why are hierarchies so hard to get rid of? And how to get rid of them?

    These are some of the questions that are answered in x + y: A Mathematician’s Manifesto for Rethinking Gender by Eugenia Cheng.

    Imagine a bus stop where 100 people are waiting for a bus with 50 empty seats. What happens when the bus comes to the stop? In some places you see almost all of the people rushing towards the bus door in a tiny stampede with some folks staying back for the rush to settle down. 50 among those who rush do get a seat. All of the folks who stay back get no seat. If you don’t rush, you don’t get a seat.

    At this point, the debate can be about whether it is ethical to rush or not. There can be nuanced statements made about who should be given priority in seat. Whether the physically stronger should be made to wait while those who are vulnerable gets a seat. Whether those who have been waiting the longest should get the seats first. Whether those who have the most urgent things to attend to should get the seats. And so on. These are all valid ways to analyze this situation.

    But one can also discuss the reasons why there are only 50 seats. The reasons that force people to rush. And the possibilities of changing the system altogether such that there are no advantages to being selfish. Such that people can stop worrying about individuals and start thinking about everyone.

    That’s the central theme of Eugenia Cheng’s book. The individual centered (selfish) character traits are called “ingressive” characters and the society centered character traits are called “congressive” traits. And Eugenia Cheng is eager to ensure that readers look at this as a different dimension of looking at the problem and not as a way to replace the existing dialogues.

    Eugenia Cheng thereby introduces two very valuable words to discuss problems in the society. These words are not connected to the background from which people come. Gender/race/caste doesn’t directly lead to ingressive traits or congressive traits. There are indirect correlations. But the point of the book is to avoid looking at the correlations and start looking at the traits in each individual in an intersectional way. x + y is a classic in intersectional thinking.

    More importantly, x + y is an extremely practical guide on what to do about the deeper problems. Awareness of the problem doesn’t equate to solving the problem. x + y introduces a framework of thinking through which we can systematically destroy the oppressive notions ingrained in our societies. It is a tool of liberation for all victims of the system, irrespective of their privileges. It is an effective way of changing the “system”.

    It is a must-read for everyone who cares about social justice movements and equity.

  • Hatred Based on Stereotypes Weaken Social Justice Movements

    This post talks about stereotypes, emotions, justice, etc from the point of view of a savarna, cis-het male who lives in a metropolitan city. Like the post claims, nobody can eliminate stereotype/bias from their worldview and therefore this post includes some stereotypes/biases too.

    Trigger warning: Detached discussion of emotions that makes it sound like I’m judging the emotions.

    Axioms

    Let’s assume a few things as truth.
    One: Individuals cannot completely avoid stereotypes/biases. The human brain is a pattern recognition machine. It thinks through mental models of the world. It thinks through patterns. It thinks through stereotypes. The best an individual can do is to have a fairly nuanced and complicated outlook.
    Two: There is a strong component of stereotypes in various kinds of oppression that we see in the society. Stereotypes are reinforced by other cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Human beings are susceptible to all these things. They use anecdotal evidence to “refute” comprehensive statistics. They think through emotions.

     

    Arguments

    I make three arguments in this post.
    One: Hatred is sometimes/often used in social justice movements.
    Two: Stereotypes and hatred are connected.
     
    Three: Stereotypes that strengthen hatred makes the politics of social justice movements weaker.
    In this post, I do not make a judgement on whether the hatred is justified or not (It is almost always justified). I also do not talk about whether hatred is used in oppression (Oppression thrives on hatred).
    What I do talk about is how some of the hatred in social justice movements arises from stereotypes and how avoiding this component of stereotype/hatred maybe beneficial to social justice movements.

     

    Hatred in social justice movements

    This might be amplified by twitter, but the specific emotions of disgust and hatred is sometimes/often seen used by activists who engage in social justice movements.
    It can manifest as angry rants, snap judgement, judgemental comments, monologues, etc.
    Activists might be using hatred intentionally as a tool to evoke response/engagement. They might also be using it unintentionally as a result of being psychologically triggered. This can be due to stress, burn-out, and other discomforts. This can be due to the burden of lived experience and/or trauma. But I argue that stereotypes also contribute to this emotion.

     

    Contribution of stereotypes to hatred

    Like I posited, stereotypes are unavoidably human. Activists in social justice movements also accumulate stereotypes and biases.
     
    The logical fallacy of false dichotomy also maybe involved. Some activists start seeing people as “either for our cause, or against our cause”.
    This can contribute to hatred.

     

    When hatred is based majorly on stereotype, the politics is weakened

    Hatred based majorly on stereotype is harder to justify than hatred not based majorly on stereotype.
    If hatred is based on stereotype, it also opens the opportunity for political opponents to call it as hypocrisy.
    Such hatred can evoke reactive emotions from others and cause weakening of the political cause.

     

    Arguments against my arguments

    One: This is tone policing.
     
    This is about tone. But I don’t intend to make a blanket judgement about whether hatred is justified or not. I am suggesting a sharper use of hatred such that hatred does not become counter-productive.
    Two: This ignores the hatred spewed by the opponents.
    Yes, my target audience is social justice activists who are already aware of the context of how debates happen in social media, etc.
    Three: It is easy for the privileged to say these.
    Yes. I acknowledge my privileges in saying these. It is a suggestion for people who have the privilege to consider this.
    Four: Read up “righteous indignation”
    I have. I am on your side. I’m talking to you about strengthening your own politics. I’m not saying don’t use hatred. I’m talking only about a specific instance of hatred that is based on stereotypes. And I’m not saying I’m right. I’m saying, perhaps this can be considered.
     
    Five: This is not empirically tested.
     
    True. I have not tested this empirically. This is just a theory now.
     
    Six: This is sealioning.
    Consider whether any friendly, meta-level discussion should be labeled as sealioning.
    Seven: This post can be used by our political opponents as fodder to strengthen their politics against us.
    I suppose. I’m sorry for posting this. But it’s a thought I had.

  • Changing The “System”

    People of all kinds routinely blame the “system” for many things. They’re absolutely right. It is the system that shapes human behavior. In a system where certain behaviors are rewarded, those behaviors are repeated. And vice versa. We are all Pavlov’s dogs in that sense.

    That’s why awards and honors are instituted. To reward the right kind of behavior even if that’s not the expected norm. Awards motivate extraordinary people. What motivates ordinary people? The system.

    The “system” is the system that encourages and supports ordinary people to do things that they do in their ordinary life.

    The system includes written laws, unwritten laws, stereotypes, hierarchies, economic condition, political condition, geographic and physical condition, infrastructure, feelings, mythology, myths, news, fake news, communication, … literally everything you can think of forms the system.

    Who builds the system?

    The naivest answer to this and the most convenient answer for “ordinary” people is to blame politicians for building the system. This is especially true for people who consider themselves apolitical. Sadly their politics is that of selfish avoidance of responsibility. It is not always the fault of intention. People who can’t stand oppression and feel like there is so much to do that they cannot be responsible for any of it will unconsciously try to talk about why it is not their responsibility. But often it is selfish laziness.

    The better answer is that “we” build the system. Who are we? Anyone who can be involved in building the system builds the system. By commission or by omission.

    Who can change the system?

    Intuitively, the people who built the system can change the system. True. But not all have equal role in building the system. Neither do all have equal say in changing the system. The people who can change the system the easiest are the people with most agency, privilege, and voice.

    Who can not change the system?

    People who become a slave to the system, who sacrifice their agency, privilege, and voice to the system instead of questioning it. They absolutely cannot change the system.

    Why does the system perpetuate?

    Because it is easier to continue the system than to change the system. Anyone who wants to change the system has to find ways of sustaining and motivating themselves. Then they have to question the system and work against it. They have to do this at the peril of losing access to their accustomed rewards from the system. They have to stand up against their acquaintances who enjoy the benefits of the system. They have to shake things up. They have to stand out. They have to put themselves at great risk.

    The biggest enemies of people who want to change the system are the people who do not want to change the system. The people who benefit from the system usually do not want the system to change, because of inertia, even if they superficially blame the system for everything.

    How to change the system?

    If you agree with most of what I said above, the answer to this is straightforward.

    Prerequisite: Have a lot of privilege. Have the mental space to take on challenging things. Have help, support, guidance. Have plan B, plan C. Privilege is a gift.

    (An aside on privilege. A lot of the privileged folks think that they’re not privileged. When they hear the word “privilege” they imagine Mukesh Ambani’s inheritance with Narendra Modi’s popularity and influence. If you can read this blog post, you’re already more privileged than a lot of people on this planet. Reading is a privilege. English is a privilege. Internet is a privilege. Time is a privilege. Sure you might be facing oppression in many ways. But that doesn’t take your privileges away. Everyone on the planet faces some or the other oppression, and a lot of them face more oppression than you do. It is a lot easier if you count your privileges and use them.)

    The first step is to find loopholes in the system to build yourself sustainable income outside the parts you want to change. This might look like joining pre-existing teams doing what you want to do, finding scholarships or grants, monetizing on a rare skill, etc. Creativity is key here. If you do not have any privilege that you can leverage to achieve this step, then you’re out of luck. The best thing you can do is continue being part of the system and silently help those who are trying to change the system.

    The next step is to find motivation. There is so much to do and so many generations worth of work. Find problems that you can solve. Find problems solving which will give you satisfaction. Find cracks that make it easier to break the system. Define short-term successes. Think and act with purpose.

    Then help others who want to do the same. Amplify voices. Volunteer effort. Offer support. Build friendships. Build capacity. Build community.

    Things not to do

    When thinking idealistically, it can be easy to develop hatred to those who are doing things differently from you. If people are trying to change the system and they are doing it in a way that you do not approve of, engage in respectful debates with open mind. Sometimes they might be doing it right and you are wrong and you can change your ways. Sometimes vice versa. Sometimes both of you can find useful elements to do things differently. Even when there are unsolvable disagreements, it is easier to think about those as fundamentally hard questions with no one right answer. Do not develop hatred for people who do things differently.
    Do not become intellectually arrogant. Intellectual humility is when you keep your intellectual outlook about the world detached from your ego. And you’re ready to take a hit on the outlook at any moment. And you’re willing to change them. Intellectual arrogance is when you refuse to change your outlook from what you formed in early adulthood.
     

    Validity of this strategy

    This may not be the only way to do things. But this seems like a reasonable way, to me, at the moment.