In my post about truth and Gandhi, I wrote about how a radical commitment to truth is the missing ingredient in the world today. In this post I will elaborate on that. To do this, I’ll first recap what it means, then talk about the “inverted iceberg” model of savarna mediocrity, and finally illustrate what a radical commitment to truth would look like in practice.
Truth: a recap
To know how powerful is truth one just needs to walk the path of a truthful person for a while. It is an incredibly powerful philosophy that’s accessible to everyone. A radical commitment to truth as I described with examples earlier, has three components.
1) Being in touch with your emotions and feelings, and showing commitment to try to label them accurately.
2) A commitment to yourself to not invalidate your own feelings. To not act in ways that go against your feelings.
3) A commitment to follow-up on things that you are uncertain of – so that you can arrive at the truth.
This requires conviction and courage. And it provides immense strength.
It is easier to explain why this is “radical” by looking at the society as we have it today. A great example is provided in Ravikant Kisana’s article “Saving the World Like a Savarna”:
In the first few weeks of my doctoral studies at MICA, Ahmedabad, the professor was teaching us about Paulo Freire and the “Pedagogy of the Oppressed,” waxing eloquent about how the modern education system dehumanizes students and erodes their confidence daily. My cohort, though overwhelmingly Savarna, nonetheless had a few scholars from small towns. They didn’t have “good English” or “cultural polish” and struggled to follow the ornate vocabulary of our Brahmin professor. By this point in my life, I had mastered enough of the Savarna culture to pass off as “polished” and wealthy to their casual gaze.
One day, in the privacy of her cabin, the same professor ranted to me about my cohort-mates, saying she could not believe how some of them had been admitted to the program and was counting on me as a “bright light” to get her through the course. I was shocked and struck by the contrast between talking so passionately about marginalized students’ issues in the lecture hall and making mean-spirited jibes at the same students in her office. In an immature move, I told the professor off and walked out. It immediately soured our equation and she, along with her husband who later became the Director of MICA, proceeded to bring the might of institutional hostility upon me for years, the effects of which still follow my career.
This, Ravikant Kisana explains, is what is called “switching”. RK defines it as “the social behavior where Savarnas can pose as extremely radical and culturally progressive and then, with the flip of a metaphorical switch, slip back into their privileged family lives without the slightest existential friction“. RK further goes on to describe this like this: “Such posturing that borders on social deception is a public role to be played, a curation, a “look,” an outfit of sorts to mask what is fundamentally a conservative social core that is extremely difficult to unlearn“
We could explain this in terms of truth (or the lack of it). The savarnas who do switching are living a lie. They are out of touch with their “inner core”. They fail to label their own feelings (1), they fail to act according to their feelings (2), and consequently they have no need to look for the truth(3).
The solution to this would be to invert this lie and switch to truth. Before I illustrate that, let us look at how this “switching” is internalized by the whole society and how that is damaging the way we do anything.
The inverted iceberg model of savarna mediocrity
When we look at an iceberg, what do we see? We see the tip of an iceberg. About 90% of an iceberg is underneath the water.
 |
| Here’s the artificial picture of a full iceberg. Created by Uwe Kils (iceberg) and User:Wiska Bodo (sky)., CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons. If you actually look at the physics, iceberg wouldn’t float this way as the stable orientation would be different. |
This iceberg model is applicable to human beings also. When we see a human being, we’re only seeing the tip of their unique lived experiences and life stories. Each person is at least 10x times more than what they are able to express. But, as is with icebergs, most people’s true worth goes unrecognized. We see the tip of the iceberg and we narrow the person down to that tip. But we can sometimes be reminded about what’s hidden behind the surface.
This model accurately captures how most people get viewed by the society.
But in the case of savarnas*, the iceberg is inverted!
* Please note two things. One, I am using the word savarna as an umbrella to stand for elite selfish people. Two, in many ways I myself am a savarna.
The savarnas are so loud, so much interested in talking, and hog up all the space. When this happens, rational people think “Oh, they must have a lot more to say and that’s why they’re speaking so much. Perhaps I’m only seeing the tip of the iceberg. I better see what more lies beneath the surface.” And this leads to them getting more and more space.
Then, they repeat the obvious, they talk about the clichéd, they keep talking without saying anything.
The savarna icebergs are inverted. What you see is all that is there. There’s nothing more than that.
When savarnas do heroic things or give inspiring talk, they are at the end of their wits. When they make “deep” intellectual points, they’re talking from the maximum depth they can reach. There’s nothing more in them!
But unfortunately we imagine that there is more. We create heroes out of them. We extrapolate their arguments and see them as bastions of hope and justice. We build imaginary heroes.
I don’t want to name anyone, but if a savarna hero has ever shattered in front of you, you know who I’m speaking about. We thought they would do something because we built up a larger than life hero based on something they did/said in the past. And turns out we were wrong. We were too kind. Our hero was imaginary.
How does a radical commitment to truth make things better?
In a radical commitment to truth, we call out the mediocre as the mediocre. If there’s discrimination going on and ABC speaks against it but the discrimination still continues, we say “ABC spoke against it. Nothing changed.”. If there’s an organization that has worked 40 years in a sector and all they have managed to achieve is award after award and no justice, then we say “Well, this organization did work on this for 40 years and what they did is this much [only].” If there’s a savarna group which does the bare minimum, we say “Well, this group did the bare minimum”.
We stop using the words “great work”, “admirable”, “amazing”, “super”. Let’s reserve the superlatives for the superlative. Let’s use mediocre adjectives to describe the mediocre.
When an insanely privileged person does a PhD on something and comes up with a repetition of what’s already widely known, we call it “they have used their privilege to get a PhD by working on a topic and discovering nothing new”.
When there’s a random new technology with no use coming out of an IIT, we say “these people with all the resources spent on them have come up with a technology that benefits nobody”.
When a doctor treats their patient like a human being, we say “well, the doctor treated the patient like a human being as they should be”
We start doing this and then we will be reversing a trend that has led to marginalization and oppression of a large majority. We will lead to a society where chasing (often fake) numbers instead of caring about people is questioned. We will challenge the capitalist assumptions of putting “efficiency” (read “profit”) above human welfare. We will challenge “merit”. We will destabilize the self-centered argument of “compromising for the sake of career”. We will put an end to the pragmatism vs idealism debate. (What’s preventing the ideal from being pragmatic?)
We will stop being content with arbitrary measures of “impact” and we will settle only for equity and justice. We will stop glorifying the bare minimum. We will start demanding what’s right. We will rethink who we fall behind and whose voices we amplify. We will stop hero worship and rediscover the value of every individual in the community.
And in that radical commitment to truth, we can be fully free. We can live our lives to our true selves. Often we will be forced to change. But there’s no reaching the truth without change. A radical commitment to truth is a radical commitment to change.
Preemptively answering some questions
How does this help?
It forces us to improve. It forces everyone to improve. It creates an environment of growth.
It also puts on display privileges and the contribution of those to people’s “achievements”.
It creates a “level” discourse where the privileged doesn’t keep accumulating more privileges.
Isn’t this discouraging for those who are doing work?
If you really care about justice and equity, you know very well that what you’re doing is not enough. And you would be happy to agree with anyone who says how the world needs to improve.
But shouldn’t we appreciate any step towards positive social change?
We should. Our appreciation ought to be commensurate with how big the step is. It is the extrapolation and the superlatives that need to be avoided.
By this standard, nobody will be doing good work
Well, if we don’t apply these standards, we will keep getting the mediocre work that we have. Is that what you would like?
Be comfortable with the idea that we can only be imperfect. Be comfortable with the idea of not having heroes.