Irreverence is the Only Cure to Traditionalism

All challenges to progressive change come from an unwillingness to question and rewrite traditions. Power — capitalism, caste, patriarchy, etc — is kept alive by traditions around who does what kind of labor, whose opinions count, whose solutions are considered useful, and who is considered capable of doing what.

While traditions like gender roles and stereotypes have been critically recognized for decades, there are some traditions which have been problematized very little and consequently go on unquestioned. These include:

• Universities are assumed to be the only spaces for thought and only the work of people affiliated to universities are deemed to be scholarship.
• Rich folks who donate to charity are given gratitude.
• Founders of organizations are regarded as crucial and the sole cause for everything and everyone that comes out of the organization (or even movements related to the organization).
• Taking advantage of one’s social capital is done without thinking twice.
• Famous people are assumed to be smart, fame is considered as proof of one’s ideas.
• Doing jobs inside capitalistic systems, perpetuating oppression, without attempting to find alternatives is considered acceptable.

How Irreverence Works

Irreverence is a thumb rule that works against many traditions.

Irreverence to elders in the family helps you fight patriarchy, caste, communalism.

Irreverence to the rich helps you fight capitalism, charity mindset, and savior complex.

Irreverence to the cultural elites helps you fight caste.

Irreverence helps you break toxic patterns of traditionalism, pause, reflect, and come up with alternative ways of doing things.

Without irreverence, you end up doing the same shit that others have been doing forever. Without irreverence, you end up being traditional.

Traditional forces in progressive spaces

In this reel Ravikant Kisana tries to explain how RK wants to disrupt the legacy of prestige by not talking about famous alma maters.

RK is fighting what’s called “name-dropping”. Name-dropping is an incredibly effective tool for influencing traditionalist mindset. You talk about how you’re friends with the rich-and-powerful, or connected to powerful institutions, and the traditionalist reverence will shower you with high esteem.

On the other hand, RK is accumulating another kind of traditionalist source of power in terms of algorithmic visibility. This is what prompts this tweeter to ask why Anand Teltumbde doesn’t get the kind of visibility RK or Suraj Yengde gets.

The traditionalist forces are nauseatingly obvious once you start seeing it, and it is also depressing to have majority of the population not see it. For example, in this widely shared post by Janaki Nair about Sharjeel Imam and Umar Khalid, all I could read was “JNU so great. Scholarship and debate so great in JNU. I’m teacher, SI and UK are simple students. Just recognize how great academics is and release them from prison.” One line stood out:

I was often irritated by their style of learning, which bordered on the irreverent.

The traditionalist thoughts that JN wrote throughout the post becomes explicit in this line. Irreverence is seen as an undesirable annoyance.

Develop Irreverence

Just like you say “fuck you” to 19th century notions of gender and Before-Christ notions of caste, start saying “fuck you” to things like:

• Money power
• Authority power
• Degree power
• Pedigree power
• Fame power

Re-evaluate things that you’ve been doing without questioning. And start operating on your own, based on your rationality and care.