#023- If I Pull A Cracker, It Explodes

“Burn down the room! Up in flames!,” is all my mind has thought for the last couple of months. The room refers to the cramped <insert appropriate dimensions- I was never any good with measurements> metre-square of space that I currently inhabit. The desire was so strong that I did not exactly refrain myself from setting alight the homemade wallpaper. It was satisfying.

Though arranging for a batch of trinitrotoluene to watch all of it burn and disappear would have felt better: Complete demolition.

I present this self-important anecdote to emphasise that I could totally understand Allie Fox’s need to raze everything and start over. It brought back to me Souvarine the arsonist and the utility of erasers. Tired, tired, bored of the sameness, these creatures wander the lush grasslands of aerosols, depleted ozone layers and capitalist brutalities with the wane hope that there is a fresh page to start with.

Do I sound commie enough yet?

Ah, but Comrade, I talk of something far worse for Psmith is decently amicable. I talk of the aching violence which calls certain humans to ravage and destroy. They end up being eaten by vultures. But none of that seems to matter when the baggage with which Tommy Pickles entered Hegel’s world spirit has become too familiar. Mr. Pickles then, tired of the same arguments being repeated for centuries and millenia, the same pictures being painted and sold in all the great epochs and the same soothing pastel colours being used to paint his walls every year, meets Mr. Fawkes and together they decide to blow up all institutions of stable society. Boom! Bang! Lo! Behold those fireworks in the sky!

Come to think of it, explosions occupy a special place in the history of the universe. From the charmingly petite canon backfires in Wile E. Coyote’s face to the colossal bang with which time manifested onto the stage, explosions are all pervasive. And they are beautiful. You know it from the enthusiasm the word exudes. Explode! Explode! Explode! Explode! See what I mean? So voluptuous and lively, you don’t want it to stop rolling off your tongue.

And say what may proponents of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would appear that stability is not exciting enough for little men with crooked feet. Even when it means sustainable development. And development is supposedly the very antithesis of stagnation. Then why this irrational resistance? Behold! Is it the terrifying wraith of nothingness? Of lives bejeweled like Fabergé eggs on the outside and black holed within? Moving in the vicious cycle of doing the same things over and over and expecting different results. Oh, to only break this mundane vice that chains itself around us in multiple loops! But Father calls it secure. Security borne out of development.

Nevertheless there are Souvarines and Foxes who are so maddened by the running in circles that they desperately yearn for an explosion. Any kind will do. Whether it be fueled by concentrated puffs of ammonia, coal mine boom-boom or some good old saltpetre. But why just ascribe it to the human predicament? Divinity was tired of its creation when it ravaged the earth with its grand flash floods. Darwin’s nature was bored enough with reptiles to send in the Chicxulub. “Enough of these tired roads! Off with their heads to begin at the beginning! Bring me a clean slate!,” they’ve all shrieked.

For howsoever foolish, impatient and base it is, admit it: There is something woefully satisfying about creating from scratch. Do I defend it? I do not. It is naïve, it is ugly, and it is totally irresponsible. And means do matter more than ends. That wisdom is foolproof and there is no denting it. But those who never give into the raw temptation of pure, simple and total destruction live wrapped in a cocoon of fear which moderates life itself, producing tetra-packs certified fit for human consumption. Like easy-to-pour juice boxes. Evey Hammond would tell you.

#022- Aadhaar Founds a Great Civilisation

Misery comes in many forms. Hers hit when George Orwell met Aldous Huxley to set up a dozen computing systems with webcams and asked people to smile for their pictures. It was totally free, and such a gala affair. So people gathered around in bunches after a good detour in their dressing rooms. Two hundred years of photographic technology hadn’t undermined its charm in the least. It is noteworthy that narcissism will trump novelty any time.

To add to the florid party, the two nitwits decided to introduce a certain less known wonder which they referred to with a complicated name that sounded like biometric identifiers. The stuff was pretty impressive because it took all these images of retinae and fingers and thumbs which popped on to the gigantic screen like magic. People held onto it with bated breaths to get their hands and eyes registered. “OooooooooooooooOoooo” they went with excitement as they saw patterns form themselves in the technician’s exotic notebook. They did not even wince when the employees of the database management company that Georgie and Aldie had paid for pressed their fingers hard against the scanners.

Database management companies, yeah. They were having a perfectly wicked time. Though nobody who worked for them had a clue about it. They were assembly line workers who were concerned with the working of the assembly line. The trick of great engineering is this: Break the problem into small parts and then assign each part to a separate set of people, who will focus their problem-solving energies only on that small part and ignore the big picture. And such best practices are imbibed in that ingenious instrument of social engineering called law. So one of our assembly line workers took care that the fingers printed properly, the second that the form was complete in its details, the third that the irises expanded sufficiently, the fourth that the lights were properly focused while taking a mugshot. None bothered when the other could not do his job- not his problem, that was the management’s problem. Such intense focus on their specified work got them their moolah well.   None bothered where all this data went, whether it was used or misused. Who among them was to question the ethics of the matter? That was the philosopher’s occupation and they were not paid to bother about it. All they had to care about was that the party went well and that the photo booth pictures were all smiles. Data management companies thrived alright. Reduces cost, saves taxpayer’s money and good for business, Orwell had whispered in the State’s ear and the State waved its flag of social welfare.

This parade made her physically sick and a tear welled up in the corner of her eye. She hated tears so she put her mouth into a straight line to register her misery to the world. There had to be some form of protest at this disgusting exhibition, she decided. There is plain obscenity in all those smiles on faces which consciously part with their physical selves to notorious States, those self-proclaimed monopolisers of law, order and authority. Worse, parted with their bodily selves to wee “promising young chaps”-recruiting dunderheads, those wily nilly corporations which would sell themselves for a 0.34% yearly growth rate.

“Why so serious?,” her dad cooed from beside her.

She wanted to shout out. Look at them calmly slashing people! Look at them so objectively slashing me and my last two years spent on intense writings and campaigns against this very debauchery!, she wailed to herself. She pursed her lips tighter. She looked dumb in her misery. She was dumb.

“Why don’t you smile? Happiness is the key to success, you must always practise smiling.” He snapped back at her stubborn silence. He was growing irritable.

“I can’t do this.” She murmured. Nobody listened to her. The party music was too loud.

“Enjoy the party! C’mon! BE NORMAL!” His yells could be heard over the din.

Chatter, chatter, chatter. Opiumed men and women at their jobs left and right. They drew towards her and stripped the skin off her fingers. Four fingers of the left hand first. Then four fingers of the right. Then the two thumbs. Then they took away her eyes. It was all quite systematic. Ordered carefully done. For order is the hallmark of civilisation. More than anything else. Our great civilisation, oh hail its greatness, y’all puny people! Drink in its free-flowing ale and find comfort in its GDP cradle assiduously compiled by law and order!

She sat for her photograph. A bright light flashed into her eye.

“Smile, kiddo.” Dad mewed in the background in a last act of despair.

She failed. Him and herself. Her doltish picture was the ultimate proof.

#021- What To Do When Faced With Seventy Armed Hollixes?

Zaphod Beeblebrox had always known something was wrong with his head. Like it had been cut open and then sewn together again, but not very efficiently. The threads used were perhaps what poor Scottish weavers in the 18th century used for patching up kilts. No wonder Zaphod often had the feeling that a bagpipe was playing somewhere around him.

Sometimes though, Zaphod wondered if he could legitimately say something was wrong with his head, if he had always known (as he liked to claim to his own self) that something was wrong with his head. Because isn’t the age-old test to find out if something is wrong with your head is, asking the question, if something is wrong with your head, and if you come up with the answer, no, nothing is wrong with my head, then indeed something is wrong with your head. Since Zaphod’s answer to this question was quite the contrary, he, like many other creatures in the universe was  frequently left dazed and confused in an endless maze of probabilities. And this predicament usually brought him back to the same question. Was something wrong with his head?

Now as he stood unarmed and with his two heads intact, in front of seventy Hollixes armed to the teeth, but each of whom had only one head, the question came back to him again, albeit in a different form. Did Hollixes also think that something was wrong with their head? Hmm, quite possible. But wouldn’t such thinking of Hollixes part be just plain stupid, because by virtue of having only one head (and if that head goes wrong…KA-POOT!) if something was really wrong with their head, they would all be drooling all the time, instead of pointing their Zap-o-Rama’s at him for stealing…umm…frisking away the Heart of Gold.

It had been probably twelve diggahours (equivalent to two earth minutes) since the Hollixes had drawn out their Zap-o-Rama’s and begun pointing it at Zaphod. And they’d done just that, poised themselves with their guns pointing at Zaphod’s heads and stayed very still. All Hollixes do have an eye for drama, Zaphod reflected. But Zaphod was bored. So he decided to walk away. The seventy Hollixes just stared at him walk away. As part of the Elite Force of Universal Police, they hadn’t been trained what to do in case someone starts walking away from the point of seventy Zap-o-Ramas.The Creature Rights lobby worked in subtle, but effective ways at the Ministry of Protection, which issued training guidelines for the Elite Force of Universal Police.

#020- Rights, Right and Reason: The Kantian Approach to House Elves

Kreacher slinks over to Narcissa and Bellatrix when the Order of the Phoenix’s not looking to tell them about their plans. A move which would have been quite on the contrary to his master, Sirius’ wishes. It has been argued that this illustrates Kreacher’s ability to form his independent opinions, unaffected by the choices of his master.

But does it really?

Kreacher has been brought up in a family of dark wizards, all supportive of Voldy’s great takeover and mucking muggle-born witches. He does not resist working without wages or holidays at all. He does think he is meant to serve the wizards in as many words- the only difference is that wizards does not include “Mudbloods and traitors.” Would then Kreacher’s express assertion that there’s nothing wrong with elvish slavery tantamount to a reasonable approach?

The last Potter Pricks discussion implicitly made a distinction between the lack of use of reason, and the use of such reason which has been socially conditioned. Kant has asserted that any “reason” which is socially conditioned is not reason at all. This is because he defines reason as something inherent or inborn. Unaffected by the society. This reason, he avers gives the same answer to the same question, not a multiplicity of them, thus warding off arbitrariness. This, he calls the practical reason.

The right thing to do then, in Kant’s opinion is to follow reason, be a rational being. To come up with that one unvarying answer. “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” Because that maxim will be derived from reason, and what is reasonable would be universally acceptable. What he calls the categorical imperative. Which will yield a uniform answer to any question of ethics.

What is having a right mean then? Kant says everyone has a right to be treated in a way which does not use one as a means to an end. Which essentially means that the fact that everyone has a rational mind, capable of thinking and acting reasonably, should be respected. Kant thus essentially says that everyone has a right to be treated in such a way that they have the freedom to exercise their reason.

So now applying Kantian philosophy to house-elves…

First, going by the principle “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law,” Kant would say wizards must not commit elves to slavery because they would not want slavery to become universal law. This is clear because wizards themselves would not want to be enslaved.

Second, when elves assert that they want to slave, Kant would say that they are not using reason. Rather, they are getting affected by social conditioning to slavery and being blind to the innate ability to reason, as was asserted in the last weekend’s Potter Pricks discussion too. This is because if they exercised their reason, it would tell them that slavery is degrading because it uses them as a means towards an end, thus ignoring their ability to reason. It is hence, undesirable.

Third, as a corollary to the previous point, the elves’ “consent” to slave cannot be considered a valid consent at all because it ignores the nature of elves as rational beings. Which implies that mere expression of a desire does not amount to valid consent, it is essential that such desire also be rational.

Problem arises here: How to decide whether a particular expression is rational, or not? Why are certain acts or desires characterised as rational even though not everyone wants to see them as universal law? For instance, Hermione’s would think that abolition of slavery should be a universal law. Not so for the elves. Between the two, how to decide whose point of view is rational? And who is not using their reason?

This actually brings us to another question, the question with which I started this post: Can the nature of reason be of a variable type, unlike Kantian conception of the categorical imperative? So that both Hermione and Kreacher could be said to be using a kind of reason, and hence both of their choices should be respected?

The problem with categorical imperative is not everyone wants to be treated the same way. Or so it would seem at least on the face of it. Many tribal people don’t want palatial homes and LCD TVs, many Muslim women do not want to give up the burqa. Does this mean they are not using reason as Kant would say, or does it mean that Kantian reason is a mere construct to empower the dominant cultural community to impose its ideas of right and wrong on others? Questions like these play havoc with my head.

#019- Discussion Update: The Meaning of Freedom for House Elves

A second thread in last weekend’s Potter Pricks discussion was the idea of freedom. The premise being, that the desire for freedom is a natural consequence of reason. But then what does freedom actually mean? When a house-elf says that he or she wants to work without wages, is that equivalent to not choosing freedom? And whether such choices should be allowed?

The discussion, interestingly started with drawing parallels to the burqa debate. The question posited was, how come when certain women want to wear the burqa, it is equated to loss of freedom, whereas choosing to not wear the burqa is equal to freedom? The argument from one side was that the women who actually want to wear the burqa have been so conditioned by their upbringing and society that they think it is the right thing to do. If they applied their reason, that is, they would find that burqa-clad is not how they want to live. But sadly social conditioning and constant persecution has clouded their ability to reason.

The counter-argument was an equally interesting one. It asked, how can it be asserted that only the women who want to wear the burqa have been socially conditioned that it is the right thing to do? Why can it not be argued that the women not wanting to wear the burqa have been socially conditioned into thinking that it is the right thing to do? It was asserted that reasoning it out would actually show that the donning of a burqa helps to hide their sensual aspects in order to prevent the objectification of women. Thereby, the people who protest against the burqa and call it an affront to freedom do so only because they have been brought up to think like that, and this conditioning clouds their reason.

This counterargument created a fair amount of uncertainty especially when connections were drawn with the house-elf scenario. The critics of the burqa saw parallels with Hermione’s argument where she says that the house-elves have been conditioned to think that they don’t want wages for their work. Though an application of reason would tell them that they should be entitled to wages and holidays, their reason has been clouded by centuries of slavery imposed upon them. I dubbed this argument the Hermione’s Camp, which for some reason kept making people giggle every time I said it. *why* :O

The counterargument to this was parallel to the burqa debate counterargument: that, the idea that one needs wages for work erupts from social conditioning, and not from reason. Though exactly how reason can justify working without wages or holidays as an expression of freedom is a question which demands more discussion.

But an interesting consensus of sorts came up when it was agreed that freedom should mean freedom to choose from a wide set of choices, which got me thinking about Amartya Sen’s and Martha Nussbaum’s capability approach. Essentially people said that freedom means the freedom to both wear a burqa and not wear a burqa. And freedom for house-elves should then mean the freedom to the elves to decide whether they want wages or not, including the freedom to consider wages and holidays as dishonorable. Freedom as a concept, is then reduced to procedural matters rather than substantive: a particular choice is not equivalent to freedom, but the ability to choose from a set of choices is freedom, which I think has roots in the Habermasian critique of reason. And which also meant that Hermione’s Camp (*giggle*) by imposing its idea of wages-for-work=freedom is undermining the house-elves freedom to choose what constitutes freedom.

The problem arises that if one makes a choice to give up all power to make such a choice in the future, can making such a choice still be called freedom? For example if elves make the choice to slave, which means essentially giving up the power to make any kind of choice once they start as slaves, can one still call such a choice an exercise of freedom?

Second, the problem of community representation: what if all elves decide today to make a choice to slave, can this decision be respected and enforced through future generations of elves? Conversely, what if elves decide today that none of them should slave. Would then the decision of a single elf to slave undermine the choice for human rights made by elves as a community?

I think these questions merit some discussion.

#018- Discussion Update: Are House Elves Capable of Rational Thought?

Last weekend at the Potter Pricks discussion, the question formulated was whether house-elves are beings capable of understanding and distinguishing the difference between the good and the bad, the right and the wrong? In order words, are they beings capable of rational thought?

This question arises in the first place because it seems that house-elves are doing everything contrary to the reason. They slave, contrary to reason. When Hermione demands rights for them, they oppose, contrary to reason. They do not want wages for their work, contrary to reason. They beat themselves up for something as natural as criticising their masters, contrary to reason. All these instances make one ask whether house-elves possess the faculty of reason at all?

By providing various instances, the discussion group was able to agree on that house-elves do possess reason. But to understand this, we first had to agree upon the meaning of reason. Reason, in the course of this discussion, was understood to mean the capacity of an entity to make sense of the world and manoeuvre one’s way through it to satisfy individual interests or preferences, with the comprehension that such unique individual tastes do exist in the said entity.

It was pointed out that the elves do have this capability, because on the one hand, while they are able form individual opinions about things which are vastly different from their masters’ and mistresses’ opinions, on the other hand they also have the capability to act on these opinions at least in a theoretical way, considering that their magical contract with the wizards binds them to not act upon the same, and when they do act upon it, to punish themselves thereafter. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the elves cannot at all move against their master’s wishes to follow what they think is right.

Example was cited of Dobby, who in spite of serving the Malfoys, wizards who wanted to harm Harry, forms his own opinion that Harry must be rendered safe. Not just that, Dobby acts upon his opinion, trying to warn him of the dark plot being hatched against him. This, it has been pointed out, Dobby does to safeguard his own interests, and that of the larger elvish community, for the elves were treated horribly during Voldermort’s regime, and by ousting Voldermort, Harry seems to be good news for the elves. Even Dobby who is treated as badly as ever, seems to see some hope in Harry. His choice to help Harry in spite of his Master’s wishes are illustrative of an elf being capable of forming his own opinion about things and thus having an individual identity- an identity distinct from their masters or mistresses, and an identity which does not get subsumed within the family they serve. And it is this unique identity which makes them use reason to identify their interests even in an environment of institutionalised violence. In other words, Dobby realises he’s being wronged when he is treated bad.

The more controversial instance of Kreacher was discussed next in this regard. It is seen that Kreacher sneaks behind his Master to be of assistance to wizards who treat him much more nicely than his Master does. Hermione points this out when she says, “<insert masterful quote from Book 5>”

Kreacher’s reason thus might not be perfect nor far thinking, but it seems a sound reason to help someone who treats you with generosity and respect to thwart someone who is awful and haughty towards you, doesn’t it? Kind of reminded me of Karna’s use of reason to side with Duryodhana in order to get back his own with the Pandavas in the Mahabharata.

Though on the the other hand, it was pointed out that Kreacher’s so-called reason seems rather tainted by his upbringing in a family of dark wizards, which is reflected in his heedless support for Lord Voldemort, aversion towards the Order of the Phoenix who are looking to undermine the dark arts, and his constant reference to Hermione as “mudblood.” If it were really reason, it is then argued that, it would be free from such subjective and irrelevant considerations in his judgment oh the wizarding world. Reason, after all is transcendental, and does not base itself on such frivolous inputs.

All this discussion raised yet more questions on the nature of reason which we are dealing with here, and the nature of reason which lies at the basis of rights jurisprudence. The latter lays down that rights have their root in reason, and are hence not arbitrary entitlements. For reason is that which is not arbitrary. And Kreacher’s conduct seems arbitrary enough.

How to reconcile such discrepancies remains the question.

#017- Reason To “Enlighten” Elves. Word, Socrates.

Winky is a disgraced elf, but Winky is not yet getting paid!” she squeaked. “Winky is not sunk so low as that! Winky is properly ashamed of being freed!”

Words from Winky, the house-elf ruing her predicament at being freed. Words that we might find thoroughly disconcerting. Who would not want freedom? Who would actually be ashamed of it? Whose mind would be so distorted to be crying over better work conditions? Crying over being dignified and respected for the first time in her life as a free being? Certainly not a reasonable person’s?

And thus comes that much debated concept of reason in law. Should law be supporting the supposedly unreasonable demand, nay, plea (for demands can only exist when one has rights) of the elves to work as slaves for humans eternally? If law does not actively support any such unreasonable demand, should it passively support, by ignoring any agenda to help the elves reach the freedom they utterly need? Neither, Hermione would say. Ron wouldn’t be too sure of that.

In this post, I intend to throw a bit of light on what Socrates would probably have said to that question…the question of reason. Since it seems that Socrates is the first philosopher to talk comprehensively about reason.

Briefly, and painfully plainly, Socrates argued that all humans are creatures of reason. That is, all of us are endowed with an inherent capability to make sense of the world around us. This capability does not vary with social contexts or with time, though the use of this capability might vary. In other words, reason is transcendental, though people might not use it all the time.

Now reason, according to Socrates, is what gives us the ability to differentiate the right from the wrong. And people would always want to do what they think is right, because reason would tell them that it’d make them happy.
This argument, it is important to note, presupposes that there are some things which are universally right and some which are universally wrong, a proposition the Sophists disagreed with. For example, burning women upon their husband’s death is wrong everywhere, it’s just a plain wrong thing to do. The people who do it then, are people who don’t know any better. They are people who don’t think it’s wrong, because they don’t use reason. But had they been using reason, it’d tell them it’s wrong, and they would not have been doing it.

In the context of house-elves, Socrates would then say that the elves are not using their reason when they pray for enslavement. Had they been using reason, they would know that their ensalvement is plainly a wrong thing. But due to centuries of slavery, they’ve been lulled into not using their reason, and thus they don’t know what is right.

Hermione tends to agree with this line of argument when she says to Ron’s ‘But they like slavery!’, ‘That’s because they don’t know any better, Ron!’

But how to make things better? Simple, says Socrates. Make them use reason. Make them use it by playing a fool yourself. Don’t approach them with presumptions of the slavery they want, being wrong. After all, what do you yourself know? Beautiful method, but a forgotten method.

And one which Hermione’s activism certainly does not follow, coming pre-convinced with the nobility of freedom-for-elves agenda. She is not prepared to be swayed from that. Why should the elves then be prepared to be swayed by her appeal to reason? Winky is definitely not. And that, an active opposition to a wizard, coming from an elf! That’s strong resistance.

Lesson learnt: An argument however strong, once coupled with a paternalistic approach, gets you nowhere.

So if The Ministry of Magic does come up with a law bringing all elves to freedom, such freedom in fact would be no freedom at all. It would be an imposition, because elves don’t think it’s right, as they are not using their reason yet. And even freedom, when imposed, is oppression.

Only when elves realise that enslavement is not right, would they welcome freedom. And they would realise it when they use their reason. The more important agenda, Socrates would then say, should be to make elves use reason, not mere passage of a law “for the elves’ benefit” but which the elves clearly think is wrong.

#016- Where Does SPEW Stand on Rights?

Rights for the house-elves, SPEW proclaims. But if rights cannot exist without individuals, what does having rights for the community of house-elves really mean? As a corollary, can communities be individuals?

How can house-elves as a community, have rights when they are all bound to constitute of different entities, with different personalities? Winky, for example, is afraid of heights. Dobby, on the other hand, is not. Winky is more deferent towards the wizarding community while Dobby has a rebellious streak. There is a difference of experience in the both of them which shapes their different attitudes. This difference constitutes each of their individualities. When these separate individualities reside within a single community, how can the community be deemed to be an individual and rights be extended to the elves as community rights?

But let us have a look at SPEW more carefully. What it promises is the extension of the rights to a community rather than the creation of rights for a community. Where’s the difference?

The difference is something on the lines existing between the first-wave feminism and second-wave feminism. Whereas the first wave talks about equality of women with men, implying that women should have the same rights as men do, the second wave talks about preventing the construction of women against men, and thus granting women some special rights, in light of their different needs/nature/attitudes.

SPEW is more aligned with the first wave of feminism—it attempts to get elves on par with humans, the same way the first feminists tried to get women, rights on par with those of men. The attempt of SPEW, then is to raise a house-elf to the level of the human, so that they both enjoy equal rights.

This is not providing elves with a community right—the rights of elves which SPEW aspires to, are not rights given to them keeping in mind their different needs/nature/attitudes. They are just rights to equalize them with wizards. It is just an extension of the rights of the wizarding community to the elves. First, the right of an individual wizard to assert himself against the rest of the wizarding community is proposed to be extended such that an individual elf now may also assert himself against the rest of the elvish community. In case the elvish community, in consonance with its “nature” says that an individual elf (who wants wages) must not get wages. As has been the case with Dobby, who is shunned by the other elves for accepting wages for his work from Dumbledore.

Second, the right of an individual wizard to assert himself against the other communities and/or the State, is proposed to be extended by SPEW such that an individual elf may now assert itself against other communities, most notably the wizards wanting to “coerce them into slavery” and against the law as formulated by The Ministry of Magic.

It all seems wonderful, but when bestowed with these rights, Winky cries all her life. She is still suffering. Why have the rights which SPEW advocates and which Winky now has, not helped her?

Two answers: One, promulgated by the initiator of SPEW, Hermione, is that Winky is still enmeshed in a false consciousness.

Second, one may argue that the SPEW in failing to take into account the needs/nature/attitude of the elvish community and by failing to establish the individuality of the elvish community (as different from the wizarding community) has failed to address the real problems of elves when formulating rights for them. This would be a more relativist critique.

I will talk more about each later.

#015- On What Rights Enable: Let Hermione Speak!

What is the meaning of rights when a house-elf is afraid of heights? That’s something Hermione asks first at the Quidditch World Cup and later through her school life.

Winky is irreparably afraid of heights, and yet she is “forced to” drag an invisible Barty Crouch, the Younger, to the top stand to watch the Cup. And oh Winky is probably least interested in Quidditch.

Should Winky have a right to say no to something she does not like to do? Where does duty end and where does a house-elf’s will begin? And if there is a duty, where is the correlative right?

Suppression, suppression, Hermione dubs it. You wizards treat them like they are not humans!

But they are not humans!, Ron claims.

Doesn’t mean they don’t have feelings, Ron!, Hermione fights back.

Fighting back. The significance of rights is the power they give a person or a community to fight back. So Winky should have the power to say “No!” when everyone wants her to climb the top stand when she is afraid of heights. The power to protest when the wizarding community forces her to obey the orders of her “Master.”

That is what, according to Ronald Dworkin, is the most important aspect of the nature of rights. That rights empower the less powerful, with a different inclinaton, to assert their will against the more powerful. And that is how, Dworkin justifies even civil disobedience—because if rights are to live, they must be able to do the following two things.

1. Be able to back the will of the less powerful against the more powerful.
2. Be able to back the will of the less powerful against the more powerful when there is a conflict of interests between the two.

So for Hermione, like Dworkin, rights embody the power of an individual to say no to the society/State when the society/State wants him to do something which he does not want to do. (And here it is specifically the State- The Ministry of Magic maintains that all elves obey their masters or be taken to task by the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures.)

An individual. Because something becomes an individual when it sets itself apart from the rest. Individuality=Difference=Uniqueness. And this always makes the individual less in number=Not majority=Less powerful, until backed by rights.

But wizards don’t seem to see Winky as Winky. Winky is not an individual who is supposed to be different from the rest of the house-elves (who by their very communal nature are supposed to obey wizards.) Winky is no unique soul. Hermione, on the other hand, does see Winky as an individual. An individual, different from other elves…one who is afraid of heights. Hence SPEW to assert Winky’s rights.

It’s amazing how all this stuff rhymes!

#014- Not Just Another Bunch of Superheroes

The X Men series has always fascinated me, and no, I’m not talking of the movies. Though I can hardly call myself a comic book aficionado either as my romance with X Men began with the  X Men: Evolution  animated series. So I do not lay claim to reading all of the X Men: Age of Apocalypse, Marvel 2099, House of M, Mutant X, etc. Truth is I have had the opportunity to lay hands on only The Ultimate X Men. (Though no doubt, I’d be more than willing to devour the rest.) So I’m a poor person to talk about the plot details. But what I want to talk about here is why X Men is definitely a landmark in the so-called superhero comic series genre.

X Men were created by the renowned writer  Stan Lee and artist  Jack Kirby who together have also created The Avengers and Hulk. But I’d rather talk about the animated series, which I’m better versed with.  X Men: Evolution first ran for four seasons including fifty-two episodes on Kids WB  between November 2000 and October 2003. (That’s what Wikipedia says, I watched it later on Cartoon Network sometime between 2004 to 2006.) The plot revolves around mutants, who are humans with some extraordinary powers which are manifested in them because of the X gene absent in humans.

However the similarities with other superhero comics stop there. Unlike the traditional superheroes, these mutants are mostly looked down upon in society, because they are “so weird.” One of the mutants, Kurt Wagner a.k.a.  Nightcrawler, has to see the more bitter part of it when he is forced to emigrate from Germany because blue, fuzzy hair covers his entire body, and he starts to look something like a cross between a giant hybrid rat and Satan. (Nightcrawler has the ability to teleport, by the way.)

But it is not just about how others perceive them. Mutants themselves are freaked out by their powers when they first manifest (The X gene usually activates between 14 to 16 years of age). They do not know what is happening to them , they begin to feel things are going out of control, and it is not a nice feeling. Imagine if while sleeping, you suddenly started dropping through your bed and through the ground into the floor below and wake up to find yourself suspended in mid-air. That you’d totally freak out can be only be an understatement. But that is what Kitty Pryde a.k.a.  Shadowcat has to go through when her powers first manifest. And then you begin to question yourself, Who am I? What’s happening to me? without any clear answers, and it starts brewing into a chaotic soup inside your mind. You start feeling unclean from within. And if you can’t help pushing people into coma simply because you touched them (like Rogue does), you begin to feel like a murderer.

Of course help comes to such mutants in the form of Professor Xavier (popularly called  Professor X) with his  team- the  X Men and  Magneto with his  Brotherhood of Mutants, who tell these people exactly what is happening to them and train them to control their powers so that the world can begin to make some sense again. But what is more fascinating is the constant struggle which the mutants undergo to come to terms with their powers, and to get accepted in society. The fun lies in the completely gray nature of the characters, rather than black and white. It’s something like this…

Professor X and Magneto are partners in the beginning, who agree that they should train young mutants to control their powers etc. so that those mutants can still keep their sanity. So they build a facility on an offshore island, amid a lot of persecution, as they are not “normal”. Magneto soon realises the futility of negotiating with non-mutants for social acceptance, and parts ways with Professor X who believes that understanding and education is the only way mutants can make a place for themselves in the society.

Professor X on the other hand, believes that mutants and non-mutants can co-exist peacefully if mutants are able to show the world that they are just people like them and mean no harm. He trains the X Men to this end. They are not supposed to be heroes who save the day, but rather much like everyone else- so that means he trains them to exercise restraint and not use their powers publicly. But gradually, his “students” (the X Men) begin to question his premise, at first, when they see someone they can help using their powers. And later even questioning why they have to hide their powers and pretend to be like everyone else when they actually are not? Why should they be conforming to the behaviour of the social majority, and not the other way round? These questions, at several points, pinch some members enough to leave the X Men. Some, like Spyke take to streets, while others like Cyclops, join Magneto, hopeful of a world where they’d be allowed to be themselves. Magneto however, feels that the society would never accept mutants, simply because they are so different and even a threat to non-mutants because of their enhanced powers. His fears are confirmed when the U.S. government launches a Sentinel Program targeted to eliminate mutants, by categorizing them as terrorists and threat to humanity at large. Magneto, thus, is thinking in terms of Survival of Fittest, and declares that if mutants have to survive they must begin by taking control of the non-mutants which can be done by enhancing their powers and thus, climbing further up the evolution ladder.

But with great power comes great responsibility and many are not ready to handle it. For how do you justify killing people, however much they hate you, to create a better world for yourself? How do you justify suppressing others’ freedom of choosing a lifestyle to flaunt the lifestyle you want? So disillusioned even by Magneto’s promises they return. But they know they have not returned to the world which would lead to theirs either.  They have returned only because they do not want to be the means to any end.  They do not want to subjugate- They just want to be perceived as normal and not an oddity. To be understood as people and not monsters. Nor heroes. They want people to know that just like non-mutants, they can be generous and kind, and they can be cruel and jealous. They wonder if that is too much to ask for?

I think the X Men series is a parallel story of contemporary human society itself. Consider all those not-so-“normal” people today. Autistic, homosexuals, the physically handicapped, transvestites. Consider all the marginalised groups. Aren’t they mutants in our own world?

I recently read this story from Uganda about how a leading gay activist of the country was found beaten to death in his home after a newspaper started a hate-campaign against homosexuals. Homosexuals are dangerous, and they’re “recruiting” children, so beware. It’s time they were demolished. Something to that effect. But forget such radical rhetoric. We all use the word “gay” for labeling something soppy, right? And we all take offence and try to justify ourselves when we are called gay or lesbian or bi, even at a tease.  And that  never happens if I being a guy, say I had sex with a girl. So where does that come from? What are we threatened by? And why do we feel so greatly insecure of something new or different? To the point that we strip the individual of all identity but that which scares us?  X-Men raises these questions using the metaphor of  the mutant throughout the series. That is what mutants ask: Why must mutant be perceived as our only identity? Why can’t we be just people even while we are mutants? Why do we have to wear the hero or the villain tag, only because we are slightly different, yet take pride in those differences?

This post was originally penned for the LitSoc blog in 2011.

#013- The Struggles of Humanity

First published in 1885, Germinal is an intriguing work of historical fiction by the French writer Émile Zola. It is also the thirteenth book Zola’s Rougon-Macquart series, which is a collection that traces various characters from the fictional family line of Rougon-Macquart across several generations. Germinal in its turn, tells the story of one such character, Étienne Lantier, an unemployed man in his twenties who lands up in the mining settlement of Montsou in northern France of the 1860s in search of a job. He is helped by the Maheu family to secure a job as a coal miner and later also taken into their crowded home.

The novel depicts with much detail, the dreadful living and working conditions prevalent among the workers during the early days of the Industrial Revolution, thus providing an insight into the gory foundations of contemporary capitalism. It talks of an age when men, women and children all were employed in coal mines and made to work for over sixteen hours a day. Contrasts are drawn between the living conditions of the upper class of capitalists who abhor the lack of hygiene, ignorance and apparent laziness of the working class even as they chastise them with charitable contributions. The theme of communism runs strong with the protagonist, Lantier, being highly influenced by the ideas of unity of working classes against the bourgeois who eat off their labor. Lantier’s revolutionary indoctrination from the books he reads and his correspondence with the prominent communist figure, Pluchart, also results in him organizing a worker’s mutiny at the coal mines in face of strong capitalist resistance.

However what makes Germinal a remarkable read is that Zola is hardly a propagandist. Rather than telling just one side of the story, Zola indulges in several narratives- most prominently, both the capitalist and of the proletariat. He manages to deftly convey the hopelessness pervading the bourgeois mine owners in their plastic world cushioned by luxury and material comforts. Even as they ridicule the proletariats for practising what their bourgeois upbringing has taught them to be immoral, they long for the authenticity of experiences and emotions which the workers undergo. For the bourgeois, life is served according to a pre-decided menu with all the incubatory precautions to protect them from the harshness of the proletarian living. Yet this very protection makes them feel trapped. So M. Hennebeau, the mine owner, retaliates to shouts of “Bread!” by the striking workers with a violent yearning “to live like a brute, to possess nothing, to scour the fields with the ugliest and the dirtiest putter, and to be able to be happy,” none of which are experiences that his circumstances allow him to afford.

True to the naturalist literary tradition which was pioneered by Zola, Germinal manages to depict the role of social conditions in shaping the actions of a person. Consequently, the book carves striking characters to play some noteworthy scenarios against a realistic backdrop- be it either Lantier’s faith in communist deliverance, the genuine fear of Catherine, the teenaged putter girl, of landing up in prostitution if she gives up her miserable job in the mines, the disillusionment of the Russian anarchist, Souvarine with the principles of class struggle or the jealousy which fuels the actions of Catherine’s lover, Chaval, resulting in disunity among the striking workers. Germinal is the story of the hollowness of ideals in the face of human misery. It manages to reveal to the reader the ghastly violence underlying the perfectly ordered and the so-called prosperous society of modernity- a violence, which breeds not only among the labour, but also the thread of invisible violence laying foundation for the despair of the bourgeois. Though the story is set 200 years before, the issues it raises are quite relevant to the contemporary globalised society wherein economic divides persist and grow sharper even as the iron fist of the de-humanised institutions of the State and capital silences the wails of humanity. A much recommended read for the thinking mind, Germinal is likely to resurrect innumerable questions relating to the meaning of economic development in the face of gross inequalities and general unhappiness.

#012- Virginia

“Virginia,” I said, “I am so scared.”

And I was scared. Crouched in my fetal position I was a small baby trying to make myself as small as possible. The smaller I was the more invisible I would be and the more nothing would hurt me. I felt tears burning hot over my face but I had no idea why I was crying.

Virginia was at the window, looking outside into the greying evening. With keen eyes. Smoking a long cigarette. I could not see her but I could see her in my mind’s eye. Darkness made everything harder to see.

“Virginia…” I mumbled into my pillow but she would say nothing. Nor did she move or look into my direction. More tears leaked out of my eyes, without me willing them but I did not know what to do.

I could see out of the window. The town looked dreary, so dreary in the bleak twilight. Cacophonies of birds with huge wings sounded as they flew low back to their nests. The sky this evening was teeming with them. So much so that it was almost black. The crows had hooked beaks. It was frightening but Virginia stood there all serene taking it all with utmost calmness. As if none of it was important enough. None of it meant anything. No joy or melancholy or even anger passed her features. Her dark eyes, her straight nose and her thinnish lips. Her face was inscrutable as she smoked away. Smoke rose in thin tendrils and hazed the window. But she seemed not to notice. Soon smoke was everywhere in the room and a thick cloud gathered in spite of the open window. I was coughing violently. I was suffocating.

“Virginia!” I gasped between breaths.

It scared me to see her like that. It was unpleasant to be unnoticed and ignored. I wanted her to come and hug me and run her soft fingers through my hair, assuring and calming me, but she did not twitch. I felt so horribly alone, I wished I was dead.

The smoke would kill me soon enough anyway.

But then it was all gone.

She finally turned. I could hear her. She came close and banged her fist hard into my head. I did not move.

Then she came over to the other side and looked at me. I could see into her eyes when she drew her face close to mine, and then all I could see were her eyes. They were huge, black and filled with absolute disgust. She made me look for a long time.

Then she stepped back and I realised that her face was mine.