To find a home

 I turned 40 in the November of 2025. And just a few years before that, I had felt that my life should be different after 40. And so it turned out to be so. A few months back, I decided to switch jobs, and not just that, I decided to switch cities. I had worked at SEA for about 12 years in Mumbai - a city I called my home. A city that gave me the intellectual stimulus to do what I do today. And yet, after coming back from the USA in 2014, the city slowly revealed to me differently. I could never point out whether I had changed from the worldly exposure of the West, or had the city taken to transform itself completely. The politics of the city had changed. It was caught up into infrastructural expansions, redevelopment, upgradation all at once. And I was to groove back into this transforming city that I had imagined to be my home. But that never happened successfully.

I was older, lonelier despite having increased social access through my work. I made many friends, entered many circles, and fulfilling too. And for a large time, work kept me consumed. But yet, I did not have a person to go back to, except my biological family. This family that we are born into, never disappoints, but it cannot fulfil the gap of that one person that we make home with. While work kept me consumed, the search for this person intensified over the years. But the city had become globalized meaning, people worked for different countries while being here, in different time zones, travelled from faraway places for work, had a distant home to go back to, and manage anything in these slivers of time. A churn of transience. But home, seemed a condition of bodily settlement.

After twelve years of approaching stability, as I just felt that I could make some settlement with my  condition of singlehood, suddenly work seemed to become increasingly troubling. I suddenly felt displaced in the aspect of life which I had prioritized significantly over the last twelve years, that perhaps I had made my home. I still find it hard to articulate and understand what precisely bothered me more. Did the place of work become too much like my hetero-biological family? Did my sense of self grow too strong? Could my desire for professional growth not be fully contained and legitimized within this space? Or did my growing self assurance put people at odds with their older version of my vulnerable self? To find home within oneself seemed a complete misfit within the scheme of the outside world...

Is this what is the experience of queerness then? Should finding home for the queer body be always the realization of being misfit in one way or the other? And should we be spending so much energy and time to fight or fit in an existing order...? 

Nevertheless, so, right after turning 40, an opportunity to visit Europe fell in my lap - a conference in Lund, Sweden. And it seemed like a good personal marker. In the mean time, I had decided to experiment home in a new geography. I expressed my desire to move on to a new work place at SEA, and applied for a position with a more commensurate position and pay at CEPT. At the time, stepping away seemed like the only option despite the fact that my professional and domestic life seemed to have conjoining-ly worked out only if my workplace appreciated my contribution. But after a long wait, I had to move on, and I decided to come to Ahmedabad to experiment home afresh.

The last month has been about this transition. I have not taken a real break in years. Indefatigably working to keep myself mentally occupied. I had imagined my Europe tour to bring me some break (something I am still finding the words to describe over a post), but perhaps I packed too much in too little time. A conference, a solo trip, the handover at SEA, the move to a new city, the house hunt in Ahmedabad, transitioning into a new work atmosphere... I have been taking things slowly and steadily, and yet, it is exhausting. I am unsure what this exhaustion indexes. And how is one to make home in a place with no social or geographical roots, from scratch?

This is perhaps then, the new challenge of life at 40. I landed in Ahmedabad on 2nd June with literally no one to guide in the city. Thanks to the internet and my colleague Shreyank's lending of his house that I am able to undertake my house hunt in some secure way. Yet, there is a haunting question of the home - is it the place or the person that will bring home to me? How would it be to return to an empty shell after work, how would my social life pan out? What could making home entail in this new place with new social codes? Who would I share my experiences with? Is it the sharing of the everyday that makes the home - and should the lack of it make one feel homeless?

It is almost paradoxical that we move so much to feel settled! Virtuous are those who have come to terms with becoming comfortable in their mobile lives. I was not raised in a manner to appreciate movement as home - at least it has to have one condition satisfied - a person or a place. And there have been examples where this person or place could be imaginary. But we the wretched sons of Marx are marred by material life and conditions, or in other words maya. There seems to be a significant journey ahead, beyond 40 still, to find a home. 

Conference in Lund

Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to participate in an intimate circle of intellectuals from across the globe assembled by scholars Tatiana Thieme, Melissa García and Hannah Hillbrandt at the Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies in Sweden (LUCSUS). Together we discussed the intersections and inventions that take place across works of repair, climate change and informal living conditions in different geographies that the participants represented. We raised important questions including, but not limited to how uncertainties mould conditions of repair, what are the limits of resource and capacity, how do we imagine the social function of property, the dialectics between repair and resistance, how capital seems to capture 'repair', and many other thought-clusters. Through the exchange, we tried also, to build a history of the repair discourse as much ask asking how it has moved almost suddenly from "informality" to "repair" where the situation still remains the same in neo-liberal economies. The cohort put together the concepts that emerged across the cross-quadrants of space, scale, experience and techne and looked at the parabolic axis through which they begin to interact, resist, play and dance with each other, that are open to take new forms in the future.

The Final Peak by Kunwar Narayan - Translation

अंतिम ऊँचाई कुँवर नारायण कितना स्पष्ट होता आगे बढ़ते जाने का मतलब अगर दसों दिशाएँ हमारे सामने होतीं, हमारे चारों ओर नहीं। कितना आसान होता चलते चले जाना यदि केवल हम चलते होते बाक़ी सब रुका होता। मैंने अक्सर इस ऊलजलूल दुनिया को दस सिरों से सोचने और बीस हाथों से पाने की कोशिश में अपने लिए बेहद मुश्किल बना लिया है। शुरू-शुरू में सब यही चाहते हैं कि सब कुछ शुरू से शुरू हो, लेकिन अंत तक पहुँचते-पहुँचते हिम्मत हार जाते हैं। हमें कोई दिलचस्पी नहीं रहती कि वह सब कैसे समाप्त होता है जो इतनी धूमधाम से शुरू हुआ था हमारे चाहने पर। दुर्गम वनों और ऊँचे पर्वतों को जीतते हुए जब तुम अंतिम ऊँचाई को भी जीत लोगे— जब तुम्हें लगेगा कि कोई अंतर नहीं बचा अब तुममें और उन पत्थरों की कठोरता में जिन्हें तुमने जीता है— जब तुम अपने मस्तक पर बर्फ़ का पहला तूफ़ान झेलोगे और काँपोगे नहीं— तब तुम पाओगे कि कोई फ़र्क़ नहीं सब कुछ जीत लेने में और अंत तक हिम्मत न हारने में।

The Final Peak Kunwar Narayan How clear it would have meant to move ahead if all ten directions lay in front of us, and not around us. How easy it would have been to just keep walking if we were simply walking and everything else was still in my effort to grapple this convoluted world, often  thinking with ten heads and holding with twenty hands I have made it extremely difficult for myself. In the beginning, everyone wants  that everything should begin from the beginning But as they reach the end, they lose motivation. we become completely uninterested in how it all ends That which started with a bang upon our own will. After parsing inaccessible forests and crossing high mountains when one shall even win the last peak — when you will feel that there is no difference between you and the harshness of these rocks that you have conquered — When you will face the first snowstorm and not shiver — Then you will realise that there is no difference in winning everything and not losing hope until the end.

Emergent Practices: South Asia / Architectures of Transition

Situated Imaginaries

Auroville Housing Roger Anger

 

of Dipesh Chakraborty and Gayatri Spivak

a comparison between the historiographic ideas of Dipesh Chakraborty and Gayatri Spivak

For a very long time, I have had difficulty understanding premise of Dipesh Chakraborty's 'Provincialising Europe.' I have reached out to my academician friends to explain, and they have really tried well - however, conversations evaporate and learnings do not settle in the mind. Some time ago therefore, I reached out to ChatGPT for those questions, and it really laid out the stakes well. I wanted to understand quite straightforwardly: what is the key argument of Dipesh Chakraborty in Provincialising Europe. 

In quite direct and simple language, it answered that the key argument of Provincialising Europe by DC is the pursuit of how we can understand modernity, history and political life without treating Europe as the automatic center or universal model for all societies. Chakraborty challenges that idea that concepts such as "capitalism", "democracy", "modernity", "citizenship", "secularism" developed in Europe from specific European histories and are often presented as universal. These (should not) automatically explain societies in Asia, Africa or Latin America. Post colonial societies live in both at once. They are modern but not in purely European ways. Further, his concern is that Europe dominates how we think about time, history, and modern life.

Following this explanation, ChatGPT prompted me if I was interested in understanding how his proposition differs from Said, Spivak or Fanon. 

and I jumped into that provocation. I really like how it laid out the difference:

The difference between Dipesh Chakrabarty and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak lies mainly in what they think the core problem of Western theory is—and how it can be addressed.

Put simply:

Chakrabarty asks: How can we rethink history and modernity beyond Europe?

Spivak asks: Who gets to speak, and who is silenced, even in critical theory?

It says that Spivak's concern comes from the realisation that all theory (whether western, or not) is embedded in power. is that "even progressive thinkers often silence the most marginalised people" She asks us to be suspicious of all theory, and skeptically suggests that intellectuals often reproduce heirarchy unintentionally. Thus, if Chakrabarty suggests "localisation" of theory indirectly, Spivak does not trust easy "localisation" of theory, because she asserts that even postcolonial scholars may dominate subaltern voices. For example, how do the lives of workers and peasants challenge our theories when they do not fit western categories? Further she says that the "subaltern" is often spoken about, but rarely allowed to speak for themselves. When they do speak, elites translate and distort them, leading to structural silencing. 

Thus, Chakraborty is saying - Don't reject western theory, rather "provincialise" it. Meaning, as Gautam Bhan said in one of his talks, "particularise" it in its region and dont assume it as a universal standard for everywhere. 

On the other hand, Spivak says that critical scholars too, often silence the oppressed, so we must question our right to speak for others.

Marxist vs. Socio-economic Approaches

 a few days ago, I asked ChatGPT if a "Marxist" method of narrative of life is same as that we call as "socio-economic' way of thinking about life? 

It explained me that partly, it may be right, but full not so. 

The Marxist way of understanding life comes mainly from the ideas of Marx and Engels which views life through:

• Material Conditions (work, income, housing, resources)
• Class relations (who owns, who labours)
• Power and exploitation
• Historical change through conflict 

pretty standard. 

So a Marxist narrative asks:

How do economic systems shape people’s lives, identities, dreams, and suffering? Who benefits, and who is disadvantaged?

All in all, it concluded that while a socio-economic reading asks "Who lives where and at what cost?"; a Marxist reading asks: "who profits from this spatial arrangement and why?" Thus Marxist reading will necessarily weave it into the politics of capitalism as a conspiracy. 

When I further asked if 'socio-economic' thinking as a derivate of Marxist thought, it elaborated that Socio-economic analysis did not grow from Marx alone. It also comes from other traditions. For example, Max Weber argued that society is shaped by ideas as much as money, and hence culture, religion and values matter. Therefore power is not purely economic. This is different from Marx. 

Emelie Durkheim on the other hand was focusing on social cohesion through institutions and moral norms; and was looking at how societies hold together - not mainly in class conflict but shared collective life. 

Larger socio economic thinking comes from welfare and policy studies which are studied in development economics, public policy, statistics and demography. These look at socio economics through poverty index, literacy rate, HDI (human development index) or uemployment data. Thus, 

one can imagine this at three levels, says Chat GPT:

Level 1: Descriptive socio-economic
“Low-income groups have less access to healthcare.”
(No Marxism here.)

Level 2: Analytical socio-economic
“Economic structures reproduce inequality.”
(Some Marxist influence.)

Level 3: Marxist
“Capitalism structurally produces inequality through exploitation.”
(Fully Marxist.)

In fields like architecture, urbanism, and cultural theory:
Using a socio-economic lens = mapping class, income, access
Using a Marxist lens = questioning land ownership, speculation, capital flows

Many scholars use the first without committing to the second.

I asked further: Do people fall into using Marxist frames because it gives them a sense of purpose of "equalising" society?

It said:

Yes—for many people, Marxist frameworks are attractive partly because they offer a strong sense of moral and political purpose, especially around equalising society. But that is not the only reason people use them. People are drawn to Marxist frames because they combine explanation, critique, and purpose in one system.

Some people use Marxist language without deep commitment to equality. Sometimes when people adopt Marxism mainly for purpose, some risks appear: For example, there is a danger of oversimplification in framing everything as  “class struggle”. There is a projection of Moral certainty wherein the People feel automatically “right” when they are posing a certain situation as Marxist. And lastly, sometimes it can feel quite dogmatic when Other perspectives are dismissed.

This discussion seemed insightful, and worth keeping in notes here.

on Fetish

 The word "fetish" is used in different ways in psychology, culture and social theory. At its core, it means giving special emotional or symbolic power to something that is actually just an object or detail.

1. Freudan

object or detail becomes more important than the whole person

eg: someone feels especially attracted to shoes, or is very focused on the hair/fabric, or someone feels excitement mainly because of a uniform...

2. Cultural / Religious

an object believed to have special powers. The object itself is ordinary, but people believe it has hidden power.

eg: A statue thought to contain spiritual energy, a necklace believed to protect someone, etc.

3. Social/Economic Meaning (Marxist)

The commodified object looks magical..

eg: a phone might feel desirable, but one forgets the workers who made it, the factory, the conditions of working in valourising it. 

4.  Everyday Use

people having an intense liking for something.

eg: coffee, fitness

to summarise:

Fetish happens when we give too much meaning, power, or emotion to something small, symbolic or ordinary

German School and the French School of Critical Theory

I was introduced to the two schools of Critical Theory during my masters at Yale School of Architecture. While Peggy Deamer, our teacher mentioned that her course would be more to do with Marxist analysis of architecture (and that those who did not believe in it should strongly reconsider being in the course); and that there were two schools of Critical Theory - the Frankfurt School (German Tradition) and the French School - I had not quite understood what was the difference between the two.

Over the last many years after doing the course, the question took a back seat, and did not come to resolution even if I must have tried to relook specifically what separates the two in their ideological orientation. Finally last week, as a matter of time pass, I asked this question to ChatGPT and it gave me some of the most convincingly understandable response, which I want to note down here for my own understanding.

Very briefly, 

The German tradition of the Frankfurt School of critical theory has Marxist roots with strong engagement with capitalism and class. It is focused on the critique of mass culture that emerges out of it - how media and consumer culture shape consciousness. It is also concerned with the question of reason and emancipation - in other words "rationality". This is necessarily the Western notion of scientific rationality that developed through the renaissance. 

In summary, they analyze how modern society produces domination especially through capitalism, bureaucracy, technology and culture industries. Their work is generally systematic, moral-political, and reform oriented.

The French tradition mainly develops after the 1950s reacting against structuralism and classical Marxism. 

Their core features can be located in their distrust of universal explanations (like Marxism or Enlightenment theory) - in other words, the suspicion of "grand theories". They focus on how meaning, truth, and knowledge are constructed with a focus on discourse and language. They conceptualize power as "diffused", meaning, power is not only in the state of economy, rather everywhere. Furthermore they are anti-essentialists, with no belief in fixed "human nature" or stable subject. 

They examine how power operates through knowledge, language, institutions and norms. Their work is often fragmentary, experimental, and skeptical of political blueprints 

ChatGPT articulates for me that in simple terms.

German Critical theory asks:

How does capitalism and modern rationality dominate us, and how can we overcome it.

whereas, French Critical theory asks:

How do language, knowledge and institutions produce what we think is normal or true.

I came to articulate then that, the essential different between the two is that one emerges from the critique of mass, whereas the other from the critique of the body. The AI helped me lay out that the key entry points for the German and French theory  are mass/system versus body/micropower. In a more precise academic formulation, the German critical theory begins with the problem of mass domination, while French theory begins with the problem of bodily and subjective regulation. One critiques how power works from above and through systems, the other how power works from within and through bodies.