The American 'Good' and 'Bad'

These days it has become so difficult to get an entry point into the numerous thoughts that run within my mind! Even for the current post, I am struggling to find ways of presenting the multiplicity of experiences that my mind is undergoing right now. Where on one hand I have the pressure of finishing my papers and course work, on the other hand I am pursuing some things that give me utmost satisfaction non-academically! I am truly living a liberal-arts environment - participating in music, films, discussion, debates, plays and what not! There is generally so much to document, and in addition, opinions constantly keep on forming, but I wait to finalize these in the head. I guess it's a phase when I am noticing and learning new things and it would be too early to harden my perspective about them.

Last two days I was at Boston for the 'Sa-re-ga-ma-pella' - South Asian A capella meet. We had four acapella teams from different universities who performed at the Boston University. I was along with my group Sur-et-Veritaal -Yale's only south asian acapella group! This gave me an opportunity to spend more time with the undergraduates at Yale. My interaction with the undergraduates at Yale has been varied. I taught a bunch of students at Yale last semester as a Teaching fellow; whereas over this semsester, I have been performing with my acapella group. Both these sets of people were different, or perhaps it was the relationship I shared with them that changed the dynamics of our conversations. I enjoy being with  my music group - they are fun to be with.

I have always been self critical, sometimes a bit too harsh upon myself. Spending the last two semesters at Yale, I have found people here to be extremely encouraging, supportive and furthering. Even when I would feel that my ideas are not up to the mark, they have said them to be rich. This goes with my professors, friends and my acapella group members too. 

Initially I was too new to the concept of A capella and would make plently of mistakes in understanding or coordinating music. Some days back, I was listening to the initial recording of our songs and they sounded awful. I remember how there was no criticism, or frustration expressed over things that didnot really work that time - in fact,  it was considered to be normal. There were times when I would go up to our music director Marios and ask the same thing multiple times, ask the silliest of the questions and the group put up with that. While the group thought I was really good, I constantly kept undermining myself. Eventually things have gotten much better - but there have been times when I have kept away from taking lead for songs. I was to sing the lead for one of the songs at the concert we performed at Boston yesterday. I kept making mistakes with this song (Chhaiya Chhaiya) since the original song was edited to suit the composition and I wasn't able to memorize it. In spite of constant mistakes, I was never criticized  by the group (at atleast it wasn't expressed) . They were extremely accommodating and kept positive mood! I wondered if I could ever be so patient with any one else working with me, especially until a few hours before the performance! 

We performed well...and I wasn't particularly tensed since I had made up my mind to enjoy whatever I did. However, the group's positive encouragement helped me curb my own self-criticality. 

I slowly started accepting that it's all about trying, practicing and giving time - not only to the self, but even to others. I guess this is what is the general culture / way in which things are taught here. Teachers appreciate even if a student brings one good point in comparison to nine other weak ones. The one good point is honed and taken to the next level. 

But here is what I have always wondered - what is it about not being critical of your own weak points? While it's my tendency to work and better my weak aspects, Americans tend to choose their best quality and make it even better. It is not within this culture to talk much about things that are not working out! In other words, they are progressive. For example, in my case, the group did not really focus on my mistakes but kept praising me for the quality of my voice. They would say that the group had really strong soloists, instead of the fact that the group needed way more work on presentation. 

This makes me think of an overall American culture as one which tries to cover up its non-working aspects through those that work for itself. They project their pretty points far too positively when framing a picture of themselves. I am not sure of my stand on this aspect since on one hand, being new to this place, I crave for such encouragement and adulation, but on the other hand I also would like to have some one be critical of my thoughts such that it makes me aware of things I haven't been thinking of or concentrating on before...

Well, that's a general observation, and it is definitely going to change, as soon as I see the results. Sometimes I also think that I have been too critical of myself for much long time to be able to even acknowledge my good qualities! So it's a nice moment to find a chance to appreciate myself. Perhaps, I also do not know how to acknowledge appreciation - I generally reflect it back as "Oh, I am not that great." Another reflex when some one appreciates you here is to give back that appreciation. I have found myself changing in that respect. Although I am not completely able to do away with my over-critcal nature, I keep this critical observation to myself as much as possible instead of throwing it off on others. But personally, it is hard for me to overly appreciate a minor good quality (and blow it out of proportion) overlooking that person's capacity to improve on other fronts. The primary reason I do not subscribe to that attitude is that it is to market-oriented and feels as if one is trying to sell oneself.

Guess I am again being critical. 

To end it and frame an example of what I am talking about: Although I do know that we performed really well at the SaReGaMaPella, I know that the acoustics and the mike arrangement at the show sucked and it was partially responsible for nor bringing out the beauty of our composition. However, no one speaks about this terrible arrangement - everyone only appreciates how well the soloists sang, etc. But I find it too hollow a comment because it is too political. It feels as if the other teams praise us since they want it back. It's not about competition that I write the above, but to figure out how the arrangement can be bettered, what kinds of spaces work for a-Capella performances? What must be the setting and how they must be conducted in order to experience them completely...

I couldn't talk about (for example) performances that I thought did not really work well, and how they could really be reconsidered - it all gets covered in the mushy-mushy goody-goody "oh-you-were-so-good" compliments! Sometimes you can make out they are not genuine. I just don't find it healthy! Another example is the pre-made card that has presented to the group at the end of the show - don't know how much the words in the note really mean:

But there are a million other things to record and I am not sure if I can write all of them here!

Madness & Sexuality

From the French Theory course again.

Reading Foucault, responding to "In terms of Foucault’s approach to his subject matter, where do you similarities and differences between The History of Madness and The History of Sexuality?"

As I posted in my last post, one of the most significant similarities that I find in Foucault's approach of subject matter in the History of Madness and History of sexuality is his decision to work on marginalized bodies. A historical analysis of how such categories came to be created in the time period when knowledge production was taking place is the prime area that Foucault investigates. 

Another similarity is also his seeming triggers for these studies: "why are certain acts not acceptable in the society?" This question applies to both. In a way, Foucault is challenging the accepted 'code of conduct' for the society. Through his works, he questions the control that is exerted by an invisible societal force over a body that tries to be independent - over a body that the society constantly wants to appropriate and subsume. It gives a sense that he is discomforted with the way in which 'cultured' societies exclude certain groups and the way in which power relations are created. 

Power always resolves itself into hierarchy, and hierarchy goes ahead to define roles for different bodies in the society. In some ways, we are almost born into a culture where things are pre-decided for us: ways in which we are expected to lead and live our lives. Foucault's histories challenges institutionalized culture through its own past. This is what I find interesting about his works.

History of Sexuality opens up a whole range of 'industry' associated with the 'functions of body' and in the modern world, it's representations. These include reproduction(maternity), prostitution / pimping (brothels), censorship, sex education, ethical behaviour - which he terms 'sexual practice'. It almost implies that the body is tool through which one negotiates life, and sex is the most obvious characteristic of this tool. Similarly, history of Madness too opened up the discussion of various modern institutions of prisons, clinics, hospitals, rehabilitation centers, etc. 

The next common thread is his keen observation of the everyday. What constitutes the abnormalities of everyday is the subject matter for Foucault. Sex and madness both are closely associated with bodily conduct - very strongly controlled by the society. Extreme forms of sexuality (homosexuality, transgender-ing, etc.) or behaviour (madness, psychological behaviours) are stigmatised and quarantined, denouncing bodies their mental freedom to exist in society. The disconnect with the social sphere is repressing, and the fear of such separation pushes for secrecy or hypocrisy.

Foucault targets such (unwanted?) masking of truthfulness of the body to be itself. 
On thinking about the differences, I can only think of how he plunged into both these subjects in history. For madness, he looks at representations of mad people in art and literature. For sexuality, he looks at personal accounts and several forms of discourses (censorship, church confessions, essays, etc.).

I like what you say about one similarity between History of Madness and History of Sexuality being their focus on marginalized bodies. I would like to extend your point, though, and say that for me the works have in common, more specifically, a fixation on the ways in which discourses and meanings are created, and the ways in which, recursively, those meanings effectively reimagine bodies in themselves in the modern age. My main point is that with the drastic increase in the production of discourse surrounding sex that was concurrent with the industrial revolution, what was once at least a semi-permeable barrier between body and text was effectively dissolved. In that both History of Madness and H of S study the disapearance of this fissure between knowledge and bodies, their methodologies are very similar, drawn from this conviction that they share. What I mean to say is that much like Barthes was a mythologist, Foucault is essentially a master of a kind of anti-discourse, someone who uses historical context, scientific data, etc to effectively shift or extend the bounds of our understanding. For example, Foucault uses history to explain that the repressive hypothesis is misunderstood, (as opposed to any kind of 'first philosophy') because his is a critical enterprise. Talking about bodies, talking about history, talking about even a landscape, all of it, now requires the attitude of literary criticism. 

My personal favorite facet of Foucault's argument was when he described sex as being at once garrelous and elusive, a Mad Hatter-type character. This is, also, reminiscent of his description of the modern artist's desire to reconstitute something as it is in "What is Enlightenment?." This loquacious silence of the world is essential to Foucault's understanding of what it means to be modern. A thing speaks volumes about itself, except perhaps exactly what we feel we know it to be.  

---

Samuel Sullivan:

Dear Anuj, 

I like what you say about one similarity between History of Madness and History of Sexuality being their focus on marginalized bodies. I would like to extend your point, though, and say that for me the works have in common, more specifically, a fixation on the ways in which discourses and meanings are created, and the ways in which, recursively, those meanings effectively reimagine bodies in themselves in the modern age. My main point is that with the drastic increase in the production of discourse surrounding sex that was concurrent with the industrial revolution, what was once at least a semi-permeable barrier between body and text was effectively dissolved. In that both History of Madness and H of S study the disapearance of this fissure between knowledge and bodies, their methodologies are very similar, drawn from this conviction that they share. What I mean to say is that much like Barthes was a mythologist, Foucault is essentially a master of a kind of anti-discourse, someone who uses historical context, scientific data, etc to effectively shift or extend the bounds of our understanding. For example, Foucault uses history to explain that the repressive hypothesis is misunderstood, (as opposed to any kind of 'first philosophy') because his is a critical enterprise. Talking about bodies, talking about history, talking about even a landscape, all of it, now requires the attitude of literary criticism. 

My personal favorite facet of Foucault's argument was when he described sex as being at once garrelous and elusive, a Mad Hatter-type character. This is, also, reminiscent of his description of the modern artist's desire to reconstitute something as it is in "What is Enlightenment?." This loquacious silence of the world is essential to Foucault's understanding of what it means to be modern. A thing speaks volumes about itself, except perhaps exactly what we feel we know it to be.  

Myth of the Car

Below is a text borrowed from 'forums' that we maintain for classes here. This one is for the "French Theory" course I took  in Fall 2012, led by Prof. Yue Zhuo. We read Mythologies and had to write on Mythologies around us. I chose to write on the myth of the car.

The discussion has trailing comments by the professor as well as student (s).

---
Anuj Daga:

In cities like Mumbai, where density of people is very high and everyone is struggling for space, owning a car goes much beyond owning a vehicle that takes you from point A to point B. A city stuck in traffic, a city with not enough road for the pedestrian and the public transport, a city with no space to park and petrol prices shooting up, it should almost discourage any person considering to buy a car. Still, we see that urban development plans for more layers of fly-overs above existing roads and developers sell apartments with ‘extra parking space’, banks extend loans for cars, and newer car companies promote their purchase through flexible installment plans. Between this tension of need and luxury, the car assumes a new meaning.

I have always wondered why do cars have four doors when buses have only two? Why do automobile companies introduce bigger and bigger cars (read private modes of transport) when public transport in the city carries almost twice the people than it can accommodate and the city roads have no space to take up more cars? Over some time now, I have realized that the car has become a symbol of luxury. With an individual door for everyone to access and constantly increasing leg space to stretch, the car wants to be your new home. Luxury dictates need. The size of the car is a scale of the potential of luxury that you can afford.

As a reaction to the fact that the car could only be afforded by those who have a lot of money, where the car had come to construct your identity as a ‘rich’ person, TATA motors in India introduced the NANO car in 2009 which was to be a vehicle that even the ordinary mass could afford – it was targeted at Rs. 1 lakh (US $ 1800). TATA claimed that it would make the car affordable for all. It was expected that there would be a huge demand for the car by the middle class whose spending potential was modest as compared to the upper class who owned cars. The Nano being offered at a modest price of Rs. 1 lakh took an appearance of the local street cab (the auto rickshaw) and was a much light-weight car. Its production base ran into some complications with acquisition of land for setting up the factory and hence it opened up the policy of ‘placing order’. Initially there was a lot of interest in purchasing the car, for those who genuinely wanted to invest in a vehicle for everyday purposes. But the sales of the Nano decreased dramatically after the first few production runs.

It appeared that Nano didnot fulfil the middle class aspiration of being identified as the owner of a car. In the neighbourhoods of a city like Mumbai, you are often known by the quality and bigness of the car you own. The car defines your identity and social standing. It talks about your image and becomes a signifier of your way of life. Further the number of cars talks about your economic status and fetches you respect. In such way, your car starts owning you more than you own it.

Owners of Nano are frowned upon. Those who feared that the Nano would dramatically increase the traffic on streets by its virtue of being so affordable to masses didnot anticipate that the story will be an anticlimax. People crave to have larger cars, at no cost Nano, and they label it as a light, unsafe and unaesthetic car although it fits the context of the city perfectly – it is small (thus uses less parking space), slow (uses less petrol and adjusts with the pace of the city) and perfect for singles driving on the road. But unfortunately, it doesnot fit in the conventional image of corporate businesses and those who attend meetings at five star hotels. The car had reduced to, or extended its existence to its image.

It is thus I find Barthes’ Mythologies apt to talk about the new value system the car has generated.

---
Yue Zhuo: 
The story of Nano is very telling, well recounted. Thanks. What's in confilct here is the value of utility and the value of "conspicuous consumption" (Veblen). Perfect transition to today's class.

--
Zhiyan Yang:

Thanks Anuj for the Nano example. A rough examination of this "myth of car" with Barthes's double-layer sign formula: car in the context of your example has been deprived of its original "meaning" as a vehicle, and new "signification" of wealth and social status is instilled in the "form." But who creates the myth this time? The middle-class (it is not quite the same with Barthes's French bourgeoisie, is it?)? or a collaboration of the car sellers and consumers? How does this myth spread? Some form of nation-wide power must have something to do with the creation of myth here.

Thanks again!

---
Anuj Daga:
It was interesting to think of your questions, some of which co incide with those that were raised in the class today. I have been thinking of these too. Especially on the idea of 'bourgeoiesie'. I always kept asking my friends what do they mean when they used this term. I always got new answers.

I read Marx, Raymond Williams (Keywords) and discussed with people, but never understood the context of France entirely. The French theory class has been helpful in understanding the context in which all these texts were written. So I am able to make some connections with those loose understandings.

One of the best ways I like to understand the bourgeoisie is that they are the asipring middle class. They are quite materialistic. Now these can again be complex phrases. I will try to elaborate. What I mean by aspiration is a desire to be like the upper class, so there is a form of imitation of something that you aspire to be or want. This imitation of the original want, falling in a changed economic bracket creates a new materiality. It is also when the original is studied or reproduced as an image.

I think the bourgeoisie consume this new materiality, this new image...
Another question raised in the seminar was "what is wrong with the bourgeoisie?" - If I may say, the removal of rationality from the use of an object, its reduction to an image and its altered value is something that creates discomfort within intellectuals towards the bourgeoisie. To Marx's 'use value' and 'exchange value', Baudrillard Jean added 'symbolic value' and 'sign value' as meta systems through which the materiality of the bourgeoisie is created. Perhaps the warped rationality through which the bourgeoisie consume is ideologically disturbing. Probably that may to some extent answer the question?

I had a lot of things in mind on the introduction of new appliances in the post war period in the French household. An intersting thing to know would be that a lot of technology geared towards defense of nations during the war created corollaries of inventions. Many of our household items were actually invented for wars. The washing machines, vacuum cleaners, etc. are actually parts of larger war weapons which find place as docile domestic equipments in our homes today! Historian Beatriz Colomina talking about this kind of new domesticity in  one of her publications.

However, perhaps, it may have also become important to dismantle the huge amount of intellectual and economic investment that went into making the mega-devices of war into everyday consumable products. The post war saw these machines in a completely new way  and appropriated technology for innovative purposes...

I also liked the question on 'who produces myth' and 'how does it spread?"- And it will need a fairly deeper reflection to answer that.

But today's discussion was very interesting. Thanks to all for these doubts and questions.

---
Yue Zhuo:
Good to read the exchange between you too. This is the type of "forums" I was hoping to see..

We talked a little about "leveling" yesterday in class.The Nano example was very much both an example of wanting to be like others ("aspring to be bourgeois" as Anuj puts it), and at the same time the desire of not wanting to be like others (if everyone can have this inexpensive car, then I want something better). It is both a compliance to social homogeneity and the desire for distinction).

Who is the creator of the "myth" is an interesting question. If I find time tomorrow, I will bring up the topic of reader/author.