Thoughts on Indiffrence in American Culture

The culture of indifference pervades America. It is indifference that constitutes individualism, as well as exemplifies liberty. People here do not like to share themselves, their space. A lot of what actually goes on in their minds is also not shared. There is no one to share happiness, no one to share loss, no one to look up to in case you are in trouble and no one to generally talk when you just want to talk to someone. They have built themselves on this foundation. I am not sure if this also prevails in the Midwest and the west American coast. But as far as I have known the north east, that is the rule.

I do not know how they manage their social space. Many rely on social networking websites. Even on these platforms, either their names, or their images are changed. The notion of privacy on such platforms too, is very high. Initially I used to wonder why any kind of application forms that we fill up in the US provide two spaces for names – one for maiden name, and the other for “how you prefer to be called” – but after coming here, I have experienced how strictly people guard their own space. They want to, and do decide everything for their lives by themselves, of course, as soon as they are mature.

I have experienced how indifference can be disturbing for a person who comes from a place where social space is absolutely different, interdependent and interwoven. It makes one feel left out, insignificant, non-proximate or of least consequence to any one else around him or her. There is no feeling of belonging-ness, thus not obligated to anyone. The difficult balance one thinks of is whether it is possible to belong to someone without being obligated?

It is not that people don’t share their thoughts because they don’t want to. It is just that they do not bring it out unless asked. I often wonder what makes the people here keep their happiness or deep sorrows within them. In that sense, the Indian society is much more expressive, not verbally, but gesturally. I have found only few Americans to express true emotion. But is 'bhaav' or emotion is a consequence of interdependence, or can it be kept just within the mind without bringing it on face?

But what does keeping one’s things to oneself mean? Does it mean being to self centered? Or does it mean to keep one’s world to oneself? Does it mean that one need not project their experiences to any one else? What is the point of an isolated world that does not intersect with another’s? How then would any one expand the idea of the world?

People here work their ways out in a different way. Most of them find their callings by trial and errors along their growing up period, and observe the trajectory of people whom they want to work with. They contact them, get in touch, express their interest and apprentice many a times. Though these people and networks developed by their own interests, they create a world which feeds their aspirations. On the other hand, people from Indian culture are exposed to a lot of things equally right from the beginning – our schools teach us all subjects, our families emphasize the importance of all subjects in studies, most of our parents would have loved for us to be all-rounders. But in this, so many worlds intersect, and often conflict with one another. Much of our life is spent in resolving, negotiating or understanding this conflict. But the opportunity this conflict offers is to peep into different worlds, different people and different ideas. The world that thus gets stitched is much more multidimensional. It has multiple entry points, multiple exits. There are so many loose stories that never get completed – they are left as lingering unexplained thoughts of life.

Whereas, the American will connect all the possible dots – but where were there ambiguous dots anyway? One finds the next dot only after connecting the previous! What do I mean by this metaphor? An average story of an American, if asked about how one landed at point A in their career would be pretty linear. He/she would mostly be able to explain his extremely logical trajectory step by step – carefully calculated. There are hardly any chances or opportunistic moments.

Don’t much of our Indian lives happen by chance? Or am I just exaggerating it too much? There are so many things in our life that we wish to do – by ‘things’ I mean not always materialistic, but something that would satisfy our soul. For example, a doctor would have loved to give a musical performance, or an engineer would have liked to paint for his life, or a government servant would have like to be an artist! There are no “would be-s” in the American system. You just do it! There is no one to stop you, question you, or project their ideas or desires on you.

But to talk of this American attitude as the ‘liberating experience’ is not expounding! Where was anything tying the American down in the first place to feel liberated? Were there any societal expectations anyway? There are no parents who are waiting to be taken care of once you start earning, there is no wife whom you cannot leave, there are no kids whom you have to take care of all your life, or there are no social expectations you have to fulfil in terms of pressures of money or maintaining a social status. When I talk of this, I am talking in the liberal framework, that you are not bounded by any social codes where you have to maintain your status quo. I have seen people with a degree working for money at odd places here. Apart from the fact that they may have no options to earn money, they also do not face any social shame in taking up something that is below their qualification. This is something we would understand as “dignity  of labour.” But this is also something that comes off as the characteristic of indifference.

Indifference sometimes may also result in “who cares?” attitude.  I am talking of this attitude only in a social sense, not city, not governance, not lawful sense. I am thinking of all the above ideas in the sphere of ethics and morality, in the sphere of social space that gets codified by only the practice of everyday acts and decisions. What would be the point of morals and ethics in a society that hardly interacts with each other? What is the point of morals when the morality of one doesnot influence, harm, affect, depend on the other – since all acts are individual, limited to oneself? There is only the personal project, there is no common goal. This is the private world – the world of private capital, private interest, private space, private circle, private work – nothing that any one can peek into, unless advertised!

It is then understandable that Americans are so good at marketing and adverstising – since when something that is only within the private space needs to come out, it almost erupts, explodes and is loud. It is the repressed indifference. Through advertising, one aims to connect, to reach out, to touch the other world, allows oneself to be seen. I think thus, advertising is a formal channel through which America negotiates indifference. It is the psychological cure for keeping one’s emotions in one’s own world of privacy – the world that no one is able to peep into.

(rambling thoughts)