Television in rural areas have had an effect on latrine building and fan usage

Kyunki, there’s a world out there Mahima Kaul

Home > Edits & Columns > indian express: Thursday, August 30, 2007

It may not be fashionable to say it, but the Hindi soap operas — Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi, for instance — actually might be doing us some good. Now if you are like me and flip through channels, hear overly dramatic music and change — don’t. Cable TV might be succeeding where government policy didn’t. Changing the way Indian women see their world.

How exactly does that happen? First off, this isn’t new. Back in the days when the public service broadcaster — Doordarshan (DD) — was launched, one of the guiding thoughts behind it was that the media can actually be used as a tool for development. It’s a simple premise. The visual image leaves a lasting imprint in our minds. And especially for those who cannot read, television is an effective tool for communication. Wilbur Schramm, author of Mass Media and National Development, was the proponent of this — what we now term ‘development communication’. Instead of the government forcing changes in lifestyle, the population would become aware of a need that was not satisfied by their present behaviour. And then they would borrow behaviour that would come closer to meeting those needs. And so based on soaps in Latin America, Hum Log was the first Indian soap to try out this concept, with a good measure of success.

Post-liberalisation, TV channels have been flourishing. Some 112 million households in India own a television. Of those, 61 per cent have cable or satellite service, according to the National Readership Studies Council, 2006. And the casual observer may think that the role of educating through entertainment has been relegated to DD alone. To its credit, DD is living up to its mandate. Health shows like Kalyani, and their positive effects on rural populations, have been documented by external agencies. And now, it appears, cable TV is not too far behind.

A new study by Robert Jensen of Brown University and Emily Oster of the University of Chicago has revealed that cable TV has had a distinctively helpful effect on women in rural India. Among their findings, conducted over a three-year period in five states (Bihar, Goa, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Delhi), is that gender attitudes have been positively affected. Women don’t think their husband beating them is as acceptable now, son preference has gone down, female school enrolment has gone up, and birth spacing has increased. Now, there may be other factors contributing to these changes, no doubt, but one thing is for certain. Soap operas are changing the way women see their role in society and in families, and TV has a part to play in it. And changing expectations is the first step to changing reality.

Examples. When Tulsi (of Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi) finds out her son raped a woman, she sides with the victim. In the end, she shoots her son. It may be a tad dramatic (we are talking about a soap opera, after all), but she stands up for what is right. In Saloni Ka Safar, a girl’s complexion is symbolic of the Indian bias against dark skin.

You are allowed to raise your eyebrow at this point. Really, you say, are those overdressed women in the prime-time Hindi soap opera world are changing rural India? Yes. And you know why? Because, for the majority of the country, television is the window to the world. And while the city folk may want to ape the lavish lifestyles of their on-screen heroes — some people partly blame the big fat Indian wedding phenomenon on these serials — rural women admire their independence.

Think about it. At their basest levels, studies have shown that exposure to television in rural areas have had an effect on latrine building and fan usage. And even more amazing is a mother welcoming a girl child because she learnt on television that she too can grow up to be a powerful, independent woman. And that education is key, so she sends her daughter to school with her brothers.

But what is it about chiffon-clad city women in particular that appeals? Because underneath the make-up and diamonds, the problems are common. Rich yes, but the women of Indian soaps are deeply traditional. Some work, but many are full-time homemakers. The problems — inner wheelings and dealings of joint families — strike a chord. They go to the temple, hold havans, they even observe Karva Chauth. And millions all over the country cheer them on as they fight for a place of respect within the family.

That’s just it. A click of a button and they take a walk around the world to ease their troubled minds.

One may find equality in spiritual realm and inequality in material world or social world

Against Brahminical Tradition: A Philosophical view of Dalit critique of Modernity

Dr. P. Kesava Kumar Wednesday, August 22, 2007

The essence of the fundamental beliefs which form the core of Hinduism was identified, reexamined and reinterpreted. The social reformers Raja Ramohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Vidya Sagar, and Vivekananda identified as contemporary Indian philosophers in philosophy text books are classic example.[2]The intellectuals of the Indian renaissance to resist the hegemony of the colonialism interpreted the past for their immediate demands. The rise of national consciousness coincided with the revival of interest in Indian philosophy.

The nationalist intellectuals happen to be elites of the Brahminical class and reflected from their own social imagination in constructing the Indian philosophy. 'In their search for internal principle of unity to the past, religion was given a foundational position by both orthodox and reformist Brahmin intellectuals'[3]. This can be seen in torch bearers of modern India like Rajarammohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati, Sri Aurobindo, Tagore, Vivekananda, Tilak, Gandhi, Radhakrishnan etc[4]. The hindu nationalists started the tradition of dressing up the spirit centred metaphysics of orthodox Hinduism in modern scientific clothes[5]. As Radhakrishnan argues that Indian wisdom is needed today not only to rejuvenate the Indian nation but to reorient the entire human race’.[6] P. T. Raju offered that ‘the East can impart the spiritual basis to the west. The future of mankind depends on conciliation and synthesis.[7]’ There are many writers engaged in this project by saying cultural synthesis of east and west or of dialogue of India with west’. The Oriental Scholars like Max Muller, Duessen, Schopenhauer too fascinated by it. They promoted or over-exaggerated Indian irrationalism and mysticism.

The modern hindu intellectuals are very much aware of the social contradictions of the Indian society, but they never attempted seriously to change the society. They responded to the situation indirectly in such a way that it does not effect their socially privileged position. To conceal the contradictions of the Indian society, the renaissance and nationalist intellectuals were clever enough to invent a new language that works well[8]. One may find equality in spiritual realm and inequality in material world or social world. It promises equality in other world by negating affairs of this world or by projecting it as māya. The grand philosophies constructed on this line, ultimately helps in maintaining the status quo and hegemony of brahminism...Posted by kesav at 10:28 PM I am a dedicated teacher and Researcher who thinks continuosly for the self respect of Dalits and other marginalised communities. View my complete profile

Children belong to a special category of citizens because they cannot protect their own rights

Opinion - Between progress and reluctance Krishna Kumar The Hindu Friday, Aug 24, 2007 Any agenda for educational reform must start by recognising that children belong to a special category of citizens because they cannot protect their own rights. There is no alternative to evolving a child-centred system of governance.

Kusum Nair’s classic, Blossoms in the Dust, which was first published in 1961, provides a benchmark for judging India’s progress. The book describes her travels and conversations with villagers across many regions of India. Her conclusion about the prospects of development in rural India was that modern means of production alone will not succeed unless there is a change in values and attitudes. Her major advice to planners was that they must recognise the sharp diversity of values and perceptions that prevails between and within different regions. Apparently, she hoped that education would play a big role in bringing about social change. This expectation was shared by several social scientists and commentators of the 1960s.

Perceived as a panacea for many familiar ills, education was itself in dire need of reform. Its colonial character had exacerbated the very malaise that it was supposed to cure. For instance, the stigma attached to manual work was at the heart of caste and gender-based hierarchies. The spread of education has undoubtedly helped to develop fissures in these hierarchies, but the outcomes of this significant change are unevenly distributed. Between caste and gender, the latter provides far more visible and pervasive evidence of change than does the former. Educational and employment opportunities have changed the lives of millions of women along lines that had already surfaced in the late colonial period. Women’s autonomy and lack of fear have become increasingly more manifest in our public life, but there is an irony in this. From the early decades of the 20th century onwards, educated women started to face a rough time in seeking social acceptance. Their personal and emotional experiences got tougher as their levels of educational attainment increased. The reason was that while education opened up a new world to women, it failed to socialise men into a new, corresponding mould. Men’s expectations from women remained unchanged, and hence women’s emancipation evoked conflict, aggression, even violence. Looking around, we can witness this state of affairs daily. Searching for the causes responsible for this lopsided impact of education, we would soon realise that what education teaches, its curriculum, has failed to keep pace with the requirements of sensitising society to new realities. On the front of caste, education didn’t even try to change the values reinforcing the caste system. An assumption prevailed that the bonds of caste would on their own, somewhat magically, loosen up as a result of literacy and success in examination.

Neglecting teacher training has further compounded the losses incurred on account of indifferently induced, or entirely absent, curricular changes. Teachers constitute the most important factor in determining the quality of children’s experience at school. Today, millions of children born to illiterate parents are expected to attend school, yielding the exciting potential to nurture a thoughtful and tolerant society of the kind the Constitution envisions. Yet hardly any State is in a position to realise this potential because the welfare and training of teachers have been ignored everywhere. Instead of moving forward, in this sector we have actually regressed. School teachers had played an important role in the national movement, both as individuals and as a professional group. Far from treating them as a national resource for deeper social churning, independent India treated them as a faceless mass of literate workers. The Chattopadhyaya Commission appointed by Indira Gandhi in 1983 noted that “today the average teacher’s perception of his role and responsibility is far too limited and is concerned with his own immediate tasks.” The Commission felt that the teacher must “actively and feelingly associate himself, as an essential and responsible partner, in the great tasks which face the nation.” This recommendation failed to save the school teacher’s status as it declined rapidly over the decade of the 1990s, and continues to do so today. The profession has lost all attraction for the young, due to which only those who fail to materialise all other aspirations accept teaching as a last resort.

A great opportunity was lost when the Constituent Assembly failed to mobilise consensus on making elementary education a fundamental right of every child. That mistake was corrected a few years ago when the Constitution was amended. However, necessary follow-up steps to make the amendment meaningful have not been taken. Given the sad condition of the infrastructure of education in most States (most accurately reflected in the sad physical and academic condition of most State Councils of Educational Research and Training and District Institutes of Education and Trainings), there seems little alternative to Centre-led reforms and a bill passed by Parliament. Those who oppose this assert that the responsibility to pass the necessary legislation and to provide resources lies with the States. Historically, the vague division of educational responsibilities between the Centre and the States has harmed India’s children since colonial days. The lone instrument of Centre-State dialogue on education, namely the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), has no executive authority or powers. As far as our elementary school children are concerned, India continues to be reluctant to own them. The case of pre-school children is worse, for they are not even nominally covered in the constitutional amendment. Even as our rural masses now face the worst ever-crisis of survival, which the Magsaysay award winner P. Sainath has amply described in his regular writings in The Hindu, the wrangling over the bill on right to elementary education and the hesitation to allocate adequate resources for it casts a tragic shadow over the remarkable economic growth rate we have achieved six decades after Independence.

Any agenda for educational reform must start by recognising that children belong to a special category of citizens because they cannot protect their own rights. Children must be warmly hugged by the state in respect of all their needs, namely health and nutrition, safety, security, and education. Significant reforms in governance are required to ensure that the efforts to be made by different departments come together. This is not easy, but there is no alternative to evolving a child-centred system of governance so that India stops wasting its huge human resource potential on account of malnutrition, illiteracy, and child abuse. With widespread low haemoglobin levels and frequent illness, especially among girls, India cannot compete with its neighbours like China and Japan, let alone the Europeans and the Americans. For greater focus and efficiency in the delivery of child-related services, the entrenched Centre-State impasse must be overcome. While no one can deny the Centre’s role in setting policy goals and providing funds for systemic reform, we can hardly overlook the lack of rigour and accountability in the States’ response to policy directions. One glaring evidence is that 40 years after the Kothari Commission wrote its laudable report, even the pattern of stages it recommended has not been implemented in all the States. Adoption of the National Curriculum Framework, 2005, though it has the approval of CABE and has been implemented by CBSE, presents a similar story.

State-level issues of educational governance are ignored by the national media as well as by civil society groups. A vast number of systemic problems simply never get resolved. Territorial disputes between SCERTs and Boards, the isolation of SCERTs and DIETs from universities, and the multiplicity of structures (e.g. the existence of more than one Board in Tamil Nadu) are illustrative instances of the kind of long-standing problems that keep the system stymied. Even small decisions require a mountain of pressure. Consider, for instance, the eligibility of Delhi University’s B.El.Ed. (Bachelor of Elementary Education) degree-holders for the salary scale of a ‘trained graduate teacher’ (TGT). This is the least that Delhi Government could do for a world-class programme of teacher education. Almost a decade has passed since the first batch of remarkable teachers came out of this programme, but the modest honour of a TGT grade still eludes them. Why? Because the word ‘elementary’ has no operative value in the lexicon of scales. If you teach up to Class V, you get the primary teacher’s measly salary; you get a TGT scale if you are qualified to teach up to Class X, not if you stop at Class VIII where the Constitution defines the end of elementary education. Apparently, the Constitution can guide the nation but has little value for those who decide salary scales. (Professor Krishna Kumar is Director of the National Council of Education Research and Training.)

Lilla believes that there is something called "the West." Worse, he thinks that within this alleged "West" there is a "We"

Mon, Aug 20, 2007 3:48pm EST ... and I saw my devil. And I saw my deep blue sea ...

Hi. Siva Vaidhyanathan here...I am a big fan of Lilla's work over the years. That's why I am a bit worried about his forthcoming book, The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West. I have only read the excerpt that ran in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday. But I see already that the book builds on one of the gravest misunderstandings about global cultural history.
Lilla believes that there is something called "the West." Worse, he thinks that within this alleged "West" there is a "We" that conforms to the core tenets of textbook history: "We" were once burdened by superstitions and irrationalities until somehow "we" became enlightened.
Now, I think the enlightenment is a great thing. And I keep waiting for it to show up and triumph here in the United States. I just don't see how one can claim that what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad derides as "liberalism and Western-style democracy" has dominated anywhere for any significant period of time. Heck, this country had a functional democracy (with almost all adult citizens enfranchised and the state generally reflecting the will of the electorate) for a very brief period of time: either from 1965 through 2000 (Voting Rights Act through Bush's unelected takeover) or 1971 through 2000 (starting with the adoption of the 26th Amendment).
Any construction of an intelligible and enlightened "West" must elide all of those messy contradictions within it: Nazism, Francoism (Catholic royalism), Stalinism, radical Serbian nationalism, Jerry Falwell, etc. But mostly, it must ignore the diversity of thought and practice among real people who inhabit "the West." And it must ignore the omnipresence of materialism, secularism, consumerism, rationalism, and even atheism as major traditions in places that could not easily be described as "Western" such as India, Iran, and China.
Basically, East is West. Yet England ain't Ireland ain't Scotland ain't Finland ain't Haiti. There is too much diversity among neighbors for there to be binarity among hemispheres. We willfully misunderstand the world by bifurcating it, as if the entire population of humanity were the subject of some hastily written David Brooks column.
The biggest problem with Lilla's argument is that he assumes that what he calls "political theology" somehow ceased to be a political force in "the West" some time after World War II.
I, for one, am not "puzzled" by cries of theological radicalism from Iran or Saudi Arabia. I have heard them in this country for years. Spend some time in any conservative Baptist church in Texas and you will here the code words, if not the outright proclamations, of political theology. This is not just theologically infused politics like one hears from Barack Obama or Jimmy Carter. This is hard-core millenarianism. And like it or not, it is perhaps the most powerful strain of political thought in the United States today. Catholic versions of it play a role in "Western" places like Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and Mexico. As recently as the multiple campaigns of William Jennings Bryan, political theology dominated the rhetoric of the Democratic Party. And, of course, it is the chosen lens through which George W. Bush views the world. That's why Ahmadinejad reached out to him with a letter. He knew that Bush would "get it."
I don't mean to undermine the claims of political liberalism and liberal theology, both of which have had profound effects from Vienna to Vancouver. But I cringe at claims that immersion in such ideologies somehow blinded us to the limits and weaknesses of their historical influences.
Now, to be fair, Lilla acknowledges the revival of political theology in the West. But he links it most strongly to the growing presence of Islam in Europe.
Look, Islam is not some strange and different thing. To those of us raised outside the three major monotheistic religions of the world, all three pretty much demand the same things from their adherents and predict the same things for pagans, kafir, or whatever you want to call us.
The best way to examine the influence of political theology is to acknowledge its common power within radical Islam, radical Christianity, and radical Judaism. It's there. It killed 3,000 New Yorkers in 2001. But it also blew up a bunch of abortion clinics in the 1990s and assassinated Yitzak Rabin. (Update: There was an attempted bombing in April of an abortion clinic in Austin, Texas. So it's not just the 1990s.)
Enlightenment, or the ability to raise one's political consciousness beyond the provincialism of whatever religious text drives your decisions, is a recent and fragile thing, as Lilla explains very well in his article. But it ain't just a French, German, English, and American thing. A fuller examination of this global struggle would acknowledge that Iran is just as thrown by the recent (1979) emergence of political theology as we are. Persian culture has deep traditions of tolerance and rationalism -- what we would recognize as liberalism. And India was once ruled by enlightened despots like Ashoka and Akbar. India practically invented religious tolerance (although you would not know that to look at it today).
The conflict between political theology and political liberalism is, as Lilla claims, the central conflict of our time. I would add that it is the central conflict of all time. And it ain't just Americans and Europeans who have to deal with it. The front lines of this struggle run through Jakarta, Bombay, Karachi, Cairo, and Lagos. That's where the real story is. permalink

Political theology is highly adaptive and can present to even educated minds a more compelling vision of the future

The Politics of God By MARK LILLA The Times Magazine: August 19, 2007

After centuries of strife, the West has learned to separate religion and politics — to establish the legitimacy of its leaders without referring to divine command. There is little reason to expect that the rest of the world — the Islamic world in particular — will follow.

It is a world in which millions of people, particularly in the Muslim orbit, believe that God has revealed a law governing the whole of human affairs. This belief shapes the politics of important Muslim nations, and it also shapes the attitudes of vast numbers of believers who find themselves living in Western countries — and non-Western democracies like Turkey and Indonesia — founded on the alien principles of the Great Separation. These are the most significant points of friction, internationally and domestically. And we cannot really address them if we do not first recognize the intellectual chasm between us: although it is possible to translate Ahmadinejad’s letter to Bush from Farsi into English, its intellectual assumptions cannot be translated into those of the Great Separation. We can try to learn his language in order to create sensible policies, but agreement on basic principles won’t be possible. And we must learn to live with that.
Similarly, we must somehow find a way to accept the fact that, given the immigration policies Western nations have pursued over the last half-century, they now are hosts to millions of Muslims who have great difficulty fitting into societies that do not recognize any political claims based on their divine revelation. Like Orthodox Jewish law, the Muslim Shariah is meant to cover the whole of life, not some arbitrarily demarcated private sphere, and its legal system has few theological resources for establishing the independence of politics from detailed divine commands. It is an unfortunate situation, but we have made our bed, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Accommodation and mutual respect can help, as can clear rules governing areas of tension, like the status of women, parents’ rights over their children, speech offensive to religious sensibilities, speech inciting violence, standards of dress in public institutions and the like. Western countries have adopted different strategies for coping, some forbidding religious symbols like the head scarf in schools, others permitting them. But we need to recognize that coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle, and that our expectations should remain low. So long as a sizable population believes in the truth of a comprehensive political theology, its full reconciliation with modern liberal democracy cannot be expected.

VII. The Opposite Shore
This is not welcome news. For more than two centuries, promoters of modernization have taken it for granted that science, technology, urbanization and education would eventually “disenchant” the charmed world of believers, and that with time people would either abandon their traditional faiths or transform them in politically anodyne ways. They point to continental Europe, where belief in God has been in steady decline over the last 50 years, and suggest that, with time, Muslims everywhere will undergo a similar transformation. Those predictions may eventually prove right. But Europe’s rapid secularization is historically unique and, as we have just seen, relatively recent. Political theology is highly adaptive and can present to even educated minds a more compelling vision of the future than the prospect of secular modernity. It takes as little for a highly trained medical doctor to fashion a car bomb today as it took for advanced thinkers to fashion biblically inspired justifications of fascist and communist totalitarianism in Weimar Germany. When the urge to connect is strong, passions are high and fantasies are vivid, the trinkets of our modern lives are impotent amulets against political intoxication.

Realizing this, a number of Muslim thinkers around the world have taken to promoting a “liberal” Islam. What they mean is an Islam more adapted to the demands of modern life, kinder in its treatment of women and children, more tolerant of other faiths, more open to dissent. These are brave people who have often suffered for their efforts, in prison or exile, as did their predecessors in the 19th century, of which there were many. But now as then, their efforts have been swept away by deeper theological currents they cannot master and perhaps do not even understand. The history of Protestant and Jewish liberal theology reveals the problem: the more a biblical faith is trimmed to fit the demands of the moment, the fewer reasons it gives believers for holding on to that faith in troubled times, when self-appointed guardians of theological purity offer more radical hope. Worse still, when such a faith is used to bestow theological sanctification on a single form of political life — even an attractive one like liberal democracy — the more it will be seen as collaborating with injustice when that political system fails. The dynamics of political theology seem to dictate that when liberalizing reformers try to conform to the present, they inspire a countervailing and far more passionate longing for redemption in the messianic future. That is what happened in Weimar Germany and is happening again in contemporary Islam.
The complacent liberalism and revolutionary messianism we’ve encountered are not the only theological options. There is another kind of transformation possible in biblical faiths, and that is the renewal of traditional political theology from within. If liberalizers are apologists for religion at the court of modern life, renovators stand firmly within their faith and reinterpret political theology so believers can adapt without feeling themselves to be apostates. Luther and Calvin were renovators in this sense, not liberalizers. They called Christians back to the fundamentals of their faith, but in a way that made it easier, not harder, to enjoy the fruits of temporal existence. They found theological reasons to reject the ideal of celibacy, and its frequent violation by priests, and thus returned the clergy to ordinary family life. They then found theological reasons to reject otherworldly monasticism and the all-too-worldly imperialism of Rome, offering biblical reasons that Christians should be loyal citizens of the state they live in. And they did this, not by speaking the apologetic language of toleration and progress, but by rewriting the language of Christian political theology and demanding that Christians be faithful to it.
Today, a few voices are calling for just this kind of renewal of Islamic political theology. Some, like Khaled Abou El Fadl, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, challenge the authority of today’s puritans, who make categorical judgments based on a literal reading of scattered Koranic verses. In Abou El Fadl’s view, traditional Islamic law can still be applied to present-day situations because it brings a subtle interpretation of the whole text to bear on particular problems in varied circumstances. Others, like the Swiss-born cleric and professor Tariq Ramadan, are public figures whose writings show Western Muslims that their political theology, properly interpreted, offers guidance for living with confidence in their faith and gaining acceptance in what he calls an alien “abode.” To read their works is to be reminded what a risky venture renewal is. It can invite believers to participate more fully and wisely in the political present, as the Protestant Reformation eventually did; it can also foster dreams of returning to a more primitive faith, through violence if necessary, as happened in the Wars of Religion.
Perhaps for this reason, Abou El Fadl and especially Ramadan have become objects of intense and sometimes harsh scrutiny by Western intellectuals. We prefer speaking with the Islamic liberalizers because they share our language: they accept the intellectual presuppositions of the Great Separation and simply want maximum room given for religious and cultural expression. They do not practice political theology. But the prospects of enduring political change through renewal are probably much greater than through liberalization. By speaking from within the community of the faithful, renovators give believers compelling theological reasons for accepting new ways as authentic reinterpretations of the faith. Figures like Abou El Fadl and Ramadan speak a strange tongue, even when promoting changes we find worthy; their reasons are not our reasons. But if we cannot expect mass conversion to the principles of the Great Separation — and we cannot — we had better learn to welcome transformations in Muslim political theology that ease coexistence. The best should not be the enemy of the good.

In the end, though, what happens on the opposite shore will not be up to us. We have little reason to expect societies in the grip of a powerful political theology to follow our unusual path, which was opened up by a unique crisis within Christian civilization. This does not mean that those societies necessarily lack the wherewithal to create a decent and workable political order; it does mean that they will have to find the theological resources within their own traditions to make it happen.
Our challenge is different. We have made a choice that is at once simpler and harder: we have chosen to limit our politics to protecting individuals from the worst harms they can inflict on one another, to securing fundamental liberties and providing for their basic welfare, while leaving their spiritual destinies in their own hands. We have wagered that it is wiser to beware the forces unleashed by the Bible’s messianic promise than to try exploiting them for the public good. We have chosen to keep our politics unilluminated by divine revelation. All we have is our own lucidity, which we must train on a world where faith still inflames the minds of men.

« Previous Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mark Lilla is professor of the humanities at Columbia University. This essay is adapted from his book “The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics and the Modern West,” which will be published next month.

While the Indian Constitution outlawed untouchability and caste discrimination, it did not abolish caste itself

Opinion - Leader Page Articles The caste system — India’s apartheid?
Balakrishnan Rajagopal The Hindu Saturday, Aug 18, 2007
Having taken a principled stand in foreign policy against racial discrimination and apartheid, India should not hide behind a false sense of Third World sovereignty in discussing the real problems of how to effectively end caste discrimination in a complex society.

How to end caste discrimination against Dalits is a profound issue because its roots go to the structural importance of caste for the operation of Indian society and the economy itself. After decades of legislating to end caste discrimination, it is legitimate now to ask: can one end caste discrimination without ending caste itself? If so, what does that imply for policy making and law? Caste discrimination exists because people continue to believe in caste. Indian democracy is, paradoxically, a culprit. By encouraging the formation of democratic participation along the lines of identity, caste is, in fact, reinforced every time India goes to the polls.

The recent electoral gains of the Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh must be seen in the context of this double-edged nature of caste. It may be hard to imagine Indian society and state outside of the system of caste. Even Dalit Christians, Sikhs, and Muslims find that caste discrimination continues to exist after they have acquired different religious identities. Yet caste discrimination against Dalits, in all its forms, is a stain on the idea of a modern India, and needs to be eliminated effectively.

While the Indian Constitution outlawed untouchability and caste discrimination, it did not abolish caste itself. This was realised by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution, who called for the ‘annihilation of caste’ itself. It may be time for the government and society to reorient themselves towards this goal and begin the process of ending India’s system of apartheid. (The writer is Ford International Associate Professor of Law and Development and Director, MIT Program on Human Rights and Justice. He is currently leading a collaborative effort between MIT and Navsarjan, a major Dalit NGO in Gujarat, on the elimination of manual scavenging.) thehindu.com

Rehana Sultana also tried to do the same thing, but she faded out

60 years of Indian independence and Indian female actors
Enkayaar, Bollywood Trade News Network glamsham.com

An innocuous comment of Lara Dutta while appearing in one of the episodes of Koffee with Karan sums up the path that the Indian female actors have traveled during the last sixty years of journey that cinema has undertaken in the country. She said that there is a whole change in approach about picking up the female actors, and glamorous actors are being considered for and roles are being built around their glamour quotient.

Were one to flag the film that really heralded the advent of glamorous female actors in a big way, and established as a norm, then DHOOM would stand out as the film to do so. Never before was the lead film actor shown displaying so much of skin with finesse and brutal confidence as it was done in DHOOM. There after it was the deluge. It was the dance of Tata Young who was shown serenading three hunks in one song that add an element of novelty to the approach towards glamour as it was shown in the Hindi films and after that there was no looking back.

In the earlier era, even just a decade ago, glamour was never associated like hand in glove with the female lead actor as it has become now. If there was to have the quotient of glamour that had to be associated with the female actor, then the easiest way out was to device a double role and one of the roles which would have the element of glamour for the female actor, would most of the times would be with the villains and would never find heroine herself. It was there in WOH KAUN THI, SHARMILEE, and many such films. Otherwise the oomph on the screen was the responsibility of the vamp be it Helen or Bindu. For a short interlude Parveen Babi and Zeenat Aman took the mantle but the affirmed grip on the situation happened with the current crop of the present generation.

Could a heroine portraying a sati savitri image think about asking this from her male co-star, whether he was a virgin, as Preity Zinta did with arrogant confidence in DIL SE or the portrayal of an unwed mother that she did it in KYA KEHNA. There were earlier instances of unwed mothers as it happened in ARADHANA but the female actors were not brazen enough to utter a dialogue that they are having a baby out of the wedlock. So for the female actor, the escape route was founded through announcing to the world that the male and female actors had married and God was the witness. Never was there an acknowledgement earlier that the male colleague had deserted the female colleague.

KYA KEHNA brought this out emphatically and became a source of inspiration for many a women in the country to take the monumental decision of going ahead to bring babies out of the wedlock after being ditched. This film also hammered one more nail into the coffin that the films do not have a message that may give a new meaning to the norms of the society. KYA KEHNA is a milestone as it was the commercial cinema, which was talking about this fact. Art cinema had been doing it, but the wider outreach of commercial cinema made the message go across all over the country. This was manifesting from the fact that the film was accepted allover the same country, and it was a run away hit.

A significant flag on the progress of female actors was DHOOM:2, where the female actor AISHWARYA RAI had so much pride on her physique that she displayed the same with chutzpah, which was one of the first for the industry as a top notch actor was doing the same. It was owing to the glamour quotient of this kind and the ability to stand up to what one was convinced about made Neha Dhupia come back with a rebound to start vying for top slots, after making appearance in bold and glamorous films within a period of three years. This would not have been possible earlier at all; if one were to re-jig the memory the case of Rehana Sultana is an ample testimony to this fact. She also tried to do the same thing, but she faded out into obscurity in just a matter of time.

The icing on the cake on the eve of the sixtieth anniversary is the release of CHAK DE, which is a tribute to women hood and has been a success owing to its contribution towards the spirit of empowerment. More and more such films as they continue to hit the silver screen on a regular basis would give another milestone for the Indian film industry where it to be viewed from the perspective of contribution towards the cause of women of the country. Fifth Quarter Infomedia Pvt. Ltd.

Grammar and syntax used by men and women show disparities

Man and Woman Talk: Grammatical and Syntactical Similarities and Disparities Institutional Papers Asha Kaul ; Nandan Debmalya Published By: IIMA on eSS (6/3/2007) editor@esocialsciences.com

----Abstract----
Multiple research studies on grammar and syntax used by men and women stress disparities stemming from gender specific styles of “talk”. Borrowing from the existing literature, transcripts of 107 employees in an Indian organization were analyzed to study variations, if any, in grammar and syntax across genders at the middle management level. The study was based on an analysis of reported speech of a critical incident of upward influence in the organization. The transcripts were classified into two clusters, viz., male and female. A frequency count for some grammatical and syntactical forms was taken. [W.P. No. 2007-06-03]. Blog Editorials Policy Matters Commentaries Papers Themes Resources Journals Book Reviews Links Editorial Board

To be human means to be called to interpersonal communion

Vox Nova Tuesday, July 17, 2007 Feminism and Catholicism By Morning's Minion

The title is deliberately chosen to be provocative. For what does feminism even mean? At its most basic level, it is refers to equality between the sexes. Hence feminists fight discrimination based on gender and all kinds of inequality -- cultural, political, and economic. In one sense, it is perfectly compatible with revelation, in the sense that God created man and woman as human beings to an equal degree. But in another sense, much of modern feminism is imbued with notions of individualism and determinism. While they define the matter in terms of power structures, Christians turn this on its head and define it in terms of service. And yet I would still argue that true, authentic feminism is fully in accord with Catholicism. Women are indeed equal! There is no better, and no fuller treatment of Church teaching on this matter than servant of God Pope John Paul's Mulieris Dignitatem, which is now almost nineteen years old.

The fundamental truth is laid down in Genesis. Both men and women are persons, because they are created in the image and likeness of God, the only creatures willed for their own sake. As John Paul says, the woman is "another "I" in a common humanity". Moreover, human beings cannot exist alone, only as the "unity of the two", implying a mutual relationship between man and woman: "To be human means to be called to interpersonal communion". In this sense, man and woman "are called to live in a communion of love, and in this way to mirror in the world the communion of love that is in God through which the Three Persons love each other in the intimate mystery of the one divine life". John Paul then notes that when Genesis talks of woman being created as a helper, this is in effect mutual help between man and woman. This refers to marriage in the first instance, but it also goes beyond marriage. Equality in marriage is defined in terms of service, whereby the husband and wife each offer a "sincere gift of self" to the other. Of course, equality does not mean that masculinity and femininity simply merge. While man and woman are fully equal, they remain different. But while distinct, they "complete and explain each other."

Original sin affects both man and woman. As a consequence of sin, the woman is addressed in the following terms: " Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." As John Paul notes, this is a sundering of the "unity of the two", and the consequences are especially stark for the woman given that this new-found "dominion" involves a "disturbance and loss of stability of that fundamental equality which the man and the woman possess in the unity of the two.." What was supposed to be equality became inequality as a consequence of sin. Again, this refers not only to marriage but to all spheres of social life where women face disadvantage and discrimination on account of their gender.

This equality between man and woman can be found in revelation, even if cultural factors obscured the true radical nature of this vision. And just as Christ fulfilled the old law, so was his approach to women remarkable at the time. His recognition of the inherent dignity of women in what remained a patriarchal culture raised more than a few eyebrows, and even provoked an element of scandal. Jesus was particularly adamant about the various elements of the tradition that discriminated against women, or (as in adultery laws) the "habitual discrimination against women in favor of men."

No passages in scripture are misinterpreted more than St. Paul's admonitions to husbands and wives in Ephesians. St. Paul develops the spousal theme in Genesis, the unity of the two, and likens the love between man and woman to the mystery of Christ and the Church, where Christ is the Bridegroom. Addressing husbands and wives, St. Paul calls them to "be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ." This again is the mutual self-giving, which defines our very personhood.

St. Paul then calls on husbands to love their wives, and for wives to "be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body. As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything." This has been taken to mean, by many fundamentalists today (and many Catholics in the past), that women should accept the headship of the husbands with submission. But this is exactly the kind of one-way "power relationship" that reflects the effects of sin in the world, not redemption. Instead, as John Paul is swift to note; "whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual... [T]he challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption is clear and definitive. All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ."

This teaching, although firmly a part of revelation, took a long time to sink in! It is certainly true that the approach of the early Church to women was remarkably liberating. Just remember the culture of the Roman empire where the pater familias literally possessed the power of life and death over his wife and children -- how far this is from the "unity of the two"! Even today, some of the sickness from this culture lives on, and we hear horror stories of "honor killings". From the beginning, the Church defended a daughter’s right to refuse to marry whoever the father chose. Initially, her exercise of that "right" was restricted to her choosing a virginal life consecrated to God, but gradually, the Church acknowledged a broader freedom. The Church needs to constantly sift through the deposit of faith and figure out what is true, and what is merely cultural. This takes time, and our journey is most certainly not complete. It is not even clear that St. Paul realized the full implications of Christ's message. Here is how John Paul puts it:

The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", and not just that of the wife to the husband, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew.

He makes a direct comparison to slavery. Just as St. Paul noted that in Christ there is no more man or woman, he also noted that there is no more slave or free man. John Paul comments: "Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?" There are Catholics today (and you know who you are) who argue that, just because the Church accepted the use of practices like torture in the past, so should Catholics not reject them automatically today. These people would do well to ponder the pope's words!

In conclusion, John Paul gives thanks for women: mothers, sisters, wives, women consecrated to virginity, women who watch over the family as well as women to work professionally and may be burdened with great social responsibility... in short, for all women, no matter their vocation! This is true "feminism", Catholic "feminism". Posted by Morning's Minion at 4:44 PM Labels: Feminism, Morning's Minion

80 per cent of Christians in North India are 'Dalits'

I am saddened that he [Rev Thampu] has been chosen to carry out an agenda that can only reduce St Stephen's College to rank mediocrity. I have no quarrels with 30 per cent Christian reservation. But why wasn't the so-called Dalit Christian quota carved out of that? Bishop Karam Masih says 80 per cent of Christians in North India are 'Dalits'. If so, they should have bagged the bulk of the seats reserved for the community. Obviously that did not happen. So, 40 per cent seats have now being earmarked for one religious community, and another 15 per cent for non-Christian SC/ST/OBCs. But, why only 15 per cent? SC/STs have a 22.7 per cent quota nationally and Arjun Singh wants to block another 27 per cent for Dalits. Christian plus other Depressed Classes would then take reservations to 90 per cent. Add to that five per cent sports and disabled. That totals 95 per cent. Sorry to see St Stephen's go down this slippery slope. A great national institution is hurtling inexorably towards its doom. I can only pray its reputation rests in peace. Amen. dailypioneer.com/Chandan Mitra Daily Pioneer, India - 16 Jun 2007

Brahmins prefer cricket because they don't like others touching them

Sify Home >> News & Info >> News >> Fullstory >> Column

Why do Brahmins prefer cricket? Pramod Navalkar

After reading an article in a leading English magazine, I realised the extent of its reach. The writer, in his article in a World Cup special issue, discusses the castes of our players.

He claims that Brahmins have dominated Indian cricket over the last 30-35 years, and that they keep others away. He offers statistics to prove his claim and points out that there were seven Brahmins in the '70s team, five in 1983 team, eight in 1997, eight again in 2000, four in 2002 and six in the current World Cup team. He has made some outrageous remarks in the article, insisting that Brahmins prefer cricket - no football or hockey for them - because the latter two are contact games and Brahmins don't like others touching them. Also (he claims), in cricket, one need not have a strong physique. He says that Brahmins dominated this game as it was purely urban and he mentions Ganguly and Tendulkar as examples.

No Dalit cricketer could play in the 20th century except Balu Palwankar, and he,too, couldn't play Test cricket. He further claims that other castes, including the Sikhs, Jats and Backward Castes are forced to play hockey and football. These comments are not only outrageous, they are objectionable. So far, our sports have never witnessed such a casteist mindset.

Our cricket administrators were accused of everything but this. There have been allegations of regional bias, but never that of casteism. If we allow this poison to spread, we may have to select all our sportsmen on the basis of their castes, and not on merit. The government must take action now, or the caste controversy is likely to spill over into the space-age.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14488149

Indo-Persian Mithraism is not the same as that of Rome

When the Mothership Lands: Secrets of the CIA’s Psi-Plasma Vortex
By Drew Hempel, MA Anti-Copyright Fall, 2007

Chapter Ten: The Perimeter of Patriarchy: Science as Mass Ritual Sacrifice

The term conspiracy comes from the Latin word conspirare used to describe the medieval ritual of secretly breathing together to bond the community to the land, as detailed recently by Ivan Illich. The root of conspirare is spiro meaning spiral and with the prefix “con” the word conspiracy is the structure of “spiral unity,” as emphasized by the philosopher F.W. Schelling. Freemasonic conspiracy is therefore not dependent on secret groups of elite individuals doing satanic rituals, although this does occur. Freemasonic conspiracy is actually a structural “spiral unity” drive based in the resonating torque of the Sun, Moon and Earth.

Freemasonry evolved from the Solar Dynasties of the ancient city-states in the Fertile Crescent or the Levant—meaning literally “Sun Riser.” The amazing independent scholar, Acharya S., author of The Christ Conspiracy, gives a detailed analysis of the ancient struggle between matrifocal, lunar-based cultures and patriarchal, war-mongering Freemasonic Solar empires. For example in “Mithra, Light of the World” a chapter of her latest book Suns of God Acharya S. connects the ancient city-states to the later Freemasonic Roman empire:

“As noted, because Mithraic art of the Persians and Indians does not depict Mithra with the Bull, it is claimed that Indo-Persian Mithraism is not the same as that of Rome. In reality, the bull was sacred to the sun god and was an early solar symbol because of its connection to agriculture, in drawing the plough, which is why the time of planting is called ‘Taurus’ and is represented by the bull. In actuality, the solar-bull motif is found in very ancient cultures, including the Sumerian, upon whose seal is depicted the flaming ‘Bull of Heaven,’ representing the sun’s ‘fierce aspect.’”

For an academic argument of the same ancient Solar Dynasty global imperialism see professor Rodney Needham’s book Right and Left: Essays on dual symbolic classification, edited by and with introduction by anthropology professor Rodney Needham, forward by E.E. Evans-Pritchard (University of Chicago Press, 1973).

Ever since humans created a “symbolic revolution” to contain infinity by the Freemasonic foundation ritual of squaring the circle—traced back to 9,000 B.C.E. in the Cambridge University Press 2000 book The Birth of the Gods and the origins of agriculture by archaeologist Jacques Cauvin—there has been an increasing patriarchal war-mongering drive against the Lunar matrifocal water-earth energy. This global structural imbalance is based on the repression of what’s called in Indian Vedic yogic philosophy “the Golden Womb”—the nonlocal consciousness of the fourth dimension of space that can never be symbolized.

Just like a spring being increasingly strained as its twisted in one direction, the fourth dimension of space that is the Eternal Feminine consciousness is now returning full-force in the opposite, left-hand, right-brain direction through the paradoxes of the what’s called in science “the three body problem”—the nonlinear macroquantum chaos of the Moon-Sun-Earth harmonics. As I will be detailing, the Moon-Earth water torque resonance of the Freemasonic mathematical right-hand, left-brain spiral is, with apocalyptic force, springing back against modern science. I call this the conspiracy of the natural resonance revolution. Posted by Great Galactic Ghoul at 9:40 AM

http://mothershiplanding.blogspot.com/2007/07/when-mothership-lands.html

Cosmic Mother worship: the secret worship of ferro-magnetic meteorites

Today’s popular political cultures are dominated by two trends: The run away best-selling success of the Da Vinci Code and the fear-driven tactics of Jihad Terrorism. These two seemingly unrelated topics are connected by the secret worship of ferro-magnetic meteorites. The Da Vinci Code argues that western civilization is really ruled by a Cosmic Mother worship and this is backed up by the Roman Empire transmitting the Black Stone Meteorite of Cybele worship from Anatolia to Europe. Cybele, the dominant goddess of Asia Minor, was represented by Athena, Diana, and Holy Mary in the West but all of these goddesses were also associated with a very strong worship of ISIS in the West, the Egyptian Cosmic Mother. ISIS worship and magic revolved around the power of meteorites and the center of the Islam worship at Mecca also is based on a “black stone” meteorite.

Physics professor Lee Smolin argues that only spiral-based vortex galaxies can evolve organic life. In fact science has proven that the evolution of humans is so strongly against chance that there is a design of consciousness to the universe (i.e. Biocosm rated a top-ten 2003 science book by Discover magazine and several top researchers). Only the concept of resonance properly bridges the role of consciousness as a scientific substrate of reality and chance as the product of statistically predictable interference waves in quantum mechanics. This disturbing debate between design and evolution is why physicist professor Arnold Pacey in his book, Meaning in Technology (M.I.T. Press, 1999) argues that music is the best model for a proper application of science to society.

http://mothershiplanding.blogspot.com/2007/07/when-mothership-lands.html

How gender has been conceptualized in different spiritual traditions

Gender, sexuality, and spirituality:

I’m passionately interested in looking at how human conceptions of gender, sex and sexuality have evolved since the dawn of humanity, both in our spiritual traditions and in our scientific research. Ken Wilber, Joyce McCarl Nielsen, Riane Eisler, and many others, have done some excellent work in this regard already, but I want to approach it specifically from the point of view of Sri Aurobindo’s and the Mother’s idea of Supramentalisation: the integration and transcendence of all dualities on all planes of Reality, right down to the physical and most mundane plane.

Moreover I want to concentrate on how gender has been conceptualized in different spiritual traditions. The typical conception is that women are the embodiment of the feminine principle of creation whereas men are the embodiment of the masculine principle, but as the Mother stated clearly, and as my own research is indicating, no spiritual tradition has ever really been that clear-cut. Moreover, what is meant by the terms “masculine” and “feminine” is often different in different traditions (for instance, in Sri Aurobindo’s mythos, the “feminine” principle refers to the active principle, the executrix, not a passive or inactive principle), and additionally, the archetypal notions of the masculine and feminine as cosmic principles mean very different things as compared to the watered-down patriarchal gender stereotypes we see in many cultures today. So there is a lot of unpacking that needs to be done here, and once again, I’d like to see if an annotated bibliography can be put up on the Internet about this. Posted by ned on July 8, 2007. Filed under Notes and Speculations. the stumbling mystic God shall grow up . . . while the wise men talk and sleep. http://naqsh.org/ned/?p=267

Frankly even the term "feminism" seems divisive to me

Re: Simplification and Divine Rights within Gender Roles? ned Thu, June 21, 2007 - 4:02 PM

I agree completely with your assessment of David Deida. I'm not interested in his work, but am just reading him as part of my own research. I fail to see what Deida's writings have to do with transcendence or spiritual enlightenment, which is all about transcending roles and dualities, not reinforcing them. Every genuine spiritual teacher tells us that the soul has no sex, race, nationality, etc. etc. The soul encompasses both the masculine and the feminine principle and thus each individual always has both aspects, unless they repress one of them (Jung's anima/animus concept comes to mind here).

I myself am a student of the Indian philosopher-sage Sri Aurobindo Ghose and the French occultist-mystic Mirra Alfassa -- read their writings for some common sense teachings on gender, i.e. that instead of trying to be a "real man" or a "real woman", we should just focus on being individuals and unique instruments of the Divine. As a woman, I am amazed at times when I see women buying into this "men are from Mars, women are from Venus" nonsense.

I'm very comfortable with masculine and feminine sides of my nature, dominant and submissive, aggressive and passive, grasping and ungrasping, strong and weak, etc. So playing one over the other with such fervor and consistency that it becomes a lifestyle or something just seems like monotony, and it totally kills real spontaneity. It may satisfy impulses and roles, but real spontaneity (the intuitive, non-reactive kind) is about resonance and compatibility, and just has nothing to do with such planned out forms like traditional gender roles or BDSM.

I think that apart from Jungian notions of the "opposites within", Transactional Analysis also has a lot to offer on this subject. People projecting one part of themselves onto others because it either feels like a taboo thing for you to indulge in it yourself, or because it's taboo for you to identify purely as its opposite while letting the other person play a role you are tired of.

As far as gender goes, we need to not be in denial of the masculine/feminine duality that exists in this divided universe, while also not resigning ourselves to it and considering it eternal or final. Frankly even the term "feminism" seems divisive to me. It implies that this is some reality that is necessarily separate from masculinism. It doesn't point out integrations, it points out an alternative to masculinism that is merely an opposite. Half the time it's just a disguise for women acknowledging their masculine half and then glorifying it, even while complaining about it in men. It's terribly disjointed.

Gender issues are peppered with that kind of dualism, because people feel overly concerned about identifying with a particular gender, or overly concerned with NOT identifying with a particular gender, etc. Either way, people look at gender as a limiting, oppressive force rather than something they will naturally identify with one moment and not the next. People give it power by emphasizing either its presence or absence, it's power or lack of power. Because either way, they're still talking about it like a stark reality. What we really need to do is to find the center within where all these oppositions and dualities are alchemically transmuted. *That's* transcendence, and David Deida does not discuss this at all.

Deida's teachings pertain to what Sri Aurobindo calls the "vital being" -- the seat of desire, the will to power, the desire to possess and be possessed. Now some people may need that sort of thing, and I never interfere with people's lives or tell them what to do. But really this has nothing to do with soul-level resonance, harmony and love, or with transcendence. The truth is that nobody can complete anybody. Marriage merely helps us recognize the wholeness that is already there within -- it does not and cannot "create" wholeness.

The soul that can learn to live totally alone with itself will meet God, and that is the route to true intimacy -- when you can see everyone else within the Divine and relate to them on that level. As long as we keep building up vitalistic attachments, trying to possess others and be possessed by them -- which is all that Deida's sexology is about, I'm afraid -- we'll never truly become enlightened. ned links related to "My Own Private Patriarchy - David Deida" David Deida

Patriarchal nonsense packaged as New Age spiritual insight

Sri Aurobindo and the Mother would say that most of the teachings found in the “New Age” spiritual supermarket pertain to the vital being, not the psychic being (the personal evolving soul in their model of human psychology). The vital being represents the seat of desire, the will to power, and the need to possess others and be possessed by them. There are purer vital planes as well, of course, but for most people the vital represents a rather crude will to power. One of the best examples of this is New Age neo-Tantra, which honestly has very little to do with real Tantra, the transmutation of the sex drive, the bypassing of the sexual orgasm, and transcendence. (Georg Feuerstein has written this excellent article comparing the actual Tantric tradition with the New Age presentation of it.)

The discussion on Open Integral lately has been on sexuality, and David Deida’s name came up, a sexologist connected with Ken Wilber’s Integral Institute (and endorsed by Wilber). From my brief look at Deida’s work, I’ve found that he essentially promotes very obnoxious patriarchal gender stereotypes. It is the same sort of thing encouraged by fundamentalist religious groups, only presented in a more gentle way, and with more skill, rhetoric and oration. All in all, Deida’s sexology looks to me like a formula for vitalistic attachments, and does not seem to address concepts like the transcendence of sexual desire, the transmutation of dualities, the development of the soul, or intimacy with the Divine...

This only reminds me of the authoritarian, patriarchal fundamentalist Islam that I grew out of, and of dominant/submissive relationships in BDSM culture. How are such binary conceptions and rigid roles really liberating? How is Deida not just another representation of the same trite “men are from Mars, women are from Venus” patriarchal nonsense all over again, packaged as New Age spiritual insight? Doesn’t the exaggerated construction of roles create unnatural and unhealthy vitalistic co-dependencies, and prevent people from fully self-actualizing? What sort of caricatures does David Deida want human beings to be?

Personally, I find that Deida asserts and promotes binary gender roles in a way that gives a decided advantage and leadership role to men. It is indicative of the same traditional perspective: he for God, and she for God in him. The practical application of his teachings would only allow men to dole out pleasure, and to give women more flattery and orgasms at the cost of reason and individual will. He strikes me as a more benevolent version of Julius Evola, the right-wing Traditionalist, in his presentation of a woman’s place in the cosmos as being primarily decorative. In making it seem like men have a mission to fulfill and women are just porcelain dolls, Deida and others like him are just promoting male supremacy, accepting masculine hierarchy as an intrinsic part of the cosmos, and constructing a notion of “benevolent patriarchy” on that basis.

Perhaps “real men” just ignore such idle contentions and “real women” don’t worry their pretty little heads about them. I wonder. Posted by ned on June 22, 2007. Filed under Sexuality, Gender. the stumbling mystic God shall grow up . . . while the wise men talk and sleep. Spiritual Sexism?

Cultural and moral ’selectivism’

The main issue here is a romanticisation of Aboriginal culture. Aboriginal people will not admit that pre-pubescent girls were married to old men and they were free to have sex with children. And that Aboriginal sexuality was not about love and caring but was based on male authority, in other words it was effectively rape. The reality is that children were abused by modern Western standards, not just sexually, but in other ways as well. Infanticide was common and one method was simply to neglect the child. Children could also be killed if they were accused of sorcery, etc...This entry was posted on Friday, June 22nd, 2007 at 8:40 pm and is filed under Ray's Integral Blog.

ray harris Says: June 22nd, 2007 at 8:46 pm I’m beginning to think that cultural and moral relativism is a misnomer, it is really cultural and moral ’selectivism’, where relativism is used to justify an ideological prejudice by permitting the ’selection’ of good and bad. For example there is a modern revisionist Aboriginal ideology that ignores the cruelty of traditional Aboriginal culture.

There are different types of touches, some holy, some evil

JN1034 "Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said, You are gods?"
Friday, June 22, 2007 The Mystery of Touch and “No Physical Contact” Rules: Tactile Intolerance and Discrimination against Christianity

“The context of the activity determines what is moral,not some absolute standard that is superimposedon a moral discussion from the outset.” St Athanasios, Patriarch of Alexandria, 293-373 CE

When news got out regarding a public school issuing “No Physical Contact” laws for its students, should we Christians take umbrage at this? Oh, yes, with a vengeance. On one hand, this rule bans handshakes, hugs, high-fives, patting a friend on the back, all physical contact. On the other, such a regulation is a direct violation of Christianity’s universal right to be free of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. For us, touch is a direct, essential command of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Could it be that this school is harming the intellectual, physical, and social development of their student body by banning physical contact? Are they projecting their own adult behaviour, at its lowest potential, onto their lil’ones?If children are taught that any type of physical human contact is bad (or sinful and unholy), unlawful, inappropriate, and unnecessary, then they’re being instructed simultaneously that intellectual touching is corrupt and must be avoided, and that spiritual-social touches are immoral and destructive as well.

What this may produce is a generation of insular adults disconnected from interpersonal relationships of love — adults pandering to idiosyncratic, concealed (perhaps illegal) touches — self-contained adults within a vacuum void of a sense of family or community — a gathering of shielded people — men afraid to touch or be touched by men — women apprehensive of each other's physical proximities — adults made neurotic about whether they should embrace and warm children, help a stranger, hold a beloved one in public. All these are antithetical to the Gospel of Christ and the Holy Orthodox Church. Christianity affirms touch as intrinsically good, sinless, holy, lawful, appropriate, and necessary for theosis, for salvation, and for our present state of complete health — mentally, physically, and socially (cf. World Health Organization).

Students should be taught about the appropriate parameters of social touching, about the pleasures of reserved intimate touching, and the Mystery of Touch, which our Church upholds as a Holy Sacrament. This school’s “No Physical Contact” mandate imposes intolerance and discrimination against the essence of Christianity (let it be noted that many religious and spiritual traditions elevate physical contact and touch to the sacred). If schools were to engage themselves in teaching about the spectrum of human touches, inappropriate and justified, evil and illegal, necessary and sacred, none would produce an edict without substance as this middle school has.Imagine a Christ who never touched the blind, the disabled, the dead. A Jesus who never washed the feet of The Twelve. Could she have been the Mother of God who only touched her own child but never embraced others? What crime against humanity would this “No Physical Contact” ruling have been to Mother Teresa if she couldn’t have held the dying in her arms as they passed into eternal sleep, or caressed the diseased, or hand-fed the weak? The context of touch defines its content. But this public school has it reversed: They presume the substance will prevent the circumstance.

Our Church would never sanction such a public directive as “No Physical Touching.” Our Orthodox Tradition is etched like deep wrinkles on the palm by the Mystery of Touch, from immersing infants for Baptism to joining hands at a Betrothal, from the laying on of hands for healing to that of ordination into the Holy Priesthood, and so much more.Touch is the God-instituted conduit for the Holy Spirit to enter and dwell within a human ontologically, and for the members of the Church to know each other through tactile Apostolic Succession.

Already some obsessive-compulsive Sola Scriptura neurotics and Biblical psychopaths are quoting Scripture (out of context, as is their boring, repetitive tendency) with no reference to or reverence for Holy Tradition. They're referring to “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it’s good for you that one of your parts should die, and not that your whole flesh be cast into hell” (Mt 5:30) to justify the "No Physical Contact" mandate. Heretical vomitus like this must be acted against by the Orthodox Church.

Are some of us Christians so lost and brainless to miss the sarcasm of Jesus in the quotation above? Jesus made people whole. What evil hearts find comfort and take pleasure in the mutilation of the flesh? Anyone familiar with The Rudder (Πεδαλιον), "The 85 Canons of the Holy Apostles," the text of Orthodox Canon Law, knows that mutilation of the flesh (self-imposed or at the request of the hands of others) warrants anathema and excommunication (Canons 22-24). Why did they decree these harsh penalties? Because the flesh is holy.

Yes, there are different types of touches, some holy, some evil. Judas used the sacred touch of a kiss to his own benefit. Until we articulate the sacred nature of touch, we ourselves remain untouched. And to be untouched is to be unknown. But touch can be scary.Touch makes us accountable for relationships of intimacy and vulnerability, of empowerment and strengthening, of complete health and mind-flesh-heart healing.

Touch heals. Touch harms. Intimate contact is a double-edged sword we wield with both hands at the expense of our moods and our insecurities. Touch exposes one's relationship aptitude. New medical studies validate the physiological healing properties of touch, in particular, of holding hands (ref. Coan, James A, et al. "Lending a Hand: Social Regulation of the Neural Response to Threat." Psychological Science. Dec 2006; vol 17 [12]: 1032-39).

What a sad state of affairs when humans are reduced to faux-intimacy via distant waves, impersonal nods of heads, and other non-contact physical gestures. Would we prefer an instant text message over another's human caress? Or opt for a voicemail message rather than a tickle? More base, would we rather others don't even get within a three-foot radius of our personal no-fly zones?"Interpersonal touch" seems to have been reduced to either sterile public conditions or dehumanizing ways that simulate touch by neutered social mores. Who are the pathological ones driving touch to politically-correct curbsides? Oxymoron, yes … impersonal touch? Why would any one want disconnections and disorders of the mind-flesh-heart? The answers: Self-phobia, and fears of intimacy and responsibility in mature relationships. Only infantile adults and psychopaths prefer distance sustaining their lives of inhumanity.

The flesh is sacred. It was the flesh that Christ took on and sanctified and rose from the dead with. It is the flesh that God entered, considered holy, and become one essence with. Orthodoxy venerates the divine nature of intact human flesh as an essential, unalterable principle of the Christian Faith.Touch is good. Touch is holy. Touch is the tangible continuum of the human heart throughout history. Ours is a God of touch.

"Numberless touches are in nature, both organic and inorganic; and by all of them some changes in nature are produced. The touch may not only be the touch-sense (surface, skin), but also by smell, look, even by the mere presence of things and persons.” St Nikolaj Velimirović, Bishop of Žiča, The Mystery of Touch. Through the hands of JN1034 @ 6/22/2007

A split between matriarchal and patriarchal mytho-religious complexes

This entry was posted on Monday, June 18th, 2007 at 1:24 am and is filed under Ray's Integral Blog. 4 Responses to “The goddess Yellama-Renuka”

Edward Berge Says: June 18th, 2007 at 8:31 am All of which adds to my point that “Tantra has its roots in pre-Aryan goddess religion.” The “freedom” from latter sexual repression is not so much from a rational, liberatory framework as from a worldview much closer to nature and sex but pre the differentations and integrations that make for “equal rights.”

ray harris Says: June 19th, 2007 at 12:58 am Hi Edward, Yes, magic-mythic, and in this matrix there seems to have been a split between matriarchal and patriarchal mytho-religious complexes, with the matriarchal placing an emphasis on fertility and sex magic. More on this later.

ray harris Says: June 19th, 2007 at 1:03 am Btw Edward, I agree that we can loose the magic-mythic stuff. My point is that the rational and integral stage becomes sex positive because sex negative morality itself based on irrationality and myth. It was once thought that masturbation would cause all sorts of ailments, but we now know masturbation is harmless. The same irrationality applies to homosexuality, nudity, etc…

ray harris Says: June 19th, 2007 at 12:55 am Hi Goethean, I don’t mean to suggest it is B&W at all. Re the Aryan invasion. The reason that it is thought that the Aryans migrated was because of their influence outside India, notably Iran. If the Aryans were indigenous to India then how to explain Iran and the linguistic links to European languages, as well as the existance of Dravidian languages in the south of India?