wordpress.com seems to have a better interface for my lots-of-links posts.
please update : http://wordlimitreached.wordpress.com/
importing was a breeze!
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Whence the Social Sciences ? - 4: Sociology
Long time, yes, but I have not reneged on my promise to write something every week. Rather, writing has taken place in a different place. You can take a look at the appendix in this to find a more balanced argument regarding Utilitarianism in Economics, if you are inclined to actually to know something as esoteric. I was torn between writing this post or the factors for the rise of capitalism from my latest, exquisite reading, and finally settled down to write this, after keeping it in the pipeline for more than two weeks. Also, you will soon find Microeconomics notes appearing in 'different place', after reading all what Economics is not, thought it was time to read what it actually is. Warning, though, basic calculus required, the textbook I'm using is somewhat math-intensive. Macroeconomics, while probably more interesting for the stock market savant, will have to wait. Now, back.
Sociology has had an interesting life. Like the tussle between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism in the sibling discipline, sociology too has had its differences, notably between the liberal schools of the French and English and the German Romantics. (one thing though: the schools in economics agreed over the fact that unconstrained industrialization was the only way up, with the fight being as to who controls the means of production, i.e, the factories, whereas in sociology the divide was more fundamental, like what should sociology study)
The French and the English thinkers, notably Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim, were highly influenced by the Enlightenment, and sought to bring in scientific method into sociology. The Germans, notably Georg Simmel and Max Weber, strove to put the pre-eminence of Man in the study of sociology, i.e, society must be studied as a collection of individuals in relation to others. The west Europeans considered society to be an entity that existed independently from humans, and which followed it's own logic. The dialectic between these lines of thought has definitely left sociology a much richer subject.
Coming to the liberals, they sought to use the scientific method to discover the laws that govern the functioning of society, which was considered to be an extra-human entity, imposing it's will onto us poor humans. By this, they hopes, they could 'enlighten' the masses about the fact that 'Resistance is Futile', to quote a famous quote. Comte made it very clear that spirit of enquiry and free will are illusions and once people learn the laws of society, they will necessarily get rid of such notions, since trying to go against the laws of society would be equivalent to banging one's head against a brick wall. Needless to say, the others were not as militant in their views. Spencer used Darwinian notions of evolution (slightly before Darwin propounded them) to assert that society was the 'survival of the fittest'. This theory was a great hit in the United States, where Spencer became the patron saint of the cult of 'anything goes in love, war and business', who readily identified with what seemed to perfectly describe their society in the 19th century.
Durkheim stated that society was sui generis, and society could not be said to consist of individuals. However, sociology benefited by the stress on empiricism that the scientific method brought in, especially by Durkheim (who is considered the founder of modern sociology).
The Germans, influenced as much by Romanticism as by the Enlightenment, tended to stress on the individual more than the society, and how people influenced and were influenced by the set of all people. Though they developed generalizations as well, they were not all encompassing, everything-explaining theories, but were more of the form of a characterisation of the certain types of people or structures of groups of people that were encountered. Weber's methodology was very influential, and his influence continues to this day. The main contribution of these people was to stop the megalomania of people like Comte from seeping into what was supposed to be a objective scientific enquiry and set certain limits as to what sociology was meant to be.
Overall, if the Enlightenment removed Earth from the centre of the Universe, the sociology almost succeeded in putting Man in its centre.
Sociology has had an interesting life. Like the tussle between Capitalism and Socialism/Communism in the sibling discipline, sociology too has had its differences, notably between the liberal schools of the French and English and the German Romantics. (one thing though: the schools in economics agreed over the fact that unconstrained industrialization was the only way up, with the fight being as to who controls the means of production, i.e, the factories, whereas in sociology the divide was more fundamental, like what should sociology study)
The French and the English thinkers, notably Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim, were highly influenced by the Enlightenment, and sought to bring in scientific method into sociology. The Germans, notably Georg Simmel and Max Weber, strove to put the pre-eminence of Man in the study of sociology, i.e, society must be studied as a collection of individuals in relation to others. The west Europeans considered society to be an entity that existed independently from humans, and which followed it's own logic. The dialectic between these lines of thought has definitely left sociology a much richer subject.
Coming to the liberals, they sought to use the scientific method to discover the laws that govern the functioning of society, which was considered to be an extra-human entity, imposing it's will onto us poor humans. By this, they hopes, they could 'enlighten' the masses about the fact that 'Resistance is Futile', to quote a famous quote. Comte made it very clear that spirit of enquiry and free will are illusions and once people learn the laws of society, they will necessarily get rid of such notions, since trying to go against the laws of society would be equivalent to banging one's head against a brick wall. Needless to say, the others were not as militant in their views. Spencer used Darwinian notions of evolution (slightly before Darwin propounded them) to assert that society was the 'survival of the fittest'. This theory was a great hit in the United States, where Spencer became the patron saint of the cult of 'anything goes in love, war and business', who readily identified with what seemed to perfectly describe their society in the 19th century.
Durkheim stated that society was sui generis, and society could not be said to consist of individuals. However, sociology benefited by the stress on empiricism that the scientific method brought in, especially by Durkheim (who is considered the founder of modern sociology).
The Germans, influenced as much by Romanticism as by the Enlightenment, tended to stress on the individual more than the society, and how people influenced and were influenced by the set of all people. Though they developed generalizations as well, they were not all encompassing, everything-explaining theories, but were more of the form of a characterisation of the certain types of people or structures of groups of people that were encountered. Weber's methodology was very influential, and his influence continues to this day. The main contribution of these people was to stop the megalomania of people like Comte from seeping into what was supposed to be a objective scientific enquiry and set certain limits as to what sociology was meant to be.
Overall, if the Enlightenment removed Earth from the centre of the Universe, the sociology almost succeeded in putting Man in its centre.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Review : Religion and Society among the Coorgs in South India
This book is written by one of the foremost social anthropologists in the world during his time, M. N. Srinivas as a Ph.D thesis. Working with the golden generation of anthropology in Britain during the 1940s, he readied the thesis for publication, under the influence of distinguished anthropologists, tracing a lineage back to Emile Durkheim.
As is probably expected of a person under Durkheim's considerable influence, Srinivas is preoccupied with the question of social structure, and how culture, which is the subject matter of anthropology, either affirms or is used to note the change of a person's place in the extant social structure. The Durkheimian concept of 'functional analysis' or the study of the functions of human behavior in preserving the social structure resonates throughout the book. However one may disagree with the conclusions drawn by Srinivas, the book provides a pretty thorough picture of an interesting people around the 1940s.
Srinivas' analysis of the social structure of India mainly focuses on the caste system, and certain vertical (i.e, geographically local) organisations, such as the village, family and nad, which is a cluster of villages. Certain ties between people, such as those of caste, tend to emphasize horizontal or geographically widespread relations whereas some others, like those which arise due to division of labor, tend to emphasize vertical relations.
Most of the book concentrates on the various rituals and customs and festivals of the Coorgs, and the role they and other castes play in them. He brings about an interesting correlation between the various customs and rituals, and how they emphasize and tend to preserve the social structure. For example, if a person dies, the mourning period for the relatives increases with increase in intimacy of the relationship shared with the deceased, formalizing what is a purely social bond into a custom or ritual.
People who know Kodavas will inevitably know their clannish behavior, especially with regards to their family (i.e, all sharing a surname). Srinivas spends a lot of time describing the structure and customs within a Coorg joint family, which is the strongest unit of organisation in the Coorg society, far more than any other kind. It is so strong, that a person without a family name (such as a child born out of wedlock) is as good as extinct. Therefore, family members usually try to place an illegitimate child in either parents' family.
The major theoritical contribution that this work makes to Indian anthropology is the concept of Sanskritisation, which is essentially the way outlying tribes and communities get absorbed into mainline Hinduism, which he calls Sanskritic Hinduism. He describes how the puranas have contributed to the inclusion of various local myths and folklore into the mainstream of Hinduism, performing has a dual function : regionalising Sanskritic Hinduism and globalising local cultures. This, he argues, is a preliminary step which eases the way for complete Sanskritisation of a culture, while retaining its distinct identity, since it's own deities are now part of or identified with Sanskritic such as Shiva or Brahma or Vishnu. He gives an example of how contemporary educated Coorgs tended to identify village gods with Shiva (Coorg was ruled by Lingayat kings for a considerable amount of time, so Shaivism was popular there when the book was written. This no longer seems to be the fact) and explained the deities' liking for liquor and meat as a consequence of 'losing their caste' while crossing over from Malabar to Coorg. He also documents the occurrence of the origins of Kaveri, a sacred river among Coorgs and generally most of South Indian Hindus, in the Skanda Purana, which eased the way for the integration of Coorgs into mainline Hinduism, since their river deity was now a part of the Hindu pantheon.
Overall, an interesting read, though the attention to detail which is an anthropologist's forte, tends to be tiresome for someone used to reading engineering definitions and terse prose. The analysis of Hinduism itself is rewarding enough to stick with the book till the end.
As is probably expected of a person under Durkheim's considerable influence, Srinivas is preoccupied with the question of social structure, and how culture, which is the subject matter of anthropology, either affirms or is used to note the change of a person's place in the extant social structure. The Durkheimian concept of 'functional analysis' or the study of the functions of human behavior in preserving the social structure resonates throughout the book. However one may disagree with the conclusions drawn by Srinivas, the book provides a pretty thorough picture of an interesting people around the 1940s.
Srinivas' analysis of the social structure of India mainly focuses on the caste system, and certain vertical (i.e, geographically local) organisations, such as the village, family and nad, which is a cluster of villages. Certain ties between people, such as those of caste, tend to emphasize horizontal or geographically widespread relations whereas some others, like those which arise due to division of labor, tend to emphasize vertical relations.
Most of the book concentrates on the various rituals and customs and festivals of the Coorgs, and the role they and other castes play in them. He brings about an interesting correlation between the various customs and rituals, and how they emphasize and tend to preserve the social structure. For example, if a person dies, the mourning period for the relatives increases with increase in intimacy of the relationship shared with the deceased, formalizing what is a purely social bond into a custom or ritual.
People who know Kodavas will inevitably know their clannish behavior, especially with regards to their family (i.e, all sharing a surname). Srinivas spends a lot of time describing the structure and customs within a Coorg joint family, which is the strongest unit of organisation in the Coorg society, far more than any other kind. It is so strong, that a person without a family name (such as a child born out of wedlock) is as good as extinct. Therefore, family members usually try to place an illegitimate child in either parents' family.
The major theoritical contribution that this work makes to Indian anthropology is the concept of Sanskritisation, which is essentially the way outlying tribes and communities get absorbed into mainline Hinduism, which he calls Sanskritic Hinduism. He describes how the puranas have contributed to the inclusion of various local myths and folklore into the mainstream of Hinduism, performing has a dual function : regionalising Sanskritic Hinduism and globalising local cultures. This, he argues, is a preliminary step which eases the way for complete Sanskritisation of a culture, while retaining its distinct identity, since it's own deities are now part of or identified with Sanskritic such as Shiva or Brahma or Vishnu. He gives an example of how contemporary educated Coorgs tended to identify village gods with Shiva (Coorg was ruled by Lingayat kings for a considerable amount of time, so Shaivism was popular there when the book was written. This no longer seems to be the fact) and explained the deities' liking for liquor and meat as a consequence of 'losing their caste' while crossing over from Malabar to Coorg. He also documents the occurrence of the origins of Kaveri, a sacred river among Coorgs and generally most of South Indian Hindus, in the Skanda Purana, which eased the way for the integration of Coorgs into mainline Hinduism, since their river deity was now a part of the Hindu pantheon.
Overall, an interesting read, though the attention to detail which is an anthropologist's forte, tends to be tiresome for someone used to reading engineering definitions and terse prose. The analysis of Hinduism itself is rewarding enough to stick with the book till the end.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Travelogue - The Timbaktu Collective
Like I had mentioned in the previous post, am just back from a visit to a place close to Dharmavaram in Andhra Pradesh, called the Timbaktu Collective. It's beginnings and philisophy are best read about on the website itself, will just narrate my experiences there.After 2 hours by train to Bangalore and 5 hours of navigating somewhat substandard roads to Chennekothapalli, was picked up and packed off for some lunch at the school run by the Collective here.
The school has an interesting philosophy of no competition and no extracurricu
lars. No competition would mean no grading and exams and rankings, student progress is monitored via worksheets that they fill up regularly. No extracurriculars simply means that everything is in curriculum! They have daily crafts, singing and other arts, sports and studies which mainly focus on language and math. Their idea is that if a student masters a language well, then learning knowledge in that language will be facilitated. Most of the students here are from socially and economically backward backgrounds, and some with a history of family violence and others who have been rejected as failures in the local government school.This is the only school that I have seen that actually encourages making paper rock
ets in class! The picture alongside is the classroom, The students being engaged in their song and dance practice.Close by is a children's learning centre, with a well furnished library, computers, tailoring machines, physics and chemistry labs, woodworking tools which the children not only of their own school, but the local government school as well can use. The only restriction is that there is no teaching here, if the students have doubts, they ask the elders present, else they essentially freak out in what which way they like.
Timbaktu is slightly outside the village, and the person you see with the vehicle in the children's learning centre, Mr. Subba Raju was my official guide and contact. A member of the Collective almost since its inception, he is a PhD in Power Systems from IIT Powai, and takes care of the educational initiatives here.
Playground, with a scenic view.
The reason I had visited Timbaktu was to demo a motion sensor based lighting system, like what is available commercially nowadays. They have installed LED based pathway lighting, which is left on the whole night. Considering that they run the whole Collective on solar power, anything that can cut consumption is welcome, and hence my proposal.
This is Subba Raju's house in Timbaktu. Like everything else in Timbaktu, a
ppropriate to the social, economic and environmental conditions found in this area, which boasts of being one of the driest places in Andhra Pradesh, with annual rainfall of 300mm. We reached at around 5 PM, and spent the rest of the evening demoing the system, as well as discussing LED lighting. After a great dinner which was well suited to my tastes (salty, not too spicy), talked a bit about how civilization is progressing and other miscellaneous heavy matters, and dropped off by round 10 PM to rest.Another incredible initiative of
the Collective has been the protection and regeneration of the forests around. The forests have been severely degraded due to forest fires, over grazing and wood-cutting. 15 years of protection have allowed Nature to regenerate the forests, unlike Forest Dept initiatives to bring in fast growing varieties from nurseries and plant them in foreign conditions. The contrast can be seen in the following photos. One is of a hill which is not protected and the other which is. Timbaktu takes care of an area of about 100 acres of forest, and supported an initiative of join
t village ownership of forests on revenue wastelands which spans a mind-boggling 10,000 hectares. These forests have made streams perennial, revitalized the economy of artisans and forest produce harvesters as well as providing the local animals with shelter.I left back for the other kind of reality the next day morning. On the whole, a very refreshing experience, with the added bonus of a kilo of really tasty chutney powder which was made that morning. Timbaktu is an interesting experiment to seek alternate forms of social organisation which are not necessarily parasitic upon the surrounding ecology. Though it will remain an experiment for atleast a few more decades, time will come when the lessons learnt here will be taken seriously by 'advanced' civilizations such as ours. Their entire outlook can be summarised by the next photo. As you might have guessed, this is the same stone that says 'Welcome to Timbaktu'. You will see this on the way back.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
A fine example...
... of human creativity breaking the boundaries of formal planning. This was on a train (Jaipur Mysore Express) from Dharmavaram to Mysore, more on that trip later. The woman, a Rajasthani, was extremely hesistant to get her picture taken, hence the face covering. Had to take the picture against her wishes :)
How watertight can we be ?
Was reading a book that I previously mentioned, about an introduction to the notable sociologists from when the term was coined. Among one of the greatest among these was undoubtedly Max Weber, and a small section of the chapter devoted to him talks about his prophecies of doom, that social organisation would tend to more and more rational organisation in terms of efficiency, run by a scientifically guided bureaucracy.
Thankfully, we do not yet live in an age where managers rule every aspect of our lives, from what we eat to who we sleep with. Though it is obvious that an efficient bureaucracy will lead to maximally efficient organisation of human productive output, it is far from obvious that that is what people want, and far less obvious whether it can really be implemented.
An incident narrated by a friend working in a company in Bangalore comes to mind. A romantically involved couple, both working for the same company, were said to be seen smooching in the office. Now, the reaction was one of complete disbelief and shock at how unprofessional people can be. Looking at it from the other side, can one not question as to why a person in love (with what/who ever) cannot show her/his affection where and when one feels ? The answer would be that the office is a place to act in a certain way, and there are unwritten codes of conduct which govern osculatory behaviour here. Why are certain modes of behaviour permissible and others unprofessional ? Because they cause a disturbance, a distraction from the normal activity of efficient production ? While it definitely not my intention to condone smooching in corridors and cubicles, it is definitely my intention to question why any person is required to curb certain parts of her personality. It is hard to see how such an environment would help in formation of a well rounded personality. Also, one finds a tinge of hypocrisy in such attitudes. One is told not to bring home worries into work and vice versa, but one never hears about people told to leave their happiness at home and wear a surly mask at the workplace. Certain things which are beneficial to production are always welcome, the rest, please excuse, please.
Romantic escapades apart, there are many instances of companies cutting employees off the Internet, and similar restrictions in the name of 'distractions'. But employees find creative ways to overcome such things where possible, and a purely machine-like worker will hardly ever surface. To the horror of the top brass, people seem to want to waste time in idle chatting, gossip, tales of woe, trip discussions and many other such uneconomic behavior (I almost forgot the coffee machine ;). Nowadays, many companies seem to have recognized (or resigned to) the fact that people do not enter the office in the morning just to work continuously for 8 hours and then get back to their normal lives, and provide a much more liberal atmosphere, where one gets an opportunity to explore other aspects of social behavior and grouping. Far from Max Weber's tight bureaucratic dystopia, bureaucracy now seems to recognize human inability to divide space and time into watertight compartments, each requiring a kind of behavior that provides maximum efficiency to the task at hand.
Similar to the managerial expectations and frustrations, are our own wishes that sometimes go unfulfilled. We would like a park to be neat and clean and we end up seeing beggars and homeless bums in them. We would like our roads to be clean and free from disturbances but find religious processions and bales of ragi put out for drying. We wish to watch movies undisturbed but end up covering our ears against the cat calls as soon as Bipasha comes onscreen. We want our footpaths wide and safe, but end up walking on the road due to the sudden appearance of a temple overnight on the footpath. Just like human behavior, his cultural creations overflow and confound the best laid plans of the urban planners and middle class.
Just as we want to do things 'our way', so do so many others. About time we recognized and respect the non-watertightness that is so natural in the world.
Thankfully, we do not yet live in an age where managers rule every aspect of our lives, from what we eat to who we sleep with. Though it is obvious that an efficient bureaucracy will lead to maximally efficient organisation of human productive output, it is far from obvious that that is what people want, and far less obvious whether it can really be implemented.
An incident narrated by a friend working in a company in Bangalore comes to mind. A romantically involved couple, both working for the same company, were said to be seen smooching in the office. Now, the reaction was one of complete disbelief and shock at how unprofessional people can be. Looking at it from the other side, can one not question as to why a person in love (with what/who ever) cannot show her/his affection where and when one feels ? The answer would be that the office is a place to act in a certain way, and there are unwritten codes of conduct which govern osculatory behaviour here. Why are certain modes of behaviour permissible and others unprofessional ? Because they cause a disturbance, a distraction from the normal activity of efficient production ? While it definitely not my intention to condone smooching in corridors and cubicles, it is definitely my intention to question why any person is required to curb certain parts of her personality. It is hard to see how such an environment would help in formation of a well rounded personality. Also, one finds a tinge of hypocrisy in such attitudes. One is told not to bring home worries into work and vice versa, but one never hears about people told to leave their happiness at home and wear a surly mask at the workplace. Certain things which are beneficial to production are always welcome, the rest, please excuse, please.
Romantic escapades apart, there are many instances of companies cutting employees off the Internet, and similar restrictions in the name of 'distractions'. But employees find creative ways to overcome such things where possible, and a purely machine-like worker will hardly ever surface. To the horror of the top brass, people seem to want to waste time in idle chatting, gossip, tales of woe, trip discussions and many other such uneconomic behavior (I almost forgot the coffee machine ;). Nowadays, many companies seem to have recognized (or resigned to) the fact that people do not enter the office in the morning just to work continuously for 8 hours and then get back to their normal lives, and provide a much more liberal atmosphere, where one gets an opportunity to explore other aspects of social behavior and grouping. Far from Max Weber's tight bureaucratic dystopia, bureaucracy now seems to recognize human inability to divide space and time into watertight compartments, each requiring a kind of behavior that provides maximum efficiency to the task at hand.
Similar to the managerial expectations and frustrations, are our own wishes that sometimes go unfulfilled. We would like a park to be neat and clean and we end up seeing beggars and homeless bums in them. We would like our roads to be clean and free from disturbances but find religious processions and bales of ragi put out for drying. We wish to watch movies undisturbed but end up covering our ears against the cat calls as soon as Bipasha comes onscreen. We want our footpaths wide and safe, but end up walking on the road due to the sudden appearance of a temple overnight on the footpath. Just like human behavior, his cultural creations overflow and confound the best laid plans of the urban planners and middle class.
Just as we want to do things 'our way', so do so many others. About time we recognized and respect the non-watertightness that is so natural in the world.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Interesting comic
This comic caught the eye, coming coincidentally at round the same time I was griping about scientific method :)
Monday, October 8, 2007
Degeneration or Democratization ?
Hardly can one day pass by without reports from nostalgic and dreamy eyed commentators regarding the degeneration of the 'culture', be it in music, cinema or any of the other arts. They pine for the days of Raj Kapoor, Satyajit Ray, M. S. Subbulakshmi and wonder what is happening to the quality of the arts today. 'Commercialisation', they scream, is moving artists to seek money rather than concentrate on the quality of their art. How true can one say such a situation is ?
Looking back, the patrons of the high arts even in the mid-20th century were largely urban, middle-class, educated people. Brought up seeing and listening to music and cinema which was made by artists patronized by people largely like themselves. One required an acquired taste, a certain erudition to appreciate what had largely become 'elite' art. It would be too much to ask of an average citizen to be put through the torture of listening or seeing something that she cannot comprehend just as it would be too much to ask of even the erudite Carnatic connoisseur to appreciate the nuances of HipHop (assuming, of course, that HipHop can claim to contain such nuances).
As the purchasing power of the lower classes increased, and they started flocking to cinema theatres and music concerts expecting to be entertained, they would obviously want something interesting, understandable, and that made way for the present range of films and music. One can definitely see a rise in number of films made and albums produced as more and more people joined the ranks of a exploding middle class. Even though most of these artistic endeavours were complete disasters from any point of view, the point was that the entertainers had to respond to the needs of a people with different idioms, different tastes from their earlier patrons. How can changing with the times be called a degeneration of art cannot be comprehended. Most people do not have the motivation nor the patience to finish a B.A in Music to appreciate their music. One can hardly find a Hindustani music listener gyrating to the rhythms of the tabla, just as it is extremely hard to find a person not jumping out of his seat (if rock concert organisers provide one!) when Iron Maiden takes the stage.
The rise of new genres of music and cinema, with their attractive rhythms, loud and colorful sets, unimaginative storylines, shorter and shorter durations, reflect the fact that more and more tastes which do not belong to the elite are being given due consideration. It is hard not to identify the distinct workings of a democracy in such changes. Showing the struggling, poor hero rising and challenging a large businesshouse may echo the dreams of a people who see inequality paraded in front of them, not being able to do anything about it.
Therefore, what some perceive to be a degeneration in the quality of art in the recent times due to commercialization or westernization appears to me to be a failure to understand a form of cultural expression, being far too removed from the roots of its inspirations and aspirations. This works the other way as well, with Classical music being derided as too boring.
So, before you go about shooting your mouth off about philistine Punjabi pop or old man's Carnatic music, remember that you don't understand the other well enough to do so!
Looking back, the patrons of the high arts even in the mid-20th century were largely urban, middle-class, educated people. Brought up seeing and listening to music and cinema which was made by artists patronized by people largely like themselves. One required an acquired taste, a certain erudition to appreciate what had largely become 'elite' art. It would be too much to ask of an average citizen to be put through the torture of listening or seeing something that she cannot comprehend just as it would be too much to ask of even the erudite Carnatic connoisseur to appreciate the nuances of HipHop (assuming, of course, that HipHop can claim to contain such nuances).
As the purchasing power of the lower classes increased, and they started flocking to cinema theatres and music concerts expecting to be entertained, they would obviously want something interesting, understandable, and that made way for the present range of films and music. One can definitely see a rise in number of films made and albums produced as more and more people joined the ranks of a exploding middle class. Even though most of these artistic endeavours were complete disasters from any point of view, the point was that the entertainers had to respond to the needs of a people with different idioms, different tastes from their earlier patrons. How can changing with the times be called a degeneration of art cannot be comprehended. Most people do not have the motivation nor the patience to finish a B.A in Music to appreciate their music. One can hardly find a Hindustani music listener gyrating to the rhythms of the tabla, just as it is extremely hard to find a person not jumping out of his seat (if rock concert organisers provide one!) when Iron Maiden takes the stage.
The rise of new genres of music and cinema, with their attractive rhythms, loud and colorful sets, unimaginative storylines, shorter and shorter durations, reflect the fact that more and more tastes which do not belong to the elite are being given due consideration. It is hard not to identify the distinct workings of a democracy in such changes. Showing the struggling, poor hero rising and challenging a large businesshouse may echo the dreams of a people who see inequality paraded in front of them, not being able to do anything about it.
Therefore, what some perceive to be a degeneration in the quality of art in the recent times due to commercialization or westernization appears to me to be a failure to understand a form of cultural expression, being far too removed from the roots of its inspirations and aspirations. This works the other way as well, with Classical music being derided as too boring.
So, before you go about shooting your mouth off about philistine Punjabi pop or old man's Carnatic music, remember that you don't understand the other well enough to do so!
Friday, October 5, 2007
Eulogy
My paternal grandmother passed away on Wednesday, after a brief illness, of adrenal cancer. Bringing up 9 children from a state of abject poverty as a wage labourer in a small village and making sure that they reach a position of relative comfort is an achievement, a quantum leap that can hardly be matched by any of us, regardless. Knowing people capable of such a feat surely is a humbling experience, and puts many of my own 'achievements' into proper perspective.
Never one to raise her voice or beat anyone, she was a very patient person, a quality which unfortunately very few of us care to cultivate. Like I mentioned to my family members, if we place on a weighing scale the good and bad things she has done, it would tilt in the favor of the good. Not that she was philanthrophic, all she had (or not) money for was bring up her children and keep body and soul together, but that she never was one to hurt others. This is a characteristic most of us cannot claim to have, and therefore the scales will always be on the negative side for us, forget about even balancing the two sides. Things that came naturally to her, we cannot dream of achieving after years of labour. For this, she will be a role model to me, I don't need to start looking at Gods until Im sure I have reached atleast her level of non-violence. RIP.
Never one to raise her voice or beat anyone, she was a very patient person, a quality which unfortunately very few of us care to cultivate. Like I mentioned to my family members, if we place on a weighing scale the good and bad things she has done, it would tilt in the favor of the good. Not that she was philanthrophic, all she had (or not) money for was bring up her children and keep body and soul together, but that she never was one to hurt others. This is a characteristic most of us cannot claim to have, and therefore the scales will always be on the negative side for us, forget about even balancing the two sides. Things that came naturally to her, we cannot dream of achieving after years of labour. For this, she will be a role model to me, I don't need to start looking at Gods until Im sure I have reached atleast her level of non-violence. RIP.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
In Memoriam.
Another day to remind us of the Mahatma, though in Karnataka today is less of a day to pay homage to the Man and more of a day of expectation to see whether our Chief Minister stabs his Deputy in the back, or the other way round, tomorrow. The politics of expediency rarely gets more obvious and vulgar, and has a peculiar characteristic of abstracting away and de-linking what happens in Bangalore with the fate of millions of residents of this unfortunate State (unless, of course, they are residents of Bangalore). Let the game in Vidhana Soudha continue, and on with the post.
Thousand people have thousand opinions, and one can hardly say that these opinions are unequivocal. M. K. Gandhi occupies the whole spectrum of the moral rainbow, from saint to demon, depending on whose viewpoint you look at him from. Subjectivities aside, the main contribution of any person to the unidirectional flow of history has and always will be only ideas. Ideas in the form of doctrines, rituals, technology, music are the only lasting contributions that survive the temporal flux that one calls history. One of the best documented persons in the world is probably Gandhi, and his ideas are available for one and all to see in the Collected works of Gandhi.
With such a large body of data available, obviously every part of his life has been studied with a fine toothed comb. What interests us today is the question as to the relevance of what Gandhi wrote and thought about almost a century ago. Ideas usually survive the test of time when either of the following characteristics are true : The object of thought is something that is presumed to be unchanging, like gravity or the color of oranges, or the idea itself is so abstract as to apply in any situation one might find herself in. The second usually ends up being identified with the first, since abstraction tries to capture unchanging attributes of a continuously changing phenomena.
The natural next step is to ask whether Gandhi's doctrines of non-violence and satyagraha have something like the second characteristic. One cannot seriously argue that his ideas deal with unchanging properties of the universe, and therefore we have to accept that his ideas are of the second kind.
However, abstractions about the nature of Man or Society are bound to end up like the blind men describing the Elephant, relying mainly on intuitive generalisations of one's own experiences. Hence, they cannot claim to be of a lasting character. But the fact remains that people still read the Upanishads and Aristotle and the Bible. How is it, that these treasuries of human ideas claim relevance for themselves after thousands of years ? Could it really be possible that there is something unchanging in all humans from the time immemorial ? Or can it be explained away by understanding the fact that human personality is shaped by what it gleans from other's opinions, speeches, writings and example ?
My opinion is partial towards the latter explanation. Ideas are propagated by translating them from their mental forms to more material forms. For example, temples, churches, governments, constitutions, penal codes, treatises on philosophy, cultures, all aim toward the propagation of certain ideas, certain world-views. Their relevance, of course, is contingent upon whether we consider ourselves to be the kind of person that they describe, or aim toward being such a person. And this is where Gandhi's doctrine's can be said to be highly relevant in today's world.
Decades of Mega-, Ultra-, Global-, World-plans have not done as much good as they have managed to dismantle. Megalomanical schemes to redeem the world have forgotten the basic tenet of 'Live and let live'.
As our civilization looks down the abyss of a major environmental disaster, for which we seem to be largely responsible, Gandhi's views regarding Man as part of the environment - as opposed to most Western thinkers who placed Man in opposition with Nature - seem to be gaining relevance, even by scientific standards. Notwithstanding the many critiques that one hears about Gandhi, no one can sensibly deny that his sense of man's place in Nature, and to do so would only highlight our mass suicidal tendencies.
Thousand people have thousand opinions, and one can hardly say that these opinions are unequivocal. M. K. Gandhi occupies the whole spectrum of the moral rainbow, from saint to demon, depending on whose viewpoint you look at him from. Subjectivities aside, the main contribution of any person to the unidirectional flow of history has and always will be only ideas. Ideas in the form of doctrines, rituals, technology, music are the only lasting contributions that survive the temporal flux that one calls history. One of the best documented persons in the world is probably Gandhi, and his ideas are available for one and all to see in the Collected works of Gandhi.
With such a large body of data available, obviously every part of his life has been studied with a fine toothed comb. What interests us today is the question as to the relevance of what Gandhi wrote and thought about almost a century ago. Ideas usually survive the test of time when either of the following characteristics are true : The object of thought is something that is presumed to be unchanging, like gravity or the color of oranges, or the idea itself is so abstract as to apply in any situation one might find herself in. The second usually ends up being identified with the first, since abstraction tries to capture unchanging attributes of a continuously changing phenomena.
The natural next step is to ask whether Gandhi's doctrines of non-violence and satyagraha have something like the second characteristic. One cannot seriously argue that his ideas deal with unchanging properties of the universe, and therefore we have to accept that his ideas are of the second kind.
However, abstractions about the nature of Man or Society are bound to end up like the blind men describing the Elephant, relying mainly on intuitive generalisations of one's own experiences. Hence, they cannot claim to be of a lasting character. But the fact remains that people still read the Upanishads and Aristotle and the Bible. How is it, that these treasuries of human ideas claim relevance for themselves after thousands of years ? Could it really be possible that there is something unchanging in all humans from the time immemorial ? Or can it be explained away by understanding the fact that human personality is shaped by what it gleans from other's opinions, speeches, writings and example ?
My opinion is partial towards the latter explanation. Ideas are propagated by translating them from their mental forms to more material forms. For example, temples, churches, governments, constitutions, penal codes, treatises on philosophy, cultures, all aim toward the propagation of certain ideas, certain world-views. Their relevance, of course, is contingent upon whether we consider ourselves to be the kind of person that they describe, or aim toward being such a person. And this is where Gandhi's doctrine's can be said to be highly relevant in today's world.
Decades of Mega-, Ultra-, Global-, World-plans have not done as much good as they have managed to dismantle. Megalomanical schemes to redeem the world have forgotten the basic tenet of 'Live and let live'.
As our civilization looks down the abyss of a major environmental disaster, for which we seem to be largely responsible, Gandhi's views regarding Man as part of the environment - as opposed to most Western thinkers who placed Man in opposition with Nature - seem to be gaining relevance, even by scientific standards. Notwithstanding the many critiques that one hears about Gandhi, no one can sensibly deny that his sense of man's place in Nature, and to do so would only highlight our mass suicidal tendencies.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Review: Imperial Nature
The subtitle reads "The World Bank and struggles for social justice in the age of globalization". This, along with the highly suggestive title, should hint as to the intellectual direction of the book.
Imperial Nature is critical look at the extant relations between the 'developed' North and the 'underdeveloped' South, with the myriad aid agencies that mediate these relations, especially in the spheres of development. The World Bank has emerged as a highly influential global actor in these relations (or networks), and the book analyses how the Bank got to the enviable (and equally notorious) position that it finds itself in.
The book revolves around a concept called 'Green Neoliberalism', which essentially is how neoliberalism has been promoted using the necessity for 'sustainable' development and protecting the environment from 'indiscriminate' and 'rapacious' forces of poverty in developing countries.
We begin with a history of the Bank, from its roots as an instrument to rebuild the devastated economies of Western Europe after WWII, to its present mandate to develop the underdeveloped Southern half of the Globe. In the beginning, most of the money that the Bank lent came from National Treasuries and Government institutions of various countries. It was run like an orthodox, risk averse bank, lending only to countries which had a positive chance of repaying the money, like France and Japan. However, when certain political changes made World Bank aid in Europe irrelevant, it had to look at other sources to lend money as well as raise capital, since it was still dependent on US Treasury handouts for capital inflows.
Therefore, the Bank looked towards Wall Street to raise money for its ventures. However, since investors are squeamish about how secure their investment is, the World Bank had to gain credibility by showing that their bonds (floated on Wall Street) were indeed secure and gave attractive returns. Now, one cannot give money to a recalcitrant dictator and expect him to repay in full running the State as he likes. Therefore, the Bank had to make sure that its money was being spent in the 'right way', which simply implies that it would go into money making big dams, power and other infrastructure projects rather than schooling, healthcare and so on. This is not to say that no Bank money went to such social sectors, but it was never it major thrust. In fact, there have been instances where public spending in social sectors was cut due to Bank pressure.
Next, the book looks at how the Bank innovates in the face of crisis. In the early 90's, large scale protests against the Bank sponsored Narmada Valley project and Arun 3 in Nepal forced the Bank to back out of both. Faced with a crisis of legitimacy (which is crucial for its working, since it is a bank, after all), the Bank began it new environmental sensitivity phase. The author investigates how the processes by which the World Bank's stand on environmentally conscious projects, which involves valuation of forests, rivers as economic goods which need to be partly conserved (to keep the environmentalists happy), and opened up for commercial use (to keep the logging industry happy), has become the dominant mode of thought in every forum where development has been discussed.
This dominance, the author argues, is due to the incredible network built by the Bank, which involves training locals in its ideologies so that they can legitimize Bank policy in their native countries, generating large amounts of (not very scholarly) research which all sing consensual policy tunes, and the good old carrot-and-stick approach which forces highly indebted countries to accept and internalize Bank policies or else.
The example of the State of Laos is taken and the major structural changes the Bank intervention caused, especially in the Government ministries (which are dominated by experts from elite organisations of the North), policies (which promote indiscriminate privatization without having a competitive domestic industry, which results in killing of the domestic players), and environmental outlooks (which promote eco-tourism over rights of indigenous people, and throws natives out of their homelands to 'resettle' and become 'productive' citizens of the nation). The solutions proposed are typically capital intensive and require large amounts of equipment and expertise from Northern contractors and consultants. It has been calculated that for every dollar of loan, around seven dollars goes back to corporates in the form of contracts and profits from running previously public sector services bought at cheap prices.
The book finally looks at the case of water supply privatisation and how the Bank, within a span of few years managed to convert this issue from a laughable non-starter to something that is a precondition to most Bank loans(yes, even the ones India takes), and how it is presented as the solution to supply quality water to the poorest but ends up becoming too expensive for them to afford, defeating the whole logic of privatisation in the first place. In highly indebted countries, privatisation of social services is said to be good as the public sector is highly 'inefficient' and privatization can only improve matters. The author argues against such a simplistic logic and shows how delivery of services can depend on so many factors ( The Bank forced cutting down of social expenditure one among them) and privatization usually ends up being control of a public good by Western corporates, with an indigenous face.
Though it is unlikely that the Bank will ever close down (too many people have built careers around it), such arguments against Bank policies and high-handedness may help to bring more transparency into the murky world of the development industry (yes, it is probably one of the most profitable industries!).
Imperial Nature is critical look at the extant relations between the 'developed' North and the 'underdeveloped' South, with the myriad aid agencies that mediate these relations, especially in the spheres of development. The World Bank has emerged as a highly influential global actor in these relations (or networks), and the book analyses how the Bank got to the enviable (and equally notorious) position that it finds itself in.
The book revolves around a concept called 'Green Neoliberalism', which essentially is how neoliberalism has been promoted using the necessity for 'sustainable' development and protecting the environment from 'indiscriminate' and 'rapacious' forces of poverty in developing countries.
We begin with a history of the Bank, from its roots as an instrument to rebuild the devastated economies of Western Europe after WWII, to its present mandate to develop the underdeveloped Southern half of the Globe. In the beginning, most of the money that the Bank lent came from National Treasuries and Government institutions of various countries. It was run like an orthodox, risk averse bank, lending only to countries which had a positive chance of repaying the money, like France and Japan. However, when certain political changes made World Bank aid in Europe irrelevant, it had to look at other sources to lend money as well as raise capital, since it was still dependent on US Treasury handouts for capital inflows.
Therefore, the Bank looked towards Wall Street to raise money for its ventures. However, since investors are squeamish about how secure their investment is, the World Bank had to gain credibility by showing that their bonds (floated on Wall Street) were indeed secure and gave attractive returns. Now, one cannot give money to a recalcitrant dictator and expect him to repay in full running the State as he likes. Therefore, the Bank had to make sure that its money was being spent in the 'right way', which simply implies that it would go into money making big dams, power and other infrastructure projects rather than schooling, healthcare and so on. This is not to say that no Bank money went to such social sectors, but it was never it major thrust. In fact, there have been instances where public spending in social sectors was cut due to Bank pressure.
Next, the book looks at how the Bank innovates in the face of crisis. In the early 90's, large scale protests against the Bank sponsored Narmada Valley project and Arun 3 in Nepal forced the Bank to back out of both. Faced with a crisis of legitimacy (which is crucial for its working, since it is a bank, after all), the Bank began it new environmental sensitivity phase. The author investigates how the processes by which the World Bank's stand on environmentally conscious projects, which involves valuation of forests, rivers as economic goods which need to be partly conserved (to keep the environmentalists happy), and opened up for commercial use (to keep the logging industry happy), has become the dominant mode of thought in every forum where development has been discussed.
This dominance, the author argues, is due to the incredible network built by the Bank, which involves training locals in its ideologies so that they can legitimize Bank policy in their native countries, generating large amounts of (not very scholarly) research which all sing consensual policy tunes, and the good old carrot-and-stick approach which forces highly indebted countries to accept and internalize Bank policies or else.
The example of the State of Laos is taken and the major structural changes the Bank intervention caused, especially in the Government ministries (which are dominated by experts from elite organisations of the North), policies (which promote indiscriminate privatization without having a competitive domestic industry, which results in killing of the domestic players), and environmental outlooks (which promote eco-tourism over rights of indigenous people, and throws natives out of their homelands to 'resettle' and become 'productive' citizens of the nation). The solutions proposed are typically capital intensive and require large amounts of equipment and expertise from Northern contractors and consultants. It has been calculated that for every dollar of loan, around seven dollars goes back to corporates in the form of contracts and profits from running previously public sector services bought at cheap prices.
The book finally looks at the case of water supply privatisation and how the Bank, within a span of few years managed to convert this issue from a laughable non-starter to something that is a precondition to most Bank loans(yes, even the ones India takes), and how it is presented as the solution to supply quality water to the poorest but ends up becoming too expensive for them to afford, defeating the whole logic of privatisation in the first place. In highly indebted countries, privatisation of social services is said to be good as the public sector is highly 'inefficient' and privatization can only improve matters. The author argues against such a simplistic logic and shows how delivery of services can depend on so many factors ( The Bank forced cutting down of social expenditure one among them) and privatization usually ends up being control of a public good by Western corporates, with an indigenous face.
Though it is unlikely that the Bank will ever close down (too many people have built careers around it), such arguments against Bank policies and high-handedness may help to bring more transparency into the murky world of the development industry (yes, it is probably one of the most profitable industries!).
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Hijack
The Indian Cricket Team finally managed to win something at the highest level, after decades of no trophies but plenty of skeletons in the cupboard, they have managed to work as a team and not rely on individual brilliance too much to do what they did. Accolades. Notwithstanding the fact that the industry most happy with this is undoubtedly the advertising industry, the brilliant turn of events which ended in "The Hijack", as I would put it, cannot be attributed totally to them. Instead, one has to rely on the creativity of the Indian Cricket Fan to account for it.
A month or so earlier, a motley group of girls appeared on to silver screen, led by a charismatic coach whose previous achievements include chopping up girls (Baazigar) and uncontrollable stuttering (forgot ): , to show, or rather, remind us of an obscure game that is supposedly our National Game, which is presently in the shadow of another game which the egoistic Briyanshu plays. In the movie, hockey is put down quite crudely by Briyanshu and the Hockey Board elites,unlike the India's Cricket fans, who use more refined methods.
A month ago, anyone shouting Chak de India! would have automatically been recognised
as a passionate hockey fan, and maybe even a women's hockey supporter. From the past fifteen days, the hijack started, and culminated with India winning the T20 cup. Now, Chak de India! refers only to the glorious, history making cricket team. We have come a long way from when the actresses from the movie were giving press conferences to encourage women using the the movie as a platform, to the present where large gatherings of male cricket fans shout out the slogan the movie popularized to achieve the exact same ends that it speaks out against : The average Indian's preoccupation with cricket, and the male dominated sports scene. SRK did not make things better by turning out to hug each and every cricketer, whereas I doubt he did the same when India won the Asia Cup in hockey. The very equality that he so eloquently vocalizes for in the movie can hardly be seen in his own actions. The hijack is complete! The method of the Indian Cricket Fan is clear now : acknowledge all sports to be equally important when asked to, but in the normal day-to-day life, elegantly ignore their existence.
That the hockey team had to go on a hunger strike to be noticed shows how far behind hockey is in the race to capture the common man's imagination. Why we still persist in calling it our National Game is quite a mystery. Maybe some kind of sense of duty, or a lack of common sense to correct past mistakes. One has to face the fact that hockey, in the discernible future atleast, will be given the stepmotherly treatment that a true hockey fan would deplore. Cricket is what binds more Indians together, and hence should sensibly be our National Game. Not that I'm a great fan of cricket, but just that it seems reflect the Indian passions more correctly as opposed to the present state of affairs.
A month or so earlier, a motley group of girls appeared on to silver screen, led by a charismatic coach whose previous achievements include chopping up girls (Baazigar) and uncontrollable stuttering (forgot ): , to show, or rather, remind us of an obscure game that is supposedly our National Game, which is presently in the shadow of another game which the egoistic Briyanshu plays. In the movie, hockey is put down quite crudely by Briyanshu and the Hockey Board elites,unlike the India's Cricket fans, who use more refined methods.
A month ago, anyone shouting Chak de India! would have automatically been recognised
as a passionate hockey fan, and maybe even a women's hockey supporter. From the past fifteen days, the hijack started, and culminated with India winning the T20 cup. Now, Chak de India! refers only to the glorious, history making cricket team. We have come a long way from when the actresses from the movie were giving press conferences to encourage women using the the movie as a platform, to the present where large gatherings of male cricket fans shout out the slogan the movie popularized to achieve the exact same ends that it speaks out against : The average Indian's preoccupation with cricket, and the male dominated sports scene. SRK did not make things better by turning out to hug each and every cricketer, whereas I doubt he did the same when India won the Asia Cup in hockey. The very equality that he so eloquently vocalizes for in the movie can hardly be seen in his own actions. The hijack is complete! The method of the Indian Cricket Fan is clear now : acknowledge all sports to be equally important when asked to, but in the normal day-to-day life, elegantly ignore their existence.
That the hockey team had to go on a hunger strike to be noticed shows how far behind hockey is in the race to capture the common man's imagination. Why we still persist in calling it our National Game is quite a mystery. Maybe some kind of sense of duty, or a lack of common sense to correct past mistakes. One has to face the fact that hockey, in the discernible future atleast, will be given the stepmotherly treatment that a true hockey fan would deplore. Cricket is what binds more Indians together, and hence should sensibly be our National Game. Not that I'm a great fan of cricket, but just that it seems reflect the Indian passions more correctly as opposed to the present state of affairs.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Whence the Social Sciences ? - 3 : Economics.
Finally got a decent amount of time off from work and studies and all that to write some more.
Last time was some comments on method of the early social scientists, and now something more about economists in particular.
Economics, in the early stages as is now, was a means to understand the patterns in the varied economic transactions conducted by people, how some things came to be valuable, and some worthless. The times of the early economists was during when the feudal systems were slowly going out of fashion, and a new phenomenon called the market was being observed. Here, the market is not some place you go and buy your vegetables, which is but a manifestation of it, but rather in a more general sense where the three important goods, Land, Capital and Labour were to be freely sold and bought. Neither Land nor Labour were previously freely exchangeable under the feudal system.
The transition from a conservative feudal society to an upstart, sanguine capitalist society was not a smooth one, and the varied angles are described well here. The first few attempts to explain economic behaviour came from the Physiocrats and the Mercantilists. Mercantilism was taken apart later, and Physiocracy was never fully accepted. The watershed that occured was, as everyone knows, the publication of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The book is massive, at times boring, at others highly insightful, at others hugely frustrating, but awe inspiring if you consider the amount of work that would have had to go into making a work like this. Though most of his theoritical contributions to economics are no longer accepted as they were presented by him, there is no questioning his influence on present day thinkers, a famous example being Amartya Sen. His normative doctrine about allowing people free to do things as they choose to, and removal of barriers are definitely still applicable in modern society. It is a shameful thing that many industrialists in the years following Smith used laissez-faire as an excuse to exploit people rather than working for the upbringing of society as a whole which Smith hoped for.
The notable economists who followed him were witnesses of the devastation of the poor that the factory system brought about, and were definitely of a more gloomy and less optimistic outlook.
Malthus, Marx are definitely good examples. There were also some not slightly mad personalities who dreamed of a perfect society which could be brought about, people like Saint-Simon and Fourier (not the scientist!).
Though all of these were prone to seeing grand visions of a perfect world, (except Malthus, of course, who thought people would breed faster than the earth could supply food for them, and therefore mankind would implode upon itself), there was one thing common about all of them : They were deeply concerned about the lot of the common man, and tried to find methods which would help ameliorate the plight of the masses.
Then came another watershed : Edgeworth. The man tried to mathematically study economic processes and his method became quite popular, since it dealt with numbers which don't complain, talk back or revolt. The previous problem of studying man's monetary associations with another was linked to solving linear algebraic systems or differential equations. The philosophy which made this possible is known as utilitarianism, and was popularised by Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer from England. It is said of Bentham, the amount good that he did in practice, was counterbalanced by his cloudy philosophising about the innate nature and urges of man. His normative doctrine goes something like this : Man has two masters, pain and pleasure. He always tries to reduce pain as much as possible, and increase pleasure as much as possible. If a man goes after anything but pleasure, he is obviously irrational, and therefore does not count. Even people dying in war, sado-masochists are after pleasure. We choose things purely because they give us pleasure. If we get x units of pleasure by acquiring one thing, and y units acquiring another, we get something like the sum of pleasures if we acquire both. Thus, what is morally right is that which gives us pleasure, and whatever causes pain is morally wrong. However, since people can have opposing desires, moral correctness for the society is that which gives maximum amount of pleasure for the maximum amount of people. He went on to give a felicific calculus that helped one calculate the sum of the pleasures of individuals to calculate the total pleasure for the society.
This philosophy, in a highly refined and sophisticated package is what is presented to us as economics. Once the trivial parts about how to add pleasures and pains and knowing the nature of man are settled, one can go about building a superstructure which will help us understand economic behavior. Now, since one accepts that pleasure is subjective, we go about converting it to an objective measure which can be measured. Veblen goes about showing how economic behavior is related to the current culture and institutions, and cannot be seen as a static process in his Limitations of Marginal Utility. Though it has had its detractors, Utilitarianism has been spectacularly successful and tenacious and survives to this day, not least because of the fact that modern economics was built on it.
Thus, we see how economics evolved from an attempt to understand economic behavior by empirical studies to modelling empirical data to form a mathematical expression which claims to explain away human uniqueness. May be there is a model for that too, who knows.
Last time was some comments on method of the early social scientists, and now something more about economists in particular.
Economics, in the early stages as is now, was a means to understand the patterns in the varied economic transactions conducted by people, how some things came to be valuable, and some worthless. The times of the early economists was during when the feudal systems were slowly going out of fashion, and a new phenomenon called the market was being observed. Here, the market is not some place you go and buy your vegetables, which is but a manifestation of it, but rather in a more general sense where the three important goods, Land, Capital and Labour were to be freely sold and bought. Neither Land nor Labour were previously freely exchangeable under the feudal system.
The transition from a conservative feudal society to an upstart, sanguine capitalist society was not a smooth one, and the varied angles are described well here. The first few attempts to explain economic behaviour came from the Physiocrats and the Mercantilists. Mercantilism was taken apart later, and Physiocracy was never fully accepted. The watershed that occured was, as everyone knows, the publication of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith. The book is massive, at times boring, at others highly insightful, at others hugely frustrating, but awe inspiring if you consider the amount of work that would have had to go into making a work like this. Though most of his theoritical contributions to economics are no longer accepted as they were presented by him, there is no questioning his influence on present day thinkers, a famous example being Amartya Sen. His normative doctrine about allowing people free to do things as they choose to, and removal of barriers are definitely still applicable in modern society. It is a shameful thing that many industrialists in the years following Smith used laissez-faire as an excuse to exploit people rather than working for the upbringing of society as a whole which Smith hoped for.
The notable economists who followed him were witnesses of the devastation of the poor that the factory system brought about, and were definitely of a more gloomy and less optimistic outlook.
Malthus, Marx are definitely good examples. There were also some not slightly mad personalities who dreamed of a perfect society which could be brought about, people like Saint-Simon and Fourier (not the scientist!).
Though all of these were prone to seeing grand visions of a perfect world, (except Malthus, of course, who thought people would breed faster than the earth could supply food for them, and therefore mankind would implode upon itself), there was one thing common about all of them : They were deeply concerned about the lot of the common man, and tried to find methods which would help ameliorate the plight of the masses.
Then came another watershed : Edgeworth. The man tried to mathematically study economic processes and his method became quite popular, since it dealt with numbers which don't complain, talk back or revolt. The previous problem of studying man's monetary associations with another was linked to solving linear algebraic systems or differential equations. The philosophy which made this possible is known as utilitarianism, and was popularised by Jeremy Bentham, a social reformer from England. It is said of Bentham, the amount good that he did in practice, was counterbalanced by his cloudy philosophising about the innate nature and urges of man. His normative doctrine goes something like this : Man has two masters, pain and pleasure. He always tries to reduce pain as much as possible, and increase pleasure as much as possible. If a man goes after anything but pleasure, he is obviously irrational, and therefore does not count. Even people dying in war, sado-masochists are after pleasure. We choose things purely because they give us pleasure. If we get x units of pleasure by acquiring one thing, and y units acquiring another, we get something like the sum of pleasures if we acquire both. Thus, what is morally right is that which gives us pleasure, and whatever causes pain is morally wrong. However, since people can have opposing desires, moral correctness for the society is that which gives maximum amount of pleasure for the maximum amount of people. He went on to give a felicific calculus that helped one calculate the sum of the pleasures of individuals to calculate the total pleasure for the society.
This philosophy, in a highly refined and sophisticated package is what is presented to us as economics. Once the trivial parts about how to add pleasures and pains and knowing the nature of man are settled, one can go about building a superstructure which will help us understand economic behavior. Now, since one accepts that pleasure is subjective, we go about converting it to an objective measure which can be measured. Veblen goes about showing how economic behavior is related to the current culture and institutions, and cannot be seen as a static process in his Limitations of Marginal Utility. Though it has had its detractors, Utilitarianism has been spectacularly successful and tenacious and survives to this day, not least because of the fact that modern economics was built on it.
Thus, we see how economics evolved from an attempt to understand economic behavior by empirical studies to modelling empirical data to form a mathematical expression which claims to explain away human uniqueness. May be there is a model for that too, who knows.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Review : Ecology and Equity
Ecology and Equity is a book by renowned non-fiction writer Ramachandra Guha and even more renowned ecologist Madhav Gadgil. This was written in the early 90's, when liberalization was just setting in, and the faults of centralized planning were beginning to be glaringly obvious. Thus, it is but natural that this book has certain 'Bash the Babus' overtones, but even these are quite justified in retrospect.
Both authors are capable of writing this on their own steam, with Guha involved in ecological history of India from quite a long time before the book was written, and Gadgil's resume need not even be mentioned. The extremely readable writing style was no doubt Guha's contribution to the most part, and the empirical grounding of the book, the numerous case studies on which the argument of the book is based is mostly Gadgil, IMO. Overall, this a highly readable (and short!) book, but one which captures the overall ecological state of India at that juncture well. Some of the concerns raised by the authors have been addressed as of now, albeit in a lukewarm fashion, but there are many others which are still hurting India, like a thorn in the flesh.
The authors present a new analytic framework from which to interpret the state of present India, one which is based on an ecological perspective. They argue that this better explains the troubles of the Indian people better than the notions of class and caste. The three categories that they divide contemporary Indian society into are :
The book has two main divisions : The India that was and The India that might be. One discusses the present state of conflict and tensions, and the myriad reasons for the same. The other proposes practical(?) policy alternatives to the present ways of the Government. The alternatives are neither the 'Get back to the village, let's all till the land' kind, nor 'let's go out there and make some serious money, fellas' kind. It balances both and though the authors themselves never mention it, internalizes frugality, which being a subjective norm, is really really difficult to imbibe into practical policies.
The authors have an understandably serious grouse against the centralized, planned Government of the yesteryears, and show with a large number of case studies show how this socialist kind of Government which was adopted by the creators of the modern Indian State, has failed miserably in its objectives of equity, and went on to commit wholesale destruction of the ecology as well. Any centrally planned Government needs a strong 'centre', and after Nehru, there has been no politician worth mention who has been able to provide such a strong centre. Almost all the other Governments have been shaky, (except for the Indira Gandhi regime), and the present state of politics is known to all. Centralized planning, as in Soviet Russia and China work because of the lack of political democracy in these places, which cause very strong Governments that do not fear public opinion while doing what they think is right. Whether such a Government is justifiable is highly doubtful, but it has become clear that it does not work in an open democracy like India.
Chocolates from Switzerland, beer from Germany, wine from France, music players from Korea, apples from Spain. This is what one would see if one entered an omnivore household. However, this in itself is not a bad thing, but the authors show the many ways how omnivores have been given resources, heavily subsidized by the Government, at the cost of ecosystem people. Good examples are :
After a survey of the India that is, they propose a future India that might be, based on decentralization of power (difficult, but happening), community based resource control (very difficult, delicate) and removal of subsidies for those who can afford to pay (won't happen, since these are also the ones that control the Government).
One can give this book a decent read, small as it is, and understand why the things that we take for granted are exactly the things that keep backward people backward, and not their laziness or ignorance, which plays a part, but not as significant as the Government would have us believe.
Both authors are capable of writing this on their own steam, with Guha involved in ecological history of India from quite a long time before the book was written, and Gadgil's resume need not even be mentioned. The extremely readable writing style was no doubt Guha's contribution to the most part, and the empirical grounding of the book, the numerous case studies on which the argument of the book is based is mostly Gadgil, IMO. Overall, this a highly readable (and short!) book, but one which captures the overall ecological state of India at that juncture well. Some of the concerns raised by the authors have been addressed as of now, albeit in a lukewarm fashion, but there are many others which are still hurting India, like a thorn in the flesh.
The authors present a new analytic framework from which to interpret the state of present India, one which is based on an ecological perspective. They argue that this better explains the troubles of the Indian people better than the notions of class and caste. The three categories that they divide contemporary Indian society into are :
- Omnivores, those that have the money to get resources from any possible part of the planet, and in fact, do so. Most people reading this blog would therefore fall in this category.
- Ecosystem people, those that depend on the surrounding forests, lakes, rivers, flora, fauna to meet their subsistence need.
- Ecological refugees, those ecosystem people who have been uprooted from their natural ecosystem due to exploitative behaviour of the omnivores and thus have to live on the fringes of the omnivore habitat to eke out a living.
The book has two main divisions : The India that was and The India that might be. One discusses the present state of conflict and tensions, and the myriad reasons for the same. The other proposes practical(?) policy alternatives to the present ways of the Government. The alternatives are neither the 'Get back to the village, let's all till the land' kind, nor 'let's go out there and make some serious money, fellas' kind. It balances both and though the authors themselves never mention it, internalizes frugality, which being a subjective norm, is really really difficult to imbibe into practical policies.
The authors have an understandably serious grouse against the centralized, planned Government of the yesteryears, and show with a large number of case studies show how this socialist kind of Government which was adopted by the creators of the modern Indian State, has failed miserably in its objectives of equity, and went on to commit wholesale destruction of the ecology as well. Any centrally planned Government needs a strong 'centre', and after Nehru, there has been no politician worth mention who has been able to provide such a strong centre. Almost all the other Governments have been shaky, (except for the Indira Gandhi regime), and the present state of politics is known to all. Centralized planning, as in Soviet Russia and China work because of the lack of political democracy in these places, which cause very strong Governments that do not fear public opinion while doing what they think is right. Whether such a Government is justifiable is highly doubtful, but it has become clear that it does not work in an open democracy like India.
Chocolates from Switzerland, beer from Germany, wine from France, music players from Korea, apples from Spain. This is what one would see if one entered an omnivore household. However, this in itself is not a bad thing, but the authors show the many ways how omnivores have been given resources, heavily subsidized by the Government, at the cost of ecosystem people. Good examples are :
- Big dams, which have displaced as many people as the entire population of Australia since Independence.
- Deforestation and monoculture forests to supply cheap raw material to paper, rayon and other industries.
- Untreated industrial effluents, which destroy the means of subsistence of people downstream.
- Diverting water for many many kilometers to supply in urban areas, at the cost of local inhabitants, who have no gain from them.
After a survey of the India that is, they propose a future India that might be, based on decentralization of power (difficult, but happening), community based resource control (very difficult, delicate) and removal of subsidies for those who can afford to pay (won't happen, since these are also the ones that control the Government).
One can give this book a decent read, small as it is, and understand why the things that we take for granted are exactly the things that keep backward people backward, and not their laziness or ignorance, which plays a part, but not as significant as the Government would have us believe.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Whence the Social Sciences ? - 2 : Comments on Method and Outlook
As I had previously mentioned, the social sciences came to be heavily influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, especially the naturalist and positivist outlooks. It is in order that one takes a critical look at the methodologies and outlooks of these schools of thought and the attendant consequences.
With some thought, one can notice that the scientific methodology is steeped towards observation and verfication of facts. Now, for scientific method to be a socially acceptable system of generation of knowledge about the world, there must be one important component : reproducibility. Thus, observation and verification of facts must inevitably take the form of constructed experiments, whether they be elaborate or simple, easily reproducible or not. The results which follow and the method for obtaining the results themselves are then published and debated over. The best example for such a phenomenon is the present debate over climate change. If one set of people ( supporting Al Gore, mostly) say that we are going toward decimation, another set ( sponsored by Bush, no doubt) will say that both the method of finding facts of the opposing group and their interpretations of the same are both rubbish, and present other evidence to prove that infact, more petroleum must be burnt, preferably from those companies controlled by the American President. Another parallel is in the Open Source Software debate. Microsoft is decried for making expensive and psychologically damaging software, and Microsoft sponsors a study which shows that Open Source alternatives are much more expensive or more depressing. One thing is to be noted, however, all opposing groups claim to be committed to the same scientific method of observation and verification.
One, however, gets the feeling that both these might contain a grain of truth (unless we look from a partisan point of view), but a lack of larger amount of data is causing the confusion ( Malevolent mischief cannot be counted out, however). I remember reading in a slide of a boring presentation, to an omniscient being, there is no probability, no question of chance. Therefore, until definite information is acquired, nothing can be said. But here lies a weak link in scientific method : it is defined in a negative sense rather than in a positive sense. What I mean by this is that something is held as true only because there have been no observations to refute it. It takes only one antagonistic case to throw elaborate theories into the dustbin. This is due to the fact that most sciences deal with real life, and there is no "Theory of Everything". The only positive proofs that one can give are only related to things which have no actual existence outside the human brain, like mathematics and computer science (CompSci can be taken as a subset of Maths). These are artificially constructed systems which sometimes (fortunately and also by design, sometimes) find applications in real life.
So, one can construct two body experiments in the lab and verify physical laws, stretch a little bit, call change of color of a solution to verify chemical laws, take a leap of faith, you can categorize all things with similar (not same!) features as part of the same species in biology. If it gets this bad in constructed experiments, one can only hope and pray to the unverifiable God that we can generalise and discover (not make, since one also hopes that there is something extra-human called society that makes the laws) laws governing society.
Indeed, the time that we are looking at consists precisely of heroic efforts trying to achieve the above. So, one says humans are brute, scum of the earth being held from destroying each other by people in power who threaten them with dire consequences, and this is the structure of society. Another says, wait a minute, humans are nice things, wanting only to maximize their own pleasure and minimizing their pains, and human society is made to help this happen. Yet another says all crap, humans are divided into classes locked in a death struggle with each other, and finally the lower classes will win. Bull, says another, humans are slowly evolving and so is society (which is taken to be an organism, like all others), and one can see what society was, is and will be by applying Darwinian principles.
And so on and so forth. It is not at all a bad thing to put forth ideas, but to put them forward in a way so as to give it a false legitimacy is what is bad. These were supposed to be 'scientific' opinions, put forth after their proponents delved into 'deep study of humans and society'. Whereas nothing could be more correct than the opposite. In short, most of these propositions were a priori, and not empirically verifiable. This is the firm 'scientific' foundation on which our social sciences, notably economics and sociology came into being.
Added another book from which to draw from: Masters of Sociological Thought by Lewis A. Coser. Sapna bookstore, Indiranagar. Next time will be a more concrete example of how the above theoritical discussion took solid form in Economics or Sociology, depending on mood.
With some thought, one can notice that the scientific methodology is steeped towards observation and verfication of facts. Now, for scientific method to be a socially acceptable system of generation of knowledge about the world, there must be one important component : reproducibility. Thus, observation and verification of facts must inevitably take the form of constructed experiments, whether they be elaborate or simple, easily reproducible or not. The results which follow and the method for obtaining the results themselves are then published and debated over. The best example for such a phenomenon is the present debate over climate change. If one set of people ( supporting Al Gore, mostly) say that we are going toward decimation, another set ( sponsored by Bush, no doubt) will say that both the method of finding facts of the opposing group and their interpretations of the same are both rubbish, and present other evidence to prove that infact, more petroleum must be burnt, preferably from those companies controlled by the American President. Another parallel is in the Open Source Software debate. Microsoft is decried for making expensive and psychologically damaging software, and Microsoft sponsors a study which shows that Open Source alternatives are much more expensive or more depressing. One thing is to be noted, however, all opposing groups claim to be committed to the same scientific method of observation and verification.
One, however, gets the feeling that both these might contain a grain of truth (unless we look from a partisan point of view), but a lack of larger amount of data is causing the confusion ( Malevolent mischief cannot be counted out, however). I remember reading in a slide of a boring presentation, to an omniscient being, there is no probability, no question of chance. Therefore, until definite information is acquired, nothing can be said. But here lies a weak link in scientific method : it is defined in a negative sense rather than in a positive sense. What I mean by this is that something is held as true only because there have been no observations to refute it. It takes only one antagonistic case to throw elaborate theories into the dustbin. This is due to the fact that most sciences deal with real life, and there is no "Theory of Everything". The only positive proofs that one can give are only related to things which have no actual existence outside the human brain, like mathematics and computer science (CompSci can be taken as a subset of Maths). These are artificially constructed systems which sometimes (fortunately and also by design, sometimes) find applications in real life.
So, one can construct two body experiments in the lab and verify physical laws, stretch a little bit, call change of color of a solution to verify chemical laws, take a leap of faith, you can categorize all things with similar (not same!) features as part of the same species in biology. If it gets this bad in constructed experiments, one can only hope and pray to the unverifiable God that we can generalise and discover (not make, since one also hopes that there is something extra-human called society that makes the laws) laws governing society.
Indeed, the time that we are looking at consists precisely of heroic efforts trying to achieve the above. So, one says humans are brute, scum of the earth being held from destroying each other by people in power who threaten them with dire consequences, and this is the structure of society. Another says, wait a minute, humans are nice things, wanting only to maximize their own pleasure and minimizing their pains, and human society is made to help this happen. Yet another says all crap, humans are divided into classes locked in a death struggle with each other, and finally the lower classes will win. Bull, says another, humans are slowly evolving and so is society (which is taken to be an organism, like all others), and one can see what society was, is and will be by applying Darwinian principles.
And so on and so forth. It is not at all a bad thing to put forth ideas, but to put them forward in a way so as to give it a false legitimacy is what is bad. These were supposed to be 'scientific' opinions, put forth after their proponents delved into 'deep study of humans and society'. Whereas nothing could be more correct than the opposite. In short, most of these propositions were a priori, and not empirically verifiable. This is the firm 'scientific' foundation on which our social sciences, notably economics and sociology came into being.
Added another book from which to draw from: Masters of Sociological Thought by Lewis A. Coser. Sapna bookstore, Indiranagar. Next time will be a more concrete example of how the above theoritical discussion took solid form in Economics or Sociology, depending on mood.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Whence the Social Sciences ?
During and after the final days of 4 years of decadence that has come to be known as Engineering, I developed a certain taste for things non-technical (which is obviously apparent), and decided to try and think of options other than IT as a career. The first attractive option was Economics, after all, these dudes seem(claim) to know why and how we tick, monetarily atleast. Asked around for advice, and Deepak Malghan, (almost sole) author of this blog, gave me very negative opinions about it. Considering that the advice came from a person who studied Economics from Princeton and Maryland, was taken aback and decided to find out for myself the reasons for such an opinion.
The idea was not to study Economic theories, but to study Economics (or Sociology, since I wanted to see what these guys were upto as well) in itself. The fundamental assumptions, the philosophy behind these subjects, which would help me form my own opinion about them. This is still an ongoing process, and thought a mid-term check of what has been gleaned will be in order. This post will be the first in a series of posts which will describe, as the header says, the origin of the social sciences, and I will concentrate on sociology and economics, since they are what I have studied so far, rather than psychology, Anthropology or any others. I will draw my main streams of thought from Isaiah Berlin (the book has been previously mentioned), Reassembling the Social by Bruno LaTour and some other sources like The Worldly Philosophers by Heilbroner, Limitations of Marginal Utility by Veblen, The Affluent Society by John K. Galbraith (who was Ambassador to India, btw), maybe a little from Small is Beautiful by E. F. Schumacher as well, if I can get it back from a friend who is currently (not!!) reading it. If time permits, I will add some notes from The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (which i intend to finish sometime before I die).
Though it may be noticed that most of the books are Economic literature, and Sociology has been underrepresented (only LaTour), LaTour's book is more philosophical in nature, as compared to the others, and since that is the focus of this series of posts, and due to lack of literature, will have to content myself with it. This will not be a comprehensive, nor well rounded survey, and all mistakes are acts of omission rather than commission.
As Isaiah Berlin rightly points out, the ideas and theories that one studies is incomplete if not viewed along with the historical conditions that surrounded its birth. Thus, it makes sense to
learn about the birth of the social sciences, and the reasons for their coming into existence. The scene is the 17th century, and Isaac Newton is on his way to superstardom after the publication of the Prinicipia Mathematica, Galileo and Copernicus are much admired for their brave stand against the oppressive intellectual climate created by the Church for whatever reasons, and the numerous breakthroughs in physics and mathematics (by above mentioned people and others like Leibniz) have captured the imagination of the intellectuals of the era. Newton actually was able to predict orbits of planets which were empirically given until then by Kepler's laws, and heliocentrism made possible a very accurate picture of the solar system. The triumph of reason over blind belief, of science over theology, of logic over metaphysics was seen as an imminent, inevitable happening. The oppressive feudal system which gave prominence for place of birth over any intrinsic ability was much decried against, and the 'enlightened' people of this era set about building systematic arguments about the idea of divine rights of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and all such nonsense. This was about the same time when the Holy Roman Empire was in its death throes and people were beginning to speak boldly, questioning the basis of despotism, feudalism, nobility and primacy of the Church as a source of both divine and material power.
It was an era of tremendous change, and brought to the fore men of great intellectual ability like Voltaire, Hobbes, Rousseau, Descartes, the list will simply go on and on. They were the pioneers, so to speak, in the wilderness of unreason, irrationality, despotism, trying to find paths which lead to liberty, equality, fraternity (the main themes under which the French Revolution of 1789 was fought) using the guiding torch of reason. Every set about writing their own views about the world, and how it should be, and the printers probably laughed all the way to the bank. These were men with the noble task of ushering in the "Age of Reason", as the Enlightenment is also called. Everything had to be argued on the basis or reason, had to be rational, or else you probably were reactionary (i.e, siding with the Church or the kings, which was very bad). The Medieval Ages were ruled by all kinds of fairy tales, cults of irrationality called religions, and now was the time to break from all that and start another cult : the cult of Reason or Rationality.
Now, all the old institutions were to be disposed of with. The State, as previously identified with a majestic king who was given the right to rule over his subject by someone no less the God himself could no longer be accepted. God is an irrational creation of man, not verifiable in any sense, and therefore could not be a source of authority. Man was not created by the breath of God, and therefore there must be other ways in which to understand him ( Gender sensitivity was not necessary for political correctness then, from what i gather). What better way to start analysing such things if not by the methods adopted by the spectacularly successful natural sciences ? Newton, the blue eyed icon, who stood for all that is Rational, was to be emulated in studying all aspects of the world. Studies had been made and successfully explained why a stone moves if we kick it, and why the moon does not spin away from the earth, and obviously these things were explained using rational arguments, therefore it must be possible to explain man, agglomerations of men in the same manner. After all, everything in the universe followed a rational pattern, and one just required the insight to find it. Man was a bunch of atoms, and we knew how atoms work, so by induction we must be able to postulate general laws as to the behaviour of man. But since not everything is known to us as of now, we must atleast postulate laws which in some sense must be empirically verifiable.
Every genuine question must have a genuine answer : if not, the question is false, irrational. Since questions like "what is the nature of man?", "what is the nature of the State?" "How can economic relations between men explained ?" are genuine questions, they must have genuine, unique answers. And these can be answered, atleast to the extent of the present knowledge, by employing methodologies which have had such success in the natural sciences, i.e, they must be verifiable or be supported by sound reasoning.
This seems to be the bouyant mood in which Western Europe was in the Age of the Enlightenment. This was the time when the systematic study of man and his relations with others started, which was later termed as the Social Sciences. The consequences of this outlook at the birth of the Social Sciences has had many effects, swinging both in the positive and the negative direction. What they were, next time.
The idea was not to study Economic theories, but to study Economics (or Sociology, since I wanted to see what these guys were upto as well) in itself. The fundamental assumptions, the philosophy behind these subjects, which would help me form my own opinion about them. This is still an ongoing process, and thought a mid-term check of what has been gleaned will be in order. This post will be the first in a series of posts which will describe, as the header says, the origin of the social sciences, and I will concentrate on sociology and economics, since they are what I have studied so far, rather than psychology, Anthropology or any others. I will draw my main streams of thought from Isaiah Berlin (the book has been previously mentioned), Reassembling the Social by Bruno LaTour and some other sources like The Worldly Philosophers by Heilbroner, Limitations of Marginal Utility by Veblen, The Affluent Society by John K. Galbraith (who was Ambassador to India, btw), maybe a little from Small is Beautiful by E. F. Schumacher as well, if I can get it back from a friend who is currently (not!!) reading it. If time permits, I will add some notes from The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (which i intend to finish sometime before I die).
Though it may be noticed that most of the books are Economic literature, and Sociology has been underrepresented (only LaTour), LaTour's book is more philosophical in nature, as compared to the others, and since that is the focus of this series of posts, and due to lack of literature, will have to content myself with it. This will not be a comprehensive, nor well rounded survey, and all mistakes are acts of omission rather than commission.
As Isaiah Berlin rightly points out, the ideas and theories that one studies is incomplete if not viewed along with the historical conditions that surrounded its birth. Thus, it makes sense to
learn about the birth of the social sciences, and the reasons for their coming into existence. The scene is the 17th century, and Isaac Newton is on his way to superstardom after the publication of the Prinicipia Mathematica, Galileo and Copernicus are much admired for their brave stand against the oppressive intellectual climate created by the Church for whatever reasons, and the numerous breakthroughs in physics and mathematics (by above mentioned people and others like Leibniz) have captured the imagination of the intellectuals of the era. Newton actually was able to predict orbits of planets which were empirically given until then by Kepler's laws, and heliocentrism made possible a very accurate picture of the solar system. The triumph of reason over blind belief, of science over theology, of logic over metaphysics was seen as an imminent, inevitable happening. The oppressive feudal system which gave prominence for place of birth over any intrinsic ability was much decried against, and the 'enlightened' people of this era set about building systematic arguments about the idea of divine rights of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and all such nonsense. This was about the same time when the Holy Roman Empire was in its death throes and people were beginning to speak boldly, questioning the basis of despotism, feudalism, nobility and primacy of the Church as a source of both divine and material power.
It was an era of tremendous change, and brought to the fore men of great intellectual ability like Voltaire, Hobbes, Rousseau, Descartes, the list will simply go on and on. They were the pioneers, so to speak, in the wilderness of unreason, irrationality, despotism, trying to find paths which lead to liberty, equality, fraternity (the main themes under which the French Revolution of 1789 was fought) using the guiding torch of reason. Every set about writing their own views about the world, and how it should be, and the printers probably laughed all the way to the bank. These were men with the noble task of ushering in the "Age of Reason", as the Enlightenment is also called. Everything had to be argued on the basis or reason, had to be rational, or else you probably were reactionary (i.e, siding with the Church or the kings, which was very bad). The Medieval Ages were ruled by all kinds of fairy tales, cults of irrationality called religions, and now was the time to break from all that and start another cult : the cult of Reason or Rationality.
Now, all the old institutions were to be disposed of with. The State, as previously identified with a majestic king who was given the right to rule over his subject by someone no less the God himself could no longer be accepted. God is an irrational creation of man, not verifiable in any sense, and therefore could not be a source of authority. Man was not created by the breath of God, and therefore there must be other ways in which to understand him ( Gender sensitivity was not necessary for political correctness then, from what i gather). What better way to start analysing such things if not by the methods adopted by the spectacularly successful natural sciences ? Newton, the blue eyed icon, who stood for all that is Rational, was to be emulated in studying all aspects of the world. Studies had been made and successfully explained why a stone moves if we kick it, and why the moon does not spin away from the earth, and obviously these things were explained using rational arguments, therefore it must be possible to explain man, agglomerations of men in the same manner. After all, everything in the universe followed a rational pattern, and one just required the insight to find it. Man was a bunch of atoms, and we knew how atoms work, so by induction we must be able to postulate general laws as to the behaviour of man. But since not everything is known to us as of now, we must atleast postulate laws which in some sense must be empirically verifiable.
Every genuine question must have a genuine answer : if not, the question is false, irrational. Since questions like "what is the nature of man?", "what is the nature of the State?" "How can economic relations between men explained ?" are genuine questions, they must have genuine, unique answers. And these can be answered, atleast to the extent of the present knowledge, by employing methodologies which have had such success in the natural sciences, i.e, they must be verifiable or be supported by sound reasoning.
This seems to be the bouyant mood in which Western Europe was in the Age of the Enlightenment. This was the time when the systematic study of man and his relations with others started, which was later termed as the Social Sciences. The consequences of this outlook at the birth of the Social Sciences has had many effects, swinging both in the positive and the negative direction. What they were, next time.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Of harlots and men.
Short post, just a few random thoughts. Been doing the Bangalore-Mysore trip quite a few times in the past few months, and usually reach the station at B'lore late in the evening (Since I don't believe in political correctness, BengaLuru won't appear more than this one time). A walk through the subway to the bus station from the railway station transports you quite literally (and metaphorically) to the underbelly of this silicon(e?) valley wannabe.
Women lined up, reclining against the subway walls, which are stained with chewed betel leaves, showing that if these women are comfortable in these surroundings, one can only imagine what their regular surroundings would be like. They bear the lewd looks of passersby and retort with stinging remarks to the equally stinging and demeaning remarks of abhorrent men. Being highly enterprising businesswomen, they answer even cursory glances with a questioning stare : "How about it?".
Another interesting group of people are beggars. Their methods have become more and more sophisticated (or crude?) as time passes by. The woeful, pained look which appears only when someone passes by (I have actually seen the transition from normal to unhappy happen!), using kids and handicaps as props, and resorting to touching and pawing at people as a last try. Atleast people would give in not to be pawed at. How many times have we not seen people jumping back or warning beggars not to touch them?
The third group is that of the hijras. This group is probably discriminated against the most, you would not find one travelling via public transport even if they are able to afford it. Wearing loud makeup and using equally loud voices and claps to get paid to get away from a certain place is one of the very few options for them to make money. Though they are getting organised to fight against it, how widespread such a movement would be and how it would help change public perception is to be seen.
The thing to be noticed about all the above mentioned groups is that they are highly incapable of earning money in ways which does not have to reduce them to sideshows due to a large number of factors. Also to be noticed is that the only way to keep body and soul together is by feeding off the lust, shaky ethical stands and disgust of the rest of the society respectively. Interestingly also, these are largely urban phenomena: the more affluent the city, the more prevalent are members of these groups. What inferences can one draw from such observations ? Each will have their own views, i'll leave it at this.
Women lined up, reclining against the subway walls, which are stained with chewed betel leaves, showing that if these women are comfortable in these surroundings, one can only imagine what their regular surroundings would be like. They bear the lewd looks of passersby and retort with stinging remarks to the equally stinging and demeaning remarks of abhorrent men. Being highly enterprising businesswomen, they answer even cursory glances with a questioning stare : "How about it?".
Another interesting group of people are beggars. Their methods have become more and more sophisticated (or crude?) as time passes by. The woeful, pained look which appears only when someone passes by (I have actually seen the transition from normal to unhappy happen!), using kids and handicaps as props, and resorting to touching and pawing at people as a last try. Atleast people would give in not to be pawed at. How many times have we not seen people jumping back or warning beggars not to touch them?
The third group is that of the hijras. This group is probably discriminated against the most, you would not find one travelling via public transport even if they are able to afford it. Wearing loud makeup and using equally loud voices and claps to get paid to get away from a certain place is one of the very few options for them to make money. Though they are getting organised to fight against it, how widespread such a movement would be and how it would help change public perception is to be seen.
The thing to be noticed about all the above mentioned groups is that they are highly incapable of earning money in ways which does not have to reduce them to sideshows due to a large number of factors. Also to be noticed is that the only way to keep body and soul together is by feeding off the lust, shaky ethical stands and disgust of the rest of the society respectively. Interestingly also, these are largely urban phenomena: the more affluent the city, the more prevalent are members of these groups. What inferences can one draw from such observations ? Each will have their own views, i'll leave it at this.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Wireless Sensor Networks -- ICT4D in embedded form ?
One technology that has fascinated me ever since I heard about it was Wireless Sensor Networks. It promises to reduce both cost as well as power consumed for computation. The technical challenges it offers (mainly in the field of routing protocols) are good enough to capture any self-respecting Computer scientist's attention. The amount of research going into this is a good indication that the technology holds tremendous commercial promise, with big players like Intel, Freescale, Texas Instruments vying to get a grip in the market.
The good thing about WSNs is that they are capable of automating various monitoring tasks which otherwise would have to be done by people. They are, being machines, are not susceptible to errors and falling asleep (unless the battery runs out!), and consequently, a highly reliable system. The standard that is presently the most popular is the IEEE 802.15.4, which takes care of low-level things and the Zigbee standard, which is a higher level thing based on the 802.15.4. A properly configured 802.15.4 device can run for months on one set of batteries, which makes it attractive where power is scarce and expensive.
Unlike regular computers, which have one CPU, the network behaves like a giant distributed computer, and hence designing algorithms is an interesting task. To cut up a big task into many small ones, distribute them over many small computers, then collating the results, and to do this reliably and efficiently, are big issues in the research community nowadays.
So, where does this fit into ICT for Development ? we don't really care about complex algorithms, but the attractive feature is low power consumption, and cheap cost of computation. There are competitive solutions which cost less than a thousand rupees per node. The applications are quite a few : Intelligent agriculture, Forest fire detection system, animal monitoring systems, to name a few. These are things that are done manually and with large inefficiencies in the process. Lack of regular, reliable information is the main issue, and that is what these networks address.
At AllGo Embedded, we have been working on some interesting applications which we hope will make a difference in the common man's daily life. More on this matter, as and when progress (or patents ;) happens.
The good thing about WSNs is that they are capable of automating various monitoring tasks which otherwise would have to be done by people. They are, being machines, are not susceptible to errors and falling asleep (unless the battery runs out!), and consequently, a highly reliable system. The standard that is presently the most popular is the IEEE 802.15.4, which takes care of low-level things and the Zigbee standard, which is a higher level thing based on the 802.15.4. A properly configured 802.15.4 device can run for months on one set of batteries, which makes it attractive where power is scarce and expensive.
Unlike regular computers, which have one CPU, the network behaves like a giant distributed computer, and hence designing algorithms is an interesting task. To cut up a big task into many small ones, distribute them over many small computers, then collating the results, and to do this reliably and efficiently, are big issues in the research community nowadays.
So, where does this fit into ICT for Development ? we don't really care about complex algorithms, but the attractive feature is low power consumption, and cheap cost of computation. There are competitive solutions which cost less than a thousand rupees per node. The applications are quite a few : Intelligent agriculture, Forest fire detection system, animal monitoring systems, to name a few. These are things that are done manually and with large inefficiencies in the process. Lack of regular, reliable information is the main issue, and that is what these networks address.
At AllGo Embedded, we have been working on some interesting applications which we hope will make a difference in the common man's daily life. More on this matter, as and when progress (or patents ;) happens.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Chak De!
This movie is doing the rounds, a lot of them(rounds) in fact, and raking in the moolah. Went to watch it, did not like it as much as everyone thought everyone else would (or should). After being told this and that (mostly derogatory this' and thats) about my taste and outlook, well, no qualms or issues. But this was really it, the last straw. Obviously, raving and ranting about it in an email to the editor won't do much good, so thought i'll do the same here.
There are probably things one can appreciate in this movie, though none of them appeared to my cinematically retarded mind. But one thing you cannot say is that the movie is original. Anyone who watches Hollywood will have seen scores of such films with baseball or basketball or football (American ishtyle), in all kinds of movies: drama, comedy, tragedy, horror, any combination of the above. Some of the passages in that horrendous piece of feminist (If one can call it that) rhetoric are worth quoting:
There are probably things one can appreciate in this movie, though none of them appeared to my cinematically retarded mind. But one thing you cannot say is that the movie is original. Anyone who watches Hollywood will have seen scores of such films with baseball or basketball or football (American ishtyle), in all kinds of movies: drama, comedy, tragedy, horror, any combination of the above. Some of the passages in that horrendous piece of feminist (If one can call it that) rhetoric are worth quoting:
None of these is a Hindi Film cliche. They are all
individuals ....
Excellent. The girl who tries to seduce the coach to get her a prominent position in the team, one who tries to prove a point to her boyfriend by scoring a copious amount of goals against the best defences in the world (which are completely bamboozled by her wizardry with the stick, leaving her usually in a one on one situation with the goalie), a girl who gives up her self prestige for a higher cause, none of these are cliches, because they are not portrayed by cliched men, but women! And wonder of wonders, they are all individuals! And all the time I was thinking they were parts of some giant amoeba out to take over the world! The only characters that are developed (however little) in the movie are that of SRK, Chandigarh based hot-babe, the goalie. Naik, to some extent maybe, but the rest are there just to fill up the team. How one can call 'all of these' as 'individuals' is left to the reader's imagination to fill up. Just to take the gender point of view further, why a man lead a women's team ? Are there no competent women to coach, even in the fantasy world of Bollywood ?
Won't even try to comment about this. The author has seen quite a lot of movies for somone who realizes that all movies are mere cliched, male chauvinist portrayals.
Asexual ? biologically, this means these ladies are quite like bacterium. Another instance of social sciences borrowing metaphors from the natural ones, thus making them devoid of meaning and ambiguous. If it means that they do not look smouldering sexually on the screen, I don't see why this is such a great deal. The author's gripe about sexuality expressed on the screen 'from a male view' must elaborate on what a 'male view' is and what expression of sexuality from a 'female view' is. Maybe then the poor directors will stop making such raunchy flicks and try to appeal to a larger demographic. About the unselfconsciousness part, well, even item numbers portray the actresses as quite unselfconscious. The author seems more conscious about their unselfconsciousness than the players themselves. Ask a sportswoman in whatever sport, she would not consider herself to be an 'asexual being' playing 'unselfconsciously'. She is just playing, for the love of playing. The psychological embellishments add no substance to the argument.
And so on and so forth ... The director seems to be a decent man trying to make a honest buck by showing people what they want to see, and reading feminist victories in cinema after 60 years of oppression by the 'male view' seems to be going too far.
As to the question if a Hindi film can alter deep rooted prejudices, the answer lies .... applause richocheting through cinema halls ..... Beating the daylights out of men who whistle.Right. Hooliganism, if practiced by women is called empowerment. God knows where the author learnt about freedom or empowerment, it definitely was not from Gandhi. I may not know the problems a Delhi woman faces, but it can be debated as to whether beating up eve-teasers is going to solve anything. And people applauding loudly is a sign of alteration of deep rooted prejudices. People applauded with greater gusto during the screening of Rang De Basanti, but (un?)fortunately, our youth did not take the matter of governance into their own hands. Wonder why.
And the cliche smashing scenes roll on: woman risks marriage .... girl ... won't stop playing hockey ... cricketer boyfriend .. player offers herself coach .. realizes ... without self respect will only go so far and no further...
Won't even try to comment about this. The author has seen quite a lot of movies for somone who realizes that all movies are mere cliched, male chauvinist portrayals.
The women sweat not in kitchens ....like ... Barjatya films .. dance bars and steam baths to appease voyeurs.. but on hockey field. They are asexual creatures though not dispassionate. They play unselfconsciously ....
Asexual ? biologically, this means these ladies are quite like bacterium. Another instance of social sciences borrowing metaphors from the natural ones, thus making them devoid of meaning and ambiguous. If it means that they do not look smouldering sexually on the screen, I don't see why this is such a great deal. The author's gripe about sexuality expressed on the screen 'from a male view' must elaborate on what a 'male view' is and what expression of sexuality from a 'female view' is. Maybe then the poor directors will stop making such raunchy flicks and try to appeal to a larger demographic. About the unselfconsciousness part, well, even item numbers portray the actresses as quite unselfconscious. The author seems more conscious about their unselfconsciousness than the players themselves. Ask a sportswoman in whatever sport, she would not consider herself to be an 'asexual being' playing 'unselfconsciously'. She is just playing, for the love of playing. The psychological embellishments add no substance to the argument.
And so on and so forth ... The director seems to be a decent man trying to make a honest buck by showing people what they want to see, and reading feminist victories in cinema after 60 years of oppression by the 'male view' seems to be going too far.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
What is freedom ?
Statutory Warning: Content that follows may be unsuitable for science, math, engineering majors, and similar juveniles.
Was reading (yet!) another book, this one is named Political Ideas in the Romantic Age by Isaiah Berlin. Halfway through, and there is definitely no way I will review this book, being far too philosophical in content. So, thought I'll just write a few words about the central theme of the book, or rather set of lectures compiled into a book.
Berlin was a professional philosopher and became interested in politics (like most people in his time, living through two world wars). The idea that Berlin explores is that any work of a (wo)man is only understood fully with reference to the context of the time that (s)he lived in. Hence, he explores the history of the political ideas of the most turbulent times in recent European history in terms of conflicting views, opinions and philosophies, the 18th and 19th centuries. He does not delve into deep analysis of each and every philosopher (Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Helvetius, Bentham, Adam Smith, Rousseau ......), rather, he tries to capture the spirit of the age, or as is popularly known, the zeitgeist.
For Berlin, the central question of political philosophy is "Why should one man obey another ?" and from here flows the logical successors : "What is more important, obedience to the State or personal liberty ?"; "Can a person be subservient and still claim to be free?" . Taking this as the starting point, the solutions proposed by various stalwarts of the Enlightenment and beyond are explored, will not go into the details, as promised.
The central talking point of the presently read 100-odd pages are two words : does and should. The question is not why does a man obey, but rather, why should a man obey. The first question can be answered by empirical data, the second question is far more difficult to answer. If someone can write 250+ pages showing how people confused does and should, or even took does and should to be identical, it no doubt will not be easy reading :D
On a more earthly level, the questions posed are quite interesting even to the non-professional (and hence more creative) philosophers, which consists of most of the humans on this planet. What does it mean to be free ? Why should we bow down before a King or a Prime Minister ? Can duty toward a State be consistent with the idea of personal freedom ? Does being free necessarily imply that you are happy ? Take the case of Singapore. Quite a wealthy state, but absolutely no freedom. Take the case of some Sub-Saharan nomadic tribe : not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but as much freedom as the breadth of the Sahara (barring visa restrictions ;). What relation exists between money and freedom ? Does one increase proportionally with the other ? Or upto a certain limit ? Can we say Anil Ambani is more free than a naked wandering Jain monk ? If yes, why ? If no, why ? Can there be singular answers to such questions ?
Yup, the spectrum over which we can analyse is huge and very interesting. Most of these will at the end turn out to be subjective issues. But are there objective metrics which we can use, if not to answer all questions, atleast to serve as indicators ? Can social policy be formulated with regard to such parameters ? How easy or difficult will it be to empirically measure these parameters to ascertain the progress of an implemented policy ? What can be considered as a viable endpoint in development programmes which involve such parameters ? Most of the questions in this paragraph were raised in class today by Ashok Rao, and most of this semester will go into trying to answer such things, if possible.
The approach to development lies in these questions, one intuitively feels. One can approach development from the pseudo(or quasi?)-scientific outlook of the social sciences like economics or sociology, or from the (more pseudo?) philosophical/empirical basis delineated above, in a highly nebulous form. This course is turning out to be fun :D
Was reading (yet!) another book, this one is named Political Ideas in the Romantic Age by Isaiah Berlin. Halfway through, and there is definitely no way I will review this book, being far too philosophical in content. So, thought I'll just write a few words about the central theme of the book, or rather set of lectures compiled into a book.
Berlin was a professional philosopher and became interested in politics (like most people in his time, living through two world wars). The idea that Berlin explores is that any work of a (wo)man is only understood fully with reference to the context of the time that (s)he lived in. Hence, he explores the history of the political ideas of the most turbulent times in recent European history in terms of conflicting views, opinions and philosophies, the 18th and 19th centuries. He does not delve into deep analysis of each and every philosopher (Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Helvetius, Bentham, Adam Smith, Rousseau ......), rather, he tries to capture the spirit of the age, or as is popularly known, the zeitgeist.
For Berlin, the central question of political philosophy is "Why should one man obey another ?" and from here flows the logical successors : "What is more important, obedience to the State or personal liberty ?"; "Can a person be subservient and still claim to be free?" . Taking this as the starting point, the solutions proposed by various stalwarts of the Enlightenment and beyond are explored, will not go into the details, as promised.
The central talking point of the presently read 100-odd pages are two words : does and should. The question is not why does a man obey, but rather, why should a man obey. The first question can be answered by empirical data, the second question is far more difficult to answer. If someone can write 250+ pages showing how people confused does and should, or even took does and should to be identical, it no doubt will not be easy reading :D
On a more earthly level, the questions posed are quite interesting even to the non-professional (and hence more creative) philosophers, which consists of most of the humans on this planet. What does it mean to be free ? Why should we bow down before a King or a Prime Minister ? Can duty toward a State be consistent with the idea of personal freedom ? Does being free necessarily imply that you are happy ? Take the case of Singapore. Quite a wealthy state, but absolutely no freedom. Take the case of some Sub-Saharan nomadic tribe : not wealthy by any stretch of the imagination, but as much freedom as the breadth of the Sahara (barring visa restrictions ;). What relation exists between money and freedom ? Does one increase proportionally with the other ? Or upto a certain limit ? Can we say Anil Ambani is more free than a naked wandering Jain monk ? If yes, why ? If no, why ? Can there be singular answers to such questions ?
Yup, the spectrum over which we can analyse is huge and very interesting. Most of these will at the end turn out to be subjective issues. But are there objective metrics which we can use, if not to answer all questions, atleast to serve as indicators ? Can social policy be formulated with regard to such parameters ? How easy or difficult will it be to empirically measure these parameters to ascertain the progress of an implemented policy ? What can be considered as a viable endpoint in development programmes which involve such parameters ? Most of the questions in this paragraph were raised in class today by Ashok Rao, and most of this semester will go into trying to answer such things, if possible.
The approach to development lies in these questions, one intuitively feels. One can approach development from the pseudo(or quasi?)-scientific outlook of the social sciences like economics or sociology, or from the (more pseudo?) philosophical/empirical basis delineated above, in a highly nebulous form. This course is turning out to be fun :D
Sunday, August 26, 2007
LED lighting : when rather than if !
For the past few months, I have been looking at alternate lighting using LEDs. These devices show tremendous promise with regard to power saving, ease of use, and durability. So, thought would write a post for spread of info and concretizing my own readings.
LEDs, especially white LEDs are coming in big time into the market, and you can see them in all sizes and shapes in small flashlights and mobiles phones instead of flash bulbs. The biggest volume market right now is for low wattage(less power consuming) LEDs and Chinese goods are simply flooding the market. However, there is a silent background revolution happening, led by Philips, Cree, Nichia and Seoul Semiconductor. There is also an Indian company in the fray, based in Hyderabad. These and many other companies are trying to bring out high power LEDs which have direct applications in home and architectural lighting. These are rated in the range 1 Watt to 5 Watt. In contrast, the LEDs are found in your phones and flashlights are in the in the 200 milliWatt or less range, around one-fifth of the big guys.
These light sources are among the most efficient light sources available today, with efficiencies comparable with Compact Flourescent Lamps(CFL). However, most CFLs do not add the power consumed by a choke present on every lamp, and hence are usually less efficient than claimed. The unit of brightness is called lumen, and both LEDs and CFLs have an efficiency of around 50 lumen/Watt. In contrast, normal incandescent bulbs have an efficiency of 15 lumen/Watt! This implies you can replace a 100 Watt bulb with a 30 Watt CFL or LED and not perceive a difference in brightness. However, the light emitted by normal bulbs is more pleasing to the eye when compared to the other two. Therefore, you can see amber coloured CFLs and LEDs, neither of which have made a big dent in the market as of now, but promise to.
If CFLs are as good as LEDs, then why the whole fuss of typing out a whole post on them ? LEDs have many advantages, despite the fact that those in the market are only as efficient as CFLs.
So, why does not anyone as yet have LED lights in their house ? Packaging, lack of awareness, high prices (low volume :( ) all have contributed to this. Hopefully, this will change soon.
LEDs, especially white LEDs are coming in big time into the market, and you can see them in all sizes and shapes in small flashlights and mobiles phones instead of flash bulbs. The biggest volume market right now is for low wattage(less power consuming) LEDs and Chinese goods are simply flooding the market. However, there is a silent background revolution happening, led by Philips, Cree, Nichia and Seoul Semiconductor. There is also an Indian company in the fray, based in Hyderabad. These and many other companies are trying to bring out high power LEDs which have direct applications in home and architectural lighting. These are rated in the range 1 Watt to 5 Watt. In contrast, the LEDs are found in your phones and flashlights are in the in the 200 milliWatt or less range, around one-fifth of the big guys.
These light sources are among the most efficient light sources available today, with efficiencies comparable with Compact Flourescent Lamps(CFL). However, most CFLs do not add the power consumed by a choke present on every lamp, and hence are usually less efficient than claimed. The unit of brightness is called lumen, and both LEDs and CFLs have an efficiency of around 50 lumen/Watt. In contrast, normal incandescent bulbs have an efficiency of 15 lumen/Watt! This implies you can replace a 100 Watt bulb with a 30 Watt CFL or LED and not perceive a difference in brightness. However, the light emitted by normal bulbs is more pleasing to the eye when compared to the other two. Therefore, you can see amber coloured CFLs and LEDs, neither of which have made a big dent in the market as of now, but promise to.
If CFLs are as good as LEDs, then why the whole fuss of typing out a whole post on them ? LEDs have many advantages, despite the fact that those in the market are only as efficient as CFLs.
- Prototype LEDs are available in labs of the above mentioned companies which are as efficient as 100 lumen/watt. However, most of these are sub 1 Watt category as of now. With all companies scrambling to outdo each other, this situation is likely to be rectified very soon.
- LEDs are solid state lighting devices, which means that they have no moving, breakable parts unlike either CFLs or bulbs. This means they can be used in more extreme places and applications.
- They are made from established manufacturing methods which make all our computer chips so cheap, which means at large volumes, the cost of lighting will be negligible. (Note: companies might keep cost high initially to recover cost. But once the Chinese get their hands on the technology, it should come down :) Evidence is available in the cost at which you get cheap LED based chinese goods. )
- These lights can be dimmed to suitable requirements, which is not an option on the CFLs. Bulbs can do this, but they do not even figure in the discussion.
- For spot lighting applications, where the light is required in only a particular area (street lights), LEDs are more suitable than the conventional tubelights (Sodium vapor lamps are not considered, since they are the most efficient lighting solutions with efficiencies of 150 lumen/Watt, but they are high voltage lights, and not used everywhere.) since they have a small angle beyond which the light output is almost zero. This means that all the light is focused onto a small area, unlike tubelights which radiate light every which way, which is essentially a waste of light.
- These run on DC current, which means that they can run off batteries in areas which do not have access to grid power. With suitable circuits, they can even run on AC current. These are cheap circuits and do not require as much circus work as running CFLs on DC, which require another kind of light itself.
- The (claimed) lifetime of LED lights is around 10,000 hours, which works out to be close to 10 years of operation. In comparison, CFLs have an average lifetime of 5-7 years, and forget about bulbs.
- The size of CFLs increases significantly with wattage increase, not so with LEDs.
So, why does not anyone as yet have LED lights in their house ? Packaging, lack of awareness, high prices (low volume :( ) all have contributed to this. Hopefully, this will change soon.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Book review : Dietmar Rothermund and Francine Frankel
Consistent with the agenda to read a lot of history, two of the recent books that I happened to read were An Economic History of India by Dietmar Rothermund and India's Political Economy 1947-2004 by Francine Frankel. Both are different outlooks toward the same issue, the former purely economic in outlook, whereas the latter also puts a large stress on politics. One sweeps past 200 years or more in 200 pages, whereas the other trudges through almost 60 years in 788!
Rothermund is a WYSIWYG kind of writer, and does not worry too much about writing well, as long as the message gets through, and data is passed on. It requires some decent background in economics, since it concentrates on monetary aspects, and since I lack the same, some of it went overhead. Frankel writes in more enjoyable prose, though the sheer size of the book may be daunting to the unmotivated. It is very readable, even by the lay reader. She goes in depth into the various aspects of Indian politics and helps us see our leaders without the aura created by party propaganda.
The ironic and saddening part is the the most athoritative syntheses of Indian politico-economic history is by Westerners rather than Indians. God knows what our economists and political scientists doing. There were people like Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C Dutt who wrote about India's problems before Independence, but there seems to be no Indian equivalent to these books.
Rothermund's main contribution is showing how the Indian economy grew from being a feudal one under the Mughals to a capitalist economy which was grafted onto the feudal one by the East India company mainly due to the western ideologies of private property and laissez-faire (This insight is due to another book, not reviewed here). Private property was non-existent and most farmlands were communal lands, owned (symbolically) by the king and tilled by the whole village. One of the reasons why this was done was to make tax collection easier, since you need an owner to collect tax from. Thus, the Permanent Settlement was implemented in Bengal and most of N. India, the Ryotwari system in most of S. India. These systems for collection of land revenue had far reaching consequences in India, both in the political sphere and economic sphere. For instance, it can explain why the Green revolution led to such prosperity in the Punjab and left most of South India untouched. It also explains the structure of the Congress Party and why it was so difficult for Congress policies which tried to empower the poor landless labourers to be implemented.
He goes on to describe the parasitical relationship between the Empire and its colony, how the World Wars made England's grip on it's colonies weak, and WW2 broke its back to almost guaranteed independence to India, regardless of the great nationalist movement led by Gandhi. He describes the rise and fall of the cotton and jute industries of Bombay and Calcutta respectively, and why Bombay flourished even after Independence whereas Calcutta did not, comparatively speaking.
Frankel's work is more contemporary, concentrating on the relationship between political pressures and economic policies of Independent India. She goes into details of the planning and execution and results of the Five year plans upto Indira Gandhi's time, the break from a socialist development strategy to a more liberal one (and how this was partly due to pressures of the World Bank), its results, which were both positive (self sufficiency in food due to the Green Revolution) and negative (economic disparities widened, the lowest strata were the worst hit). She goes on to give an account of the rise of populist politics, starting from Indira Gandhi, more so by Rajiv, though it was more out of external pressures, rise of the BJP due to an exploitation of the frustrations of the Hindu middle and upper classes, the rise of various regional parties and the inevitable move from single party to coalition rule. She also expresses concern about the challenge of Hindu fundamentalist politics followed by the BJP to the Indian democratic fabric.
One worrying pattern noticed in both books is that regardless of which form of economic ideology was followed in India, socialist or capitalist, benefits were seen only by a small group consisting of rich farmers and urban middle class.
One reason for this could be that the shining examples of socialism, China and the USSR, were both created by outright class wars, the Russian revolution being the more famous one. China also had a civil war between the Communists and the right wing Kuomintang. The social structure was torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Where liberal ideologies were successful, namely Western Europe and the USA, were due to lack of any social structure in the USA before migrations from Europe (American Indians can be neglected since they anyways were decimated), England was anyways more liberal than any of the others, which explains why it was the first to be almost completely industrialized, with the ruling classes in other countries were in the way of allowing a capitalist middle class to rise as fast as England. Hence also her dominance in the colonial race.
In India, however, after seeing the effects that a revolution had had in Russia, a more moderate policy of trying to cause a non-violent revolution was tried, without directly trying to attack the class structure. Attacking the upper classes was even more difficult since they were the ones that funded the Congress Party during the struggle for freedom. This is Frankel's thesis. This, however, had the unfortunate effect of having to rely on the upper classes in the villages to help implement policy decisions, which lead to more concentration of power in their hands. The Indian electorate was not class conscious in the early days of Independence, and would vote for the local landlord or someone he supported. Rising of class consciousness was made possible by the CPI and CPI(M), with the unfortunate effects of the birth of Naxalism. It was hoped that this would lead to outright class war and bring about another Russia.
Whatever may be the ideology, India has proved an exception, and nobody was in any mood to try and find an alternative mode of economic organisation suited to Indian needs, may be with the exception of J. C. Kumarappa, who was anyways sidelined. There are still people who do not consider Kumarappa an economist, never mind the fact that he studied economics in Columbia.
Now, India seems to be riding an euphoric wave of unbelievable wealth creation, but there seems to never have been a time in India's history when so many farmers have committed suicide in such a brief time period, (both in Vidharbha and Andhra Pradesh), a more skewed and uneven development, the lower classes venting their frustrations by taking refuge in narrow linguistic and cultural nationalisms, talks about privatizing water supplies and distribution by market demands (so that a golf course can get more water when compared to a farmer), and our demigods in the Parliament trying to disable farmers via subsidies and handouts without trying to solve fundamental problems in Indian agriculture of irrigation, short-sighted cultivation of cash crops, and lack of support prices.
The scenario seems to evoke mixed feelings about the direction that India is taking, both within the ivory towers of IT-BT zones and the disaster zones without. Political will is the need of the hour, with NGOs not able to really be effective unless there is some sound backing by the governments, and that is the one thing that seems difficult to exert with the pressures of populist and coalition politics on every Minister's mind. Is there any hope for Tagore's vision of India to be realized ?
Hope so :)
Rothermund is a WYSIWYG kind of writer, and does not worry too much about writing well, as long as the message gets through, and data is passed on. It requires some decent background in economics, since it concentrates on monetary aspects, and since I lack the same, some of it went overhead. Frankel writes in more enjoyable prose, though the sheer size of the book may be daunting to the unmotivated. It is very readable, even by the lay reader. She goes in depth into the various aspects of Indian politics and helps us see our leaders without the aura created by party propaganda.
The ironic and saddening part is the the most athoritative syntheses of Indian politico-economic history is by Westerners rather than Indians. God knows what our economists and political scientists doing. There were people like Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C Dutt who wrote about India's problems before Independence, but there seems to be no Indian equivalent to these books.
Rothermund's main contribution is showing how the Indian economy grew from being a feudal one under the Mughals to a capitalist economy which was grafted onto the feudal one by the East India company mainly due to the western ideologies of private property and laissez-faire (This insight is due to another book, not reviewed here). Private property was non-existent and most farmlands were communal lands, owned (symbolically) by the king and tilled by the whole village. One of the reasons why this was done was to make tax collection easier, since you need an owner to collect tax from. Thus, the Permanent Settlement was implemented in Bengal and most of N. India, the Ryotwari system in most of S. India. These systems for collection of land revenue had far reaching consequences in India, both in the political sphere and economic sphere. For instance, it can explain why the Green revolution led to such prosperity in the Punjab and left most of South India untouched. It also explains the structure of the Congress Party and why it was so difficult for Congress policies which tried to empower the poor landless labourers to be implemented.
He goes on to describe the parasitical relationship between the Empire and its colony, how the World Wars made England's grip on it's colonies weak, and WW2 broke its back to almost guaranteed independence to India, regardless of the great nationalist movement led by Gandhi. He describes the rise and fall of the cotton and jute industries of Bombay and Calcutta respectively, and why Bombay flourished even after Independence whereas Calcutta did not, comparatively speaking.
Frankel's work is more contemporary, concentrating on the relationship between political pressures and economic policies of Independent India. She goes into details of the planning and execution and results of the Five year plans upto Indira Gandhi's time, the break from a socialist development strategy to a more liberal one (and how this was partly due to pressures of the World Bank), its results, which were both positive (self sufficiency in food due to the Green Revolution) and negative (economic disparities widened, the lowest strata were the worst hit). She goes on to give an account of the rise of populist politics, starting from Indira Gandhi, more so by Rajiv, though it was more out of external pressures, rise of the BJP due to an exploitation of the frustrations of the Hindu middle and upper classes, the rise of various regional parties and the inevitable move from single party to coalition rule. She also expresses concern about the challenge of Hindu fundamentalist politics followed by the BJP to the Indian democratic fabric.
One worrying pattern noticed in both books is that regardless of which form of economic ideology was followed in India, socialist or capitalist, benefits were seen only by a small group consisting of rich farmers and urban middle class.
One reason for this could be that the shining examples of socialism, China and the USSR, were both created by outright class wars, the Russian revolution being the more famous one. China also had a civil war between the Communists and the right wing Kuomintang. The social structure was torn down and rebuilt from scratch. Where liberal ideologies were successful, namely Western Europe and the USA, were due to lack of any social structure in the USA before migrations from Europe (American Indians can be neglected since they anyways were decimated), England was anyways more liberal than any of the others, which explains why it was the first to be almost completely industrialized, with the ruling classes in other countries were in the way of allowing a capitalist middle class to rise as fast as England. Hence also her dominance in the colonial race.
In India, however, after seeing the effects that a revolution had had in Russia, a more moderate policy of trying to cause a non-violent revolution was tried, without directly trying to attack the class structure. Attacking the upper classes was even more difficult since they were the ones that funded the Congress Party during the struggle for freedom. This is Frankel's thesis. This, however, had the unfortunate effect of having to rely on the upper classes in the villages to help implement policy decisions, which lead to more concentration of power in their hands. The Indian electorate was not class conscious in the early days of Independence, and would vote for the local landlord or someone he supported. Rising of class consciousness was made possible by the CPI and CPI(M), with the unfortunate effects of the birth of Naxalism. It was hoped that this would lead to outright class war and bring about another Russia.
Whatever may be the ideology, India has proved an exception, and nobody was in any mood to try and find an alternative mode of economic organisation suited to Indian needs, may be with the exception of J. C. Kumarappa, who was anyways sidelined. There are still people who do not consider Kumarappa an economist, never mind the fact that he studied economics in Columbia.
Now, India seems to be riding an euphoric wave of unbelievable wealth creation, but there seems to never have been a time in India's history when so many farmers have committed suicide in such a brief time period, (both in Vidharbha and Andhra Pradesh), a more skewed and uneven development, the lower classes venting their frustrations by taking refuge in narrow linguistic and cultural nationalisms, talks about privatizing water supplies and distribution by market demands (so that a golf course can get more water when compared to a farmer), and our demigods in the Parliament trying to disable farmers via subsidies and handouts without trying to solve fundamental problems in Indian agriculture of irrigation, short-sighted cultivation of cash crops, and lack of support prices.
The scenario seems to evoke mixed feelings about the direction that India is taking, both within the ivory towers of IT-BT zones and the disaster zones without. Political will is the need of the hour, with NGOs not able to really be effective unless there is some sound backing by the governments, and that is the one thing that seems difficult to exert with the pressures of populist and coalition politics on every Minister's mind. Is there any hope for Tagore's vision of India to be realized ?
Hope so :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)