Sunday, January 13, 2013

Moral Policing and related shite..

There's a technique out there, if one would like to denounce something-anything, one would do well to invent a condemning 'catch phrase' - something that need to make just enough sense to be sold to an ever obliging herd and not more..

Moral Policing to me is one such catch phrase... Every time some idiot god-man or a politico utters anything half baked that is pedantic and mis quotes a tradition of some sort - a certain section of the herd who've gone long on the absolute liberalism and freedom concoction take up the cudgels with cries of 'Stop this Moral Policing'..

There are 2 important lines of thought that leave me exasperated with people such as these and I state them below :

Absolute and complete freedom is a myth

We live in a severely partisan and unequal world. If we can roughly agree that the kind of stuff that shapes an individual and his/her thoughts are an hitherto undetermined combination of genes, the socio-economic environment in which one is raised, the company that one retains and the literature that one encounters - then there are a lot of variants of each of these stuff that are made available to each of us in different proportions. Which is why we form a part of various encapsulations that include, but are not limited to language, creed, economic status, religion and state.  
The most telling of these encapsulation is that of economic disparity. Nothing and I mean nothing effects the behavior of people the way economics or more aptly economic policy does. In a society of have's and have not's - the 'haves' demand for absolute liberalism will always be at logger heads with the 'have nots' need for parity in life. When the proportion of these two sets of people is out of whack and if the policies of a state are not conducive for social mobility - then the primal need of man to seek material will be satiated by anti-social activities. What hope can there be of Absolute Freedom under this setup ?
Simply put, For absolute freedom, one needs absolute agreement - an implicit sync in thought and actions which in turn needs absolute equality and societal equanimity.
However we live, always have and may always live in a disparate society and man is predisposed to be divisive  - consequently we will always have limits in what we can say and do. 

Morality isn't a bad word, it's a necessary word

Stanford studies say Morality is :
  1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
            some other group, such as a religion, or
            accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
  2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
If one is allergic to the first definition, then the second offers more purpose. In it's most basic form it is a code of conduct for a society. 
My fundamental doubt is - What could be refutable about a code of conduct for a society ? We have code of conducts in educational institutions, places of work and public establishments - so why not for a society at large ?
While I vehemently oppose the imposition of an individual's perspective of morality onto another, I firmly believe that it is important for a society to have a code of conduct in place that outlines social behavior and limitations..
This is where my buddy Rex and I differ..Morality is too interconnected an entity for it to be reduced to a perspective

And finally the hypocrisy of it all gets my goat - I was speaking to a very sensible friend and mother of two teenage girls last week at work - who was equally frustrated with the aforementioned phrase as I was but for more substantial reasons. Apparently the kids didn't appreciate any sound practical advice anymore and countered any suggestions offered for safety and security with - "Amma, stop this moral policing... "  
To the impressionable mind, the constant narrative had turned morality into something that needed to be despised.

When my mother tells me - be careful what you say, what you wear , what you carry and when and where you step out - she isn't being a moral police as much as a prudent advisor. If I walk into a dark alley with a fully loaded wallet - I will get mugged. This doesn't mean I justify the act of mugging, it means that I recognize the way the world operates. 
And Yes, while our constant endeavor should be to clear the world of dark alleys, we need to be aware that human nature and divisions may make it a pursuit of utopia. If we can have a consensus on a code of conduct - we may never have someone hijacking and enforcing them on us..
But we need to be interested in a consensus and stupid phrases will always form fundamental impediments..

9 comments:

Rex said...

It would help if you clarify what you mean by absolute freedom. The only natural boundary for freedom is where it infringes unavoidably on the similar freedom of other people.

Hence, your freedom to drive on the road is regulated by rules, so that you don't endanger the safety of other road users (who have the same freedom as you do).
The code of conduct defined by a place of employment depends to a large extent on the values of the business owner, and practical considerations with the kind of work done.

Applicability to 'society' is pretty much different.
Let's take a few polarizing examples:
1) Live in relationships
2) Gay marriages
3) 'Bold' or provocative works of literature, cinema and art.
4) Women - how they dress, where they go out etc.
5) Extra marital affairs.

These are highly polarizing issues which will raise the 'moral policing' accusation that you mentioned.
But a closer look reveals..what?
How exactly do any of these things affect anyone other than the people directly involved, i.e. practising them?
No one forces you to go and watch a movie/read a book that you don't like. MF Hussain did not put his paintings up on giant outdoor hoardings, they were exhibited at art galleries which you specifically have to visit in order to look at them.
A gay or live in couple similarly mind their own business, and what they do in the privacy of their home is nobody else's concern.

A woman dressing a certain way is not a hooker soliciting a client silently via her attire. (And being a hooker does not mean one cannot be raped either)

On the other hand, consider this documentary that I shared on Facebook a few days earlier.

Mainstream cinema that blatantly encourages men to assault women, that gets prime time coverage on all TV channels, despite being certified as adult content.
Popular film 'heroes' openly saying that women dress 'that way' because they want it.

And yet, look at the vitriolic response to a movie like Fire.
(It isn't even strictly a lesbian film as some have claimed, it is about 2 women trapped in loveless marriages who turn to one another for affection)
People call for banning such films citing the tired argument of 'destroying Indian culture', whereas ironically it's movies like the former that continue to reinforce negative stereotypes.

There are things that are unacceptable in public. That is the key word - public.
This means that you are forcing others to witness your inappropriate (to them) behaviour. So making out or smoking in public, playing loud music late at night fall under undesirable behaviour because they unavoidably affect people around you.

So yes, nobody is clamouring for absolute freedom. All that's required is that others learn to mind their own business and not try to interfere in things that don't concern them, such as the ones I listed above.

Unknown said...

"How exactly do any of these things affect anyone other than the people directly involved, i.e. practising them? No one forces you to go and watch a movie/read a book that you don't like. MF Hussain did not put his paintings up on giant outdoor hoardings, they were exhibited at art galleries which you specifically have to visit in order to look at them.

A gay or live in couple similarly mind their own business, and what they do in the privacy of their home is nobody else's concern."

These counter arguments sound a little naive to me. It also validates the accusation that we are cutt off from the ground realities.

Let me answer your questions in 2 parts -

What MF Hussain did was damaging and here's why :
To state the obvious : A lot of people (and when I say a lot, read millions) revere their gods and godesses. To give you an example - if you were to climb the Tirumala hill by foot, there is a set of stairs past the Kali Gopuram. The stairs are extremely steep - hundreds of people everyday climb these stairs on their knees in a steadfast belief of pleasing the lord and attaining his blessings.
They give their heart and soul out to these idols and dedicate a substantial part of their lives in rituals and prayers. We can choose to be elitist and bring forth our alleged knowledge of science and scoff at their efforts - but that's besides the point. Their feelings have been nurtured over a lifetime and nobody has the right to insult that over some half baked theory over artistic freedom.
This loops back to my point - In the real world, where there are people with different convictions, your idea of freedom may intrude over their idea of sanctity.
MF Hussain should have been more responsible.

On art galleries - Let's assume I walk into one and find something that's repugnant and in bad taste. There are 2 ways I can react to that :
1) One, I ignore and avoid
2) Two, I react and revolt
Both of these are perfectly natural reactions (note - I don't say right or wrong) and it is not for me to prescribe someone to follow only path 1. How I will react is subject to what I am and what I am goes back to the building blocks I mention in the post. In an unequal society - it is more than apparent that you will find people who will react in both ways. It's extremely naive to expect the world to live and let live..However much I'd like it - everybody in this world will not think the way I do..

Unknown said...

With regards to What women should wear and where they should go -
This is the exact example that I quote in my post. Parents are unable to advise their kids anymore. Any pragmatic utterance is not being misconstrued as an infringement on personal freedom. Does that sound right ? What is wrong with someone advising the other to be careful ? irrespective of their sex or sexual orientation ? What is wrong in asking a person to be carefully clothed when out late and to avoid going to certain places to reduce the risk of a mishap ?
So, yes - while in an ideal world - we could wear anything, smoke anything, do anybody and get away with it. In the real world, one would invariable pay a price for being frivolous even in private.

Again - If I go with my wallet loaded in a dark alley - I should fully expect to get mugged. And I shouldn't take umbrage at people who warn me against it.
If I say it's my prerogative to walk wherever I want and the law isn't against it-I'd be stupid.

I'd like to advise my daughter what to wear and when without having to get into a quagmire of arguments based on the so called moral policing. It isn't policing, it is pragmatism, but she can't see it because she's been fed this shit day in and day out...

Fire is a lousy excuse of a movie that I think people shouldn't have even broken a sweat about it.

Mainstream cinema and god men have hijacked the morality argument and that's the problem. By taking these folks seriously, the value of the concept of morality has been eroded.It's unfortunate!

My central point is that the society does need a code of conduct, but it should be one that is rationally arrived at through appropriate consensus.

Rex said...

You can't compare the concern of a parent with that of political goons and others who seek to control society for furthering their own agenda, in fact this is the same mistake that Hawkeye made in his post. It is nobody's case that parents shouldn't want to keep their children safe.
To take your own example, say you choose to bring up your daughter a certain way and won't allow her to stay out late or wear revealing outfits. But you don't get to dictate how other people should raise their daughters.

Also, your argument sounds as though only girls who dress a certain way or go partying are at risk, when it is far from the case.

The Delhi rape victim was from a very poor family, they had high hopes for her to begin a career as a physiotherapist.
She was returning home from watching a movie at 9 pm, surely that's not an unreasonable hour to be out.
There are hundreds of women who get groped and molested on their way to and from work, on public transport, during daylight, regardless of what they're wearing.
Is it still right to frame this just as a problem of risk avoidance? Should they all resign their jobs and sit at home because men cannot keep it in their pants?

Most importantly, shouldn't people who have sons teach them to respect women and treat them with dignity, and not use their attire as an invitation to molest them? Why is the whole burden of safety on the woman?

The code of conduct that society needs is simple, everyone respects every other person's right to go about their business peacefully, and anyone who violates this basic contract faces the full wrath of the judicial/policing system.
This is how civilized societies work.
We have utterly failed at this very simple principle.

Speaking of Hussain, did he actually paint as an act of deliberate provocation? People bring up the stupid 'would he have dared to paint Allah/Muhammed' argument as though disrespecting the deities was his purpose. It's just art, and artistic freedom is not a half baked theory.
How are his paintings any different from Chola bronzes depicting full breasted nude statues of goddesses, garbed only in jewellery?

You do not have the right to not be offended. You however have every right to ignore what you find offensive.
Hold a debate or discussion as to why you find it offensive (and shed light on why you cannot ignore it and get on with your life) but banning things that you dislike is not the answer.
It may sound cliched, but Voltaire's 'I will defend to my death your right to your opinion even if I disagree' was the right way to go.

Unknown said...

"You can't compare the concern of a parent with that of political goons and others who seek to control society for furthering their own agenda, in fact this is the same mistake that Hawkeye made in his post. It is nobody's case that parents shouldn't want to keep their children safe."

No one's comparing. The point is this whole mindless propogation of moral policing is intruding with any genuine case of concern. It is a disconcerting effect - maybe the law of unintended consequences at play. This is also the reason for me quoting a real life example.Parents have been rendered handicapped..

"To take your own example, say you choose to bring up your daughter a certain way and won't allow her to stay out late or wear revealing outfits. But you don't get to dictate how other people should raise their daughters."

You make a wrong inference again, Me advising my kid on what to wear and when is not because I choose to bringing them up in a certain way. I may not intend to place any restrictions and have my kid find his/her preferences. But I'd definitely like to give them the benefit of my experience and let them know that there is a time and place and there will be a bad price to pay if a societal code of conduct is not followed.
I don't think anybody wants to dictate to others on how to raise other's kids. This is a line that is used by 'neo liberal mongers' to blindside an argument. So I'm a little surprised to see you use it.
Also, your assumption that I feel "only girls who dress a certain way or go partying are at risk, when it is far from the case" is also fundamentally incorrect (note your assumption is incorrect, not your assertion). Even though I didn't specify it, I'd definetely be advising my son too as appropriate

I'll skip commenting on the Delhi Rape victim as a mark of respect. I think enough has been dwelt on it already.
But on the hundreds of women who get groped and molested and the other points on raising the son's well and :
"Is it still right to frame this just as a problem of risk avoidance? Should they all resign their jobs and sit at home because men cannot keep it in their pants?"

I don't think any sensible person is trying to pass this off as a avoidance problem. I've been crying myself coarse that this is a problem that needs a series of solutions that include :
1) Security
2) Harsher and Quick punishment
3) Raising kids in a society better
4) Mutual respect among the sexes
5) Not avoidance but prudence in what we say and do. In simple terms - Taking care!
If anything it's the idiot moral police propagators who chose to impede point no. 5.

Unknown said...

"The code of conduct that society needs is simple, everyone respects every other person's right to go about their business peacefully, and anyone who violates this basic contract faces the full wrath of the judicial/policing system.
This is how civilized societies work.
We have utterly failed at this very simple principle."

This is ivory tower utopia and it is wrong. It can hold only when their business is sufficiently well defined to include respect for the other's integrity and sentiment. For a dichotomized society to work - we need to recognize we are different individuals but we need to come together for a common cause.
For that we need a more reasonable code of conduct.
I don't understand why we are ok to follow a code of conduct at work and not out in the society at large.

"Speaking of Hussain, did he actually paint as an act of deliberate provocation? People bring up the stupid 'would he have dared to paint Allah/Muhammed' argument as though disrespecting the deities was his purpose. It's just art, and artistic freedom is not a half baked theory.
How are his paintings any different from Chola bronzes depicting full breasted nude statues of goddesses, garbed only in jewellery?"

Let's not get in weird arguments out there to substantiate a wrong. I have already articulated clearly as to why Hussain was wrong and that line of argument did not include comparison with any other religion.
Your point on Chola Bronzes and sculptures is wrong. This is the problem with incorrect or mis represented understanding. Some points to gather on this subject :
1) All the sculptures represent a story and a message. It would be prudent to read the etihasa or the stala purana of a temple and understand what the nude sculptures represent.
2) There are certain gods and godesses that are never represented in a certain way. This requires a nuanced understanding of the Hindu culture rather than just what is borne out of oversimplified Tu Tu Mein Mein arguments.
Hussain broke that sentiment.

"You do not have the right to not be offended. You however have every right to ignore what you find offensive.
Hold a debate or discussion as to why you find it offensive (and shed light on why you cannot ignore it and get on with your life) but banning things that you dislike is not the answer.
It may sound cliched, but Voltaire's 'I will defend to my death your right to your opinion even if I disagree' was the right way to go"

All that is nice and dandy.., Ayn Rand also said that the Virtue of Unmitigated selfishness should be the highest goal for a man. I am sure that a true randian could justify that argument to his death, but bringing that to bear on a society has it's adverse effect. Just like Rand's society hasn't arrived.
We are not living in a society where on the ground - the fancy statement of "You do not have the right not to be offended" will work across the cross section.
It may work for you and me - we probably can and will afford to ignore. But if I were to expect that from a slum dweller struggling for two square meals a day who's only hope is anchored on an abstraction and sentiment nurtured over years in his lifetime and centuries before that - he will not be in a position to appreciate it. And if that slum dweller type people outnumber you and me by 99% to 1% - then the efficacy of your point moves very close to a 0.

Any prescription of social behavior that comes out of an insufficient understanding of the ground realities will remain a wonderful theory but will not work in practice.

Like Albert Einstein said :
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not."

Rex said...

The ground reality today is that a huge mass of the population are illiterate and easily roused by emotional appeal.
So what are you proposing, we appoint some sort of body to define the correct behaviour as defined by the majority and prosecute anyone who deviates from it?

Essentially, let society remain captive to these elements, forget about any sort of progress or frank expression of opinion.

"Let's not get in weird arguments out there to substantiate a wrong. I have already articulated clearly as to why Hussain was wrong and that line of argument did not include comparison with any other religion"

There's nothing weird about what I've said. Everyone protesting shrilly is acting exactly as though he set out to bait Hindus on purpose.

" All the sculptures represent a story and a message. It would be prudent to read the etihasa or the stala purana of a temple and understand what the nude sculptures represent. "

And his paintings have no message? Did anyone even give him a chance to explain what he meant to represent?

"There are certain gods and godesses that are never represented in a certain way. This requires a nuanced understanding of the Hindu culture rather than just what is borne out of oversimplified Tu Tu Mein Mein arguments."

There you go.
Perhaps we should raze the Madurai Meenakshi temple as well?


" Ayn Rand also said that the Virtue of Unmitigated selfishness should be the highest goal for a man. I am sure that a true randian could justify that argument to his death, but bringing that to bear on a society has it's adverse effect. Just like Rand's society hasn't arrived.
We are not living in a society where on the ground - the fancy statement of "You do not have the right not to be offended" will work across the cross section. "

I don't see what Ayn Rand has to do with it, her philosophy is flawed from the get go because people don't become rich in a vacuum, were it not for society nobody would buy their goods and the selfishness argument falls flat on its face.

"It may work for you and me - we probably can and will afford to ignore. But if I were to expect that from a slum dweller struggling for two square meals a day who's only hope is anchored on an abstraction and sentiment nurtured over years in his lifetime and centuries before that - he will not be in a position to appreciate it. And if that slum dweller type people outnumber you and me by 99% to 1% - then the efficacy of your point moves very close to a 0. "

Which brings me to my first point, should we silently acquiesce to the majority because they're backward and remain frozen and static, or should we strive for a society where everyone can frankly express their opinions and have civilized debate on the pros and cons instead of rioting on the streets or banning everything?

'Society' is not an insect trapped in amber, it evolves and changes, be it ever so gradually. Muzzling opinion because of appeals to emotion for the majority is not going to get us anywhere.

Unknown said...

Nobody gagged MF Hussain dude, he did offer some explanations and they sounded lame.., but we could go around that until the cows come home!

On the Madurai Meenakshi temple - again - read the stala purana. Every nude representation of a goddess has a reason. I'll have a detailed post on the same over the next month, suffice it to say that there is spiritual conviction in the depictions..

MF Hussain's reason was artistic freedom and publicity. I am not willing to believe that he was naive enough to think that he would not be stirring the proverbial hornet's nest.. with his work!

But let's leave him for now.

My point with Ayn Rand was to suggest that philosophies are not an end to itself. Voltaire can be broken pretty much like Rand has been..And Rand was not wrong from the get go.., Her theory will not work in practice, but it is a very sound theory..

The rest of your responses zero in on a subject of objective discussion..

Firstly, I don't think we acquiesce to the majority. If we did, we wouldn't be so severely unequal. You seem to be making inferences of the extreme of my points that dwell on pragmatism.
No one needs to acquiesce to anyone. All needs to be is be aware and wary. I personally haven't studied society enough to comment on it's evolution, but I know enough to say that if evolving society is the end game :
then we need to work towards getting economic parity. Once we have a more equal society, then we can work on further convictions of respect for freedom and space! Which is why all these phrases sound so out of place and are harmful in the short and medium term as they attempt to put band aid on a tumor. I think the elite minority have a lot more going form them.., let's not make a hue and cry about the freedom to wear or say something if we don't have an intent to fix the disparity in society..

Rex said...

Rand's theory doesn't pass even theoretical muster - unless it can be shown that economic activity is possible without the mutual interaction of a minimum of 2 individuals. Her idea would work if you were Robinson Crusoe, living all by yourself and producing/consuming everything you need without external help. Her book characters are clearly not like that, yet they expect to be treated that way.


"...we need to work towards getting economic parity. Once we have a more equal society, then we can work on further convictions of respect for freedom and space! "

Totally agree with this.