-
An ideal Liberal is open to new ideas, and yet has a few immutable core
principles and values. He has convictions but is aware of the imperfections of
his knowledge and the limitations imposed by his ignorance. But is it possible
that human beings with all these qualities exist?
Indira Parthasarathi is a veteran Tamil writer. He is in his late
Seventies or perhaps in his early Eighties. He lives in Chennai. In the 1970s,
he wrote a serialised Tamil novel titled ‘Maaya Maan
Vettai’ (hunting the imaginary deer). The story was about how the
system swallowed the idealism of a well-meaning non-resident Indian returning
to India to serve his country. A line from the story is still fresh in my
memory: “Too many ideals have been mindlessly frequently spouted and have lost their
meanings.”
I recalled that line as I surveyed the Indian public political and
intellectual discourse over the last several weeks in the run-up to the Bihar
elections. Charges of intolerance made by several individuals – some
well-meaning and some not – against the Indian government met with responses
from many individuals sympathetic to the government in social media. The
government, for the most part, presented the image of a hapless spectator. The
timing and the intensity of these ‘liberal’ outrages before elections rob them
of much of their credibility and legitimacy. Now that the next election is
sometime away, we have an opportunity to assess what ‘being Liberal’ and
‘Liberalism’ are truly about.
We examine the ideal liberal stance and the reality at three levels
next.
Universal principles and values
At one level, liberals stand for values and principles that transcend
narrow national, group or sectarian considerations. If it were true, then
liberals would uphold principles without taking sides. Typically, within
countries, liberals would switch sides between different groups depending on
the issue at hand but not switch principles depending on calculations of
political and personal interests. If their values and principles were not
confined to national boundaries or borders, then their support for liberal
causes and concerns over and criticisms of illiberalism would transcend borders
too. Illiberal thoughts and practices would meet with their opprobrium and
condemnation regardless of their source. Even a casual and cursory overview of
the situation tells us that this seldom prevails in practice, either in India
or outside. Liberals search for social roots of heinous crimes perpetrated by
some groups while, in the case of some other groups, they are plaintiffs,
prosecutors, jury, judge and executioners. The selection of causes that
liberals take up for espousal and the causes that they ignore betray
considerations other than liberal principles at work. Selective liberalism is,
then, bigotry in an intellectual sheath.
In theory, a liberal is at the opposite end of bigots. A bigot is one
who is intolerant towards those who hold different opinions from oneself.
However, selective intolerance is yet another form of intolerance. In the
Indian context, as many were hyperventilating after the dastardly murder of a
Muslim in a village in Uttar Pradesh, I wrote the following in an article in this magazine:
Selective outrage at bigotry is bigotry. It incenses the bigot who is
being selectively targeted because he is being selectively targeted and because
it emboldens the bigot who is spared. So, one bigot is incensed and another
bigot is encouraged. This is the seminal contribution of India’s self-styled
liberals to the cause of good governance. In other words, they are guilty of
growing the national stock of intolerance, hatred and bigotry.
Subsequent non-reactions from liberals to murders of Hindus in other
parts of the country only reinforce the perception that what passes off for
liberalism in India is not to be confused with the literal meaning of being a
liberal or what constitutes liberalism. Latent and manifest contradictions
of the Indian liberal have not been more thoroughly exposed than in this
brilliant piece by historian and Indologist,
Michel Danino.
Support For The Underdogs
At the second level, liberals are champions of the less privileged, in
contrast to conservatives who prefer the status quo or the established order.
In this framework, liberals hold themselves above notions of fairness,
democracy and freedom of expression simply because they identify with causes
that are widely perceived to be in the service of the underdog – the materially
poor, religious and racial minorities, in the main. That places them above
rules – consistency, evidence, facts, fairness and symmetry – that are meant to
regulate the conduct of ordinary mortals in their pursuit of causes that are
less noble than these. The presumption that they know what is best for the
world underpins most of their arguments and methods. There is no place for
other views or other persons holding different views. The illiberalism or the
intolerance that characterise the methods of who consider themselves liberal
has been both an eternal and universal paradox.
The most recent manifestation of this is playing itself out in American university
campuses. In recent weeks, there has been plenty of debate over incidents of
political correctness in American campuses from Yale to Claremont McKenna
College to University of Missouri. The issues are varied and yet, those
championing the causes of the excluded, underprivileged and racial minorities
have forced administrators to resign for daring to suggest that there could be
other ways of looking at the issues. This prompted a following tweet by Patrick Chovanec, a
well-known China analyst and a former academic in China:
“An increasing number of people in the US seem to believe they are so
self-evidently right that they shouldn’t need to persuade anyone.”
Another academic, reacting to these incidents, wrote that “inroads to
authoritarian behaviour, even in the service of a noble cause, always lead to
the use of authoritarian behaviour against the people who first look to it as a
line of defence.”
Role Of The State In The Society
At the third level, liberals have a particular view of the role of the
State in societies and in economies. They prefer the State to stay away from
legislating on matters that are for individuals to decide on. Group and
societal norms and conventions cede ground to individual preferences. On the
other hand, on economic matters, they want the heavy hand of the State to
intervene and make decisions. Conservatives on the other hand assume that there
are universal and eternal values and principles that are binding on all members
of the society. On economic matters, they prefer the State to stay away,
leaving it to individuals in the market place to sort things out between
themselves and figure out the most appropriate way of engaging in economic transactions
between themselves at the appropriate price.
Both sides are inconsistent in their own ways. Clearly, it is about some
groups considering themselves to be eternal economic underdogs such that the
State must come to their rescue, redistribute and alter the material and power
balance while leaving them free to do what they want, with their personal
lives. Other groups prefer the State to enforce social norms but not economic
rules such that the existing power and material balance are preferred.
At all the three levels, the theoretical and the desirable qualities of
a Liberal and what obtains in practice are worlds apart. It is unsurprising,
therefore, that TCA Srinivasa Raghavan defined a Liberal as such:
“So who is a liberal, then? A liberal, by my reckoning, is a person
designated as a liberal by other liberals, usually on a single communal
sub-criterion. As a result, the most liberal person can be labelled illiberal
by liberals and the most illiberal as liberal…. Most Indian liberals are
wannabes. They are anxious to ‘belong’ and see selective liberal-certified
illiberalism as the entry ticket to a certain type of social acceptability.”
Who Then Is A True Liberal?
In his description of the ideal economist, Keynes perhaps defines a
liberal individual too:
“The master-economist must possess a rare combination of gifts…. He must
be mathematician, historian, statesman, philosopher — in some degree. He must
understand symbols and speak in words. He must contemplate the particular, in
terms of the general, and touch abstract and concrete in the same flight of
thought. He must study the present in the light of the past for the purposes of
the future. No part of man’s nature or his institutions must be entirely
outside his regard.
He must be purposeful and disinterested in a simultaneous mood, as aloof
and incorruptible as an artist, yet sometimes as near to earth as a
politician.”
A Hindu philosopher explained the concept of Sthitha Prajna as described
by Lord Krishna to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita. Among other things, he/she is one
who does what is necessary for the betterment of humanity with a completely
tranquil mind, unperturbed. A person whose mind is tranquil will not react to
situation in a way that causes harm to others because he sees everybody as his
own self.
The discussion above gives us clarity on the ideal Liberal. He/she is
open to new ideas and persuasion and yet has few core principles and values
that are immutable. He considers facts and his assessment is fair, consistent
and symmetric, unbiased by situations and personalities.
He is grounded and yet capable of reflection and contemplation of the
particular, the general, the abstract and concrete. He understands that
prescriptions for a stable and well-functioning society and economy are more a
function of the context than they are of eternal theories. He serves humanity
with humility and with a tranquil mind. He has convictions but is aware of the
imperfections of his knowledge and the limitations imposed by his ignorance.
Hence, he avoids hubris.
Is it possible that humans with all these qualities exist? It is not
possible because humans are not cognitively wired to be Liberal. There are at
least three reasons.
Can Humans Be Liberals At All?
One is loss aversion. Humans feel intense pain when they lose something.
That is why, scores of psychological experiments have shown that humans
experience pain disproportionately more when they lose something that they
possess than when they forego a gain. That applies not just to possessions but
also to opinions. Once formed, opinions are owned. That is why humans are
loathe changing them or letting them go. Changing one’s views or opinions is
akin to the experience of losing something. So, liberal or not, humans are
prone to holding on to views much longer than desirable. Ideally, however,
liberal attitudes imply a degree of detachment and lack of certitude that are
necessary for mature debate.
Second, liberty and liberal attitudes are all about empowering humans
with choices and the freedom to make those choices without any coercion by
others – groups, communities and the State. ‘Choice’ and the absence of
coercion figure prominently in the discussion of liberty and liberalism. But,
that flies in the face of pervasive consumer marketing and advertising. They
are all about persuading us to want things that we do not need, converting them
into needs and then making us purchase them. Human cognitive limitations are
not only well documented but well exploited by marketing companies. The most
obvious human frailty is succumbing to framing. Framing the same issue in
different ways elicits different responses from humans. Second, when presented
with decisions that are less than straightforward, humans lean towards the
choices that are chosen for us. In a provocative and insightful TED presentation, Professor Dan Ariely asks us to think about the question of the extent
of control we have over our decisions. Professor Daniel Kahneman’s ‘Thinking
Fast and Slow’ is all about how little we know of our how minds work and hence
how little influence we have over it.
Third, there is the impossibility of constructing counterfactual
scenarios. In real life and in real time, it is impossible to conduct
counterfactual experiments. Controlled experiments are all about
counterfactuals. The impossibility of being able to do so is an inherent feature
of social sciences and economics. Ceteris paribus is impossible as other things
never remain the same or stay constant. Closely related to this impossibility
is the context-specific nature of most of the rules and norms of society. They
evolve over time and with the contexts as they evolve. Very few are immutable.
Indeed, that is what Raghuram Rajan alluded to when he told the graduating class at IIT
Delhi recently that they should identify their core personalities with very few
ideas, holding a vast majority of them open to challenge and revalidation at
all times.
Recognising And Acting On Our Flaws
Awareness of our cognitive limitations is the first step towards taking
ego out of the equation and taking a truly liberal stance in a given situation.
But, it is only one of the necessary conditions and not sufficient at all to
becoming a Liberal which is either a lifelong quest or a quest that is spread
over many births, if you are a believer in reincarnation as I am.
Absence of certitude and the willingness to hold very few immutable and
non-negotiable ideas and principles suggests an attitude of humility that
avoids the dangers of hubris. Hubris is an affliction shared by intellectuals
with leaders in positions of power. Lord David Owen, former Foreign Secretary
in the British Government, had started a trust called Daedalus Trust, to
examine symptoms and afflictions of hubris among corporate and national
leaders. He practised psychiatry medicine before he joined the British
government. Among the various symptoms of hubris, listed in the site are:
- Display of messianic tendencies;
- Excessive confidence in one’s own judgements
and contempt for others’ opinions
- Unshakable belief that they would be
vindicated
- Accountable only to history
Most leaders – the autocratic and authoritarian ones included – would be
tickled to know that they share these four symptoms (among others) with today’s
Liberals.
How should Liberals avoid becoming bigots, assuming it is not already
too late for some of them? The following can help:
- Having a sense of humour;
- Willingness to indulge in self-deprecation;
- Ability to laugh at oneself;
- Awareness of one’s insignificance in the
context of the history of Evolution and of the Universe itself;
Willingness not to take oneself too seriously beyond a point and
- Surrounding oneself with critics who would
keep one’s feet to the ground.
Gillian Tett wrote in FT that Roman Generals,
returning victorious from war, used to have slaves running along with their
chariots repeatedly reminding them that they were not Gods.
In India, the Tamil sage Thiruvalluvar had dedicated one chapter (ten
couplets from 441 to 450) to the idea of surrounding oneself with wise men who
would keep Kings grounded and ensure that they rule the kingdom well, in the
interests of all the subjects. It is not hard to extend the logic to all human
beings and particularly to those who are in positions of intellectual
leadership too. Here are two samples:
தம்மிற் பெரியார் தமரா ஒழுகுதல்
வன்மையு ளெல்லாந் தலை (Thirukkural No. 444)
Its meaning is as follows: A King wise enough to have men of greater
wisdom than he to advise him shall be a powerful ruler.
For Liberals and Intellectuals, we can state that a Liberal wise enough
to befriend those with greater wisdom than he would go on to become a true Liberal.
பிழைத்துணர்ந்தும் பேதைமை சொல்லா ரிழைத்துணர்ந்
தீண்டிய கேள்வி யவர். (Thirukkural No. 417)
Its meaning: Persons who have acquired their knowledge by deep study,
marked by deep enquiries and by listening to other learned men, will definitely
have an intuitive diffidence about their knowledge (and awareness of their
ignorance), will be aware of where they could possibly be wrong or uncertain
and hence will avoid making a fool of themselves.
Indirectly, the great sage counsels lack of certitude. Humility will
follow naturally from that. How does one achieve this? Like everything else: by
practice.
Men At Work On Becoming Liberal
Two men, who are still with us today, adopt a unique practice that shows
their heightened state of evolution. One is Professor Daniel Kahneman. He
simply seeks out those who disagrees with his views and collaborates with them.
His collaboration with Gary Klein whose ideas on intuition differed profoundly
with that of Daniel Kahneman resulted in several papers being published together.
In the process, he and Klein had ironed out most of their differences managing
to advance the field in the process.
Daniel Kahneman is not the only example. There is another. He is
Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University. He is the McCormick
Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton. Republican Presidential candidates
consult him regularly. Yet, his best friend is Professor Cornel West, who is to
the extreme Left. Robert George arrives at his answers by befriending Cornel
West and others who disagree with him. This is what he says:
“The best thing that’s happened in my academic life the past decade is
that I regularly teach with Cornel West, who is as far to the left as I am to
the right, but we love each other, and he’s got exactly the same attitude I
have” about the inherent value of discussion, “and the same fears I have, that
he’ll fall in love with his own opinions. It’s the best thing in the world,
because you have these two cats who want to get at the truth.”
The advice he has for students is this: “Cultivate friends you disagree
with,” as well as those with whom you agree, because together you’ll locate the
soft spots in your own thinking and find common ground to build on.
Can Indian journalists and academics on the so-called Right and the
so-called Left collaborate? Well, they can as long as they are not in ‘it’ for
ego but for national interest. A big ‘ask’, perhaps.
Among journalists who questioned his own Liberal instincts, in recent
times, was Rafael Behr who writes for ‘The Guardian’. In his piece published on September 8 2015,
he conceded that death penalty by drone strike was a challenge for all liberal
minds. It was about the killing of an ISIS terrorist – Reyaad Khan, a young
British citizen – by a drone strike. He concluded that all his liberal scruples
made him crave a better way if only he could find a better way. That was an
intellectually open and honest piece. It would have been easy for him to
denounce his government and its methods as inhuman, taking an unrealistically
loftier, moral high ground. He resisted that temptation in that piece.
Intellectual laziness is harder to resist than the laziness that instigates us
to avoid physical labour.
So, where do we start? The best way to start is to remember what
Aristotle said:
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought
without accepting it.”
No comments:
Post a Comment