May 19, 2004, 12.00am IST
A Srinivas.
Who is a good human being? Charles Dickens said people were good and bad. But he couldn’t figure out what made them that way. Unfortunately, Dickens missed — by about 50 years — the revolution in psychology brought about by Sigmund Freud. Freud believed an individual’s personality was shaped in his infancy, with later influences having only a negligible impact. However, Freud erred in focusing on natural instincts to the exclusion of social structures.
A good human being is honest to himself and sensitive to the needs of others. An emotionally honest person is a product of an upbringing that infuses a sense of self-worth. People can lack self-worth because of some kind of Freudian rejection in their infancy. To overcome their feeling of smallness or insecurity they control, even with good intentions, those emotionally or socially weaker than them. The oppressed tend to control those still more vulnerable, to overcome their misery. Hence, a chain of power is established in family and social relations. Control distorts love and goodness. It is exercised through psychological manipulation, or through the social hierarchy.
The good individual stands liberated from the control chain, from thought systems that divide people. He tends to be free of malice, fear, and inner turmoil — all of which arise from carrying the burden of the past. The past can be overcome only by coming to terms with it. Here, Freud’s contribution to the betterment of the human condition is invaluable.
Some people are guileless or benign, but lack the individuality that stems from reason. They tend to grasp the scaffolding of social control. As a result, they are unable to make an objective assessment in many situations. The light of goodness in them is clouded by unreason.
The thrust of control is blunted by the element of responsibility and care in family and social relationships. Popular culture has aspects that are a deep source of strength to an individual, such as religious occasions, customs and festivals. These events are parti-cularly liberating for the socially and emotionally weak. Those rooted, yet liberated from enemy constructs, are the children of God.
The urge to control can turn into cunning, or a nihi-lism that does not respect emotional and social bonds. Such an individual is cynical and insecure, his actions no longer guided by concern or responsibility. His freedom is a form of bondage where his angst of non-belonging devours his inner being. He is a lone scarecrow fluttering in the wind. But every cynic is a potential saint, just as Valmiki was a robber before he encountered the sapta-rishis. When the hand of the guru does not arrive, he marches down an evil road.
The good individual is an ardhanarishwar, possessing in the right measure the traditional masculine attributes of fearlessness and direction and the feminine traits of compassion and accommodation. But to have the right instincts all through life and avoid attrition of inner strength, he needs a supportive social order. Goodness is compromised in societies that do not respect the inner freedom of the individual. When Rabindranath Tagore said ekla chalo re, he wanted individuals to be free when they negotiated with society.
The free individual needs to engage constantly with society to maintain his freedom. The flux in this negotiation — “neither this nor that” — in Upanishadic terms embodies the richness of existence. No wonder Kabir fused individual goodness with social emancipation. Renunciation should not be confused with running away.
No comments:
Post a Comment