|
This, to be
sure, is not the place for even the barest summary of the views
and theories of the self in Western and Oriental philosophies. I’ll,
therefore, be content to touch upon some of these in passing. To
begin with, it’s almost universally accepted that the self —
a God-given thing, or a Darwinian product, if you like — is
inevitably shaped by environment, heredity and history. Its
purity is only notional, though it’s this kind of self which
courts suffering and tragedy in obedience to its inner
imperatives. One’s self is, at once, a product of one’s
genes and one’s memes (i.e. cultural perceptions and paradigms
that inhere in the racial unconscious like Chomsky’s
linguistic structures). In other words, one’s self cannot be
entirely separated from the societal self whose pressures
continually compel it to seek accommodations. Its ‘freedom’,
so to speak, is within that ‘necessity’, as the Marxists
believe.
Again, the
phenomenologists tend to think that man creates his own self
since he absorbs reality through his sense and responds
accordingly. While this is true in its own way, it seems to
ignore the fact that one’s senses and one’s reality, too,
are conditioned. The biological inheritance and the cultural
freight can, in no way, be ignored, or jettisoned. In one of his
essays on the self, William James emphasises the double nature
of the concept — a person’s role as the observer and the
observed. And he goes on to define it in three ways — the
material self, the social self, the spiritual self. What’s
more, the self puts on various kinds of masks in varying
situations in order to meet the assault of reality. Similarly,
Elizabeth B. Hurlock in a recent study traces the growth of the
self through four stages — the basic, the transitory, the
social and the ideal. And in this context, I’m reminded of ‘the
persistent self’, a phrase used by George Eliot in her great
novel, Middlemarch, to describe that indestructible core
within one’s character which seeks to remain whole and
inviolate. And yet as Mihaly Ceikezentmihaly points out in The
Evolving Self, the self keeps mending its perceptions and
ways, even in the midst of tragedies and turmoils, seeking
transcendence. And now to the concept of authenticity.
In his Norton
Lectures at Harvard University in 1969-70, the celebrated
American critic, Lionel Trilling, went into the history,
psychology and sociology of the self, particularly in Western
literature, to show its evolution. The volume carrying these
lectures, Sincerity and Authenticity, shows how the
principle of sincerity yielded place to the principle of
authenticity as cultural conflicts forced the Western writer to
face the problematics of Hegel’s ‘honest soul’ and ‘disintegrated
consciousness’. The need for authenticity in an essentially
false and hypocritical society then becomes a requirement of the
alienated but roused self. And the artist or the writer is
obliged to invent a person to be true to his true and ‘persistent’
self. I had the pleasure of attending the Norton Lecturers as a
Fulbright Professor at Harvard that year, and of discussing the
subject with Trilling in relation to the fiction of Henry James.
I trust, an insightful comment by Irving Howe sums up
beautifully the whole argument as I see it. Reviewing Trilling’s
book, he wrote thus: "Sincerity implies a living up to,
authenticity a getting down into. Sincerity is a social
value.... authenticity is an assertion, a defiance, a claim to
cut away the falsities of culture — It takes two to be
sincere, only one to be authentic (italics mine)." In his
earlier book, The Opposing Self, too, Trilling had spoken
of "the high authority of the self in its quarrel with its
society and its culture".
I have not
tried to catalogue the sins of our elders and betters in India
(which, in fact, promoted this piece) — the stink of
corruption in high places, the dirt in politics, the dishonest
use of religion and caste as a weapon to acquire power, the
phoniness and mimicry of our social life etc., — for all such
things are too well-known to need comment or illustration. What
needs to be highlighted, therefore, is ‘the expense of spirit’
in ‘the wastes’ of public life and politics amongst those
called upon to create a new, healthy and prosperous India. In
the end, the rulers acquire a sickness of the spirit, a false
self, and begin to live in a web of delusions and
self-deceptions. And the intelligentsia and the ideologues
supporting the establishment, in their turn, erect a hierarchy
of half-truths which serves as a substitute for a humanistic and
holistic perspective.
Politics perhaps more than any
other field of human life tends to lead men and women into moral
blackholes, and the obliging intellectuals into a minefield of
moral compromises. It’s only when they "wither into the
truth", to recall a Yeatsian phrase, that they can hope to
recover something of the authenticity of the self.
|