LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT. 74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

74. LITERATURE AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Literature and Life

Literature has always been concerned with both man and his inner world, and various aspects of social life and practices.  Religious literature is often concerned with human conduct- social and personal ethics. Even ancient philosophy is about relationship- of man in society, with nature, with God or Truth or the Good or Beauty. These may look like mere ideas or concepts- just woolly thinking, but they were important because of their implications for practical life and conduct. How can you be unfair or mean in your relationship with others  if you believe in the Good or Truth? You don't necessarily have to believe in God or follow a formal religion to bear a good conscience and good character. We have surely met many nonbelievers who are just and fair, while many so called believers in God have been crooked, just using the word or name of God to make a fast buck. Most Indian politicians used the name of Gandhi  for the same purpose. Probably you have heard of 'Gandhi account'?

Modern literature in all its forms is intimately and extensively about human and social relationships, though it is overwhemningly about criticism and disapproval. We have the finest example of this in the English literature in Dickens and Hardy. What or where is literature if it is disconnected from life? 

The religious books give you command: do this, don't do that. The Veda says: Satyam Vada, Dharmam Chara = speak the truth, follow the Dharma. The Dharma Sastras discuss the nature of dharma, and truth, endlessly,,without ever agreeing on anything. But our itihasas give accounts of people who lived and followed dharma, in various times and situations. They teach us that there are various aspects, they depend on context,following a dharmic life often involves trials and difficulties but in the end confer happiness and a blessed state. They thus make you aware of the nuances and at the same time steel your resolve and strengthen your mind.

 But a good novelist doesn't teach you.He is not didactic. He simply portrays great characters and situations and makes you desire to emulate them, rather instinctively! They make the good appear desirable! They are persuasive like the loving wife or husband, not stern like the teacher. A Marx took the evils of capitalism head on, and got nowhere. But a Dickens portrayed the same situation through his stories and characters. He stirred the social conscience of a nation, and lot of reforms were made. Is not the novelist more effective than the social philosopher or scientist?

I like to think that in the case of Hardy, it worked differently, in the contrary manner. He wrote about many aspects of the social and personal life and relations, which the society would not openly admit or discuss. Hardy was almost ostracised as a novelist, and he took to poetry. But almost every problem that he wrote about or hinted at has been taken up by psychologists, psychiatrists, social scientists. Thus Hardy has proved to be the father of such social science studies!

In India, Munshi Premchand and Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay dealt with social themes in their novels. I cannot say how large an impact they had on the nation.

Social sciences and academic studies

But we have a totally different phenomenon too. With the advancement of academics, and spread of education and specialisation, aspects of life have been segregated for specialised investigation and exploration, resulting in a number of disciplines in divisions called humanities and social sciences, quite apart from the hair-splitting specialised subjects in the so called hard sciences. Each one has an ocean of literature. Every new PhD in a foreign university means one more voice of dissent, difference, division in the name of discovery. How can you get  this degree unless you show the old authority to be a fool or at least at fault, and reveal yourself to be better, or at least cleverer, smarter? There is no end to this process.

This is the bane of these sciences. With so much knowledge around, you do not know what is right or wrong! You simply cannot decide which one to follow. You may hold any opinion, but none seems to work in the end in practice. We see this very clearly in the area of economics and politics, leave alone sociology, anthropology,etc.

Take economics. There is no finality about anything, or even precise information. A famous joke used to be that where there are 6 economists, there will be 7 opinions! Yet, every politician and public figure swears by an economist, consciously or other wise. Lord Keynes, the greatest economist of the last century, put it beautifully:

The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood.

          Indeed the world is ruled by little else.

Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of  some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back..

Capitalism and Socialism: difference



Ultimately, the only division in economics is between the so called capitalism and socialism- both in several versions and varieties. But how does this express itself in practice? There is only one measure: whether the means of production are owned by private individuals or groups, or by the 'State'. But what is the state? Finally public ownership means that a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats run the show. Public at large is only a participant , not the owner. Even in the so called democracies, their 'democracy' ends with voting. Thereafter, they cannot call the tune.

It is  (was?) believed that capitalism preserves individual freedom, while the socialist state crushes it. Outwardly it may look so. In effect, the individual is only a cog in the machine: unless you fit somewhere, you cannot exist. Only, under capitalism, the process of enslavement is subtle. Socialism is openly oppressive; under capitalism you are made to surrender your freedom and at the same time believe that you are enjoying or exercising it! It is said that in a socialist economy one has no or limited choice, while in a capitalist economy, choice is  wide. But take a practical matter like soap or detergent: when the ingredients are the same, where is real choice, even among 100 brands? Suppose you are convinced, as most ecologists are, that detergents are bad for the environment, what choice do you have? Unless you start your own manufacture, you are bound by the system. Theoretically, you are free, in a capitalist society, to start any venture. But marketing is a problem. You cannot compete with established brands unless you follow their methods. Join the robbers to defeat them? 

There are people in India who say: Look, in the 70s you had just 3 models of cars- the Ambassador, the Premier Padmini, and the Standard, which was discontinued. But see how much variety we have now?  But both in the 70s and now, does the car mean prosperity? How many people can own it? And if every one is given a car, what will happen to the environment? Car is essentially a toy of the rich. If you have a choice here, it only means that the rich have greater fun. Who cares for the common man? Who cares for public transportation? Does the car- owning crowd, causing the pollution, pay for its clearance? And is the economy only about cars and such things?

The idea of freedom in a private capitalist economy is just bunkum. That is why I do not call it free enterprise, but capitalism-its 'true name'! Socialism is bureaucratic-politician capitalism; private enterprise is capitalism by private thugs. As much choice as there is between death by hanging, and death by drowning! Mahatma Gandhi alone gave the formula for real economic freedom: reduce your wants, go by your needs, give up greed, organise production by the masses instead of mass production, treat yourself as trustee of your wealth-not absolute owner, if you take from society more than you need, you are a thief. Any takers?

Economy in any society depends on the enterprise and efforts-labours of the working generation- leaving out the youngsters who are learning, and the seniors-retirees or pensioners. Our old Hindu system recognised this. Valluvar also says that in the Kural: the householder is the basis of all the other orders. (41 and 42)

The only question of practical importance is: how is this sector to be tapped? There are only three ways your income can be dealt with or disposed of:

• spending
• saving
• investing

A capitalist society lets you spend, and runs itself on your spending. Even your investment is tapped by them! A socialist society taxes your income, reduces your ability to spend,and invest, the saving thus forced on you is appropriated by it and spent on social welfare. So, in the end, the question is whether you will part with your income/saving willingly, or it will be forced out of you! Capitalists use persuasion, subterfuge,cunning; socialists use promises and force! Please ponder on this. Economists will only confound you!

In the capitalist order you will spend your money to educate your children, and become broke while your children get a govt certified degree good for nothing. In the socialist system your saving will be taken by govt to educate every one's children, in govt schools, with the same result: a degree or diploma good for nothing! After all, if our education is so good or effective under any system, why is there misery and suffering? In both you are neatly shaved out of our income. In  one, it is smooth, and you are made to enjoy it, with all the fragrance and side show; in the other the process is a little tough- the blade is rough, the surroundings not so clean or pleasant, but we get used to it any way!

In the end, the 'science' of economics has extensive literature, but the economist cannot solve any practical problem. Lord Keynes advised them to be humble, like the dentist!

Politics- what works?

The same situation prevails in the other major social science-politics. We have wonderful theories, fantastic writers. But in the end what works? What is the best, or at least the good form of govt? Is it royalty? aristocracy? oligarchy? democracy? anarchy? return to nature? You have authorities passionately justifying every one of them, and even more vehemently opposing each one.

Popular wisdom believes that democracy is the best form of govt. Ancient Greece is held up as a model of participatory democracy. But it rested on the foundation of slaves. Modern American democracy runs on money- election process is so expensive. People in democracies have become so jaded, disenchanted, they do not even go out to vote. Democracy runs on majority- but in effect majority of those voting. Since many people do not vote, this means ultimately an active minority!

In practical terms, democracy works on the party system. It is only a coterie which controls the party- in any country. In England, R.A.Butler, the conservative party leader was prevented from becoming PM twice! In a war situation, it was the personality cult of one leader-Churchill- which prevailed. It is of course a tribute to the maturity of the electorate that they threw him out in the very next election!. America had to legislate to ensure that  a President can hold office only for two terms! But once he is elected President, he is a virtual monarch! It is again the genius of the people that they invented the system of checks and balances to keep every wing - legislature, executive,judiciary-in check!

Britain is officially a limited constitutional monarchy, though it is the best functioning democracy in the world. The Prime Minister there is powerful, but he is bound by the principle of collective responsibility of the cabinet. He is described merely as 'primus inter pares' ie first among equals! This is the genius of the British people. There simply is no second democracy like that. No donkey ever became a horse by aping.

But in the modern day, it is the economic interest that dictates the ultimate policies, not legislature. In the US, the most powerful democracy, the Federal Reserve is the virtual monarch. For the lesser democracies of the world like India, it is the international institutions like IMF,World Bank and WTO that dictate the terms. In the end political democracy does not involve economic independence.

Every form of govt has worked somewhere! Every form has failed too. There have been benevolent dictators, and monsters in the guise of democratic leaders. The mere form of govt does not matter.That is why the poet Alexander Pope  sang:

For Forms of Government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best.

Unmanageable Economies, Unhelpful Economics 

The real problem is that most factors determining world economy are today invisible, ununderstandable and hence uncontrollable. It is said that the world economy is influenced more by financial rather than real economic factors. Of the more than 3 trillion dollars of  daily foreign exchange transactions  in the markets of the world, 98% are related to speculation, not real or actual transactions. Virtually every commodity is subject to speculation in forms like futures.Every  monetary system and financial market is over run by derivatives. Most people do not care, do not know but they have the blind confidence that 'experts ' know and they are in charge. The plain fact is that there is no expert in such matters. There is no regulatory or control mechanism: how can you control something you do not see, do not understand? The volume of daily foreign exchange transaction in the world markets is several times the volume of the foreign exchange reserves of all the Central Banks of the world. Today no Central Bank or govt can control these transactions. When there is a problem with Yen or Dollar, the solution does not lie with Japan or USA. At least  a dozen countries have to meet and decide- that they cannot do anything! They only decide to issue statements.

There is such a vast technical, academic literature, but in the end they do not help for policy.

The reason is simple. In the hard sciences, there are definite theories which work in practice. Sound, light, heat, electricity , gravitation etc are subject to known laws and patterns of behaviour, which can be studied, understood, measured and controlled. This in fact is the trump card of the so called exact sciences- measurement and control, predictability and repeatability of the experiment: the same cause leading to the same effect under similar circumstances. And this is exactly what does NOT work in the social sciences.Economics may tell you that demand should increase when the price falls, or the demand should fall when the price rises. But this is not always true in real life. If the price of an art item increases, it may lead to a greater demand. Or the demand for the product with a rising price may increase, in anticipation of a further rise in price!  A generation ago, economists knew this and so admitted that the so called economic laws were not exact like the laws of physics, but merely generalisation of tendencies! No one knows or can predict exactly how the market would behave!  But in their anxiety to make things look like the exact sciences, economists resorted to econometrics and mathematical models. They do not deal with real factors any more.

There is a vast range of fine literature in all the social sciences. There is no doubt that much of it is truly scholarly, fascinating. But in the end, they are all speculation. You may get some ideas, but no guides to practical action. You certainly get to know a lot of things say about inflation when you read 5 economists. But did any one of them succeed in controlling it anywhere in the world? Did any one ever cross a river by measuring its average depth?

These theories in the social sciences are fine- as theories. You can admire them- as you can admire snakes in a glass case. Let loose, they have only harmed society. Every theory is retired at the end-just as every working person has to retire some time. Nothing works for ever. Or everywhere.