The meaning of political science is often restricted to the state, government, and everyday politics. However, it goes beyond that. We as humans share various relationships. What do we do when conflicts arise in these relationships? How do we resolve them? The Socratic dialectical method or Habermas’ idea of deliberation provides a solution. It says conflicts are better resolved through dialogue rather than domination. Hence, it tells us how to talk in a dialectical manner. It is the process of reasoning together. For instance, when your father asks you to aim for a government job, but you want to become a content creator, you do not totally oppose each other. Instead, you engage rationally: Why is a government job important? Maybe because it provides security and financial stability. But being a content creator might give you creative freedom. So you decide to take a government job but also start your creator journey simultaneously — maybe by vlogging your day as a government employee...
The very foundation of some of the major problems that persist in our society is built on the bedrock of exclusion - be it biases, stereotypes, discrimination, or any other practice that degrades others. This makes it important for us to question: why do people exclude in the first place?
The idea of exclusion often germinates from the desire to stand out or appear unique. We crave being seen as distinct, not just like any other person.
For instance, when we go shopping for clothes, we consciously avoid those that are widely sold. We often say, “everyone wears that.” Maybe we’re comfortable with the broader pattern but not the exact color or design - because we want to stand apart. Hence, we exclude certain colors or styles to create our own distinct identity.
While this kind of exclusion in fashion may seem harmless, it reveals a deeper psychological pattern that, when applied to social groups, becomes dangerous. Over time, we begin to associate certain styles with people we don’t want to be connected to. The term “chhapri,” for instance, reflects such a mindset - it’s not just a label for fashion but an exclusionary judgment against a large section of people.
I believe this same logic lies at the heart of the caste system in India. From the broader varna system emerged multiple castes, and from them, numerous sub-castes - each trying to assert its own distinct, and often superior, identity.
Thus, the human desire to appear unique - when combined with the pursuit of superiority - leads to exclusion. Biases and stereotypes become the easiest tools to maintain that superiority. For example, saying “women are bad drivers” is not just a biased statement; it’s a way to exclude women from the act of driving altogether, thereby reducing competition for men. It’s irrational, yet socially convenient.
In this regard, the idea of Prof. Trilochan Shastri seems intriguing. He says that we, as a society and as individuals, lack self-respect. Moreover, India is possibly the only country where a self-respect movement took place.
Therefore, people's desire to stand out combined with lack of self respect, necessitates exclusion. This is why they often rely on some form of identity to establish themselves - both socially and in their own eyes. Otherwise, why would anyone need identities such as caste, class, complexion, gender, region, and many others to introduce themselves? If they had self-respect, they would have it for others too. They wouldn’t live in insecurity, but in peace.
Comments
Post a Comment