For instance, "Who am I?", "Why sun Shines?", "What is your name?", "How does this work?"
An element of Philosophy remains in every question, every idea, every Argument even every assertion.
The reason as to why is that is because the premise which is set by Philosophy is very abstract and universal.
That premise is the premise of Subject-Object Dichotomy. This premise is so un-exceptionally universal and abstract that this can be applied as a background template to almost all situations.
Now that a context is set, let me clear up some Philosophy basics for people who are non-technical and laymen in Philosophy but are courageous enough to read my blogs. Then, I will make my Philosophical point, that I thought recently. That is, the Idea of Tokenism and its significance in this Philosophical dichotomy.
The dichotomy of Object-subject is correlated obviously with the Objectivity and subjectivity, then in turn, correlation exists with Experienced and Experiencer, and then, Agent and agency and so on.
So, Subject in Philosophy is basically anyone who has consciousness to experience reality. As per our limited understanding, Only Humans have a wide range of consciousness when it comes to experiencing reality. Although dogs experience reality, cats do, and so on but may be not in that wide range as humans. Moreover, Subject can establish relations with the experienced, that are objects. Can subjects establish relations with other subjects? This remains a matter of another Philosophical enquiry which might be a separate blog.
Object in Philosophy is basically anything that is experienced by the subject. But to say that for a thing (das thing) to be objectified, it must be experienced by a subject is a frivolous point. Since, it is logically deducible that A table remains a table even if no one sits on it. Hence an object remains an object regardless of its objectification by a subject or not. Object in this sense, is experience for its own sake. It has an essence which pre-decides what range of experience it holds and what can it offer. For instance, A chair is a woodwork which is meant to be sat on. You might extend its usage to some other things but that's for sure that you cannot write using a chair on an A4 sheet. Hence An object is a limited experience packed into itself due to its pre-decided essence.
Does a subject require an object to exist? Not really, if we assume that there can exist experience for its own sake, essence without being essential to someone, so the reverse will obviously be true. Experiencer exists on its own, existence exists without needing essence.
A chair since its inception, has an essence. It is meant to be sat on. No other utility. You can use it, creatively enough for other things but by definition, it is meant to be sat on. This leads us to another way of looking at the dichotomy. Subject cannot be defined on the basis of utility or characteristics. Objects can be. Objects have fixed utilities and essence that becomes the basis of their definitions. Subjects on the other hand, even if they might have characteristics and utilities by another subject perceived, The subject has a conscious choice, an agency to change its definition. A human is like that. A human has the power of choice to change, modify, and even to keep its essence in multiple ambivalences. To not decide at all his essence. A radical freedom exists in subjectivity, that lacks in objects. So we can define Subjects as the one which can anytime define itself or change its definition at its will.
Another nuanced point is Subjects can be perceived as objects by other subjects. This is a very big vantage point from which many political philosophies derive their context. Like, Feminism deals with objectification of women. The theory lies in the dichotomy of object and subject. Patriarchal love cannot exist without objectification. Communism or scientific socialism derives its theories of Commodity fetishism from this dichotomy. In capitalist societies, it is that objects are subjectified and the subjects are objectified. You love your car as your son, and you behave with your son as if he is a tool for social prestige and as if he is your social capital, an investment.
Now that the basics are clear, let me dive into the Idea that might be a big revelation in this dichotomy. That is the idea of Tokenism.
In Freud's Totem and Taboo, we found that ancient tribes used to make totems to avoid incest in tribes. In the context of Philosophy, we can have a correlation with Subject-Object dichotomy.
What is a totem? A totem is basically a token. If a man and a woman have the same tribe totem, they realize that they belong to the same tribe and they abstain from having sexual relations. In this sense, this thing, that we call Totem, or Token, what is it? Where does it stand in the context of Subject and Object? Can Subjects be tokenized? Can objects be tokenized? What does it mean to be tokenized?
Token, in the context of subject-object dichotomy, is basically an empty object with a decided essence. What does that mean? Compare a chair and a parking token that the parking man gives you when he parks your car. That token has a number on it. And it is basically a plastic chip. What utility does it have? What usage that this object has other than being a symbol of the fact that you have availed a parking service and you have to pay this man some amount to take your car back and that your car that you have given this man to park is actually your property. It is basically a signifier of proof of your property. What does a ticket of a bus signify? It is basically an empty note, with no utility, a pre-consensus has been made by both the parties that owning it means that you can travel by this bus and no further money will be asked. This is a token. Money is a token. Many other things are tokens.
Can subjects be tokenized? This question might open different perspectives in Political Philosophy. We saw that subjects can objectify other subjects. What does it mean to objectify? To objectify means to reduce a subject's essence to a pre-decided essence, to give it a name, to give it a label, to give it a usage. For instance, if a son feels that his mother has no other identity other than being his mother, this is a certain type of objectification. Restricting the possibilities of what she can be and in turn what he can be. He is definitely more than her son, and she, more than his mother. But this creates a big mess. Most sons in India cannot see their mothers as woman. Because in India, most men have in habit, to sexualize woman, so accepting his mom as a woman will instantly make him sexualize her as well. What do you think was the problem of the Ranveer Allahabadia's comment about mother and father having sex and you watching it? An Indian man is not well mentally. He cannot accept, even at an age of 40-45 that his mother had sex and still has those organs and those needs to have sex. Thus, more than husbands, Sons are the reasons of bad sex life of their mothers.
So in short, to objectify is to restrict its definition to a fixed essence, a fixed utility and a fixed characteristic set. What does it mean to tokenize a subject?
To tokenize a subject means something nuanced. We need to understand it through an example. In corporates, now a days, this is told by my brother who is trying for jobs in corporate, that companies hire token women, women who have no skills, nothing, not even sexual beauty or conventional beauty standards but because they are women, because they symbolize that this particular company is woman friendly and it is progressive and so on. Another example, In 70s-80s popular Hindu progressive circles, it was a common practice in parties to flaunt, "Oh! I have this Dalit friend of mine", "Oh! I have this Muslim friend of mine" to just showcase that you are such progressive that you have friends in these marginalized sections. Another example, Nowadays, in Posh circles, People flaunt "Oh! this gay friend of mine!" as if, the friend has only one utility, being Gay. This is tokenism par excellence.
Token subjects are denied even the traditional objectification. Earlier a woman used to be treated as a sex object as if she is only her vagina and her boobs. But this recent phenomenon, that She is not even objectified, that is, to define her with only her one quality, that is her potency to become a sexual pleasure object, but now, it is worse. Like, this woman is denied objectification, As if the tokenizer is saying, You are not even a sex object, you are an empty object that has no more significance than being a symbol, it is not one of your features using which we have objectified you, rather it is a given feature by us and thus you are objectified. She cannot even feel good about her sexuality or beauty that ok, this is why I got the job. She has to remain always in this perpetual ambiguity about her essence. In a way, she is denied her essence. Her skills could have been her essence. Her knowledge could have been. Even her body could have been. These are genuine, objective qualities that she has. But Tokenism is, to render the object in question as worthless and make it worth up to your own wish. For example, What is the usage of the parking token other than in the parking? Nothing! it is a plastic chip. Done and dusted deprived of any objective essence. This woman is also a token deprived of all possible essence. An existential dilemma, a question mark, a blot on existence.
This is the idea of Tokenism. Post-modern woman is tokenized. Modern woman was Objectified. Tokenism is not just an idea of feminist politics. It is central to the dichotomy of subject and objectivity. Evil, today has a new way of oppressing. By means of tokenizing. Subjects are tokenized, objects are tokenized. Everyone is tokenized. Everyone is a token for everyone else.
Since the rise of identity politics, when everyone is forced to and reduced to some or other identity, Tokenism is on the rise. It is so easy to say, "Oh! I have a Dalit friend". What? Does he not have a name? Is he just a Dalit? That is his qualifications? his views? A whole set of possibilities that a human is born with and for the tokenizer, he is just a flaunt symbol, A token to cash in some brownie points about how diverse his friend circle is.
This is even wider than that. It is in families. It is in our deepest of relations. Modern relations are based upon tokenism. Since the advent of Content, that is, a broadcasted life, Modern relations are tokenized. Your father is immediately reduced to middle class, struggle bound, noble man, who worked so hard for make you survive and blah blah. And then all his behavior is justified in name of being a noble struggler. He becomes a token for you to cash in brownie points about broadcasting your life content in WhatsApp and YouTube and Instagram about "My Family".
When everything is content, every piece of information is content, then relationships are thumbnails. What are thumbnails but a usage of tokens to attract viewership. Family vlogs work on this. You want to see how a particular creator treats his father. And of course, he is deliberately showing what he wants to show you.
"Token" is the only identity humans have in eyes of other humans in this day and age. What are you for your Instagram friend other than an icon, a profile picture, may be some chats and stories. Those stories are not even genuine stories, those are made up, fabricated to again, get some brownie point of relatability and fitting in. Your YouTube channel is a self-tokenizing. Your social media accounts mean that you have self-tokenized yourself who you can be, what you broadcast, what you show you are doing and so on.
Beware of Tokens. And it is not far that we will see people who will be only tokens. No further identity. What are influencers but tokens of fame? What skill does a Punit Superstar has? or a Thara Bhai Joginder? Or an Elvish Yadav? Nothing right? Nothing other than they are a symbol of fame. They are famous because they represent. They are tokens of may be rowdy-ness or macho-ness or any other thing. You got it? Tokens are dangerous.
Token people are extremely dangerous because they are nothing inside. They are like viruses. They are nothing if not infecting other beings. Similarly, a token is nothing if he is not influencing, that is posting on social media. Are you a token? Ask yourself?
"Can you live without telling anyone that you are living?"
"Can you exist without broadcasting your life in public?"
"Can you survive this fact that may be you will die mediocre and nobody really cares what you have to say, What you have to post, What are you feeling about anything?"
These are questions of deep introspection for oneself. Society will keep tokenizing you. In 21st century, India never got just a president, for example, It got a Dalit president, a tribal president, a Muslim president. This is how it is broadcasted everywhere in the world. To showoff that we are such democracy that we can make a tribal woman a president. Tokenism is there. Political social even economic systems work today on Tokenism.
The only refuge from token identities is in some Zen or other authentic spirituality. One thing in hell that you can do is to, at least, not burn yourself. Here, one thing to resist is not to tokenize oneself. Not to self-tokenize. People will and that is inevitable, But the well you are still a subject. A "Bulla ki Jana Mai kaun?", the well you are saved. Even if you self-objectify, it is saner than being a self-tokenizer. For instance, "Being a Kattar Hindu" is ok, Communal, but ok. But being a "Kattar Hindu Content Creator", is token. It is mentally unhealthy, pathological, one of the symptoms of this content digital society.
Just "Beware". Perpetual Paranoia might help.
No comments:
Post a Comment