The world is the orchestra of diversity. It seeks to live, magnify and classify its own vulnerabilities. Its existence and mutual end with own past would not be so perfect. However, the most embarking element of the universe is the art of expression. How do you see your own ends of creativity and expression in a lifetime? Well seems it is a challenge, but let us look it not through the lens of fear, the ‘us v them’ philosophy and ideological obscurantism.
History has it that mankind needs to rewire its incumbency in order to achieve something lasting, constructive and better than imagined. We do never see back, and that is something which we often dramatize and improvise under the very ideological outset of measuring something. This is something I connote as the ageing way of seeing reality. We age our realities and conceive that something is just not possible and maybe cannot be rewired. However, there is another way to look at reality. Well — the person behind the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, Niels Bohr, said this:
Causality may be considered as a mode of perception by which we reduce our sense impressions to order.
So, why is it necessary for us to talk and understand a little deeper about expressionism? Well — expressionism is the smoothie that spills causalities. You never could expect how reasonable or complete anything would be because the moment you try — you will fail. However, we often feel our societies just cannot grow because they lack expressionism. However, this is a very limited outlook. Why do we think expressionism is an act or a tool that has dominating values? Maybe it is not the complete picture. Maybe we just need to be a better sceptic, if we really wish to be. Although people lack the vision of thinking beyond the Hobbes-Machiavelli tradition, they generally act too contrarian about human lives and their values. A mainstream understanding of the purpose and values of mankind is corrupted by the subject whether something would last or not.
History proves that revolutions and evolutionary developments both are so different, that their motives and ideals need fierce scrutiny. Let us understand the neoliberal world for a while. Although I do not believe in the Left-Right measurement of political ideas, I would use it to discuss some problems in our social and political thoughts.
Is Social Constructivism Mundane?
Well, it is. It’s not necessary that our social lives require pomp and show. Societies generally adopt means to restore balance. They are a beautiful confluence of thoughts, ideas and aesthetics of the living, which you may scientifically segregate as liberals and conservatives, moderates and radicals, modernists and status quo-ists. However, it would be appreciated if we do not look at people in a reactionary, judgemental and unreasonable manner. Therefore, let us not assume things as black, white and grey. Let us assume them as red, blue and yellow.
Considering my seminal focus on the issues of expressionism in the age of CyberSpace, I would put forth my arguments in the due context of how free choice itself is at the verge of universality but not the business of emotions and segregation. I would not get into the West-East debate and the differences between the cultures of the West and of the East, because some basic conventions of both of them are commonly known:
- One believes in uncontrolled liberalism and democratization and believes in artificial hierarchies, while the other believes in controlled liberalization of values and endorses naturalistic or at least near-to-sociological hierarchies. The best examples to compare are the US & India, and not the US and China/Japan/ASEAN nations. You can compare the UK with some European countries, which may not be an as hyper globalist and capitalists like France and Germany, but love their culture. Watch Europeans: original dramas from across Europe, by The Guardian, but do not correlate it. It is an artwork, and the purpose of art is to reflect, not to conclude.
Arts never conclude things. Sciences do. But whenever their conclusions provided by sciences are quite shallow, arts reflect that defect again.
- One has believed in judgementalism to drive social change, while the other has found resilience in driving social change by letting the boat of change pass through the waves as calm as possible, without any ounce of the issue — showing how societies can be so beautiful and fortunate enough.
- Both endorse scientific research, but one side becomes a sceptic based on digital explanations, assuming it is the role of mathematics to define lives and in social science, the role of what is bare to define discrimination and apathy. The latter is a sceptic, but this scepticism is very different: it focuses on analogous explanations: thing which is so detailed that the side does not believe to form a median or finalization of everything at the same time. Maybe they use a nested approach: chiselling the art beneath their scientific approaches. This was the difference between Thomas Alva Edison and Nikola Tesla, and so analogous and different was Srinivasa Ramanujan. Watch this scene from The Man Who Knew Infinity. You may not require to generalize things, but in this scene, what GH Hardy has reflected is that nature is amorphous and unconditional realities cannot ever be controlled and measured. Well, this is as same as the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics by Niels Bohr. Have an insight into what Hardy enumerates on Euclid and Mathematics:
Reductio ad absurdum, which Euclid loved so much, is one of a mathematician’s finest weapons. It is a far finer gambit than any chess play: a chess player may offer the sacrifice of a pawn or even a piece, but a mathematician offers the game.
Also read Minorities and the Making of Postcolonial States in International Law by Professor Mohd. Shahabuddin. It is a wonderful work on Ethnocentrism and its flaws. Here is a special quote from his work:
Given the peculiarities of postcolonial states and the centrality of international law therein, conventional doctrinal approaches premised primarily upon European worldviews are bound to fall short of an adequate framework of analysis.
However, does it mean that expressionism is an impossibility or is reasonably punitive to anthropological cultures and amorphous identities?
The best answer to this question is that the world of communication itself decides the course of how expressionism exists and withers on its own. It is therefore important to understand that the global order and its regime of human rights will not be based on a divisive and unreasonable manner of free choice and expression.
We must understand that the elementary underpinnings of expressionism must not defy social and cultural conscience of a polity. If any civilization is deeply rooted in its values, then — there will always exist a faith or reliance mechanism that drives the society. If we believe in God, then we have some limited but sheltering mechanism of faith, which itself is dynamic — interestingly developed by us. If you believe in a Constitution, then the idea itself is rooted in constitutionalism and morality — where you bear the ideal and beautiful features of the constitution intact and reckon its dignity. It maybe is the chess of decisiveness between morality — which blooms its very ideas and precepts for customs and traditions to coming and uproot its past & ethics — the victor of all moral boundaries and castles, which seems sociopathic to moral contrarianism subject to ideological obscurantism in the 21st century.
Also, read ATHEISM- The faith in human nature/mind that replaces faith in God? by Kartikey Misra.
Therefore, it is better that we have a pluralist society, and the international community at its diplomatic, regional and indigenous levels, reckons its communitarian autonomy, instead of imposing the values of expressionism via a top-down approach, which may pretend the life of liberal and open values pertain for some time, but would not exist likewise long.
How Can We Cherish Creativity and Individualism Differently?
Cherishing values that attribute individual values is based on the ethos of a civilization: every civilizational dialect and methodology towards any individual act or institution will be different. They may have a lot of variations, which itself is of utmost significance for us to understand. For example — there is a school in Japan, which is central to the political and social values of North Korea. Vox has effectively reported on this in one of its episodes of Borders. Do have a look and understand why a much liberalized, open, calm and resilient place like Japan is fiddling and balancing with its own political mirrors and fears.
Anyways, creativity itself is the canvas for those who paint it endlessly and maybe, infinitely. People generally, who attribute creativity to individualism, will — at the end of the day, or maybe some other crucial moment, are bound to decide and normalize how their individual pursuits are not isolated: every individual pursuit can have the following analogous understandings:
- Transformational Individualism is central to a Society’s convictions and stability. If the individual assumes that his individual transformation, and the algorithms of his transformative changes, mapped by the usage and estimation of the basic human rights discernible from him — are isolated completely from how a society grows and develops, then it is a historic fallacy even to presume or to believe in. The individual, therefore, can at his best, reckon the amorphous characteristics of his social establishments, become a sociable and reasonable part of it, and has to provide his own means of conviction and respect — taking into consideration the collectivist nature of the human society, regardless of diversities and identities. History can prove how the democratization of rightful convictions and gestures of respect always benefits the constructive growth of a civilization. An example for you to show is the constructive ideology behind the formation of a united Europe.
- Mass Collectivism is a strong factor that drives civilizations. Any ideology like Moderatism, Fascism, Nazism, Communism, Socialism, Conservatism and even elements of political schematics like Populism, Secularism, Liberalism and Individualism cannot exist if there is no mass collectivism. However, beyond ideologies, mass collectivism is also connected with the cultural ecosystem of different societies and regions. The unfortunate reality is that to control people at a mass level is somewhat a poorly studied and understood notion. This is one of the most significant and common causes behind the decline of Ethnocentrism, Colonialism, Communism, and even Nazism. If people enjoy their collective status quo in a particular manner that prefers abeyance towards change gradually, and the changes themselves are constructive and innate to social friendliness, then civilizations need not fear mass collectivism. Then maybe the Machiavellian Trap will turn our to be insignificant. We also need to understand that mass collectivism often defies social advancement, no doubt — but that limitation is central to the very fact that lack of friendliness and perseverance is something — which is integrally worse for people to exist. Controversies that can be a suited example of this analogous understanding proposed are — (1) the rise of Protestantism; (2) the rise of Communism; (3) the rise of Islamophobia and its relative misuses.
Now, both — the ideas of Transformational Individualism and Mass Collectivism, are not antithetical to each other. They may overlap and intersect with convictions, which is healthy for a civilization at an aesthetic level, if not in other cases. The faith mechanism exists among both sociological ideas, and they are so intertwined, that adopting an approach of isolationism is unreasonable and disrespectful to what the people need instead of what they are compelled to wish for. We have to and can let them coexist with harmony when we endorse certain methods:
- Utilize the Faith Mechanism to Document and Estimate the Doctrinal and Empirical Underpinnings of the Amorphous Establishments of Societies;
- Let the Semantics and Topology of Amorphous Societies open up their obscurities and religiosities. You can make societies decay their dead and unreasonable practices and precepts slowly, and at the same time, you can respect and conserve the integrity and dignity of the cultural establishments they are based on. In that way, changes are made possible.
- Ideological Obscurantism must be prevented or exacerbated. Also, we must educate and prepare our generations to be open and understand the obscurities and religiosities of various societies in a concise, reasonable and real manner. This can drive neoliberalism and neorealism together.
In order to understand how this works, read the following quotes by the same person — Late Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore:
There are two religions in earth, which have distinct enmity against all other religions. These two are Christianity and Islam. They are not just satisfied with observing their own religions but are determined to destroy all other religions. That’s why the only way to make peace with them is to embrace their religions.” (Original works of Rabindranath Vol. 24, page 375, Vishwa Bharti; 1982.)
The next one is quite interesting, obviously of a different occasion, but can be effectually graduated in a mutually permeable manner. When he paid homage to Swami Shraddhanand, who was assassinated in 1926, he says:
India has two major communities — Hindus and Muslims. If we think that we can achieve our welfare by excluding the Muslims, we shall be committing a grave error. Out of anger, one may say that while building the roof we shall erect not eight but five pillars, because we hate the other three pillars — yet that will not lead to erection of a stable and strong roof….When the Swadeshi werewolf reached our country I was active in it. The Muslims did not join it, mostly they were against it. Some of our leaders then said: Let us go ahead totally ignoring them. But none of them queried: Why are they opposed to the Swadeshi Movement? We [learnt] nothing but ignored the gulf of difference. (Tagore, Swami Sraddhanand, 1926, Rachnabali, 13, page 360)
Now — you may disagree or agree or do neither of the former — but this similar analogy is somewhat you can find in this piece I have written on the Partisanship problem in Politics. This similar analogy we can find on the legitimacy of Nazism and the ideological obscurantism and identity that Hitler of Germany indeed assumed.
Expressionism, therefore, needs to evolve and become a strong instrument to revive and purify the faith mechanism that drives us and has civilized, ruptured, reshaped and reincarnated ourselves from our own shadows and convictions.
Much of the solutions therefore exist and become invisible in the world and life of the aesthetics of communication: maybe we should question whether we need to have a choice heist, or we need to harmonize the time of choice.