Swimming in Ideas

When I saw the course Gandhi’s Critique of Modernity on YIFP curriculum, I expected it to be an extension of Makers of Modern India by Rudrangshu Mukherjee. Gandhi was the only leader whom we did not discuss in that course so I was looking forward to a story-telling of Gandhi’s life and reading some of his writings. Critique of modernity was a phrase for me that did not go beyond what Gandhi wrote in Hind Swaraj. Coming from a non-social science background, my only introduction to such movements has been through Gil Harris and Anunaya Choubey in their courses on Shakespeare and Art Appreciation respectively. So here’s how the cloud of ideas has influenced me so far, where the pivot is learning about modernity.

I am an economist and an engineer by training, so rational thought is like the core of my being. It is surprising that while championing rationality, I never stopped to define or explore what rationality is.
I’m very liberal by conscious choice and have always grappled with where liberalism stops and demarcation of right and wrong begins. Having a private conversation in class is an expression of individual thought, so a liberal should accept it. But, is not the suppression of that individuality essential to the rationality of conducting a class with 90 fellows?

In the midst of these questions came the “working definition of modernity” by Vivek Bhandari. So modernity isn’t just about being rational which in turn is a pseudonym for being scientific. While alienated production was completely in sync with my previous idea of ‘modern’, bureaucratic rationality didn’t quite fit in, as the way the Government of India’s bureaucracy behaves is quite irrational. Secularism is of course a given, as to an Indian brought up in the world’s largest democracy, saying that you are not secular is equivalent to committing treason. Beyond the class discussion, the tutorial with Ritwik Agrawal crystallized my ideas on modernity. I think of it as a construct belonging to a particular era that emerged in opposition to prevailing thoughts just like most other literary or philosophical movements. The comparison to other movements is enlightening to me as I no longer think of modernity as the Gospel of all truths.

In fact, despite sticking to the position of being rational, I feel that I might identify more with postmodernity as it allows space for cultural differences. This tolerance is vital for my liberal stance.

I am conscious of the fact that I might be mixing up modernity and modernism and postmodernity and postmodernism. But for my layer of understanding so far, the itys and the isms are the same. I’m looking forward to dive deeper into postmodernism to find out if it is an accurate fit to contain my thoughts.

As soon as I think of a container for my ideas, I am faced with the interplay between definitions of structures and institutions. While agency and structure are as demarcated in my mind as black and white, structures and institutions are like a couple in coitus where it is difficult to say where one ends and the other begins. Democracy is a structure but the democratic apparatus that consists of Governments and bureaucracy are institutions. Each country defines an education structure and then proceeds to create what are literally institutions. Zooming out to a bird’s eye view, is society a structure or an institution? Is the laying down of formal rules a prerequisite for an institution while any visible arrangement qualifies for a structure? For man to become a social animal did agriculture serve as a structure or as an institution? I don’t have these answers but I have hope that they’ll emerge after more engagement with the topics.