America's simple complexity problem

Complexity in society has increased manifold in the past few decades, not in a linear fashion nor in an organic manner, but rather along an exponential path. This increase in complexity manifests itself in every aspect of our lives, not least in the many jaw-dropping creations that come out of the Silicon Valley. In things like encryption and hacking, in simple financial transactions with things like crypto currencies and digital transactions, in every aspect of system driven social and economic practice. The ability to understand and manage this complexity leads us into an area that requires a lot more attention to detail than has perhaps ever been the case. Take something as prevalent and omnipresent as Facebook or Google. How much of your information, your online behavior or even your privacy is under your own control is a complicated and confusing issue. Forget the ethics and principles of it. Just understanding how meta data is used to profile and program the population, how much one’s specific information, clicks, searches, friend lists etc. may be tracked and used to target you for specific campaigns, ads, news and views, is something that not everyone finds palatable much less desirable. The inevitability of these technologies permeating your life if you wish to stay in league with the world is obvious to most people. And this is before we even get to things like Artificial Intelligence and other tantalizing new fruits of technology. Information technology itself is just one of many aspects of complexity in our world now. That people in general, but more so people on the conservative right should balk at this and find a freewheeling, fallible candidate, simpler and more understandable and therefore more appealing is not a surprise. That you can get the class bully to show the middle finger to the goody two shoes math viz has its appeal. But voting in the bully as the class president may not turn out well.

The fact is that complexity is a fact of life. Getting Trump into the White House will not change that. The fact that people find change threatening isn’t new, but the speed of this change whether it be on issues pertaining to global warming, or migration is hard for many to come to terms with. Obama and Hilary who have embraced these changes and seem to be preparing Americans for a new and continuously evolving world come across as part and parcel of this complexity. Not so ‘the Donald’. He keeps it painfully simple. He wishes away the changes and harks to the past calling for making America Great ‘again’. Which needs to be read as make America simple again or make the world black and white again. I find the binary left right, capitalism versus socialism based view of the world increasingly insufficient. Such simple binaries, no matter how attractive, are just not in keeping with the changing world. We all need to get used to that and learn to live with a degree of complexity. Whether change becomes a continuous phenomenon or settles down after a period of rupture, it will inevitably become commonplace and the human mind will adapt or evolve to imbibe it and use it. Just not yet, it seems.

Simple brick walls on boundaries just won’t suffice. They may seem like the complete no nonsense solution to people, but they are the equivalent of applying Band-aid to a cancer patient. Maybe there is some placebo effect, but really, you need to get into the cellular structure and bio chemical treatment to fight that level of problem. Getting someone who understands the need for grappling with the complicated issues and of taking on intellectually rigorous pursuits is a critically important first step to attacking today’s ills fast. Needless to say Mr. Trump’s bombast carries neither the sledgehammer nor the scalpel to these issues. If there was a real meaningful leader from the right that brought the sledge hammer, one could at least argue about the two approaches. Here there is a nothing person with an ever changing view on every issue. Mr. Trump is simply creating confusion, preying on the base fears and bugbears of honest to god people. Take the ban on Muslims from entering the US for example. Trump has constantly changed his position on that most visceral of issues. First he changed his argument to allowing exceptions to the ban for people like London’s Muslim mayor and rich Arabs and so on and now he has gone from that to saying that Muslims from some troubled countries will be temporarily banned. That is a nothing statement. He started with stoking the worst fears of people and seemingly suggesting a strong ‘clean’ solution to their problems even though it was full of holes and flaws from the start. His new position is no way even close to what drew some of his supporters to him in the beginning.

Firewalls, hacking, fiber optics, cryptography etc. aren’t things people feel comfortable with. Increased information flow means people are more aware of the existence of the complex inner structure of their computers and their digital lives, they just don’t understand how it all works and it makes them nervous. Donald Trump’s solutions and diagnosis of these issues is a convenient simplification and at times denial. Unfortunately for him, it’s just not sufficient.

The other aspect that begs thinking is that perhaps no future election will be free from the kind of scandals this 2016 election has been plagued with. All the information, candidates’ work and lives in digital format will end up spilling out or being dug out. Perhaps all future candidates will have their private chats and emails brought out and discussed and made issues of. Maybe Artificial Intelligence will develop enough to add further dimensions to analyzing candidates, their personalities and agendas. The simple fact is there is no running away from these developments and this last ditch effort to pour cold water in the form of Donald Trump onto the system just won’t work. Its the equivalent of smashing your computer in frustration when you don't understand computing. All that happens is you end up with a broken machine, while the data, systems, and all these complex issues remain on the network or on remote servers across the world. Adapting to this complexity, the way Obama has attempted to do, by pivoting away in the direction of the future rather than trying to turn the clock back, is surely the right approach to pursue.  Little surprise therefore that most people who deal with complexity and are good at leveraging it, like the Silicon Valley mentioned at the start are almost all supporting Hilary and the democratic ticket with a few rare exceptions.

The haze of innuendo surrounding Hilary after her longstanding record as a public servant and the 'Teflon quality' as some have called it, to Trump’s base despite his many follies reflects this divergent approach to the networked world. One where you get into the detailed nuances and learn how to deal with complicated systems and look a bit messy and the other where you attack the medium and try to negate and ignore it. The latter just cannot work. 

There is another big complication in this election, which has been exacerbated by the communication deficit from the Obama administration during the last 4 years. Unlike in the cold war, where there was an obvious outside enemy to rally the people against, in this election, the complexity of a more globalised society and a narrative that requires a leader to not rally against any part of the world, but towards a networked future, makes it harder to appeal to the right leaning centrists and near impossible to reach out to the far right. We might even be approaching a point where the left versus right frame of reference itself may be incomplete to deal with the emergent reality. When robust and long standing principles like nationalism themselves are reaching a degree of complexity due to network effects, transient capital & labour markets and migration, a lot of the old terms need redefinition and I believe we are just seeing the beginning of that process with this election. This election is a precursor to a new generation of politics where a completely different lexicon will emerge in the political discourse. I hope Americans will not set the clock back by a decade by voting their insecurities into power, as they take their time to adjust to the new reality. I hope they take the positive step towards the future by electing as it happens, America’s much belated first Lady President on November 8^th.

-Anuj Kapoor

Me & You (A struggle for freedom. An escape into atheism)

Me & You.

It shoved me here.

It pushed me there.

It bent. It curved,

It rammed. It swerved.

It rose. It dived

It sloped. It thrived.

It ebbed. It flowed

It was bright. It snowed.

It flowed. It banked.

It pulled. It yanked.

It propped me up. It put me down.

It set me high. It made me drown.

This is life. This is life.

It’s every whim. It’s every fancy

Be it assured. Be it chancy.

I agreed with decency.

I followed with urgency.

I bent. I knelt

I thought. I felt.

Always pliant

Never truant.

Forever shoulder. Never head.

Early to rise. Late to bed.

I valued and treasured.

Took what it gave, never measured.

I was flexible. I was nimble.

Bent at its wish. Stayed humble.

I valued life, in me and in others,

In friends & foes, in strangers & brothers.

Then one day I woke up and felt,

To be strong, unwavering, rigid not melt.

To stay the course. To challenge life.

Not with humility but with strife.

To knock it back, force it in its borders.

To give reign to my feelings and not take orders.

Sometimes or always one must beat it down.

Tame it, own it, not smile but frown.

Life is a gift, but it’s given to man.

To use as he chooses and work his own plan.

There is no God, no saint, no devil.

No love for a maker, no lust for evil.

I am mine and you are your.

We will last. We will endure.

We will reign & toil and win & thrive.

In years to come we will overcome life.

No fear will guide us on what to do.

I will be me and you will be you.

One day I know there will be no due.

No maker, no destroyer, no preacher, no pew.

Free we will wander this universe as we do.

I will be me and you will be you.

Anuj

Global perspectives with an Indian Flavour at the Jaipur Literary Festival

The Jaipur Literary Festival has truly risen to become one of the most exciting literary events in India and in some ways anywhere in the world. At the very least it has appropriated to itself a very distinct and unique position in the world of literary discourse.

The festival organizers have succeeded in bringing together some of the best minds from the world of literature but also succeeded in packing a lot of variety in its content, in the form of discussions about theatre, film, novels, stories, science, religion and philosophy.  This year the list of authors and celebrities included Annie Proulx, Ben Okri, Kiran Nagarkar, Lionel Shriver, Michael Ondaatje, Oprah Winfrey, Richard Dawkins, Tom Stoppard, Steven Pinker, Javed Akhtar, Rahul Bose, Aruna Roy, Girish Karnad and Asghar Wajahat among others.

Festival experience varies across the world as the event takes in the flavour of the local people and culture where they are hosted, whether it’s the festival at Hay on Wye, Edinburgh, Berlin or Jaipur. However the Jaipur festival is substantially different to all its peers in featuring a lot more writing from non-western authors owing to its Indian domicile. But the most remarkable feat of the Festival is its free admission. Given that Jaipur is a populous, bustling Indian city, it makes it all the more impressive that the organizers should be able to keep the doors open to all. The free admission aspect gives the festival what some call the ‘Kumbh Mela’ feel making it very distinctly Indian. Creditable and incredible as this approach is, it gets a mixed response from the attending public. Some visitors especially from outside India, find the experience a bit daunting especially on the weekend when the crowds make access and movement really challenging. This year when Oprah was at the venue, many hundreds if not thousands were in long queues outside hoping to get in at some point in the day. So even though the complete democratization of knowledge and access to all is a great and worthy cause, logistics need to be slightly better managed. The improvements in management from last year were substantial, so the organizers are definitely moving in the right direction in terms of cleanliness, hygiene and crowd management. Still if the popularity of the festival increases, the organizers may need to either move venues or change some policies regarding attendance.

However, the grand success of the festival should prompt another question, why aren’t their many more of these events in the country? One major literary event of this sort aside of the book fairs is hardly sufficient for a country of 1.2 Billion people spread over vast distances.  One hopes that more of such events will begin to get the right kind of patronage and support from sponsors and readers. All said the future of literary discourse in the country is bright and strong. One can only hope that we get to see many more of these events in the country and broaden further the discourse in the public sphere on wider and more interesting topics and themes. All in, a grand success and a promising platform to make space for in your calendar every year. 

God delusion @ Jaipur Literary Festival

The title of the inimitable Richard Dawkins’ book took a whole new meaning at the Jaipur Literary Festival on 24^th of January at the debate on ‘Has man replaced God?’

It was interesting to see so many of the panellists expressing very atheistic points of view. With Dawkins the supporting cast of Javed Akhtar, Suhel Seth, Aruna Roy, Qaisra Shahraz, Ashok Vajpai, a certain Mr. Salim Engineer and Swami Agnivesh, the panellists seemed a bit of a random assortment rather than a carefully conceived group. The debate wasn’t in the traditional format of opposing points of view with balanced opponents at least in number, if not in intellect. Of the panel, 5 spoke as atheists while 3 as people of faith. In fact most panellists took liberties with the topic changing it from what it said on the tin to a debate for and against Faith.

Leaving aside the actual arguments themselves, what struck me most is the aggressive and rampant atheism of the likes of Javed Akhtar and Suhel Seth.  While Javed in his famous 2009 speech has previously espoused his non-theistic beliefs, it was still a step too far to hear the writer of songs like ‘ Ishwar allah tere jahaan mein nafrat kyoon hai’ so radically dismissing God. At one point Javed used Dawkin’s arguments and seemed to state them as his own to much applause, a point which Dawkins noted.  He may well have been taken aback at someone sitting right next to him in a debate, plagiarising from him!

On the resounding support from the audience to various remarks supporting atheism and against God, Dawkins pointed out that if there is so much support for atheism, why did the audience continue to keep believing in God once they walked away from such sessions. His ignorance of the Indian psyche of saying one thing and doing another was quite obvious. For someone who has devoted his life to Evolutionary biology and lives by his word on Atheism, and someone who is used to audiences and debaters that are slightly more honest about their beliefs, it would clearly have been a new and strange experience. The corruption and hypocrisy of thinking, which anyone in India is used to as a matter of everyday existence, is quite jarring to anyone who has not been used to this context.  The self defeating sycophancy displayed by some of the panellists especially one’s on the side of atheism, which they neither seemed to fully understand or appreciate is part of the problem. As an atheist myself, heartening as it is to see such strong support, I found the profound lack of honesty in the audience and some speakers dis-appointing.  A debate on a topic that I have been looking forward to for a few years, was reduced to lip service and bombastic arguments from everyone except Richard, whose views are already well known.

The depth of a debate on such a topic should include an understanding of the non mono-theistic religious traditions in India. The evolution of religious and social philosophy in our country especially in the majority Hindu population has only obliquely been influenced by monotheistic religions like Islam and Christianity. The western atheistic movement which has largely been in response to the three major monotheistic religions has much less material and discussion on Hinduism, communism etc. A discussion on this topic is therefore extremely interesting with significant relevance to the development of thought in a rapidly growing India. Alas, like so many other things in India, hypocrisy and double speak sabotaged the debate, denying the attendees a chance to get a deeper and truer understanding of the issues. In sum, a great festival concept with some very relevant speakers ended with a display of the Indian sycophancy and shallow morals which seem to plague our most famous and prodigious thinkers and writers. It is better to follow than mislead. One waits for the day when Indian audiences truly understand the meaning of corruption, which they seemed to be fighting against for the most of 2011. The blatant deceit and double standards are definite roadblocks on India’s path. Not least when they come in the garb of superficial tributes to the most popular trends without an experiential and felt belief in what is being said. Popular culture is perhaps the same everywhere, but it needs to be limited access in debates on real issues and deep understanding that affects development of thought and direction.

1

Letter to Anish Kapoor

Dear Anish,

At a recent dinner hosted by an investment bank at a west-end hotel I had an interesting conversation about the nature of your work. At the dinner that included people of assorted occupations and interests, I was sitting across the table from a banker who read my name card and asked me what I thought of your works at the recent exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts. It wasn’t the first time that the similarity of my name to yours has prompted such a question. The query was probably half in jest but in certain measure it was out of curiosity. It could have been a banker’s jousting for intellectual one up man-ship or plain humour. Whatever the reason, I found myself forced to think about the meaning of your work, to interpret it as a critic to an audience of about half a dozen people sitting around me. I always find such questions regarding the meaning of a work of art quite trying.

When I had gone to your exhibition, I never felt the need to search for any meaning in the exhibits and quite enjoyed just being there, feeling what I felt as I went through the sculptures. Faced with what I took to be a bit of a challenge at the dinner, I explored what interpretation I could present. I wasn’t trying to force meaning onto your work, it was being forced onto me. I had a playful time at the exhibition, as I imagine most people did. I went in blank; expecting nothing, knowing nothing. The only work by you I had seen before this exhibition was Marsyas in the turbine hall. At the Tate I had only felt a sensation of a moulding of space, certain claustrophobia as I went up the escalators and a certain regaining of control and perspective as I looked up at the overwhelming sculpture from the floor. As I walked out and away from the exhibit and gathered my emotions reflecting on what my senses had felt, I remember thinking that the sculpture had at first glance blasted my original perspective as I entered the hall, then confused and confronted my senses as I walked around it, looking at it from different aspects. The overall impact if I could call it that was of re-configuring the space and making me aware of my perspective or the limitations of it.

At the Royal Academy of Arts too as I walked in and saw the Tall tree and the Eye, it had a certain celebratory, welcoming cheerfulness about it. Through the many mirrors rising at different angles from the ground all the way to the top, not only was the courtyard reflected onto the viewer but also as you walked closer, the same tree felt like a cctv observing the viewer as it seemed to focus all angles like various cameras onto the observer. Apart from the sheer size, the many myriad perspectives seen in the many mirrors, felt like 'big brother's' watchful eye. It seemed to suggest splitting of sight and better understanding the limitations of it. The distorting of space by perspective; and the distortion of perspective by space. There were several different interpretations and emotions as I walked through the exhibition. It offered a pretty child like experience so far as interacting with the exhibits was concerned. The desire to stick a finger into the Svayambh, or the part repulsive part scatophilic intrigue of the many faeces like moulds or the inherent seduction of yellow were all more than anything else, playful temptations. Either the size, the scale or the presentation of these commonplace things of everyday life made adults look at these things with the same intrigue that children experience as they feel their way through innocence towards experience. Only that here the interaction was taking adults from experience towards innocence. A kind of attempt at regaining paradise or moving from intellect to feeling.

Whatever meaning or interpretation one might have found in the exhibits was probably quite specific to the observer. I did not seek meaning in it and I don't think it had a lasting impact on me either. What it did was reinforce some of the feelings I have already had. In 'Shooting into the corner' I saw the diminished role of the empire. The fear instilled by the canon was reduced to a splash within the walls of a room. Despite the choice of the deep red colour of the wax it wasn't threatening. None of this is what anyone else may have felt, they may have had entirely different takes from it. The one thing that sticks to me in all the works is the method of deconstructing perspective through convex and concave mirrors, inverted images, tall tree and the eye; or the disorientation of perspective as you enter the turbine hall, by the sheer size of the sculpture – and then moving on to experience the various aspects, spatial, chromatic, angular. The artist deconstructs more than dominates as you enter and then leaves the mind free to interpretation or experience through thought or emotion but above all through sensory perception.

Everyone's experience of it is different, everyone's perspective going in is their own, and everyone's take from the exhibits is their own too, except that the desire to understand or contextualize or make sense of the exhibits is overpowered by the scale and size of it, leaving the senses to rule the intellect.

Given that most of your works are set in urban spaces, one is tempted to feel that the sculptures are designed with the urban observer in mind. The observer’s pace of life and urban intellect driven approach to experience forces them to compete with the artist for meaning and interpretation in his works. The desire to interpret, understand and explain is inherent in the audience. The manner of defeating that intellect first to free the senses and remove the ego from the experience of the artwork is to me key in your work. The method could be the scale of the exhibit that dwarfs perspective or the many myriad aspects that make you question the uniqueness of your own perspective. The artist’s perspective isn't what his view is but that he is the medium through which to experience the existence of plurality of aspect. He merely creates an environment where people contextualize their points of view within an expanse of views. It liberates by unlocking senses from preconceived perceptions, by dwarfing your viewpoint at times or distorting it. It prevents you from imposing your mental constructs on your senses and puts your senses first.

Simply put it allows you to play. I played wholeheartedly, and am now forced with this meaning that I never sought to find. I tried explaining this at the dinner, but I was probably only half successful as most of my audience was distracted by the fine white wine and mouth watering Moules Marinières that appeared on the table! It turns out fine dining has the same effect on grown ups as fine works of art. I enjoyed both.

-          A Kapoor