......thoughts
I happened to meet Dhananjay today morning at Blood camp he and his friends had organized for Nirman. On my way back home I was thinking about the discussion I had with him regarding social issues and how they are trying to spread across the goal, motto and purpose of Nirman.
Human mind is such a fascinating thing. Even before an eye blinks it can travel across the globe and come to the pin point halt from where it started. The thought process which took off as I was waving good bye to Dhananjay too meet a similar fate. I am trying to share the thought process I went through, you may agree, disagree or criticize, partially or completely, my way of thinking. You will be welcomed.
Let me begin with a very controversial question: Is there ANY similarity between a terrorist and social activist? I believe that they are at the 2 opposite ends of the same curve. Terrorist always looks for destruction, violence and imbalance, Social Activist on contrary desires peace, equality and development. But still the question remains unanswered: What is the common thread that connects them? I feel it’s their state of mind or more precisely a complete devotion for a very well defined purpose and more importantly putting forth their purpose before self.
A year ago I came across a book named “Freakonomics”. An interesting point the author was trying to make was; doesn’t matter how noble or sinful our actions are they are always motivated by what he calls “Incentive”. Kindly make a note that incentive need not always be monetary or materialistic it can even be love, affection, ego, respect, importance or above all happiness. Every action we do good, bad or ugly is weighed against incentive we see. To give an analog, it’s a greedy algorithm. At every node we have set of options to choose from. These options are weighed against their respective incentive which in turn determines our actions.
So, what’s the point? The question I wanted to ask: Why is it so easy to find fanaticist/terrorists/Goons compared to social activist? A common man can rarely belong to class of Goons but why he is neither a social activist? He is the one who is most affected by social turmoil’s and imbalance. He is the one who is most frustrated with the dysfunctional social system. Then why, why he is the one who is most tolerant? It should not be difficult to answer this question. It’s quite simple he cannot see much of an incentive.
A common man has as much motivation to do a social good as much motivation terrorist has to do evil; the difference exists in the monetary incentives. A terrorist would come with pounds and dollars where as a common man has to worry about earning money for his daily bread, or may be for his own house or may be for children education or their wedding. Does he really have time to think about environmental issues and awareness, social causes and their betterment? And finally do we really think that a global and social upliftment can happen without the contribution of a common man.
No amount of awareness campaign will be enough to gather an attention of a man walking on the street, if you really want to make him get involved give him enough incentive. He may come forth and contribute to your social cause without realizing he is doing so? Here is an example, give an advertisement in a newspaper:
ADV 1: A graduate tutor needed to teach Math for underprivileged children for NGO
ADV 2: A graduate tutor needed Rs.2000/month.
No need to mention which adv will attract more applicants.
Every person may not have the depth and sensitivity towards a social problem, BUT every person can play a role in solving it. For social activist efforts towards solving a problem and seeing a better tomorrow may be good enough incentive to be motivated. Where as Rs.2000/month is a good enough salary for an unemployed graduate. He need not understand the bigger picture which you as social activists or a reformer can see.
When ever we think of an NGO, or organization working for social cause, why do we think it to be a non-monetary organization? Why can’t it be a full fledged Corporate Organization having 2 independent wings.
- Industrial Wing: May be any profit making industry, for that matter say IT services company having a well defined hierarchy, just like any other organization, a highly professional organization with sole goal of making profit.
- Social Wing: A wing full fledged devoted to social development. A complete monetary profit of Wing-1 is diverted to a social wing. Which as well would have people form various streams, from law to arts, from medicine to engineering; from school teachers to clerks getting paid as good as they would if worked for any public/private sector.
I know you may say it’s like building palace in air. But please try to understand the zest of the communication. A young youth who is socially motivated should not be in dilemma of taking risk purely based on financial circumstances. Why not there be world where people stop referring to some people as social activists and call them social professional. Why not there be a world where there would be social career is looked upon as an opportunity rather then risk.
I know the whole thing sounds stupid. But who cares. Thoughts are likes waves who says they necessarily need a purpose.
Human mind is such a fascinating thing. Even before an eye blinks it can travel across the globe and come to the pin point halt from where it started. The thought process which took off as I was waving good bye to Dhananjay too meet a similar fate. I am trying to share the thought process I went through, you may agree, disagree or criticize, partially or completely, my way of thinking. You will be welcomed.
Let me begin with a very controversial question: Is there ANY similarity between a terrorist and social activist? I believe that they are at the 2 opposite ends of the same curve. Terrorist always looks for destruction, violence and imbalance, Social Activist on contrary desires peace, equality and development. But still the question remains unanswered: What is the common thread that connects them? I feel it’s their state of mind or more precisely a complete devotion for a very well defined purpose and more importantly putting forth their purpose before self.
A year ago I came across a book named “Freakonomics”. An interesting point the author was trying to make was; doesn’t matter how noble or sinful our actions are they are always motivated by what he calls “Incentive”. Kindly make a note that incentive need not always be monetary or materialistic it can even be love, affection, ego, respect, importance or above all happiness. Every action we do good, bad or ugly is weighed against incentive we see. To give an analog, it’s a greedy algorithm. At every node we have set of options to choose from. These options are weighed against their respective incentive which in turn determines our actions.
So, what’s the point? The question I wanted to ask: Why is it so easy to find fanaticist/terrorists/Goons compared to social activist? A common man can rarely belong to class of Goons but why he is neither a social activist? He is the one who is most affected by social turmoil’s and imbalance. He is the one who is most frustrated with the dysfunctional social system. Then why, why he is the one who is most tolerant? It should not be difficult to answer this question. It’s quite simple he cannot see much of an incentive.
A common man has as much motivation to do a social good as much motivation terrorist has to do evil; the difference exists in the monetary incentives. A terrorist would come with pounds and dollars where as a common man has to worry about earning money for his daily bread, or may be for his own house or may be for children education or their wedding. Does he really have time to think about environmental issues and awareness, social causes and their betterment? And finally do we really think that a global and social upliftment can happen without the contribution of a common man.
No amount of awareness campaign will be enough to gather an attention of a man walking on the street, if you really want to make him get involved give him enough incentive. He may come forth and contribute to your social cause without realizing he is doing so? Here is an example, give an advertisement in a newspaper:
ADV 1: A graduate tutor needed to teach Math for underprivileged children for NGO
ADV 2: A graduate tutor needed Rs.2000/month.
No need to mention which adv will attract more applicants.
Every person may not have the depth and sensitivity towards a social problem, BUT every person can play a role in solving it. For social activist efforts towards solving a problem and seeing a better tomorrow may be good enough incentive to be motivated. Where as Rs.2000/month is a good enough salary for an unemployed graduate. He need not understand the bigger picture which you as social activists or a reformer can see.
When ever we think of an NGO, or organization working for social cause, why do we think it to be a non-monetary organization? Why can’t it be a full fledged Corporate Organization having 2 independent wings.
- Industrial Wing: May be any profit making industry, for that matter say IT services company having a well defined hierarchy, just like any other organization, a highly professional organization with sole goal of making profit.
- Social Wing: A wing full fledged devoted to social development. A complete monetary profit of Wing-1 is diverted to a social wing. Which as well would have people form various streams, from law to arts, from medicine to engineering; from school teachers to clerks getting paid as good as they would if worked for any public/private sector.
I know you may say it’s like building palace in air. But please try to understand the zest of the communication. A young youth who is socially motivated should not be in dilemma of taking risk purely based on financial circumstances. Why not there be world where people stop referring to some people as social activists and call them social professional. Why not there be a world where there would be social career is looked upon as an opportunity rather then risk.
I know the whole thing sounds stupid. But who cares. Thoughts are likes waves who says they necessarily need a purpose.
posted by Aniket at 3:46 AM
5 Comments:
2-3 immediate thoughts. it might sound from the first point that i'm excited, but i m not.
for 2nd point, i probably don't have the authority to say as i am quoting somebody else, but i will take liberty to quote.
1. F*** O** with social awareness and similar things, forget about 'common man'. How many 'professionals' around us actually think or they have passion for something constructive/arts/sports/science(watching dumb programs on tv or chitchatting with friends or similar timepass can't be a passion according to me)? It might sound ironical that we are doing so 'intellectual' stuff and we not thinking. People around (including me maybe) just do not like to think. Because thinking might come to conclusions which are inconvinient for one and one hardly has the courage to adapt to inconvinient things. But at the same point it is too shameful(!)for somebody to accept that he/she doesn't think. Hippocracy rocks!!
I don't say somebody (or myself) must be a social activist. Donald Knuth, Kishori Amonkar, Khalil Gibran etc are/were not social activists, but these people hold the same position as of any great social activist like Baba Amte in my mind. I guess that's because they 'thought' and took action which is inclining himself/herself to nature/humanity.
2. "The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it." - Karl Marx.
PS : The last point you were talking about - social and professional wing etc. Refer to MKCL,SEARCH - i guess its called social enterpreneurship. MKCL is a great rocking example of the same. Here also, Mr Vivek Sawant (MD, MKCL) is not a 'social activist'.
Couple of things, some relevant to what you are saying some are not:
Here is a shloka, just quoting it I do not know its origination
Amantram Aksharam nasti| Nasti Mulam Unaushadham||
Ayogya Purusho nasti| Yojaka: tatra Durlabhaha||
MEANING: "There is no alphabet from which a mantra can not be made. There is no herb from which a medicine can not be made. There is no person who is incapable. What is rare is the one who can organize."
Interpretation:"A seva-worker alone does not and can not change the society. His greatest capability is to organize, to find where to fit which alphabet and make a mantra. Look for something in every person; believe that no person is useless. We lack capability if we can not utilize someone. Believe; firmly believe that every alphabet has the ability to make a mantra."
With reference to the point you made about passion. I feel professionalism has more to do with sincerity of doing a task rather then having a passion. It reminds me of Bee Colony's. In bee colony the worker bee may not be passionate; but it must be sincere. Its not for worker bee to be intellectual, a leader, a queen or a soldier. Its born to be worker and it must serve sincerely as worker.
I by no way means to say that every person should be worker on contrary I say every person cannot be Queen. As its only queen who has the immense capability and strength to build a colony.
Regarding the Hippocracy you are talking about. I don't know ignoring the truth is shameful or its a way of searching for happiness(You may call it a illusion) through the ignorance. With due regards I would say I am no different and I don't think I am proud of it. In fact I am rather afraid to accept the truth.
hmm.
the point of professionalism is too much valid. agree 100% on that.
in fact, i will say its one of the pre-reqs of nirman process.
on the worker/queen issue, i will say the situations have gone so bad that every 'thinker' has to 'master' an area of activity (queen in that activity). alternatively, every 'thinker' has to be passionate. professionalism is not enough for change (ref marx quote).
coming to ur last point of searching happiness, may be we are (i am not saying only u, it includes me too) locally optimizing things than looking at the global pic. i.e. something that gives us joy temporarily, is that enough to give us 'persistent' joy? something that is sorrowful/frustrating now, if we think and act on it, it is possible that the act will give us persistent joy . i too don't know as of now. but i believe it to be so.
anonymous quote "you will not remember number of hours spent in office while you are dying"
my thoughts on the professionalism vs passion..
i do not think one can really separate them out..not at least in the context of 'social activity'(ok..here goes my disclaimer..i have not done any task which can be classified as a social activity..so i do not speak from experience). For example, let us consider the advertisements that you mention. May be..it is true that the second ad will receive more responses, but, if i was running an ngo, i would prefer people who respond to the first ad..simply because people who respond to first ad are more aware (as against the other set of people responding to the second ad)of what they are getting into..and they 'think' they are motivated to do that..
The point is, by definition, the (so called) social activity involves doing something to the needy (who are different from majority population). I think, doing that would require more than just professionalism. Going back to our example, I would be happier to hire someone who is motivated to teach underprivileged than someone who is looking to just earn his livelihood.
Also, humans can never be worker bees. We can think, we get frustrated when things dont work in the expected way, happy when we solve a problem which has been bugging you, and so many things..I mean..i dont think we can ever have a 100% professional person..
but ya..i agree that in an ideal world getting into social activity should be a 'safe' career option..
i will take second chance to say something about professionalism and passion - and how both of the things are important for anybody (not for just social activist).
This was explained by Vinoba Bhave (Gandhi's foremost disciple) to Abhay Bang - What all of us should be is 'Satyagrahi scientist'. That means we should have an scientific attitude and we should be desperately searching (agrahi) for truth. I am too small to talk about what 'truth' is - i will suggest to read Gandhi/Vinoba . Now what does scientist mean - one who follows scientific attitude. To explain further - one who does not pretend, one who accepts the proven results, one who makes his opinions by learning/experimentation/observing (all the learning methods of science), one who does not make vague arguments, one who does not have blind faith, one who is always having learning attitude, and i can characterize some more attributes by referring to Vinoba's article. But I think you should get what I want to say.
Now, the term 'satyagrahi scientist' is incomplete without passion and professionalism. Having just passion might result into some acts which are not professional (such as killing somebody, may be for the better cause) and having just professionalism won't insist for truth, thus will take things according to one's convenience and believe that whatever is convenient is true (which is what we are doing i suppose).
more views are welcome.
Post a Comment
<< Home