Ok, so this is a taboo subject … for all of us … in India or anywhere else, except may be in some of the tribes who have not been infected by our kind of “civilization”.
So what is it that I want to write about? Sexuality in old age, or the way society looks at it? I am not sure, for the subject is so vast and there are so many things to say, that I think I will limit this post only on one or two aspects.
First of all, I believe that
- the idea of sexuality for long has been confined largely to heaving, gleaming bodies entwined in lust, but bodies which are young, muscular or shapely.
- that in popular myths, sexuality is, all about lust and fulfillment of that through sexual intercourse and that too is when you are young in your body.
- That Images of people with lined faces, slacking muscles and shaking hands, embracing each other in a lustful way makes some of us feel uncomfortable and evokes disgust and shame.
Sexuality itself is such a taboo subject that we can indulge in it only through forbidden or voyeuristic pleasures or by sublimating it a higher philosophical plane where the body does not exist. In this scenario, sexuality in the elderly is not part of our collectively held image of the elderly in India.
In India, one of the collective images about the elderly is that of people who surrender in prayer to the divine, engaging in morning or evening walks to keep sickness at bay, playing the role of the babysitter/additional helping hand at home and/or waiting for death to come and rescue them. The other collective picture of the elderly (now brought to the fore by the media) is the healthy, smart, enthusiastic and independent (read deep pocketed) individual who doesn’t mind flirting with her spouse, goes out on holidays and has a good time.
I am not claiming that either of these pictures is undesirable. The issue that I am trying to bring to the fore is that what certainly happens in old age is that your body becomes less agile and one certainly feels less enthusiastic about sexuality as one did before. Immediate fulfillment of lust may not even be as important as it was before, but that does not mean that older people lose their lustfulness, their sexual arousal or their need for passionate and tender love from their partners.
Where I have a problem is that either older people are shown as “less than able” as compared to the youthful generation or their image is carefully built so that youthfulness is preserved in these characters. So even when they flirt or are provocative, they necessarily imitate the younger generation, and when get caught, they feel ashamed and have a strong need to hide it from others! (Remember one of the monthly income scheme ad?). My protest is towards inducing the subtle element of shame in these pictures. What is there to feel ashamed of?
Some of the recent studies state and I quote
“Humans have sex for several reasons. Sex serves many purposes not related to reproduction. Sex is a way to express love and it also provides the feeling of security and reconfirms the feelings shared between people, regardless of age. Sex has also been shown to calm people in stressful periods. Sex has a symbolic value, which is independent of age.
However sex between elderly people is often treated as a taboo by society. Whilst sex itself is a sensitive topic due to its private nature, sex between seniors is often treated with extra care. This attitude is especially common among younger people and it has been suggested that this may be caused by younger people's belief that the lust and ability to have sex diminishes once the primary reason for sex is no longer present.”
Quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_older_age
(for more information, you may also like to visit http://www.apa.org/pi/aging/resources/guides/sexuality.aspx)
All that I am trying to put up here is that as people grow older, their physical and emotional needs become different than when they were younger. While sexuality is certainly not only about sexual coitus but also of passion, intimacy, tenderness and is emotionally fulfilling; physical intimacy and yes, the bad word "intercourse" does play a significant part in it. Therefore, why look at the older person as someone who is wise and tranquil and does not have an iota of lust in them? Can we for a change look at them as people who are matured (at least in age), and have similar need for a fulfilling physical intimate relationship with the desired partner, be it intercourse or gentle loving touch? Can we concede to ourselves that youthfulness may not be all that important to have a zest for life?
What are your views? What do you think?
Showing posts with label perceptions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perceptions. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Sunday, September 26, 2010
patriarchy,clan, people, organisations ... not in that particular order
No, this post is to not bash either patriarchy or clannish culture. I have not posted for quite a while and have been busy with my consulting work with organisations. As I was looking back at some of the experiences in the past, I was struck by certain themes that seem to be repeated in many organisations, in groups of people and in our daily lives.
theme number one is "Hierarchy" - Socialism or communism or many other isms may be spreading the word of classless system or society, the concept of hierarchy is exceptionally strong in people's mind. Many people and organisations that I come across, do dislike the idea of hierarchy when they look at the concept on paper , at least they consider it to be less desirable over other qualities. However, in their own behaviour with their own people or even among themselves, the idea of hierarchy remains very strong and it is all pervasive. It is present in the way they control information, they way they compete with each other, the way they would seek or demand services of who they believe are service providers, etc ... and the list is endless.
Hierarchy does provide us with a sense of structure and consequently the safety and security of a given structure. It also binds our freedom, movement and choice making as per the norms of the structure.
What I have been finding interesting is how people perceive hierarchy from an outside in location where most find it less desirable, and how most people are almost blind to it when it resides in their own psyche. It seems as though the safety and security of the hierarchy are internalised but the rigidity and the oppression are externalised or projected out. This way, others can always be blamed for holding us captive while we do not have to take responsibility of our own captivity simultaneously.
The second theme seems to be "benevolence": this in a way is a by product of hierarchy - benevolence can be shown in many ways. In most work systems, some of the ways benevolence is shown are by being socially polite to people, by being supportive in times of crisis, by offering facilities and social stature and by providing a patient hearing to people's complaints and grievances. Often, in many organisations and system I have experienced, these are held with high degree of positivity and pride and so they should be as these are well intended gestures and intentions. However, in many organisations and in many groups, there runs a subterranean culture which often demands in return of those above, absolute obedience and silent acceptance of lack of justice. Often people in this culture are treated like "less than" but they will rarely be dignified by stating that up front. Resultantly, people will sense the indignity but since the above ground culture is strongly protective and benevolent, they will feel confused and will have self doubt or would blame themselves for not being good enough for the system; because they believe a benevolent system can not be unjust. Hence the culture of "not being good enough" can be a strong stick to beat people with in a benevolent culture while "we will be there for you in crisis" or "we are like one big happy family" will be the carrot to keep people within the fold.
I am watching some of these processes with avid fascination as these keep people in a stronghold and consequently finding an identity for the self as also for the group becomes synonymous with betraying the system, be it family, be it work organisation and be it relationships. Finding an identity would mean that one has to simultaneously look at the self, its own need, potency, desires, sense of respect for self and at the same time has to take into account the systemic need for compliance, conformity, collaboration and respect for systemic authority. It therefore is not very easy to straddle both the horses and often many people, groups or organisations find it easier to ride one rather than holding the tensions of the opposites alive.
what are your views on hierarchy, benevolence, etc? what other processes do you see in your respective systems? I would love to hear your stories and insights.
theme number one is "Hierarchy" - Socialism or communism or many other isms may be spreading the word of classless system or society, the concept of hierarchy is exceptionally strong in people's mind. Many people and organisations that I come across, do dislike the idea of hierarchy when they look at the concept on paper , at least they consider it to be less desirable over other qualities. However, in their own behaviour with their own people or even among themselves, the idea of hierarchy remains very strong and it is all pervasive. It is present in the way they control information, they way they compete with each other, the way they would seek or demand services of who they believe are service providers, etc ... and the list is endless.
Hierarchy does provide us with a sense of structure and consequently the safety and security of a given structure. It also binds our freedom, movement and choice making as per the norms of the structure.
What I have been finding interesting is how people perceive hierarchy from an outside in location where most find it less desirable, and how most people are almost blind to it when it resides in their own psyche. It seems as though the safety and security of the hierarchy are internalised but the rigidity and the oppression are externalised or projected out. This way, others can always be blamed for holding us captive while we do not have to take responsibility of our own captivity simultaneously.
The second theme seems to be "benevolence": this in a way is a by product of hierarchy - benevolence can be shown in many ways. In most work systems, some of the ways benevolence is shown are by being socially polite to people, by being supportive in times of crisis, by offering facilities and social stature and by providing a patient hearing to people's complaints and grievances. Often, in many organisations and system I have experienced, these are held with high degree of positivity and pride and so they should be as these are well intended gestures and intentions. However, in many organisations and in many groups, there runs a subterranean culture which often demands in return of those above, absolute obedience and silent acceptance of lack of justice. Often people in this culture are treated like "less than" but they will rarely be dignified by stating that up front. Resultantly, people will sense the indignity but since the above ground culture is strongly protective and benevolent, they will feel confused and will have self doubt or would blame themselves for not being good enough for the system; because they believe a benevolent system can not be unjust. Hence the culture of "not being good enough" can be a strong stick to beat people with in a benevolent culture while "we will be there for you in crisis" or "we are like one big happy family" will be the carrot to keep people within the fold.
I am watching some of these processes with avid fascination as these keep people in a stronghold and consequently finding an identity for the self as also for the group becomes synonymous with betraying the system, be it family, be it work organisation and be it relationships. Finding an identity would mean that one has to simultaneously look at the self, its own need, potency, desires, sense of respect for self and at the same time has to take into account the systemic need for compliance, conformity, collaboration and respect for systemic authority. It therefore is not very easy to straddle both the horses and often many people, groups or organisations find it easier to ride one rather than holding the tensions of the opposites alive.
what are your views on hierarchy, benevolence, etc? what other processes do you see in your respective systems? I would love to hear your stories and insights.
Thursday, September 09, 2010
to deal with ghosts of the past!
Had a chat with a few colleagues and friends this evening. The chat was intended towards finding an arrangement for a business proposition, but before that it was focused towards looking at the emotional tonality lying around. What came about were the past hurts, reactivity and mistrust that were lying around, willingness to bring in some clarity about the way forward and some new resolutions.
This process evoked many things in me .... some relief, some clarity, some resolution, some understanding of where others are located in their mind, and some emotional turmoil with a certain intensity. I chose to not engage in an emotional drama but to engage with the process of clarifying and understanding what was happening and what issue belongs to who or to what context. I also acknowledged that while I had a greater intellectual clarity, I have to let the emotional turmoil take its time to settle down, and find a new level of balance within myself.
At the end of it all, it has left me with a sense of internal control that I may not have experienced earlier. What threw me off balance internally were the past ghosts of perception about me by others. These ghosts don't need too much time to jump up from their dark shadowy corners to jump at me, crowd around and fill me with their whispering bitter voices that say " see this is what others think of you ... we told you so, how dare she/he ... blah, blah, blah ...
Usually there are two unsuccessful ways I deal with these ghosts. One is to listen to them and allow them to overpower me with bitternes, remorse, anger and reactivity; the second is to tell them to go away and then tell myself that they don't exist, but simultaneously keeping a small voice alive inside which whispers:"may be some of what these ghosts bring are true. is it true? can it be so?" and so on and so forth.
today I decided to do neither. I listened to the ghosts and asked them stand aside and did not shut the door on them; I also listened to the other voice of the critique which usually commands me to get on with life, to move on, to not make an issue out of anything; I asked it too to stand aside. I then became my spokesperson who was compassionate to both how I was feeling emotionally and understanding and accepting what my rationality was telling me. I also looked around - these people were my friends and colleagues - they were not my enemies - they were expressing their deep sense of anguish and hurt and disappointment and anger over something that happened to them and it involved me to an extent. Could I understand and grace that? Yes, I could.
Could I also grace my frazzled emotional state rather than telling it to shut up and critique it? I did. I felt what I was feeling, did not hide it, neither did I let it take over the entire reality and paint it only with its intense emotional tonality.
Then I spoke to my friends telling them how I understood what they had felt and went through. At the same time, there was an intensity of feeling that I had and tht I needed time to let it take its course, take time and settle down. That I did not intend to let the feeling dictate my action, nor did I allow my dry logical critical self override my emotional self. I accepted and graced both and I felt good towards myself.
I am writing this post to also put this out in the open to all of you as this process helps me to reach out to others without filtering or without shame.
I would love to hear about your experience; do you encounter old ghosts? What do they tell you? What is your relationship with them?
How do you deal with them?
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Being Female!
I was quite stirred by an article called “Unwanted daughters” by Harsh Mander in the Hindu Sunday Magazine dated 29th August, 2010 on a major recent study done on female feticide in India by Action Aid India and International Development Research Centre, Canada.
The article among disturbing facts like methods of killing the female child, neglect, illegal connivances of doctors and nurses, etc also talks about some interesting explanations cited up by the study that they believe perpetuate this evil norms in India. The explanations talk about the paradox that how some of the progressive policies of the Government such as inheritance rights for women, higher age for marriage, etc make them much more of an economic burden to the families as further expenditure on the girl and any property owned by them would only benefit the husband’s family after marriage as also that the woman’s physical capabilities like child bearing, productive abilities, caring abilities become the property of the husband’s household. Hence the article goes on to say that the female feticide is taking place more out of economic and material reasons rather than a desire for make child over female ones.
The articl then goes on to suggest as to how only through long term social reforms such as society changing their view of women, parents willing to live with their daughters in the old age, stoppage of dowry and other practices and enhancing the social and economic power of women within families can bring about any changes in this most heinous and inhuman practices in our society. It also brought the fact to the fore that some of urban areas and the educated class are also very much part of the female feticide trend.
After I read the article, I was with two contradictory emotions, one was of understanding and some empathy for the families who were killing their female infants (understanding and empathy would not tantamount to supporting them) and the other was a slight hopelessness and shame as to whether our society will ever be able to look at itself differently and even if it does, how will it take for us to bring any changes in these customs and how aware are we, the so called educated and progressive part of the society which has at least in paper, the capacity to influence positive social reforms through activism, practice and awareness.
While pondering over these, I also thought another incident that I was a part of in the recent past.
I was working with a multinational organisation where large number of men and women work together. The group that I worked with had the following demographic data: their average age is between 25 to 35, average education qualification ranges from postgraduate to MBA from prestigious institutions, most of them come from middle or upper middle class, most of them live in metros and have lived there for most of their lives, their take home salaries range between Rs. 15 to 30 lacs per annum. The group had about forty percent women and sixty percent men.
While working with this group, a particular narrative triggered off a question for them to explore the psychological status given to femininity in the organisation and we suggested that perhaps the status given to females and femininity in the minds of people (both men and women) were lower than the masculine traits and qualities. This created a furore in the group and many of them, especially some women were outraged that we could even hint at a possibility like this in their organisation context, while some others agreed with the hypothesis.
During a subsequent dialogue some of them argued that they never experienced any discrimination either during their growing up years nor do they experience any discrimination in their work places. What was hard for them to understand that even if they did not personally experience this differentiation, that there was a strong possibility of its presence in their organisation context and that it was probable that they themselves would be blind to their own biases and prejudices. The data that they presented in the context of the workshop, however, pointed towards a generally held psychological bias more towards masculine attributes and qualities as more desirable as compared to feminine attributes and qualities. The argument presented to them was that since both men and women would possess both masculine and feminine attributes in themselves, whether it was worthwhile for them to explore whether such a bias existed in the group and the repercussion of it in their work context.
This has been my experience in not only this organisation but in working with groups both within a work context or outside, that while most people condemn the overtly displayed patriarchal norms of unjust and inhibiting practices, they often remain blind to their own biases and prejudices. Most do not take into account that most of us in the world today are products of the patriarchal culture, values and norms and that our belief system, biases, assumptions and practices would be highly impacted by the super structure of the context. Hence injustice towards anyone who is weak in the eyes of the powers that be in any context when happening somewhere else, is easier to condemn but when it is happening within me or in my personal context by me towards others, or vice versa or towards others, we are often blind to it.
If I were to talk about myself, I became painfully aware of my own biases towards femininity when I was looking at strong biases held by people and by me shortly after the 26/11 incident in India. It is in my blog post called "Communalism Revisited" (http://sharbori21.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html).
I believe that today being female is not just about having a strong voice, opinion, capabilities, competence, financial power, status and power, but also about being self reflective, being sensitive to the larger context and towards oneself, having a sense of respect towards self as well as towards others irrespective of their social class or milieu and above all, living with a sense of conviction, commitment and responsibility towards oneself and towards the context, and living with this question: How do I wish to live? What is the quality of life that I wish to build around myself and around others, what responsibility do I have towards the larger context and finally what am I owing up and what am I disowning?
And needless to say the same argument holds true for men as well but I believe women of today need to be more aware of what is happening within as much as they need to be aware of what is happening outside.
What has been your experience? I would be interested to know and be happy if you share. :-)
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Do we know who we are? Really?
"I seem to see my self from his eyes while i have always possessed the
intelligence and politics to know or perhaps i should say interpret
who i am as a woman. But this knowledge i cannot assimilate in me, the
experience is of being in ruin, ............ "
mail from a dear friend to me, in response to an anguished mail sent to her.
Says another vivacious, lively, intelligent, perceptive woman, to me, on her first meeting with me as a therapist:
" I am so sorry that I have cried.... I mean this is a first meeting with you and all that".
"Why the shame?" I ask her.
"shouldn't I be calm and composed and not really show my emotions at all? I mean isn't this what the world wants from me, from you, from all of us?" she responds, albeit a bit surprised that i am even asking her this question.
"well you are here to meet a therapist, and you are talking about your distress and while you share all that, you would feel emotional - most of all, this is not a social visit" I try to pose another exploration point.
She pauses for a while ... and then she talks about her aspiration of wanting to be someone who should take all the shit coming her way and not flinch, not react but remain calm. and her "role model" is a person who actually looks down upon the whole world and their cousins, has cholesterol problem, not able to have a healthy conjugal life and so on.
when i point this out to her, she agrees quickly but is not really convinced about being who she is really.
As I look at two of these instances and many others including myself at times, I often wonder, do we really have an idea of who we really are? Or has this "me" become an amalgamation of images and perceptions generated and received from people around us, images which have provided a temporary relief, images which have saved us from many embarrassing moments, images which tell us who we "should" be and not who we "are"?
for many of us, the inner being is shrouded in shame for being too alive, too impulsive, too demanding, too verbose, too sensuous, too argumentative, too questioning, too much to take.
for some others, it may be that the inner being is held back lest others make fun of us, lest others take advantage of us, lest others desert us, lest others make us feel weak and so on and so forth?
so what is our stance of being who we are? how do we experience ourselves internally? What is our politics of who we are?
The world of relationships is totally made of perception. We never really see the other person as who he or she is, but what we perceive he or she is, through our unique and individual looking glass made up of our world view, our biases and our values. In other words, it is humanly impossible to see the person as it is. What we can gather are only the objective data about name, family name, degrees, work, education, etc but can never be objective about the person. We look at the world through perception and it is always subjective.
So, in all these, how do we perceive us? Do we look at ourselves through these looking glasses as well? is there a difference between me perceiving myself and others perceiving me? what happens when there is a difference? Is there a struggle to say this is who I am?
When I look at myself, I see myself and I quote from a mail that I have written to a friend, below:
quote:
"like i was telling you the other day, i feel very masculine internally, so my first descriptors of myself always are that I am intelligent, tough, quick on my feet, analytical and highly action oriented. the next level would be that i am sensuous (not the way a woman is described) i.e. my senses are strong, i hear keenly, i smell keenly, i see keenly and i am quite aware of touch of any kind. i am also very intuitive and am aware of the bodily sensations that i experience.
all these are devoid of other people, i.e. I look at myself irrespective of how others see me as.
the trouble starts from now on - any other descriptors of me such as:
loving, gracious, accepting, rude, scary, generous, pretty, ugly, argumentative, petty, kind, irrational, intellectual, stubborn, giving, caring, loyal, sexy, unsexy (can't think of anything else at the moment that describes me) are all other people dependent. If they see me like this then i am like this, otherwise, i don't see myself as scary, petty, rude, etc, etc."
unquote.
I wonder what is it for others? do we even ask these questions or do we tell ourselves, oh well, I have no problem in declaring to the world who I am and if they can't take it, it is their problem? Really?
or do we tell ourselves, actually I don't even want to know who I am as it is too much of a bother, or it is of no use. Too much of intellectualisation. Really?
I don't believe people actually like to imprison themselves in either of these two extremes, most of us perhaps live in the in between world. what about you?
intelligence and politics to know or perhaps i should say interpret
who i am as a woman. But this knowledge i cannot assimilate in me, the
experience is of being in ruin, ............ "
mail from a dear friend to me, in response to an anguished mail sent to her.
Says another vivacious, lively, intelligent, perceptive woman, to me, on her first meeting with me as a therapist:
" I am so sorry that I have cried.... I mean this is a first meeting with you and all that".
"Why the shame?" I ask her.
"shouldn't I be calm and composed and not really show my emotions at all? I mean isn't this what the world wants from me, from you, from all of us?" she responds, albeit a bit surprised that i am even asking her this question.
"well you are here to meet a therapist, and you are talking about your distress and while you share all that, you would feel emotional - most of all, this is not a social visit" I try to pose another exploration point.
She pauses for a while ... and then she talks about her aspiration of wanting to be someone who should take all the shit coming her way and not flinch, not react but remain calm. and her "role model" is a person who actually looks down upon the whole world and their cousins, has cholesterol problem, not able to have a healthy conjugal life and so on.
when i point this out to her, she agrees quickly but is not really convinced about being who she is really.
As I look at two of these instances and many others including myself at times, I often wonder, do we really have an idea of who we really are? Or has this "me" become an amalgamation of images and perceptions generated and received from people around us, images which have provided a temporary relief, images which have saved us from many embarrassing moments, images which tell us who we "should" be and not who we "are"?
for many of us, the inner being is shrouded in shame for being too alive, too impulsive, too demanding, too verbose, too sensuous, too argumentative, too questioning, too much to take.
for some others, it may be that the inner being is held back lest others make fun of us, lest others take advantage of us, lest others desert us, lest others make us feel weak and so on and so forth?
so what is our stance of being who we are? how do we experience ourselves internally? What is our politics of who we are?
The world of relationships is totally made of perception. We never really see the other person as who he or she is, but what we perceive he or she is, through our unique and individual looking glass made up of our world view, our biases and our values. In other words, it is humanly impossible to see the person as it is. What we can gather are only the objective data about name, family name, degrees, work, education, etc but can never be objective about the person. We look at the world through perception and it is always subjective.
So, in all these, how do we perceive us? Do we look at ourselves through these looking glasses as well? is there a difference between me perceiving myself and others perceiving me? what happens when there is a difference? Is there a struggle to say this is who I am?
When I look at myself, I see myself and I quote from a mail that I have written to a friend, below:
quote:
"like i was telling you the other day, i feel very masculine internally, so my first descriptors of myself always are that I am intelligent, tough, quick on my feet, analytical and highly action oriented. the next level would be that i am sensuous (not the way a woman is described) i.e. my senses are strong, i hear keenly, i smell keenly, i see keenly and i am quite aware of touch of any kind. i am also very intuitive and am aware of the bodily sensations that i experience.
all these are devoid of other people, i.e. I look at myself irrespective of how others see me as.
the trouble starts from now on - any other descriptors of me such as:
loving, gracious, accepting, rude, scary, generous, pretty, ugly, argumentative, petty, kind, irrational, intellectual, stubborn, giving, caring, loyal, sexy, unsexy (can't think of anything else at the moment that describes me) are all other people dependent. If they see me like this then i am like this, otherwise, i don't see myself as scary, petty, rude, etc, etc."
unquote.
I wonder what is it for others? do we even ask these questions or do we tell ourselves, oh well, I have no problem in declaring to the world who I am and if they can't take it, it is their problem? Really?
or do we tell ourselves, actually I don't even want to know who I am as it is too much of a bother, or it is of no use. Too much of intellectualisation. Really?
I don't believe people actually like to imprison themselves in either of these two extremes, most of us perhaps live in the in between world. what about you?
Thursday, May 13, 2010
discrimination is not only based on caste!
has anyone ever noticed how discriminations are based on age, appearance and language in public spaces?
For me personally there have been several instances when i felt discriminated. most of these instances have been amusing for me but the incidents per se were not amusing. for instance, there are many times at airports when i am standing in front of the PYT (pretty young thing) at the counter, her smile or demenaor with me would depend upon what was I wearing; e.g. if i were wearing trousers or pair of jeans or a well turned out salwar kurta, etc, she would smile, would wish me and would make eye contact. on the other hand, on days when i am wearing cotton saree, carrying a "jhola" (cotton carry bag), my hair is tied in a bun and wearing bindi,etc, often there have been little eye contact, no smile and a cursory nod of head to finish the matter at hand. Initially I thought i was making a mountain out of molehill and hence decided to experiment - and I have experimented with this at various airports in India and worn different attires to just check the responsiveness from the counter and the experience has been more or less similar. Even the porters who usually load your luggage on the x-ray machine would ask you are you travelling by a particular airline (which is a low cost) as compared to the other similar sounding reputed airline, even if you were holding the ticket for the same.
Similarly I have experienced older men and women being treated differently than younger men and women, unless of course the older men and women were well turned out (i specifically mean in western attires a la corporate styles or in very expensive cloths)! The patience often wears thin on the faces of the sales person or the service person on the other side of the counter. what is more dehumanising is that more often than not, older people will be treated with patronising attitude and help will be offered as though being old means, one has lost the ability to think or act for oneself. Often i have seen dismissive behaviour with older people as though what they have to say has very little value in the current context. As though the reality is only shaped by the young and the able.
My third experience is one of language - you just have to sit in a coffeeshop, visit a upmarket hotel reception, a super market, a mall, a movie hall, airport counters, etc and you would notice that if the way you speak english is influenced by your mother tongue, and co incidentally if there is another person who is speaking English without any such intonation, the other person will be treated in a more privileged manner than you are. The behaviour towards you would possibly have veiled indifference with a hint of sarcasm.
In some ways, in urban areas we are rapidly hurtling towards a mono culture which looks at everything from a certain point of view (which incidentally is often the outsider's point of view) and hence does not know how to recognise, differentiate and be pluralistic and be respectful towards the rich diversity that India has.
For me personally there have been several instances when i felt discriminated. most of these instances have been amusing for me but the incidents per se were not amusing. for instance, there are many times at airports when i am standing in front of the PYT (pretty young thing) at the counter, her smile or demenaor with me would depend upon what was I wearing; e.g. if i were wearing trousers or pair of jeans or a well turned out salwar kurta, etc, she would smile, would wish me and would make eye contact. on the other hand, on days when i am wearing cotton saree, carrying a "jhola" (cotton carry bag), my hair is tied in a bun and wearing bindi,etc, often there have been little eye contact, no smile and a cursory nod of head to finish the matter at hand. Initially I thought i was making a mountain out of molehill and hence decided to experiment - and I have experimented with this at various airports in India and worn different attires to just check the responsiveness from the counter and the experience has been more or less similar. Even the porters who usually load your luggage on the x-ray machine would ask you are you travelling by a particular airline (which is a low cost) as compared to the other similar sounding reputed airline, even if you were holding the ticket for the same.
Similarly I have experienced older men and women being treated differently than younger men and women, unless of course the older men and women were well turned out (i specifically mean in western attires a la corporate styles or in very expensive cloths)! The patience often wears thin on the faces of the sales person or the service person on the other side of the counter. what is more dehumanising is that more often than not, older people will be treated with patronising attitude and help will be offered as though being old means, one has lost the ability to think or act for oneself. Often i have seen dismissive behaviour with older people as though what they have to say has very little value in the current context. As though the reality is only shaped by the young and the able.
My third experience is one of language - you just have to sit in a coffeeshop, visit a upmarket hotel reception, a super market, a mall, a movie hall, airport counters, etc and you would notice that if the way you speak english is influenced by your mother tongue, and co incidentally if there is another person who is speaking English without any such intonation, the other person will be treated in a more privileged manner than you are. The behaviour towards you would possibly have veiled indifference with a hint of sarcasm.
In some ways, in urban areas we are rapidly hurtling towards a mono culture which looks at everything from a certain point of view (which incidentally is often the outsider's point of view) and hence does not know how to recognise, differentiate and be pluralistic and be respectful towards the rich diversity that India has.
Monday, March 08, 2010
illegitimacies and identity
there have been countless times in the past when i have written my blog, in my mind, organised my thoughts, even put the lines the way i thought they ought to be; but never really "typing" them on this page, as i am doing now. why do i do this? well, in some ways, that is what i am going to write about.
i believe i am a woman of substance. I am over 51 years of age, live in India, been married, had a child, raised her, been divorced, been in relationships, worked full time as also loved, fought, claimed, offered, received, rejected, accepted, reached out, ran away, denied, acknowledged, hated, ignored, cared for and been loved.
i have had a difficult and a very interesting life .... difficult because that is how i feel about the experience, and interesting because it still fascinates me.
the idea of illegitimacy can occur in people's lives in many ways ... through owning and disowning, by status and power, and by being rejected and by rejecting. legitimacy in the sense that i am talking about is not about social status but also of what belongs where in our emotional world.
i remember as early back as when i was 3 years old, the status that i received from my father were that of "being his wife" and "his companion". my legitimate status of being his daughter was held in strong evaluation by him and was never approved. in fact he did not know how to approve as he always looked up to others for approval of himself. His legitimate role of being a father to me could not fulfilled by him emotionally and psychologically. he would use me to fulfill his aspiration of being approved by his highly disapproving family members and as a result, no matter what i did, it was never enough; i could never be a "good, desirable daughter'. what i mean by "his wife" and "his companion" is that he expected from me (as a child) to understand his pathos, his grief, his loneliness, to approve of him, to be his friend and companion and to redeem himself to an utterly unforgiving and insensitive family system.
the primary roles that emerged for me in my mind were as follows:
- the resourceful one and
- the rebellious one
they are a trifle contradictory to one another as being resourceful is not good enough if they are not being put to proper use in a context, and being rebellious did not offer enough scope to me to be a part of any context and put my resources to any use. in the world of action, thus, i remained a whole unto myself and kept testing, flirting, toying with the idea of being a part of a larger whole.
in the world of relationship then, being a rebel would mean always looking at what am i deprived of, and being resourceful would mean negotiating a place for me by being useful in the context. so metaphorically i would offer endless possibilities in a relationship, but in reality would block every avenue of any actual union and merger and a movement forward.
this is the illegitimacy of the identity that i am writing about. the illegitimacy is about not knowing what is your rightful place in a context and even if that is spelt out, how does one experience it the way it ought to be as i have had no positive experience of it in my growing up process from my primary and only care giver.
so i stumble, i fall, i get up again and start all over -- only to realise that i repeating the same thing over and over again -
what i have figured out as of now are some of the blocks ... one of them being a cruel and utterly insensitive attitude towards myself. when i am faced with a negative situation, i turn to myself like a hired assassin, a cruel and hostile killer, a tormentor, and i tear myself into pieces with a pervert glee which screams "you deserve it, you bitch".
i know when this entity came into my life ..as early as when i was 6 or 7 years old. i used to be beaten up by my aunt and other relatives quite mercilessly and at some of those moments, i would turn to them, tears in my eyes but with utter contempt on my face and would tell them "how much more will you beat me? at most, you will kill me, right?, go ahead, do it, but i will not listen to you...". i can see the same entity today who is saying the same thing today but this time, to me, to my other voices which are seeking a fundamental shift.
as of now i don't know what to do with this one .... except to be patient and loving to it. it has blazing eyes, its mouth curled cruelly upward, fists are clenched and the heart is beating fast, really fast and it is not ready to forgive anyone.
i believe i am a woman of substance. I am over 51 years of age, live in India, been married, had a child, raised her, been divorced, been in relationships, worked full time as also loved, fought, claimed, offered, received, rejected, accepted, reached out, ran away, denied, acknowledged, hated, ignored, cared for and been loved.
i have had a difficult and a very interesting life .... difficult because that is how i feel about the experience, and interesting because it still fascinates me.
the idea of illegitimacy can occur in people's lives in many ways ... through owning and disowning, by status and power, and by being rejected and by rejecting. legitimacy in the sense that i am talking about is not about social status but also of what belongs where in our emotional world.
i remember as early back as when i was 3 years old, the status that i received from my father were that of "being his wife" and "his companion". my legitimate status of being his daughter was held in strong evaluation by him and was never approved. in fact he did not know how to approve as he always looked up to others for approval of himself. His legitimate role of being a father to me could not fulfilled by him emotionally and psychologically. he would use me to fulfill his aspiration of being approved by his highly disapproving family members and as a result, no matter what i did, it was never enough; i could never be a "good, desirable daughter'. what i mean by "his wife" and "his companion" is that he expected from me (as a child) to understand his pathos, his grief, his loneliness, to approve of him, to be his friend and companion and to redeem himself to an utterly unforgiving and insensitive family system.
the primary roles that emerged for me in my mind were as follows:
- the resourceful one and
- the rebellious one
they are a trifle contradictory to one another as being resourceful is not good enough if they are not being put to proper use in a context, and being rebellious did not offer enough scope to me to be a part of any context and put my resources to any use. in the world of action, thus, i remained a whole unto myself and kept testing, flirting, toying with the idea of being a part of a larger whole.
in the world of relationship then, being a rebel would mean always looking at what am i deprived of, and being resourceful would mean negotiating a place for me by being useful in the context. so metaphorically i would offer endless possibilities in a relationship, but in reality would block every avenue of any actual union and merger and a movement forward.
this is the illegitimacy of the identity that i am writing about. the illegitimacy is about not knowing what is your rightful place in a context and even if that is spelt out, how does one experience it the way it ought to be as i have had no positive experience of it in my growing up process from my primary and only care giver.
so i stumble, i fall, i get up again and start all over -- only to realise that i repeating the same thing over and over again -
what i have figured out as of now are some of the blocks ... one of them being a cruel and utterly insensitive attitude towards myself. when i am faced with a negative situation, i turn to myself like a hired assassin, a cruel and hostile killer, a tormentor, and i tear myself into pieces with a pervert glee which screams "you deserve it, you bitch".
i know when this entity came into my life ..as early as when i was 6 or 7 years old. i used to be beaten up by my aunt and other relatives quite mercilessly and at some of those moments, i would turn to them, tears in my eyes but with utter contempt on my face and would tell them "how much more will you beat me? at most, you will kill me, right?, go ahead, do it, but i will not listen to you...". i can see the same entity today who is saying the same thing today but this time, to me, to my other voices which are seeking a fundamental shift.
as of now i don't know what to do with this one .... except to be patient and loving to it. it has blazing eyes, its mouth curled cruelly upward, fists are clenched and the heart is beating fast, really fast and it is not ready to forgive anyone.
i can only wait, with love .....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)