Human beings are the most confusing yet the most intriguing species. They understand, comprehend, judge, love, abhor etc but the most astounding emotion they emote is that of 'pretention'.
It is this quality that helps them to adapt and change according to need. In a group where one stays merely because of compulsion and dire need; does one really reveal one's true emotions or feelings? Why is one scared to show one's most honest feelings? When he laughs is he really laughing or he is simply pretending to be accepted as part of the group?
"Marginalised people cooperate" are words of Raju Sir but I wonder can cooperation lead to further marginalisation of an individual?
Every sphere and paradigm I have seen of life(be it in urban or rural areas); I see clear cut boundaries, limitations and restrictions. Man develops relations for self interests but then its his individuality that wants to break free. Isnt then family, social ties, groups and our roots developed through blind following of ancestoral religion and morality functioning as limitations.
To think about it what is the need for Naming a New born. Whenever we see a baby; our reflex action is to ask for his name. Not finding out the name makes one feel perplexed and on the other hand knowing the name makes us feel connected to that baby.
May be it is this need and want of man succumbing him to strong ties of friendship and love through acts of cooperation and consensus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
It's true... ever since a child starts growing he starts losing Individuality.The knowledge he attains is also not his original knowledge.In fact a new born baby has Ignorance that is its own.The moment it starts accumulating worldly knowledge it starts losing its own identity.But this social structure enables us to avoid confusion (assume the condition if a child is not given any name) and live together and here come cooperation and conflicts.
point well made kamal but I was talki more about the restrictions and "labelling" one goes through from the example of namig of a child. I agree without the name there would be more confusion but generally isnt the name itself become detrimental to the identity of an individual limiting one to caste, religion and other social structures.
Post a Comment