I was reading some comments about the game played by us in the class-room.One comment is-
"Gradually increasing trust level is a good way to achieve co-operation. Another way could be, if system of co-operation is made transparent, and people are made aware that non- cooperation will lead to loss to everybody involved. I feel that public humiliation is a good tool to instill co-operation. If rules of game are specified that non-coperating person will be humiliated publicly, than, as a normal human tendency to preserve face in society over everything else could force people in to cooperation.its like blocking a person into his own image, in such a way that he cannot wander out of it into non-coperating."
First major question is to whom cooperation is needed-"Colonial Britishers or NAZIs or Lashker-e-taiba"?And what should be the purpose of cooperation-"to exploit the underdeveloping countries,to butcher crores of people or to spread terror among innocent citizen?"
Gandhi did non-cooperation with the Britishers and faced humiliation many times-thrown out of the train in SA,jailed for many years and many other humiliations.What happened?His cause and voice became the voice of crores of people in the world. Keeping 27 years in the jail,did Britishers successed to end the voice of Mandela.Do you think that military ruler of Myanmaar would be able to shut the voice of syu-ki by humiliating her.
Humiliation can never be the way to find cooperation.It denies the basic purpose of cooperation.
"Rashtra-kavi" Ramdhari Singh Dinkar has written-
"Kshama shobhti us bhujang ko jiske pass garal ho. Usko kya jo dant-heen, vishrahit vineet saral ho". - 'kurukshetra!' ...
KESHAV(30017)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
this was not a game played in classroom, these comments were my comments in reply to a post on ways to achieve co-operation. I may be naive to comment on co-operation, but these are purely my understandings.
I suggested humiliating to be a way... and not the only way.
I believe that, in a large society, there are only a handful of leaders. These leaders CAN(and not do) lead the crowd into co-operation, the way they want.Others simply follow these leaders. Some of these leaders can smartly garner public support by humiliating those who do not co-operate.Fearing public humiliation, many people may simply co-operate.
Those leaders who still stand by their thoughts, garner support of a set of people who feel humiliated by the other ideology.
Indians did co-operate with colonial britishers, otherwise it would not had been possible for them to stay here for so long. If one tries to find out the reason for co-operation, one reason that could emerge is to avoid humiliation (from society or british rulers).Many people may be joining Lashkar-e-taiba to avoid humiliation from religion.
Anyways, we can easily count the number of people who were humiliated and still found co-operation. But counting the people who feared humiliation and co-operated is almost impossible.
Agreed that humiliation goes against the principles of co-operation, but, this could be a potential way to induce ignorant people into diaspora of co-operation.
If humiliation is not a mode of co-operation, than please justify we wearing socially accepted clothes, doing socially accepted talks, following societal norms. What would happen if we do not co-operate on these??
I am again reiterating, humiliation could be a way of co-operation, but there are many other ways too.
The premise of the argument ,as i understand , is that co-operation is must do . The essence of democracy ,ironically so, is absorbing the disagreeing majority into the fold as well. People who co-operate,good .People who don't,as much as I disagree with them,good too. No one can be coerced into co-operating least of all in a free society.Wisdom tells us that there will always be people like that so even if we can take along 70% of them it'll be considered job well done . For even Krishna,Buddha,Jesus and likes of them could not get EVERYBODY to co-operate.
Post a Comment