Friday, May 18, 2012

Generalisation-- A tool for politics of love and hate

                 Television debates are nowadays often running away into low-intelligence whenever any issue of a generalized public perception is coming up. The debating factions globule into two bigger chunks , one trying to assert why the generalized perception of the issue has to be taken based on that one single incident,; and the other big globule trying to protest the generalization of the observation that all people belonging to the group are not like that. 
 The philosophical knowledge which I feel has remained elusive with both the factions is about the human need for a Generalistion. Neither of the two factions honour  and identify generalization as a human need, to take up the rules for a valid generalization and then respond to each other as to what perception should be finally held valid by the viewers. In the entire drama, the force of the main topic is lost to be wasted away into the Generalisation validation debate.

Generalisation , as I have examined earlier, is the breeding ground for Politics-- the division of vote. In its other stage of development, the Generalisation involves categorisation of people into group based on some general observation about the entire group. What the group division does is to invoke a the emotions for either loving the group or hating the group, judging on what the observation has been about the group. This is powerful stroke which can cause people to lose their reason and do the judgement in a highly emotional state. Emotions are a very strange commodity; they defy gravity and logic.  They create a force of attraction and replusion both at the same time. Public's emotions largely act in this manner. They cause people to polarise. (It is a different context to talk of emotions as the fountain of all human intellectualism which the controlled, well-balanced mixture of logic and emotions do.)
The groups formed by the categorisation behave incoherently. Nobody thinks of examining the generalisation; everybody acts up to either accept it fully or to reject it. "How you can all muslims are terrorist", "All pakistanis are not terrorist", "all bhaiyas are not illiterate, uneducated hooligans"-- these are few examples of how the hate of generalistion has caused the valid observation to be rejected in its entirety.  The Sardar jokes, and the mullu-working-in-"Gelf" are some neutral generalisation which have found good acceptance by the people through jokes and public humor. And there "rich people are smart and intelligent", "Delhi-ites are people of higher learning", "biharis are good at academic knowledge", or "the Bengalis are hi intellect people", kind of generalisation which have found public acceptance without much of critical examination of the truth in them. The picture painted by loobyiest have helped create the public's General impression about the entire group by using a few top examples.
The emotional state created by the Generalisation causes people to become emotional. Reason is lost, now. What more does a habitual politician need !?