Attachment and detachment: An analysis.

Being detached makes sense in many ways: detachment is undoubtedly more conducive to peace, strength, stability and having a sense of control of one’s life. It was none other than Buddha who once cited desire as the cause of suffering. And desire involves the will to ‘attach’ onself to someone, something or some psychological state. I have used the term ‘attach’ to imply its broadest sense, because it is more useful to think of it that way, as opposed to using ‘attach’ and ‘attachment’ to merely imply an emotional connection.

Attachment, put simply, is our means of surviving, deriving gratification and maintaining stability. It is a way to fill voids we find within ourselves, due to particular psychological and/or environmental states—both of which are prone to frequent change. In a sense, we ‘consume’ the world in order to fill this void. A natural question arises then: how much of the world do we need to consume, in order to have peace and stability—if that is what we would like? Indeed, much anguish in life is a consequence of attachment to the physical and mental world–attachment to the self, other living beings, inanimate objects and pleasure. The more attached we are to things and other beings, and the more things and beings we are attached to, the more we increase our risk towards instability, anxiety, stress and a lack of control; we see this often in the case of attachment to other human beings. Also, greater attachment often goes hand-in-hand with greater expectation, and some expectations are unrealistic from the outset. When our expectations are not realised, they often cause disappointment, pain or stress. Self-attachment would include, among other things, the ego and thus would account for drives born from the ego. Perhaps this is why some eastern schools of spirituality prescribe detachment–to undo or lessen the proclivity to emotional instability and anguish that attachment often creates. Of course, self-attachment is an intrinsic facet of a human being. Clearly, self-preservation also demands self-attachment, but the idea of detachment should not be construed as an attempt to remove even this modicum of self-attachment. I am reminded of the tale in Indian mythology of the little boy, Dhruva. He managed to go so deep into a meditative stage that at one point, he stopped eating, and ultimately even stopped breathing. The boy’s endeavour used to inspire me; it still does. However, I doubt that the level of self-detachment that Dhruva attained would be possible in reality. It is important to note that a discussion of detachment becomes pointless when we consider some things—say for instance, war-zones or poverty. Take the latter of these, poverty: were it the case that we were living in a world and a system, in which there was a cost-free and always-adequate supply of things, and which covered basic needs for all, things may have been different. However, the unfortunate reality of the world is that people have to earn their living, and many people live in penury and squalor. This automatically brings into action survivalist drives and the need of such individuals to fight and prove themselves. In such circumstances, attachment in its various manifestations becomes the means of escaping to a better life. While attachment brings great pleasure, it also brings great pain. The ego gives rise to desires, ambitions and vanity; sometimes, egotistical drives manifest themselves as animal aggression. Egotistical desires often bring frustration and anguish to people when they are faced with the prospect of failure. Also when there is desire, then intolerance, envy, exploitation, deceit, greed, desperation and pain may follow; sometimes these desires make one ruthless and may bring hatred and violence in their wake.

On the other hand, attachment has also brought much richness and diversity to our world. Much art and ideation has come out of attempting to satiate the ego. People have created music and paintings, invented philosophies, written books, built monuments, become rich and powerful—often in their quest for immortality; in fact, many people have children for want of immortality. It is ironic that intelligence hasn’t made us see past this lure of immortality, and it is doubly ironic that this lure, along with vanity, has propelled so much creation, procreation, and ideation. Science and technology have transformed the way we think and live. Many scientific discoveries and breakthroughs too, like other fields and activities, have been propelled by individuals wanting to prove themselves to others. Of course, it is possible to create, ideate or achieve, without wanting in the least to satiate the ego–indeed there would be examples of this happening. But this is largely not the case, and it is not without reason why it is so: more often than not, the more latent desire to entertain oneself or to keep oneself occupied, or do something purely out of happiness will not provide sufficient incentive or drive, to push oneself beyond one’s comfort zone or make sacrifices. In other words, self-detachment would largely undermine such drives–it would render competitiveness and egotistical drives useless, and not forget to elucidate the stupidity and pettiness of human behaviour while doing so.

Consider for a minute a system, in which everyone is treated equal, and in which there is no credit or reward given for excelling or achieving something difficult—no money, power, glory or recognition. Furthermore, imagine that no individual in this society has a name. Thus, all achievement, creation, and ideation in this system would be anonymous. We would find two fundamental problems while considering such a system: 1. Human beings are fundamentally unequal; 2. Human beings have a natural proclivity for attachment, to the self or otherwise. We would thus, sooner or later, find problems emerging in this society. This is because total equality is an illusion and is not in-sync with the intrinsic human machinery of attachment. Communism attempted to build an equal and classless society, and clearly ran into problems. On the other hand, meritocratic systems provide people with the incentive and drive to compete and work hard; in such systems, the deserving are rewarded and/or recognised. This in turn fuels creativity, innovation, and wealth creation. Capitalism, with all its goods and evils, is an example of such a system.  How about when it comes to finding a mate? What about the cosmetics industry? Clearly, the method to find a mate and the costmetics industry work the way they do largely because of attachment: no self-attachment would mean no displays—egotistical or otherwise—of oneself, and the state of having no desire to look attractive would largely undermine the mechanisms that make sexuality or the cosmetics industry work the way they do.

Egotistical desires are an outcome of a natural competitive instinct that humans have–as do all animals. Attachment in its various forms is thus, a natural state of human beings. Thus, if it is detachment that we seek, then we would have to strive towards it, unless of course if due to particular events in our life and/or natural shifts in our psychology, detachment finds us. But the question still remains: exactly how does one become more detached? The answer: we would have to first understand ourselves. After this, we would have to strengthen our selves–strengthen the inner core of our being, if you will. Understanding our self and our relationship with the world is vital: after all, it is hard to work on, improve or strengthen something you do not understand. Once we understand, we would be able to isolate the things that destabilise us and cause us anxiety and stress. We would then have to discipline our selves into making choices that ensure that the anxiety and stress causing attachments are not chosen. Strengthening oneself is essentially to do with developing greater self-control. Consequently, we would be able to work on increasing peace and stability. Greater knowledge of oneself and one’s relationship to one’s world is effectively a kind of consciousness expansion. This expanded consciousness would, among other things, naturally lead to a more comprehensive weighing of the pros and cons of the choices that we face, and allow us to better answer whether a particular choice would actually make us achieve what we want to achieve. Strengthening the self would cause us to become more self-reliant and consequently reduce our dependencies on the external world. The ‘inner void’ would reduce, which would translate to less ‘consumption’ of the external world. We would effectively become more detached than before; as mentioned at the beginning of this essay, this would bring us more peace, stability and a greater sense of control to our life. Clearly, this is not at all an easy task. It is imaginable that some people would think that, given their psychological and/or environmental conditions, it is impossible for them to let go of attachments. Detachment would involve a fair bit of discipline and hardship to achieve; after all in the normal scheme of things, detachment is not a state that comes naturally to human beings. But then, being disciplined and enduring hardships are to be expected when we want to achieve something that is hard to attain. States such as the sex-drive, love, and the ego are arguably the hardest things to be detached about, after of course the basic survival-oriented states such as thirst, hunger, cold, heat, pain etc. Satiating these survival-oriented states would comprise the modicum of self-attachment that was mentioned earlier; thus, we need not go into them. The states of the sex-drive, love, and the ego are entrenched deep into our being. They are evolutionary strategies that have been responsible, in no small measure, for the evolution and perpetuation of human beings. It is thus easy to imagine that detachment from these forces, in the normal scheme of things, would prove to be very difficult because their very purpose is to create attachment. In other words, these states are antithetical to the cause of detachment. Unfortunately, the aforementioned triumvirate is also exactly what causes the greatest instability and lack of peace, when the voids created by them are not filled, or filled but not with the right stuff. While proponents of attachment would argue that love—both the giving and receiving of it—brings joy, and the stronger one’s attachment is with someone, the more intense the love felt is likely to be. In a sense, the reward that attachment offers in a relationship is commensurate with the risk of pain—which loss, separation and strife would bring. Also, while one derives pleasure from one’s attachments, sometimes they may feel like a drain on one’s time and energy. Essentially for the proponents of attachment, it may come down to accepting the occasional bad things that come with the good things. Moreover, if for whatever reason we do not feel happy, then attachments—especially human attachments—may help us feel better. Furthermore, for the emotionally unstable or clinically depressed, detachment may be an insurmountable task. Indeed, it may be case that any kind of detachment is impossible for some. That said, an individual should be careful in ascribing impossibility to a task: it may well be the lack of the will to make an effort, because of which an individual thinks he or she is incapable of doing something. On the other hand, if we manage to strengthen our inner core, we would find more contentment within ourselves, and consequently seek less attachment from the outside. The point here is, that when we are attached to things, our desires, and consequently the choices we make, may be naturally different from the choices we make, when we are detached from those things. The central things to remember here are that it all depends on one’s frame of consciousness, and that psychology is mutable–inner voids would change with shifting psychology. Consequently, the kind and level of attachment we would seek with the world may also change. I mentioned in the opening passage that attachment is a way to fill voids we find in ourselves, due to particular psychological and/or environmental states. Here are two examples to make this point clear:

1. Person X passes by a shop, and an item on display there catches his/her attention. He/she is instantly attracted to it, and desires to own it.

2. Person Y is feeling depressed and lonely. He/she starts telephoning and text-messaging known people to get some affection or emotional comfort from them.

Clearly both examples illustrate that a combination of psychological and environmental states lead to the will to attach oneself to something or someone. In X’s case, the environmental state, of being close to a shop and being attracted to some object, is more influential; In Y’s case, it is the psychological state of being depressed that is more influential. If both X and Y were to follow the steps to become more detached–the steps: understanding and strengthening oneself–they would have greater control over their desires to buy some item or telephone people. The understanding-of-self bit would tell X and Y, the reasons why they are seeking those attachments and that the actions they want to take would only solve the purpose of filling short-lived voids. The strengthening bit would aid in controlling their desires.  In the above examples, X and Y would most probably not have harmed themselves if they had succumbed to their desires. The idea here is merely to illustrate how detachment works and that it can change the outcomes of events, essentially by changing or influencing our psychology and hence also our choices.

The point of this discussion has been to understand, how attachment as well as detachment influence us and our world. The motivation behind this essay has been to elucidate the pros and cons associated with the two, rather than to profess that one or the other is the better one to follow. Ultimately, it is up to an individual to decide what works best for him or her. If a person is generally happy with the way things are in his or her life, and is well aware of the potential risks that attachments bring with them, then clearly, there is no need to make changes. However, if one feels anxiety, stress or a general lack of stability, it is worthwhile to try different things and see if one ends up feeling any better. The process itself, of trying new things, can make us understand ourselves better. Essentially, this happens because new experiences can lend insight, into the choices we make and also why we make those choices. Moreover, the line between needs and wants can be re-negotiated in order to achieve a more stable equilibrium. This understanding itself is a step forward in the direction of making better choices and choosing our attachments wisely. In the long run, this is likely to serve us well.

End.

Spirituality and Agra

Recently, I had a few friends visit me from abroad. After they spent a few days with me in Delhi, we travelled together to Agra — to see the Taj Mahal. We arrived at the Agra Cantonment railway station. From there, we made our way through a barrage of touts, to get to a cheap lodge. Our destination was a locality called Taj Ganj, which is very close to the Taj Mahal.  Most lodges in the Taj Ganj area have roof-top restaurants that offer a view of the city and the white monument. The sensory extravaganza awaiting a person on one of these roof-tops typically consists of the following: young boys training pigeons on roof-tops in the vicinity; goats, monkeys, dogs, bulls and cows, loitering around the streets; loudspeakers screaming discordant Hindu sermons — these compete for supremacy with the echoing Muslim prayers; and, the discoloured dome of the Taj Mahal shrouded in the ubiquitous smog of Agra. Almost all the people that we came across over the course of the two days that we were there were foreigners. We met a bunch of nice folks. It was an interesting experience talking to them especially since I was probably the only Indian around, except perhaps for the people that ran the lodges and the hawkers and touts. I felt like an anomaly in their picture of India: I was hardly represented in the destinations that the Lonely Planet recommended; many of them carried the book. I was not a part of India’s spiritual aspect, which some of them and probably a vast number of tourists before them had experienced in Varanasi and other places; many would have been currently experiencing this.  

Clearly, the India that many tourists experience is not the same India I live in. My India is urban, cosmopolitan, middle-class, educated, and English-speaking. This is in sharp contrast to the India that the foreigners I had met in Agra had experienced — something that made me question my own Indian-ness. What, other than geography, do all Indians have in common? Perhaps a love for tea and cricket are probably what most Indians have in common. However even this is doubtful: a majority of Bengalis probably favour football over cricket, and a majority of South Indians probably prefer coffee over tea. Clearly, what unites us is a problematic question. The safest thing to say is that there are many Indias out there, with one India often having little in common with another India. Moreover, as clichéd as it may sound, India is a land of contrasts and contradictions. These contrasts and contradictions are at times to an extreme degree, and perhaps can only be seen in the developing world.  The Lonely Planet — a book that probably leaves our planet craving for a bit of solitude- has a list of top destinations. Varanasi figures in that list, and is widely considered to be one of India’s premier abodes of spirituality. It is unfortunate that what many tourists experience in Varanasi must become their conception of India’s spirituality. I find this akin to visiting a night-club. There are elements that go into creating a night-club ambience: pulsating music and lights; suavely dressed men and women; alcohol, cigarettes, and hallucinogenic drugs; and, an air rife with the scent of sexuality. When one brings these ingredients together, one ends up with a night-club ambience. Similarly, Varanasi has all the ingredients that go into creating a heady ’spiritual’ ambience: Hindu rituals; Sadhus; ablutions; temples, chanting; cremations; prayers; cows; the vast hordes of people that throng the place; and vitally, the mind-boggling sea of faith that one witnesses there. Take away these elements, and Varanasi would appear no more or no less spiritual than the Scottish Highlands; and the Ganges  — a euphemism for treating a river like a sewer — would be no more or less holy than the Thames in London.

Let us also not forget that spirituality is largely a business in places like Varanasi. The donations you make in temples and to Sadhus do not go to God. These ‘God-men’ are largely trying to extract money out of you in the name of: God; winning His favour; attaining salvation; booking a confirmed ticket to heaven; and, improving Karma. Unfortunately, most of these people are hustlers making the most of peoples’ faith and naiveté. Let us also not confuse holiness with pollution: we are polluting the Ganges, by dumping industrial waste, sewage, dead bodies, human and animal waste, and chemicals, into it. Let us not forget that faith is often the last and only refuge of the poor. It is the one thing that gives them hope, that a better life awaits them. This is not to say that only the poor have faith; rather that poverty drives a large part of the version of faith that we find in places like Varanasi. Let us not equate the sordid and the commercial with spirituality. Let us not confuse pollution with spirituality. Let us not confuse ritualistic activities with spirituality. Let us not confuse Marijuana usage and hallucinogenic drug trips to be the doorway into spirituality.

If Hinduism and spirituality are what one is looking for, the more prudent thing would be to read the teachings of people such as Ramakrishna Paramhansa, Vivekananda and Aurobindo. There are many other names, but these are good ones to start with.

Spirituality is about a journey of discovery — of oneself and one’s relationship to the universe. It is about finding one’s state of equilibrium with the world. It is about inner peace and harmony with nature. It is about discipline and control. In contrast, Varanasi and other places like it are largely spiritual night-clubs; they are largely Disneylands in the guise of spiritual places.

End.

 

News as infotainment: Good or Bad?

I watched the television coverage of the gruesome terrorism-attacks in Mumbai. It left questions in my mind that I felt the need to explore. Some of those questions were related to the way NDTV covered the terrorism in Mumbai on 26 November 2008.

The things I found disturbing were: the blood-red coloured NDTV graphics with ‘Warzone Mumbai’ written on them, that were constantly being aired; the racy and evocative percussion-instrument music that accompanied these graphics; the calling of this as India’s 9/11; the repeated usage of the slogan — ‘Enough is enough’; and, Barkha Dutt’s histrionic style of reportage and style of anchoring in the ‘We The People’ episode after the terrorism-attacks.

I take the case of NDTV in particular because of two primary reasons: I prefer listening to the news in English, and secondly, NDTV, relative to other Indian News-channels, is arguably the best — in terms of their quality of journalism and their least sensational approach to news in general. Unfortunately, I still find NDTV alarmingly sensational. This observation becomes clearer when I compare it with the BBC World news channel: NDTV then appears significantly more sensationalist than the former. On an absolute scale though, BBC too has made attempts to spice up proceedings, with respect to their visuals, musical scores and style of presenting news; so one couldn’t consider them virginal either in this regard. Nonetheless, they are more understated, and their ‘spices’ appeal to a more sophisticated sense of aesthetics; vitally, their generally high standard of journalism across fields, programs and media makes it hard to build a case for complaint.

Private news channels in general, are businesses. Like other businesses, they depend on their clients to stay in business. In this case we, the viewers, comprise the clientele of these news channels. The greater the number of people that watch a channel and the longer they stay on it, the better it is for the channel. The product must be made attractive to the client, or it is likely that the client will be lost to competitors. So the trick here is to package the news attractively and the one way to make such a product attractive to the masses is to make it entertaining: this has come to be known as infotainment.
The issue of infotainment is a multidimensional and problematic one. My objective here is to look at this issue from all perspectives.

Infotainment is here to stay, because it achieves its goal of creating an attractive product.
The issue here, though, is not to analyse the pros and cons of infotainment per se, but to decide whether or not news -that deals with carnage, violence, human tragedy and suffering- ought to be packaged as infotainment.
If NDTV (or any other media company for that matter) wants to stand for excellence in journalism, and at the same time wants to be, a positive and just force that works for socio-economic-political discourse and/or change, what is needed of them is a relentless pursuit of the truth — and its unravelling when required — be it in the field, or what comes out from mouths of politicians. What is needed of them is incisive and penetrating analyses of the issues at hand: tawdry visuals used in tandem with evocative (and incidentally not tasteful in the context of their usage) musical scores, often reminiscent of a family drama/ tear-jerker Bollywood film or Ekta Kapoor soap opera on TV, may — setting aside the commercial benefits for the company — at best generate public interest and/or mobilise public support for issues and causes. But the worrying bit is that, ethical issues aside, such stirring styles of presentation may prove to be detrimental to the people of a country or perhaps even to those of more than one country, if not accompanied by truthful, careful, unbiased and comprehensive analyses of issues, policies and decisions, and their possible and likely repercussions. Hence, what is vital is that we get to see all sides of the story — sans any misrepresentations. 

Media companies have great power: they can influence people, and thus directly or indirectly also influence their governments (or lack thereof). This translates to a lot of power. But great power must also be accompanied with great responsibility (a quote which I borrow and slightly paraphrase from a Hollywood film). Thus it is vital that they conform to the highest standards of ethics at all times. This also entails that media personalities should refrain from using their channels as a platform to disseminate their own views or opinions, in however subtle, sophisticated or subliminal a way — no matter how noble their intentions may be.

I think Barkha Dutt — though genuine and well-meaning in her intentions — often uses a histrionic style of reportage. Histrionics in reportage has the ability to evoke dangerous knee-jerk responses; this danger is significant when the audience comprises a large number of people that do not have a high level of discernment — this is often the case when something is broadcasted to a vast number of the general public.

I do not mean to imply that she should not share her opinions with us: indeed, given that she is an experienced journalist, I would be interested to hear her views on various issues.
My concern is that this should be done using an appropriate medium, which could be for instance an opinion piece in a newspaper, magazine, website or blog: in this way it would be both understood as well as be considered legitimate, that the writer has taken up the role of a commentator. But when it comes to news and reportage, maintaining the highest possible objectivity and fairness, is vital. The role of an anchor should be that of a conduit as well as facilitator- and maintaining as much objectivity and fairness as is possible while playing both. I say conduit because the anchor is meant to connect people and their ideas. Facilitator, because when people share their views, they often disagree with one another, and often in a way that a discussion is impeded or comes to a standstill; and sometimes the discussion may even digress from the prescribed topic. The facilitator steps in here to try to find a way of moving ahead and/or maintaining direction, in as objective and fair a manner as possible.

The possible positive flipsides of infotainment, hype and sensational reportage:

Some individuals in the media and the public may subscribe to the notion that, if news is not packaged as infotainment, if news presentations are without hype or sensational reportage, or some degree of misrepresentation somewhere, then nothing would be done about the important issue/s at hand. The government may simply ignore or neglect the issue/s, as they would not feel sufficient pressure -from the build-up of negative public sentiment — to act swiftly. Nor would they feel any compunction because, the culpability of the government as a whole or of particular officials within it, or institutions, would get masked in some way. In this case it would be hard to hold any of them accountable in any way.

Thus by engaging in these sorts of questionable professional practices, the media persons would effectively be practising a kind of vigilantism. We are then left with the problematic issue of deciding whether the media or a media person, acting as a sort of ‘Batman’-like crusader, is ultimately good or bad for us. One obvious good: sometimes, the most objective, fairest, most just, methods of action can be frustratingly inefficacious. So taking the ‘matters into one’s own hands’ path becomes an alternative that works. The obvious bad would be that the taking of matters into ones own hands, can set a dangerous precedent for individuals among the public- a sort of: ‘if they did it, then why cannot we?’ Furthermore, there is no guarantee that behind such an action is objectivity and fairness, or that such actions would actually end up serving the interests of a society.

Consider another situation: let us say that a company uses hype and sensational styles in its news as well as in entertainment programs to become commercially successful. As it grows, the company now has the potential to expand its reach and scope. This makes it possible for the company to bring to us news that is more diverse, and at least some analyses that are more comprehensive than before. So here we see an example of the possibility of something positive, growing out of something that started out as negative: questionable practices in the early stages giving way to at least some quality journalism in later stages.

In summary, the sort of questionable journalism that I talk about — including the issue of infotainment in news — is bad insofar as it is dangerous. But in some instances it may prove to be good insofar as being for the greater good, for at least some part of society. Be that as it may, the complete lack of rules, regulations and guidelines in any sphere ultimately leads to chaos, anarchy and a general lack of accountability — even though those rules and regulations may stop some potentially good things from happening, or, they may fail to encompass unforeseen events; in some cases they may not provide justice to each and every one concerned. This imperfection with respect to the nature of rules and laws often leaves me with a feeling of dissatisfaction. But this is the nature of a rule or a guideline: it is a construct that generally speaking, can at best offer an optimal solution with respect to working well for a great majority of people and situations; very few rules work well for everyone and every situation. Moreover, it is a rule that defines transgression: without a body of well defined laws, transgressions are nebulous entities which lack a frame of reference. This would also mean that the extent of transgression in a certain instance cannot be ascertained in the absence of rules. In short, drawing lines of demarcation between acceptable and unacceptable conduct in relation to the media’s operations, is necessary. At the moment these lines are absent; and something needs to be done about it.

End.

My problem with Facebook.

A commentary on communication in our times.

I have been thinking about the negative aspects of modern communication in general, and the social networking website — Facebook —  in particular. Is social networking enriching my life?

The internet is a wonderful resource in many ways. It has revolutionised communication with people and has greatly improved peoples’ access to knowledge. The world truly has shrunk; and has perhaps shrunk further with the advent of online social networking. Facebook is largely replacing Email as the preferred mode of communication: what could be the consequences of such a transition?

The advent of near- instant communication coupled with the state of being always-connected to many people,  has undoubtedly led to an increase in the frequency of communication. This increase is seen at extreme levels with social networking websites such as Facebook. However, the two aforementioned factors of near-instant communication and being always-connected to many people, have also largely led to superficiality and a general lack of reflection of that which is being communicated. This phenomenon of ‘Hyper-connectivity’, has led to the state of people being constantly in touch, yet ironically has largely not led to an increase in intimacy between the people who are in near-constant communication with one another. It is difficult to have or maintain, an intimate, meaningful communication/relationship with someone if that person is not being thoughtful, does not talk about himself or herself, or does not talk about what is happening in their life.

What Hyper-connectivity has done is that it has given us easy access to near-instant gratification and less-effort communication. Communication for instant gratification means that communication is largely bound to be broken down into many little chunks of communication, that take little personal effort; and little personal effort, more often than not, translates into communication lacking depth and/or reflection. But surely, some of us sometimes care about meaningful, deeper conversation and communication and are willing to make an effort to do so — so why is this sort of communication rare even between such people? This could be attributed to the pressures of modern life where there is little time and mind-space to engage in such things. Having mind-space is crucial for more thoughtful, more intimate, more meaningful communication, given of course that one is the type who prefers this sort of thing over mundane or superficial communication. Unfortunately a hyper-connected world added to an already stressful modern life is not really conducive to mind-space. Also, near-instant communication often leads to the desire for instant replies, instant gratification. How quickly one could ‘demand’ a reply depends largely on which mode of communication is being used: each mode has inadvertently and implicitly, an ‘acceptable’ time-frame for replying. For example, a person sending a mobile text message will often desire a reply in a matter of minutes. A person sending an email might desire a reply in a day, or a perhaps in a few days at the latest. Someone who wants to chat online would generally desire near-instant replies. But the problem is that the person who has to reply back- the recipient, presuming that he is accessible still may not have the time or the mind-space, or may simply not be in the mood to reply with a thoughtful, meaningful message within the ‘acceptable’ time-frame. Even so, this person is likely to feel the pressure of replying within this time-frame. Why? Because of the feeling of insecurity that their friendship/acquaintance with the sender could be compromised on account of annoyance or offense or any sense of rejection felt by the sender.

With the internet in general, and more so with Facebook in particular, there is this tendency to over-communicate in less than substantial ways. This is partly because of the multitudinous modes of communication available within Facebook itself, from sending a public or private message to sending a virtual beer to ‘bitch-slapping’ someone and much more. It is easy to get lost in this sort of entertainment. The other reasons for over-communication are not exclusive to Facebook: loneliness, boredom, and the feeling of insecurity of losing touch with the people one wants to be in touch with or being forgotten. Whether this communication ends up being at a shallow or deeper level will depend on personality types as well as the nature and strength of the bond shared, and the degree of mutuality.

I suppose that the largely superficial nature of communication via social networking, could work well for the kind of person who is largely emotionally detached from their world; for such a person, a one-to-one intimacy with friends is likely to be of little or no importance in their life. It could work for people who use Facebook as a supplementary rather than primary tool for communicating with friends: unfortunately this is rare because, communication via Facebook is largely lesser effort than email or phone; hence more often than not, it ends up becoming the primary mode of communication. It could work for people whose primary concern with Facebook is to kill boredom. It could work for those people who hope to get in touch with long-lost people. It could work for those people who are lonely, since facebook provides more than adequate noise and buzz, even if a lot of it  is a bit empty. You could also share your photos, videos and scribblings, which is in my opinion one of the most positive things about Facebook. It could work for those people who are willing to sacrifice a lot of time in the hope that having a network that consists substantially of near-unknown people could come in handy one day. Perhaps in rare instances, this may help to enchance their professional prospects. 

Meeting face-to-face is to my mind still the best, most complete form of communication. Of course this is not always possible since given the nature of modern life, physical distances are inevitable between oneself and the people that one cares about. The next best options are email and phone. If used in the right way, a meaningful, deeper communication, is quite possible with them.

———————————-

What bothers me about Facebook in particular?

 

1. Serious privacy concerns: One of the clauses of Facebook’s Privacy Policy as stated on their website is, ‘We may use information about you that we collect from other sources, including but not limited to newspapers and Internet sources such as blogs, instant messaging services, Facebook Platform developers and other users of Facebook, to supplement your profile. Where such information is used, we generally allow you to specify in your privacy settings that you do not want this to be done or to take other actions that limit the connection of this information to your profile (e.g., removing photo tag links).’

Third party applications i.e. software programs not developed by Facebook available to users of Facebook, have access to almost all user information and Facebook does not screen or approve Platform Developers and cannot control how such Platform Developers use any personal information. Another scary clause in the Terms of Use which pertains to any personal information, photos, videos, notes etc uploaded by a user, is:

‘By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.’

 

These clauses are scary enough. I would strongly urge Facebook users or those who would like to join to study the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use which are available on the website.

 

2. I have had little no communication with a large proportion of people and the near-strangers in my ‘friends list’. What’s the point of them being on my Facebook if I am unlikely to ever be in touch with them? And yet they are privy to details of my life and I am to theirs. This is strange and annoying, unless one is into voyeuristic pleasures. Surely it would be better to email my friends directly or Skype them.

 

3. It is mind-numbingly addictive and a colossal waste of time.

 

4. Sending messages which can be viewed publicly is termed as writing on someone’s wall in Facebook. I find the concept of writing on someone’s ‘wall’ a little disturbing because I find it impersonal. a) Is the person writing on someone’s ‘wall’ because he/she also wants the message to be seen by other people? In which case there is either some exhibitionism going on here — which may or may not be advantageous to both parties — or, the message is meant to be viewed by a group of people — for instance a group of friends. When the latter instance of chatting among members of a group is at play, this could in theory strengthen the group bond; on the other hand, group chatting could lead to the the build-up of negative group dynamics, and this could weaken the group bond. b) Is there an apprehension in the sender’s mind, that the recipient or someone else, might misunderstand their intentions if the message were private? I would find it rather sad if someone were sending me a public message just for that reason. c) Is it the case that the recipient or perhaps the message itself, is just not important enough to the sender so that it is intended only for the recipient’s eyes? d) Could it also be sometimes that ‘wall writing’ is somewhat detached from the self, and that not having a personal dimension in one’s writing is more conducive to self preservation — as in give less of oneself, get stressed less? It is likely that at least one of the aforementioned factors would be operating with respect to ‘wall’ writing. It appears to be the case that ‘wall’ communication is all about communication of a hidden kind.

The answer to the questions I asked myself at the beginning of this essay for me are clear: Facebook is not enriching my life.

End.