The Tyranny Of Tradition
“Today, criminal justice functions and justifies itself only by this perpetual reference to something other than itself, by this unceasing reinscription in non-juridical systems. Its fate is to be redefined by knowledge. Penality uses these professional sciences to present itself as “innocent” of malice”
Michel Foucault
Tradition: The informal criminal justice system outside the formal criminal justice system. The first truly globalised system of social control. Truly Glocal, truly enduring.
Our conception of tradition is rooted in the references that define our understanding of it. The references to family history, genealogy and most of all; religion. We rarely think about tradition for what it truly is; an ideology in itself and by definition; a normative vision of what’s considered to be the correct way by the majority. In most cases; a majority that is long dead and gone. Like all ideologies, it is contemptuous of the population it claims to represent.And like all ideologies, it is a dogmatic method of exercising power.
Like all systems of power, it dilutes individual liberty and ignores free will. For it presupposes individual liberty to be subservient to the will of the majority. And the will of the majority itself is not articulated through democratic means of persuasion and negotiation. It is exercised through social coercion.
Tradition in Sociology
The Sociologist Max Weber identified three forms of social domination and exercise of power. Weber saw tradition as one of the ways in which leaders derive their legitimacy to rule. The two primary forms in which tradition exercises domination is through patrimonialism and patriarchy. The difference between these two forms of traditional authority is that the patriarch does not need a staff to help him exercise his power while the patrimonial leader requires staff that obeys his authority by virtue of personal loyalty and tradition. Tradition functions effectively in a society where social hierarchies are often rigid and the dominant class or group derives its legitimacy from inheritance. In Weber’s own words, traditional authority is “the authority of the eternal yesterday.” Traditional authority is impersonal and non-rational and is legitimized using established traditions or rituals. In Weber’s view, the domination of tradition could be traced back to patriarchs and the conceptions of authority within the structure of the family.
Tradition as Gender Hegemony
Most traditions in India are an expression of gender politics. A politics where women are in perpetual minority and men; in perennial majority. And it is the perennial majority that decides what forms of behavior are socially acceptable. The instrument used to legitimize gender hegemony is religion. So while women are ‘supposed’ to keep karwa chauth for the husband, there is no day in the Hindu calendar where men return the favor. The post-modern Indian Hindu male (the embodiment of an oxymoron) tries to deflect the inherent hypocrisy of the tradition and; disguises his own cowardice in failing to challenge it by fasting along with the wife; who actually fasts for his long life. The wife, motivated by this act of emotional philanthropy by the husband, then becomes motivated to diligently observe the fast the following year; which is ably supported by the fasting husband.Circular philanthropy at its best. The man rarely ever turns around to question the family (embodied tradition) on the need to patronize starvation of one human being to prolong another one’s life. The moral math behind such a practise is absurd, but because it is tradition, propagated by embodied elements of tradition-as-coercion, it becomes part of our social folklore.
While ‘karwa chauth’ is a form of coercion, it is an event-based one. There are many other subtle forms of coercion disguised as tradition in the Hindu society. The daughter-in-law must feed the entire family at least one-meal-a-day tradition; the daughter-in-law must manage the household tradition and most of all; she must bear a child tradition. The status of the daughter-in-law is validated through her impeccable domesticity and fertility. In most cases, there is another level of validation involved, that of her ability to produce a male child. If she fails on that count; her existence remains mired in status-quo till she goes through repeated pregnancies and finally; produces the proverbial magic bullet: The male child.The despicability of patriarchal tradition subsumes the dignity of a woman for an heir.
The Muslim community isn’t any better either. Impositions of the ‘purdah’; where one human’s liberty is impeded upon because it supposedly invokes lustful thoughts in men is considered normative. We very rarely hear postmodern Muslim men (another embodiment of an oxymoron); challenge traditions invoked in the name of faith which undermine the Muslim woman’s liberty. Another tradition, the triple talaq is used as an instrument to coerce and subjugate women into accepting all forms of physical and emotional violence. While this tradition has received formidable legal challenge from a group of determined women, it is being fought forcefully by the mullahs.The mullahs derive their own legitimacy through a wily mix of inherited authority; dogmatic sophistry and rhetorical obfuscation.
In addition to familial contexts, gender hegemony plays out in our educational system and in workplaces as well. In the Indian educational system, stereotypes of the ideal girl student along with notions of traditional gender roles are implicitly propagated. These gender roles are centered around ideas of masculinity and femininity. In cross cultural research, a masculine society is defined as one in which there is a strong preference for achievement, heroism, assertiveness and material rewards for success. All of these characteristics are considered masculine and any girl or woman who exhibits these characteristics is considered a threat to the social order. Political alliances of chauvinistic; sexist and entitled males are formed to discredit every achievement of the woman. The fact that we don’t have an organised global union of such manly-ugliness designed to fight the ascension of women is an indicator of how most males; especially the Indian ones aren’t even organised when it comes to organising their own sub-breed of passive hostility.
Tradition as Criminal Justice
In India, tradition serves as an alternate criminal justice system. It has its own institutions, its own codes of conduct and its own moral and ethical principles that form the foundational basis of the society. Tradition is a synonym for the mechanisms of the exercise of power as well as an articulation of the concept of power itself.
In order to legitimize this system of power, forms of knowledge which reinforce this system need to exist. The primary form of knowledge that reinforces tradition is religious discourse. The other forms of knowledge that reinforce tradition as a system of power are economic structure and politics.
Religious discourse and economic structures serve to legitimize tradition in three ways : Firstly, by defining the ‘norm’. Secondly, by defining the boundaries of deviance from the norm and Thirdly; by defining the quantum of punishment for transgressing the boundaries of deviance. The important thing to note here is that both religious discourse and economic structures do allow some deviance from the norm; in order to look reasonable to the classes and sections on which they impose their edicts. The allowance for deviance from the norm is actually a part of the structure of the norm itself.
In the context of religious discourse, the quantum of punishment for crossing the boundaries of deviance in rural India quite often results in losing the right to life. The Khap panchayats in northern India are a pertinent example of this phenomenon. They routinely act as an alternate criminal justice system; meting out barbaric forms of capital punishment with absolute impunity. In the urban context, the punishment for crossing the boundaries of religious deviance is more subtle, though equally brutal as the form of violence used to carry out the punishment is mostly emotional in nature. This is a conscious act as the urban populace is sensitive to physical violence but increasingly agnostic towards forms of emotional and psychological violence and subjugation.
In the context of economic structures, the society in rural India is feudal by design and leaves little room for the lower economic classes to change their socioeconomic status through hard work and enterprise. Any challenge to these existing structures invites economic punishment. This often means restructuring of debt by the neo-feudal classes to ensure permanent indebtedness of the economically weaker classes . The specter of permanent indebtedness as well as the limitations to improvement of social status causes unbearable stress in the economically weaker rural classes. One outcome of this stress is the rising numbers of farmer suicides in rural India. A final rebellious act of breaking out of the curse of tradition.An act that ought to make any moral society feel ashamed of its brutality, but it doesn’t. It doesn’t because we are so deeply entrenched in our own consumption of what we perceive as ‘economic growth’ that we ignore the fact that our growth comes at the cost of human lives and dignity. We are a society of economic rationalists; and our only identity is now that of consumers. And a large part of our consumption is the consuming of others. We are the new cannibals; economic cannibals. In the urban context; the punishment for digressing the boundaries of the economic norm takes the shape of increased working hours, financial penalties for leaves and psychological abuse. A form of sophisticated brutality. Economic cannibalism of the techno-branded class.
Politics legitimizes tradition in two ways: Firstly; By infusing elements of tradition as a form of justice (or denial of justice) into government policy and Secondly; by using tradition as an instrument of clientelism. An example of one element of tradition that is used as a justice mechanism is the refusal to decriminalize homosexual unions. Tradition is often invoked as a mechanism to refuse the right to individual liberty for homosexuals. It is pertinent to point out here that while our constitution grants the right to individual liberty to all citizens; tradition is used as a mechanism to sidestep the constitution.Another example of tradition and its use as an alternate mechanism of justice is the refusal by successive governments to criminalize marital rape. Politics also legitimizes tradition by using it as an instrument of clientelism. It does so by using tradition as a means of attracting votes. The symbolism of the skull cap, the ‘must-be-built’ temple, the subtle references to religious texts, the ‘rajya’ of a certain variety are all examples of how politics legitimizes notions of religious tradition.In doing so, politics and tradition both reinforce each other’s legitimacy as vehicles of authority. The difference between political authority and traditional authority is that the political authority acquires and maintains its right to rule under the traditional criminal justice system. It uses the rule of law to exercise its authority. Tradition on the other hand, is an alternate justice system by itself. It does not need structured, accountable institutions to exercise its authority.
Tradition works as an alternate justice system by allowing one set of actors in the society to discriminate against another set of actors using arbitrary rules designed without the consent of the people on whom they are applied. Tradition uses religious, political and economic power structures to establish itself as an alternate power structure. While the religious and economic power structures are challenged by antagonists, tradition doesn’t face any opposition. This is because it co-opts the modern and postmodern actors in the society into its program by using elements of popular culture such as movies and television. The ubiquitous karwa chauth in every Karan Johar movie, the generalized marriage rituals of the Sooraj Barjatya movies, and the idealized families in Ekta Kapoor produced garbage we call ‘daily soaps’.
Rituals as Surveillance
In order for an alternate justice system such as tradition to work, there need to be instruments of surveillance that can act both as deterrents as well as informants. The deterrent and informant mechanisms used by tradition manifest themselves in the form of rituals; the oldest forms of surveillance known to humans.
This may posit a question: Who does the surveilling? Look around you. Do you know who does the surveilling in the cities you reside in?
In its most elementary form, it is done by the security guard, the watchman, the patrol police person or in the case of sheep; the sheep dogs. In its most advanced forms, it is done by security cameras. Rituals follow the same surveillance structure. These surveillance mechanisms can be classified on the basis of their passivity, their invasiveness, their visibility and their ability to impose physical and psychological punishment or their ability to control thought. The most elementary forms of surveillance are the most visible, active, increasingly invasive and physically and psychologically punitive. The most advanced forms on the other hand; are barely visible, passive, noninvasive and thought controlling.
In their most elementary form, rituals provide a way to watch over your commitment by checking attendance and attentiveness towards tradition. A mechanism that primarily uses overt pressure and threats to make sure the herd is in the shape of a herd — a manageable structure that can then be directed towards programs that fortify patriarchy and cultural feudalism. Rituals act as sheep dogs; loyal servants to the masters who use their social license to freely act as intimidating bullies to the human-sheep.
The manifestations of rituals as an elementary form of surveillance are highly invasive and physically or emotionally punitive. This elementary form of rituals-as-surveillance uses guilt, admonishment and induced resentment towards others as punitive measures. For example, consuming meat on certain days of the week amongst Hindus is initially handled by causing guilt in the consumer; if the consumer persists in his habit, the upholders of tradition admonish the consumer; and if the pattern of consumption continues, the consumer is finally fed a rabid diet of resentment towards others who sell or consume meat on certain days of the week. Over time, the initially benign consumer ends up holding the very act of eating meat as a challenge to tradition.
In their intermediate forms, rituals act as intravenous mechanisms of surveillance, periodically injecting doses of tradition and causing momentary slumber of reason. The individual on whom the surveillance is targeted at, is at this point already in existential pain and is encumbered with the condition of perpetual cognitive dissonance arising from the recognition that certain aspects of one’s self are non-traditional while certain other aspects of one’s self stem from tradition itself. This repeated cognitive dissonance is caused by the need to be free from all dogma and the want to identify oneself with tradition (which is nothing but repackaged dogma). The dissonant and angst torn individual then becomes a sitting duck for the intermediate forms of rituals-as- surveillance as rituals use mildly invasive, obligingly visible and moderately punitive forms of control to reshape the individual when he/she is most susceptible. This intermediate form of rituals-as-surveillance uses propaganda, falsehoods and induced envy towards others as punitive measure. Take the example of men and women from ‘traditional’ families who try to marry outside of their faith and caste. Marriage is interpreted as a compulsory ritual in the narrative of one’s life. This ritual is then used as a method of surveillance. It is often invoked to periodically inject dosages of family history, purity and legitimacy of lineage and coercion in the form of emotions to dampen reason. Blatant falsehoods and propaganda about other faiths and communities are used to convince the actor to reconsider the decision. Finally, envy is induced in the actor’s thinking and evaluation process by pointing out other same faith or caste couples who enjoy a supposed happy life. The actor, in this case chooses to elevate his or her social status in the context of the traditional world by becoming another unit of envy for others. Namely, marrying inside his caste or faith and giving up liberty for the safety of a dogmatic existence.
In their advanced forms, rituals are used as passive mechanisms of surveillance. Like the conspicuous CCTV’s in our cities. The advanced forms of rituals-as-surveillance are non-invasive, passive, barely visible and thought impairing. The goal of this form is to disguise itself as a supportive mechanism of common security while acting as an authoritative mechanism of thought control. The punishment is aggressively punitive as it prevents even the recognition of any thought that is deviant from the norm. Take the example of the tradition of touching the elder’s feet. For the skeptic, the recognition of the age and the character of the person is necessary to deviate from the norm. The skeptic subconsciously takes into account information such as the older person’s character, his or her integrity and expertise and evaluates it against their own ideals and values. If the older person violates one or more of these values and ideals, the skeptic foregoes the ritual of touching the feet. For the believer, the recognition is based on a single criterion: age. The believer does not recognize any other variable; leave alone evaluate it. Therefore the action of touching the feet is instant, mechanical and devoid of any engagement with thinking and reasoning faculties. Rituals, in their advanced forms produce human automatons.
Like all forms of surveillance, the main objective of rituals is to discipline. And the more advanced they become; the disciplining evolves from being a corrective measure for controlling actions; to becoming a controlling mechanism for diminishing thought.
The Why and What?
Foucault once said : “ People know what they do; frequently they know why they do what they do; but what they don’t know is what what they do does.”
While we know what we do in the name of tradition; we frequently know why we do what we do in its name; but what we don't know is what what we do in its name does to us, our society and most of all our children.
We all owe our children a better world.
And the one thing we can do in our individual capacities to achieve that goal is to challenge the ideology of tradition.
In doing so, we might just give our children the liberty we haven’t known all our lives.
The liberty to be our true selves.
