NOVEMBER 28 — It has surfaced, yet again in Malaysia, that there exists a tension between how big our governments ought to be, and how much freedom an individual is entitled to enjoy. Not too long ago, in this same space with MMO, I penned down some thoughts on the matter.
There is essentially no difference between the quandary then, and the impasse we have now. The principles which underline how invasive an authority should be in our bedrooms and how meddlesome it should be with regards to how we dress, among other things, is structured along the same lines.
I am not in the habit of naming names, or pointing fingers, because often it is easier (and safer) to relay information when it is not contaminated with sentiments that come with specificity, but suffice to say that I think we all know what I am referring to even without having to say too much myself.
Don’t get me wrong, I have said this once, and I will say it again; what I think should be the stance of the government (and other entities who act like they are already in office) on certain matters is indifference. I tend not to sit very well with big governments, wherever it exists.
The real question that we ought to ask now - in the aftermath of all that has unfolded - is how we intend to shape the spirit of our society from here on out? And by spirit I don’t mean your typical Asian apparitions, but the kind of spirit that is more synonymous to the Hegelian notion of a world spirit – the manifestation of a spirit exhibited through a society’s philosophy, religion and art. In short, we ought to ask - what does our collective conscience have to say about all that has transpired?
To those alarmists who ring the bell of disaster, and claim that ‘sensitive’ topics should be kicked into the long grass, I say to them, confrontation and conflict such as this is routine. Hegel understood it first, and understood it best – well enough to elucidate that history can only be, and only is, the progression of reason brought about by conflict and confrontation. It is governed by a dialectical process which pits one idea with another, resulting in a prevailing idea synthesised appropriately to be brought forward by society for it to enjoy in the future.
History ends, it is claimed, when our collective consciousness is entirely rational. Where we are right now, we are a long way from that. We just left Segamat en route to Alor Setar. We are moving, but it will take some time for us to come to terms with the journey. When the change comes, and it will come, who will we be après le déluge?
Almost like clockwork, the bruised Roundheads and Cavaliers of our public space have come out to either defend or propagate both sides of the coin - nothing unusual about it at all - only the danger is often that these discussions end up dallying with religion, causing it to be loaded like a powder keg waiting to ignite.
When such possibility looms, it discourages proper progress and allows for the fear of the unknown to set in and take over common sense from individuals, turning them almost like sheep waiting to be herded.
It should not startle anyone that voices from every corner of society have come out to make their opinions heard. These opinions, in turn, reflect the background of the person conveying it, across every divide – class, religiosity, education, race and more - in almost a stereotypical fashion. The haphazard way of describing it is that the conservatives are on one side, and liberals are on the other. But illustrating it this way obscures a lot of nuances.
Now, if all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others, then how do we decide which politician is right? Or which NGO leader we should follow? Or which Ustaz we ought to be standing behind? Can we be certain of anything? How do we think rationally, yet avoid getting blinded by faith, but at the same time not do wrong to others and maintain observance to some form of divinity?
Not too long ago, Descartes postulated that the only way to get unshakable certainty, all falsehoods must be eliminated. Hence, in order to filter out faulty knowledge, one must doubt all that can be doubted, even our senses, for why else would our eyes see a bent straw in a glass when it maintains the integrity of its form perfectly when submerged in a drink?
But how does any reasonably Malaysian even begin to do that if most of us, including myself, have been in a Plato-esque cave for too long? If one were born inside a box, would the thought of a world outside being more real than the one inside ever enter the person’s mind?
This is where most of us are right now. We are in Plato’s cave, legs chained and fixed, with our backs facing the exit, only able to see the shadows projected unto a blank wall before us. And often, like the inhabitants of Plato’s cave, without remorse, we strike down those who are intellectual. The cave is a parable.
It is not rocket science. And it should not take a high level of comprehension to understand that I have used it to illustrate a point, and not as a slanderous or libellous remark on anyone. The main question is this; how much longer will it take for us to realise that sometimes, the shadows we are fed with - what we perceive as real - are a lesser copy reality?
If we continue to just fixate over the shadows, we fall prey to those who control it. There is no shortage of predators, they exist in our country on both sides of the agenda. It would serve our interest far greater if we break these chains, step out, and see for ourselves the sun and the world it sustains.
Or at least pay enough attention to those individuals who challenge our narrow beliefs so that our own is more complete.
Who do we trust? Who should we listen to? Must we even? Do we listen to the leader who only understands moral worth as seeking to produce the most amount of happiness for the greatest number of people?
Or do we place more trust to those Kant-like individuals (pun, perhaps, intended) who act out of a sense of duty – a duty to respect moral laws and the categorical imperative which exists in them? How can we possibly determine who has good intentions or otherwise? If this country is torn asunder, would it matter that some of them tried to save it?
The bottom line is that we have no fixed essence. Our fact of existence as a citizen, or even as a human being, does not lock our existence to any pre-determined essence. What we are today does not prevent us from being something else tomorrow. We first exist and then invent our ‘self’ through the choices we make.
We should not be acting in bad faith by equating ourselves to any particular role which others expect or condition us to be. It begins with an original thought, and then perhaps a vision of a future - a future free of the damaging historical baggage which we have inherited. Introspection is neither treason nor blasphemy. Introspection is honesty.
*Meor Alif is pursuing a PhD in Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He tweets at @thisiconoclast
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.
See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/kicking-our-intelligence-into-the-long-grass-meor-alif#sthash.Jl3gOzz6.dpuf