Means and ends, tasks and symbolism

(Reviving this blog!)

Two ideas have been rattling around in my head.

===
The first is about means and ends--the old question of whether the nobility of the end excuses the means to achieve it. For example, should you sacrifice a few for the sake of many, as in a usual hostage situation? Is attacking a country excusable if it is to save another?

The other day, I saw Oprah interview Marion Jones, the disgraced athlete. In the interview, Marion seemed to suggest that she could have won the Sydney Olympic medals even without the drugs. Even if this was a possibility, it is so completely irrelevant. So what if the drug had had zero effect on her? So what if she was, in fact, the best at the time?

So many of our poor traditions are excused by citing the end goal. We want women to be safe and not treated as sexual objects, so we restrict their movements, their dress, their freedom. We want people to be charitable, so we invent religions based on fear.

My take is that the means-do-not-matter attitude stifles thought and creativity. It does not encourage us to think of other ways to do things. It can also be very dangerous because it distracts you from the heart of a problem.
===

The second, closely-related idea is that of symbolism. I have ideas I'm passionate about (individual freedom, atheism, feminism) but everyday, I'm confronted with little, harmless tasks, that, on deeper scrutiny, contradict those ideas.

I was invited, as part of a marriage, to a Sumangali Prarthanai. This is a traditional prayer/ritual meant to "honour" certain female ancestors who were sumangalis i.e, they died before their husbands. It is a ritual deeply rooted in Hinduism's poor treatment of widows. And yet, it is masked as some kind of female celebration. There was, of course, no harm in taking part in this ritual. After all, I would not want anyone to lose their wife or husband prematurely. And yet, the symbolism of the ritual disturbed me so much I wiggled out of attending it.

It was later pointed out to me that this is one of those rare South Indian rituals where the women are served a feast and they get to eat before the men. Should I just have rejoiced in that small victory?

My family tells me I've become more radical of late, that I'm protesting too much against small traditions that are ultimately harmless. And yet, I cannot but see the bigger symbols everywhere. And, if I do these small things, I feel like a hypocrite--someone who espouses one philosophy and practises another.

There are areas of life where this feeling is easy to brush off. I read about fair trade and understand it, and yet, being an economical person at heart, I continue to shop at Kmart. I am a rational person who values reason and yet I find myself succumbing to the sheer stupidity of high-heeled shoes.
====

And then, a couple of months ago, I read a biography of Rajaji. The otherwise dull book covered his relationship with Gandhi in great detail. It was then that I realised that most of Gandhi's eccentricities--such as his obsessions with hygiene, self-control, spinning, etc--could be put down to his desire to live life with great deliberation.

His great achievement seems to have been mastery of both the big-picture (the end goal, the symbolism of life) and the details (the means, the little harmless tasks). Every step he took was the result of deep thought. And yet, no matter however frivolous it seemed, it was leading to a larger purpose.

It's probably the hardest way of living life. And Gandhi is an extraordinary person just for attempting this.