a dream of sadness

07.11.2025

S. was woken up in the morning from a dream of sadness by the alarm clock.

He was at the context where everything had happened with the one that had broken his heart. And it was a lunch time. He had gone to a shopping mall outside with another friend. It wasn’t any friend. It was a friend with a tragic past whose mother had died as a child. His company was sadness. Someone who had been separated from a woman, a mother.

The shopping had been torturous. His friend had walked in front. S. was following him. But he couldn’t follow him. S. was so sad that he had lain there face down on the ground in front of everyone. S. wanted to give up. It had consumed a lot of time. So S. had to take a taxi back. He was running late.

The taxi driver, an Indian woman (S. was Indian) had charged him an extortionate amount of money on arrival back to the place where the breaker of his heart was. Twenty five pounds. And, on arrival at the place where the breaker of his heart was, because he had to go back, he saw the Indian women’s children there. She was the mother.

He had to pay. He fumbled around in his little plastic seethrough bag of things. He kept on looking but couldn’t find the card. The Indian mother’s daughter was approaching him, looking for a tip, demanding more money.

Suddenly two bouncers appeared. They were accusing S. of trying to get away without paying the Indian mother. And then, S. found the card. Finally, he could pay the mother.

That was when the alarm bell rang and S. woke up.

In his dreams, the sadness of heartbreak was being processed. And his duty to the Mother was being processed. His debt to the Mother. She was being processed in his dreams, the women in his life and in the realm of his ideas, India’s ideas. The words he couldn’t say out loud, the things he couldn’t say out loud in a world of judgement, enmity and hostility. His past. Who could understand? Only an Indian in England.

Abstract Love vs. Situated and Local Love

25.09.2018

The choice between abstract love and situated and local love is evident in a quote by E. M. Forster –

“I hate the idea of causes, and if I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.”

Let us characterise abstract love. Abstract love is love of the country in the above quote or the supporting of “causes”, which are “public”, or, rather, “publicly accepted”. A “cause” can be defined as either a “charitable undertaking” or “a principle or movement militantly defended or supported” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online). Abstract love supports “principles” rather than human beings (the opposition is between friends and the abstract entities of country and cause). The country is an imaginary entity which is also largely publicly supported in the idea of abstract love. A country is largely an idea. It only has status as a piece of fiction. There is no such thing as a country. There is just a varied collection of people in a geographical space, who all live varied kinds of lives, not some kind of unchanging, abstract entity. Abstract love says that you should love all these people that you don’t know for whatever reason because of the abstract idea of a country and for abstract principles. Think about that in detail. There are no intimate human relationships required, no close contact with the recipients. In abstract love, the love that is most supported is the love of the stranger, of the anonymous. In abstract love, there is a morality which is that you should love a fictional idea more than you love those close to you: politicians tell you to love the country. This is felt like a compulsion by Forster who has to resist it strongly. What is the object of love in abstract love, the idea of the politicians? The country is seen as something larger than a single human being, as more universal. There is an idea of the larger versus the smaller, or the general versus the particular. The country is public, the individual is private. The country is emblematic of “good” group membership, community, etc. Love of the country is therefore contrasted to the love of the individual human being who just stands for personal love.

Let us now characterise situated and local love. In this form of love, you support individuals who you love. You know them. The reason that you love them is that you know them. You don’t love strangers and help them: it is those close to you that you love. This love is entirely intimate. It is situated because you just happened to be somehow connected to the person by complete chance. It is not about principles, it is about your own situated love. Biographical details are more important in this form of love than principles and sharing publicly accepted group affiliations. This love relies on an idea of the domestic sphere rather than the private sphere: you love those close to you, not those that political figures tell you to, as in the case of the country. It is about what you yourself choose to support as an individual. In situated and local love, you are not a removed and detached “objective” thinker with ideals of “universality” (abstract love pretends it is this – it is not, as you will know if you meet any nationalists). You are subjective. You favour the particular over the general, the smaller over the larger – the individual over the nation state. That is, you choose your own private group of membership (in friends) over what is publicly accepted as the main form of membership (nationality).

I have already said which love I choose. Why did I choose the smaller over the larger, the particularistic over the general? Because who else is going to help the poor members of my family in India? I have noted that they are systematically oppressed. Yet, for all the talk about altruism and abstract love, they have no support.

You might say that the abstract thinkers are in the minority and that is the problem with the world. After all, there is no one helping the people that are starving. But there is a morality to local and situated love. This is that you should tend to your own garden first before you start addressing other issues. First of all, my mother helps her family. Then, if she can, she helps people from our socially disadvantaged community on the basis of group identity. My mother is particularistic, not abstract and general. It is the same with the rest of our family. According to lovers of abstraction, this is seen as self-serving, selfish, etc. It is seen as a bad form of group identity and belonging (i.e. tribalism). It is seen as the inferior form of loving since it is situated. But the strength of situated and local love is that it is from insiders and local: who else is going to help anyone in that community that is outside that community? How many thousands of years of oppression have my people faced? No one helped us except our own. That is reality: people are selfish.

Internalising Stereotypes: Suggested Identities, Individuality and Free Choice

25.04.2018 –

Abstract: Oppressed groups in our society internalise negative constructions of identity and learned sets of behaviours transmitted in media which override personal responsibility and individuality. They do this because they are required to exhibit such identities and behaviours on the public stage because of the constraints imposed upon them by culture.

Keywords: Stereotypes, Cultural Brainwashing, Free Will, Personal Responsibility, Negative expectations

Elaboration. Clarification. Evidence.

Speculation, even that of the armchair theorist, has to be sustained by the holy trio I have just cited. The last time I wrote, the topic was how the justice of the oppressed has been constructed as inevitably having a violent and bodily conclusion. The argument that I made was that the identity of the violent individual and even the framework of action of this individual have been transmitted across Western culture and time as a model for the behaviour and personhood of oppressed groups in our society. This is a model which they turn to in order to construct ideas of justice and individuality and to deal with injustice in this society since it is conceived of as “their own justice”, a justice that is peculiar to them and in which constructions of personhood and difference are inherent. Another reason why they turn to these models for identity and action is because they have been systematically denied any other form of expression in this society so that they cannot become factors in public thought, politics and in the apportioning of power.

There is a big assumption in the argument that I made. Instead of talking about individual responsibility, consciousness and so on, I cited the phrase “cultural brainwashing” in the key terms at the start of the speculations. I argued that individuals take up the identity and framework of action evident in the plays of Shakespeare and such productions as the recent Black Panther movie because they have been insidiously insinuated to them from the time before they have even been born.

Why have I assumed that the identity of the violent avenger is suggested to oppressed individuals and can override conventional notions of individuality, free will, conscious choice and personhood? Is there any proof of this? Just because something is there in Shakespeare and the Black Panther movie, and a similar thing seems to happen in real life, does that prove that my speculations are correct?

While I was pondering whether fiction can be invoked to prove something that happens in real life, I thought I would make a few notes on the topic of suggested identity and the internalisation of stereotypes and how both relate to free will, choice and conscious thought. To introduce the topic, I want to write about a recent change in advertising standards which you can read about here – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40638343

As the BBC writes, the Advertising Standards Authority have set out a mission statement to “crack down on ads that feature stereotypical gender roles.” There were particularly aggravating examples that were cited:

One example was an advert for Aptamil baby milk formula that showed girls growing up to be ballerinas and boys becoming engineers.

Complaints had also been made about adverts for clothing retailer Gap that showed a boy becoming an academic, and a girl becoming a “social butterfly”.

What was the justification for cracking down on such adverts? As the BBC journalist writes:

The review suggested that new standards should consider whether the stereotypes shown would “reinforce assumptions that adversely limit how people see themselves and how others see them.”

“Portrayals which reinforce outdated and stereotypical views on gender roles in society can play their part in driving unfair outcomes for people,” said Guy Parker, chief executive of the ASA.

“While advertising is only one of many factors that contribute to unequal gender outcomes, tougher advertising standards can play an important role in tackling inequalities and improving outcomes for individuals, the economy and society as a whole.”

There is a simple idea at the heart of the justification of the advertising crackdown: media plays a role in constraining individuals to adopt certain identities and schemas of action. Media can determine and limit notions of personhood and action. Media can override ideas about free will and choice to produce certain types of individuals that act in a certain kind of way. Stereotypes in the media can be internalised and magnify and build on societal expectations to influence behaviour and identity. There is a qualification: media is just one factor in contributing to “unequal gender outcomes”.

The question remains, however, whether this justification is valid or not. The ASA suggests that media is just one aspect of an entire societal apparatus which is producing gender and gendered forms of identity and behaviour. They make the same claim about cultural brainwashing that I do, that such cultural brainwashing produces zombies that lack responsibility and free will. How exactly is this process of cultural brainwashing played out?

As I was thinking over this topic, trying to work out how individuals internalise expected identities and learned sets of behaviours, one persistent image kept on coming to mind. I am talking about the case of the athlete with the home crowd advantage. There is no need to focus on a particular example, since everyone knows exactly what I am talking about. Here is the typical scenario. There is a home crowd which is composed of people of the same nationality. The home crowd have one athlete in the final who is of the same nationality as them. If one looks at the past record of this athlete, there seems to be very little chance that they will win anything. The athlete’s ranking is not that good. However, the crowd expects the athlete to bring home a medal. Somehow, amazingly, the athlete performs better than he or she has ever performed in their life. They fulfil the crowd’s expectations and bring home a medal. It is the same with teams as it is with individuals.

Here, then, is the prime illustration of how a society’s expectations can be internalised in order to produce a certain identity, that of medal winner, and an expected set of behaviours, a medal winning performance. But what isn’t remarked on and what is brilliantly weird about this phenomenon is that it actually happens. How can someone whose body hasn’t ever and seemingly can’t perform at that level suddenly do what it does in the final? Why does their body and their behaviour change so radically? It is precisely because of the societal expectation that they act in a certain way and become medallists. And this societal expectation is based in nationalism and ideas of national identity. These athletes are drawing on notions of shared and constructed identities in order to behave in a certain way. All the training that they did in their life never allowed them access to a medal winning performance before. It required an internalisation of shared national identity and a meeting of the expectation and demand of the nationalist crowd in order to achieve that result.

One can see then, that individuals can internalise identities and behaviours which are expected of them by society and which themselves radically transform them and their actions in a way that is nothing short of miraculous. The expectations of a group can change the very fabric of reality. These expectations can override conscious thought – the athletes have always consciously tried to win but were never able to gain the victory, however much they trained and tried. It is the adoption of a shared cultural identity and set of behaviours by athletes which, although they are seemingly unrelated to the task in hand (after all, it is not a requisite qualification of being British that one is a gymnast or fast runner) completely changes performance and result and, indeed, alters the body at a fundamental level.

Well. Let us return to our ideas about how culturally shared negative expectations of oppressed individuals can transform their behaviour and override conscious thought, free will and choice. If the scenario in the athlete example can be seen as analogous to how a culture works, then we can see how and why negative expectations fundamentally change the character of individuals. Such expectations, transmitted though media, are internalised and are too powerful to resist. They do away with ideas about free choice, individual responsibility and individuality. Such ideas crush the very stuff that persons are made out of to reproduce stock types. They are too powerful. The group’s expectations completely overwhelm and defeat the individual. The individual can then only exhibit learned behaviour. The word exhibit is important. I think the athlete situation is analogous to the situation in culture because of one important point. Both the athlete and the oppressed individual are on display. They have to perform as though they were in a play to a society that is watching since their actions take place in public. This is why I think that the justice of the oppressed is a form of communication and perceived as the only way to express ideas about justice and the resistance to injustice.

Well, such are the speculations of the armchair theorist. What is the importance of such idle speculations and this short note on the matter? I think the significance is that in Western media, there are only really negative representations of oppressed peoples. They are always shown as violent, barbaric, backward and criminal. Where are the positive role models? When was the last time you saw a British Asian as a hero in western media? The fact is that it is negative expectations of us that are always channelled in the western imagination. If people then internalise and act on these negative expectations, which are not just in media, but everywhere around us in this society, are these people really to blame? If personal responsibility and individuality are really obliterated by group expectations, can we point the finger at perceived criminals? Surely our ideas about law and justice, which rely on notions of free will, choice and individual responsibility have to change?

A Negative Statistic about Christmas – 18.12.2017

Gleaming images of beautiful families assail us everywhere around December time. Positive messages and good cheer seemingly abound. Beneath the surface, however, there are grimmer realities. Consider the food wastage. In 2014, 4.2 million Christmas dinners were wasted across the United Kingdom according to Unilever. The most startling popular statistic, and the most worrying, is that of the “Christmas Suicide”. This statistic, that there are increased rates of suicide attempts in the holiday season, is a popular myth and has been debunked by several authorities. However, it is pervasive. Why is this so?

Through one perspective, the “Christmas Suicide” myth could be interpreted as reflecting a deep unease and anxiety about the holiday season. Beneath apparent happiness, we are told, there lurk tragedy and depths of despair. Happiness is a bubble, reality is sadness. We are only separated from suffering by a hair’s breadth, for we too could be contemplating demise by our own hand. Is it human nature to be unable to keep away thoughts of suffering during our most special and happiest moments? Or is the experience of suffering that we have gone through to build family relationships an unavoidable and irrepressible memory?

Such questions deserve more thought. However, my opinion is that the Christmas suicide myth rests on a cultural idea of loneliness that is used to depict the anti-social elements in society as dangerous. It is the lack of friends and family, we are told, that leads an individual to murder him or herself. This lack leads to a deep and hopeless despair. This singling out of the lonely betrays a complacency which the social individual possesses and an unflinching and unwarranted trust and belief in social arrangements. He or she is surrounded by people in the holiday season and anything else appears both perverse and dangerous, a threat to life, society and the individual. But what of the loneliness of the crowd? Of never being able to express to others what is inside, or to feel a true companionship? Such feelings are buried and displaced onto the Christmas suicide in a convenient fashion.

By all means, think of those that are not as lucky as you in Christmas time. Empathise with the less fortunate and the lonely. However, do pay attention to the differences between cultural myths and prosaic realities. When you are enjoying time with the family and friends, pause to think how much you are the real, happy you and how much you are simply a character in a story about Christmas and its insiders and outsiders.

Cat Psychology: Performing Strays in Abu Dhabi

26.11.2021

They slink away. They ignore you. They seem thoroughly unimpressed with your presence. This is the typical cat on the street in England.

Although I’ve never really been permitted to have a pet, I have done a bit of light reading on the subject of cat psychology, part of my general interest in our animal sisters and brothers and their minds. I used to try and blink at them on the streets as I understood this was a form of greeting with them. However, I never got much of a response. The English cat is highly anti-social.

However, compare the stray cat in Abu Dhabi with our native species. Once beloved pets, these animals had been callously left behind in the country when the ex-pats found their visas or their appetite for the country had run out.

These cats would follow me around, meowing pathetically for my attention. One would find them wandering around by themselves or in packs of five or six. They looked visibly malnourished, although kind people would leave out food for them. They would stare at me, with a deep longing in their eyes.

On one occasion, I found that one of these stray cats had ambushed a small family gathering in the park in front of the apartment I was at. It was actively performing for the delight of two young children. This black and white creature was playing dead, lying on its back with its paws up in the air, listening to the children’s squeals of delight.

These stray cats, once used to receiving human love and an audience, now craved an audience of humans. They would actively seek out an opportunity to perform and to receive some kind of acknowledgement from human beings. Those that had once given them food, shelter, nourishment, care, love.

The cat, seemingly so aloof in England, seems to be a slave of love, just as we are. This sheds light on a mammalian need for affection as well as the dynamics of inter-species connection. To me, the observation also suggests the roots of the need to perform for an audience. Perhaps, the performer is a being that has been starved of affection, or who has the greatest hunger for it. When the cat has companionship and the treasures that go with it, they don’t feel a need to perform for strangers. However, when this sense of society is gone, then an evolutionary instinct seems to kick in and drives the behaviour of the mammalian mind to seek out strangers, and with them, sympathy and the formation of potential relationships. Really, I think, our mind is controlled by our circumstances, especially our circumstances of love. And could this be what is foundational for all our cultural endeavours which seek to find affection from strangers, such as acting, painting, making music and writing?

When are we intimate with others?

Being intimate with someone in a conversation is a deeply moving and lasting experience. We feel that we have been fully understood for once, in a world where we are largely misunderstood. Swirling, cascading feelings of closeness, belonging, connection, satisfaction. The mind is flooded with good chemicals. We feel refreshed, renewed… more human. But, at the end of the day, when you review your conversations with others – if, like me, you do – do you remember feeling really intimate with another person? Take today for example. Most of the things I talked about with family members were practical and tied to daily concerns. When is it, exactly, that we are intimate? Even when we are with our closest friends, family or significant others, intimate conversations do not happen all the time. They are reserved for special occasions. As a young man in search of love, and as a writer and a human, I think the quest for intimacy and someone to have it with is one of the key quests of my life, if it is not the only one. Such is the importance and relevance of this topic: the conditions of intimacy. That experience of being fully understood which is apart from our normal, transactional conversations.

Having intimacy depends on both sides of a conversation. There has to be a type of perfect reciprocity which is rare in life, since we are all usually in a different head space at different times. For intimacy to occur, one has to be receptive and so does the other. One has to let down one’s guard, so does the other. One has to be willing to confide and think deeply, and so does the other. Such conditions seem to require the apparatus for serious thinking: time, relaxation, privacy, lack of distractions, a strong feeling in the mind, absolute sociability, the support of a strong and long-lasting relationship.

Yet there are also exceptions. Sometimes, one is most intimate with strangers. I believe there is a psychological term for this, when one opens up to someone one doesn’t know. I forget it for the moment. Perhaps this form of intimacy is even more psychologically interesting than the more conventional form. Is it based on a type of daring? Or does it seek to free itself from the burdensome judgement of people we have known for an age? Is it a more liberating and productive form of intimacy in building relationships?

What does it say about the human condition that we don’t have intimacy always? Perhaps we cannot trust all the time, and perhaps this is natural, given what other human beings can be like. Perhaps we wear armour for most of the days of our lives, an impenetrable skin which does not let others inside or for us to go outside of ourselves and live in an other for a while. If connection is so energy sapping and such a leap and expenditure of trust and risk, such an invitation for potential misunderstanding or even hurt, then intimacy may be the rare and choice fruit of our lives. We are not always fully understood. Which is why intimacy is so special and fulfilling. Yet one imagines a world where we can all be intimate with each other, fully understood. Perhaps this is the ultimate, if not expressed and recognised, goal of the human condition. To be fully, finally, understood.