Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi)
Inferiority, Individual Psychology and Cultural Determinism: An ‘Indian Complex’ in Ra.Vi.Sastri’s A Man of No Consequence
Alpajeevi [A Man of No Consequence] is based on Adler’s theory of Inferiority Complex. According to this theory inferiority complex sets in during one’s childhood itself, and after coming of age it leads to abnormal behaviour. Adler theorized that the influence of the environment, especially one’s family environment during the childhood years, plays a crucial role in moulding human behaviour. He suggested that in course of one’s later life if a traumatic event takes place, it brings back to memory the childhood experience and enables one to fight inferiority complex by bringing about a clear understanding. The insignificant man of this novel, Subbaiah, has been created following the principle of inferiority complex. His getting caught in a difficult situation, his extricating himself from it, and his gaining a hitherto unexperienced self-confidence—these in short form the crux of the story. — R.S. Sudarshanam [1]
I wanted to reserve some sympathy for the clerk [the protagonist] when I started writing the novel. But by the time I reached its end I lost much of my sympathy for him. I don’t know why it happened like that. … I was surprised when Bharati came forward to serialize the novel. I was ashamed of and irritated with the idea of the novel appearing under my own name, and not pseudonymously. I don’t use a pseudonym any more. The shame too is gone. But the irritation remained. — Ra.Vi.Sastri [2]
Rachakonda Viswanatha Sastri, better known to the Telugu literary world as Ra.Vi.Sastri, started his literary career early in life, by publishing short stories during his college days. He has to his credit more than sixty short stories of extraordinary literary merit. Alpajeevi (or A Man of No Consequence in English translation) was one of his very few completed novels. It was serialized in the literary periodical Bharati from January 1953 to April 1953. Bharati was a prestigious journal of that era and writers often established their reputation by publishing short stories/novels in it. Thus with the publication of Alpajeevi in Bharati Ra.Vi.Sastri arrived on the main stage of Telugu literature and remained there till his death in 1993. Alpajeevi, together with Buchibabu’s Chivaraku Migiledi (That Which Remains at the End), heralded modernism in Telugu fiction by lending it a new psychological depth. Prior to their publication Telugu novels tended to be patently romantic in orientation and thus hardly served the purpose of truth—psychological or social.
The protagonist of A Man of No Consequence has been diagnosed by critics as suffering from Inferiority Complex. It might help to clearly understand here what ‘inferiority complex’ primarily signifies. The term was originated by Alfred Adler, the onetime disciple of Sigmund Freud and the founder of Individual Psychology. He explains in an oft-quoted passage: “The feeling of inferiority rules the mental life and can be clearly recognized in the sense of incompleteness and un-fulfillment, and in the uninterrupted struggle both of individuals and humanity.”[3] Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary simplifies it and defines inferiority complex as “an acute sense of personal inferiority often resulting either in timidity or through overcompensation in exaggerated aggressiveness.” It is clear from these definitions that inferiority complex is basically the feeling on the part of an individual that he is inferior to others in some way. This feeling could be a result of a real inferiority in the person, such as the one stemming from an organic deformity, but most often it is purely imaginary. This feeling lies in the unconscious and directs the course of the individual’s behaviour. Inferiority feeling could sometimes motivate one to achieve spectacular success but when it acts as a disincentive, one would feel greatly discouraged and retreat from the difficulties and challenges posed by life. Adler proposes two types of inferiority feeling—‘primary’ and ‘secondary.’ ‘Primary’ inferiority feeling is that which emanates from a child’s original experience of helplessness and dependence on the adults around him. ‘Secondary’ inferiority feeling has to do with an adult’s inability to reach his ‘fictional final goal’ or achieve the unrealistic subjective security. The actual or perceived distance from this exalted ideal would precipitate the original inferiority feeling. The subject then experiences a complex of these feelings as debilitating. The unconscious goal one sets to fight off the primary feeling of inferiority thus paradoxically leads to the secondary feeling of inferiority.
Subbaiah is an inferiorized and marginalized individual. His suffering has been realistically, yet artistically, portrayed in A Man of No Consequence. The beginning of the novel itself—the very first passage—sets the tone:
“Subbaiah is not good-looking.”
That is Subbaiah’s opinion.
“Subbaiah is just plain no good.”
That too is Subbaiah’s opinion.
….
“Father is scared of mother.”
This is what his son Krishnudu has discovered.
“Subbaiah is very inefficient.”
This is the remark the head clerk in his office passes.
“Subbaiah is too timid.”
This is what many people say.[4]
This beginning unmistakably establishes the severity of the inferiority complex in the protagonist. His inferiority complex is however not the same as propounded by Adler. Society as a whole, and his own wife as well, regard Subbaiah as a feckless fellow. But in reality he is a law-abiding and god-fearing man, even if unabashedly pusillanimous. He works as a clerk in a government office. He is afraid of everything and everybody around him—his wife Savitri, his brother-in-law Venkat Rao, and even his colleagues at the office. He is afraid of even himself and is greatly surprised when he inadvertently makes (what to him looks like) a bold statement. Being such a timid man, he is not efficient as an office worker. He is very slow in disposing of the files entrusted to him. For this reason he is transferred finally to the Despatch Section which is considered to be a fit place for incompetent clerks like him.
Early enough in the novel, Ra.Vi.Sastri tells us about a couple of traumatic experiences that Subbaiah had gone through during his childhood. [1] Subbaiah’s mother passed away when he was a mere toddler. His father married again five years later. His stepmother was an uncouth woman and she used to beat him everyday. Luckily for Subbaiah this woman eloped with a neighbourhood gentleman within a year. [2] When Subbaiah was ten years old his father was attacked and savagely beaten by two unknown assailants. It has been suggested that these two incidents—the cruelty of his stepmother and the physical assault on his beloved father—are responsible for the sprouting and persistence of inferiority complex in Subbaiah. But there could be a host of other reasons as well. One of them seems to be the unequal power relations obtaining within the families of coastal Andhra Pradesh. In this region of Andhra Pradesh, possibly because of excessive feminization of society, especially among certain upper castes, women tend to be in command of family affairs, while men often play a subordinate role. Some of the important fictional works of the era, the ones that sought to depict social reality frankly and honestly and not advocate the so-called ‘women are the victims’ theory for the sake of being politically correct, bear out this truth beyond doubt. The women of these novels, who clearly lack in social concern and are openly money minded on top of it, often compel their men to sacrifice their individuality and that way prevent them from realising their potential as human beings and from fulfilling their social and moral obligations. In G.V. Krishna Rao’s Keelu Bommalu (Puppets), for example, the wealthy and well-respected village landlord Pullayya suffers a moral downfall unable to contend with his cantankerous wife Lakshmamma. Full twenty years later the situation did not change for the better for men. Thus in Vasireddy Sitadevi’s Matti Manishi (The Man of Soil) the manipulative and ambitious heroine, Varudhini, makes a virtual slave of her husband Venkatapathy by putting her considerable physical charms to good use, and renders her father-in-law Ooraboyina Sambaiah a pauper by appropriating his money and then investing it on highly risky ventures. She does not even hesitate to confer sexual favours on other men in the hope of furthering her business interests. In A Man of No Consequence too, like almost every other woman character, Subbaiah’s wife Savitri is of extremely malevolent disposition. She is given to habitually belittling him by dealing countless subtle insults for not being what she expected him to be. Subbaiah has learnt to accept without protest her constant and contemptuous dismissal of him as a man utterly unworthy of her love, and to automatically treat himself as inferior to her. Thus his powerlessness at home, traceable to cultural roots, too seems to contribute in no small measure to his inferiority complex.
Because of a disagreement over sharing bribe money between two senior clerks in the office, Subbaiah is transferred from the Despatch Section to the all-important Bills Section. Passing bills filed by the contractors is now the responsibility of Subbaiah. Any other clerk managing this section stands the possibility of making huge sums of money by accepting bribes from the contractors. But, being scared of the law, and indeed almost everything under the sun, Subbaiah cannot even visualize the possibility.
Savitri and her brother Venkat Rao are confirmed in their opinion that Subbaiah is ‘irredeemable’ and between the two of them they trivialize him to such an extent that, except as the wage-earner, his existence has no meaning for them. But when Venkat Rao comes to know that his brother-in-law is now the clerk-in-charge of the Bills Section, he persuades Subbaiah, pleading an urgent need for money, to accept a bribe of five hundred rupees from a contractor called Gavaraiah (incidentally, five hundred rupees was considered a large sum of money during the 1950s). The moment he has accepted the bribe money from Gavaraiah and handed it over to Venkat Rao, Subbaiah loses the peace of his mind and begins to feel depressed and disoriented. He is apprehensive, against all logic, that he might be exposed, arrested and thrown into jail!
Soon however the equations change once again at the office. Subbaiah is unceremoniously sent back to the Despatch Section. He has not cleared Gavaraiah’s bills yet, and Gavaraiah has thus not benefited in the least from bribing Subbaiah. He therefore insists, and not always politely, on Subbaiah’s returning the money. When Subbaiah in turn asks Venkat Rao to do so, this unscrupulous man dodges the question and instead suggests that he should find the courage to tell Gavaraiah that he would not return the money, come what may. Subbaiah is in a real fix, afraid of the consequences of Gavaraiah’s wrath on the one hand, and cursing his powerlessness to extract the money from Venkat Rao on the other. His helplessness and the irrational fear of losing his job, getting arrested, rendering his family destitute and above everything else the increasing severity and frequency of Gavaraiah’s threats subject him to an intense psychological conflict. He feels traumatized and rudely shaken by the inner turmoil. It is however not true, as has been erroneously suggested by critics, that the present trauma precipitates an already existing psychological condition in him. There seems to be a deep-seated negative personality trait, an inadequacy at the core of his being, that has rendered him feeble in spirit and mind so that he finds it impossible to act resolutely even when his interests are at stake. He has been, as adumbrated earlier, thoroughly inferiorized and marginalized by all concerned, even by the unidentifiable cultural forces, and consequently his personality and self-esteem have never properly developed. His suffering is therefore infinitely greater than that of a typical victim of inferiority complex in the West where the trauma one suffers is usually of a personal nature and not culturally determined. And most definitely this trauma does not visit one for being honest and law abiding, even if incompetent. Sadly for Subbaiah, he is slighted, humiliated, demeaned and judged as inefficient by almost everyone for no more ‘objectionable’ behaviour on his part than hesitating to do things that are potentially disturbing to him.
Like Subbaiah, the other important male characters of the novel too had gone through traumatic experiences early in their lives. For example, Venkat Rao was robbed of whatever material wealth he could have inherited from his spendthrift father by his own maternal uncle and a long-standing employee of his zamindari household, and Gavaraiah suffered the ignominy of his wife cheating on him. These experiences, devastating as they are, instead of psychologically destabilizing these two men, only transformed them into hardened individuals. Subbaiah’s experiences, naïve by comparison, have made him only a weakling and psychological wreck. There is thus certainly something innate, and something very ‘Indian’ in him that has subjected him to inferiority complex and made him the man he is—shy and submissive, weak and wavering, insecure and indecisive, timid and compliant, unsure of himself and uncertain in judgement, perennially plagued by doubts and fears, and generally lacking in initiative and drive.
Subbaiah is never completely relieved of his complex while it should be so in a textbook case of inferiority complex, on gaining knowledge of the underlying causes. He is not a wiser man for having gone through the recent traumatic experience either. He is intellectually and culturally too ill equipped to derive any benefit from it. For that reason, and for several other reasons, his creator Ra.Vi.Sastri himself finds it difficult to like him. He explains in the epilogue to the novel:
While writing the final parts of the novel I felt only disgust for Subbaiah. … I was confirmed in the belief that he was an out and out worthless nincompoop.
But—
I felt that gods, kings and writers should be noble and that they should show the path of righteousness to the posterity. Therefore, when I published the novel in book form I bestowed upon Subbaiah the faculty of soul-searching. He appears to acknowledge his wretchedness and mean spirit and take to the right path at the end. In the final analysis he might take to that path, or he might not. It is left to him.[5]
Subbaiah finds his deliverance from the current crisis—the need to repay Gavaraiah—not because of his own efforts, but because of a variety of forces working independently to help him out. Pothanna, the onetime all purpose man of Gavaraiah, who has some manifest courage and ready sympathy for Subbaiah and his family, boldly tells Gavaraiah’s man that Subbaiah would not be returning the money any longer. Blame it on his inferiority complex, but this is something Subbaiah has not been able to do in spite of his best efforts. Venkat Rao, who has drawn our ‘hero’ into the trouble in the first place and who currently lives with Gavaraiah’s estranged wife Ramayamma, threatens Gavaraiah that he would divulge the details of his failed marriage unless Subbaiah is left alone. Avadhani, Subbaiah’s colleague, promises Gavaraiah that he would pass his bills only if Subbaiah is not harassed. Above all, the beautiful school teacher Manorama, who unaccountably falls in love with Subbaiah and who happened to once live in the same town as Gavaraiah, pleads with him on Subbaiah’s behalf and even offers to make good his loss herself. Gavaraiah finally relents and returns the promissory note that he got Subbaiah to sign under duress.
Manorama enters Subbaiah’s beleaguered life like a breath of fresh air. The novelist does not tell us why she takes such a deep interest in him. Whenever a new character is introduced in his novels, it is Ra.Vi.Sastri’s practice to give a detailed background of that character. But in Manorama’s case he leaves it to the imagination of the readers. An atmosphere of mystery surrounds her. This being very uncharacteristic of Ra.Vi.Sastri’s style of writing fiction, R.S. Sudarshanam observes:
Ra.Vi.Sastri does not give any details about her [Manorama’s] past or about her family. There lies the beauty of the craftsmanship of the writer. He portrays her only as a human being who empathizes with another human being in trouble. It is not necessary to know her past.[6]
Manorama is fully aware of Subbaiah’s unenviable predicament arising out of both his short-term problems such as the ongoing conflict with Gavaraiah and the long term ones such as his incompatibility with his impolite wife and its adverse psychological impact on him. She understands that Subbaiah has been suffering from inferiority complex and because of that nobody takes him seriously, including himself. Nobody understands him; nobody empathizes with him; and nobody loves him. Subbaiah’s wife, children, relatives, colleagues (he has no friends at all) and everybody else in society regard him as a nonentity and unworthy of note. Only Manorama feels the urge to show some genuine concern for him, befriend him, and finally fall in love with him. Her love instills in him a modicum of confidence, although he continues to be beset with doubts and misgivings, and dogged by indecision and irrational fears.
Critics, including the perceptive R.S. Sudarshanam, have famously misread the novel and hastily concluded that Subbaiah finally overcomes his inferiority complex due primarily to Manorama’s love for him. They seem to have been misled by a passage occurring towards the end of the novel which suggests that Subbaiah experiences a dilemma between the shadows of the past that hold him back, and the light that beckons him towards the future.
With everyone, every minute, it has been “surrender, surrender” so far.
Up until this moment life has been spent like that—humbly, meanly, miserably, depravedly and pathetically.
That darkness has been holding him back.
This light has been propelling him forward. (189)
There is no gainsaying that Manorama’s love for him has a positive side to it, but to state that Subbaiah finally puts his complex behind him altogether and realizes his self-worth because of it would be largely incorrect. In all probability Subbaiah will continue with his vacillation, indecisiveness and unfounded fears because, among other things, he is a moral coward, and has been so all his life. This is best established by the fact that he was not averse to accepting the bribe per se, but was terrified of the legal consequences and job security concerns. Adler himself has theorized that inferiority complex resolves itself if the sufferer has a developed social interest.
If one has sufficiently sharpened one’s grasp for the connections within the unity of each individual, one will easily understand how the inferiority feeling presses constantly towards its own resolution. The value and significance of this resolution rest totally in the existence and the degree of social interest which at times more strongly, at times less so, determines the fate, the failure, or the possibility for happiness of a person.[7]
Subbaiah’s involvement in society is peripheral. He is, in fact, an escapist who instinctually avoids human contact, desperately tries to erect a psychological wall against the demands of community life and is deeply apprehensive about people—yes, including the kindly Manorama—who try to reach out to him. Given this state of mind, he cannot hope to achieve happiness in life since, according to Adler, “true happiness is inseparable from the feeling of giving” and—
… everyone who is deeply unhappy, the neurotic and the desolate person stem from among those who were deprived in their younger years of being able to develop the feeling of community, the courage, the optimism, and the self-confidence that comes directly from the sense of belonging. This sense of belonging that cannot be denied anyone, against which there are no arguments, can only be won by being involved, by cooperating, and experiencing, and by being useful to others. Out of this emerges a lasting, genuine feeling of worthiness.[8]
It is not surprising that Subbaiah has no idea of his worthiness. He does not hope to attain it. Moreover, the fertility of his imagination (which enables him to weave interesting stories about the people passing by his house) does not impart him social interest or the strength of mind to take on the world and face its challenges courageously. It only drags him into the abysmal depths of self-doubt. Ra.Vi.Sastri himself passes the final judgement on Subbaiah.
Cowardice and virtue are incompatible. Cowards cannot be virtuous people; they cannot stand up and be good. There is much guarantee for it.
To be virtuous one needs a mighty heart.[5]
Subbaiah obviously does not have a ‘mighty’ heart. He does not even feel motivated to overcome his sense of inferiority, leave alone strive for actualizing higher aims, which he has not set for himself in any case. He is doomed to live the life of a coward, in utter ignominy, Manorama or no Manorama.
Of the seven Ra.Vi.Sastri novels, finished or unfinished, A Man of No Consequence is easily the best in artistic terms as well as in terms of depicting psychological and social reality. There is a perfect integration of the theme, characters and narrative technique in it. The application of Adler’s theory of inferiority complex is certainly one of its strengths but Ra.Vi.Sastri has taken liberties with the theory. He used it only after his purpose and did not attempt a textbook demonstration of it. One might say that it is an ‘Indian’ or nativized version of the theory of inferiority complex which Ra.Vi.Sastri employs in this novel in order to enhance its artistic appeal. In the final analysis it would be better not to accord undue importance to this theory and its operation in the novel. Much of aesthetic value would emerge if the novel is studied on its own terms, as a work of art, and without elaborate reference to Adler and his theories.
Notes
- R.S. Sudarshanam,”sAhityaMlO dRkpathAlu” (Points of View in Literature) (1968; Vijayawada: Navodaya, 1982) pp 243-44.
- Ra.Vi.Sastri, “eMduku rAsAnu?” (Why did I Write), appended to alapjeevi (1954; Visakhapatnam: Rachakonda Prachuranalu, 2001) p 199
- Alfred Adler, Thinkexist.com, 25 May 2007
- Ra.Vi.Sastri, A Man of No Consequence, trans. Achanta Janakiram (Calcutta: Writers Workshop, 1994). Telugu original, alapjeevi (1954; Visakhapatnam: Rachakonda Prachuranalu, 2001)
- Ra.Vi.Sastri, “aakharnO maaTa” (epilogue), Alpajeevi (1954; Visakhapatnam: Rachakonda Prachuranalu, 2001) p191.
- R.S. Sudarshanam,”sAhityaMlO dRkpathAlu” (Points of View in Literature) (1968; Vijayawada: Navodaya, 1982) p 252
- Alfred Adler, “Advantages and Disadvantages of the Inferiority Feeling,” Superiority and Social Interest: A Collection of Later Writings (1964; New York:W.W. Norton, 1979) p 53.
- Alfred Adler, from a new translation of “Individual Psychology,” Einführung in die neuere Psychologie, 1926, in the AAISF/ATP Archives, 26 May 2007
కీలక పదాలు : రాచకొండ విశ్వనాథ శాస్త్రి, రావి శాస్త్రి, అల్పజీవి, రాజేశ్వర్ మిట్టపల్లి
Dr Christopher Rollason అభిప్రాయం:
July 4, 2007 7:00 am
This is a very interesting and informative article; esp. to those with no direct knowledge of Telugu. The Adler take seems very helpful.
It is indeed a piece of great interest, and a useful
contribution to the dialogue between Indian culture
and western psychoanalysis.
Prof G Damodar అభిప్రాయం:
July 6, 2007 2:30 am
The article highlights one of the important traits of personality …inferiority complex that sets in during one’s childhood itself for some, and later on for some adults. It very often leads to abnormal behaviour hindering one’s growth. Adler’s theory is very helpful in understandind human behaviour from this perspective. The insignificant man can become a VIP if he shuns his inferiority complex. Dr Rajeshwar’s article is insightful and very interesting.
Dr T.S.Chandra Mouli. అభిప్రాయం:
July 8, 2007 10:36 pm
This is a very interesting article. Dr Rajeshwar has made a significant contribution by providing new insights.He has aptly chosen the story written by Sri Ravi Sastry to highlight his views.
It is hoped that this article will be a precursor to more such novel approaches in analysing works of repute.
Dr. Avula Venkanna అభిప్రాయం:
July 9, 2007 10:20 pm
Dear Sir,
Your idea of translating very prominent writers of Telugu into English is splendid. once, to foreigners, India is the land of superstions, necromancy, sanyasis, etc. But today people like you made the people out of Asian continent realize what India is .This is very useful for the readers who don’t have direct connection with the Telugu literature. I, therefore, must not wait without congratulating your studious scholarship.
Gabriel vinodkumar dolla అభిప్రాయం:
July 12, 2007 5:39 am
This article is not only informative but also educating as it deals with one of the personalities traits i.e. inferiority complex with which many people suffer. Dr. Rajeshwar has done an excellent job by dealing with such an idea that makes all the readers think about themselves and he has done justice to the well reputed work of Ra.vi. Sastri’
Alpajeevi with his intellectuality and he wisely connected the Indian belief with the western psychoanalysis.Finally, I should say that Dr. rajeshwar has brought global glamour to the local Telugu Fioction.
Dr T. Ravichandran అభిప్రాయం:
July 13, 2007 5:07 am
My (limited) knowledge of Dr Rajeshwar is one that of an established critic and renowned scholar of Western Literature. It was a pleasant surprise to read through this article and learn that Dr Rajeshwar has good prowess in analyzing and interpreting (Baasha) Telegu Literature. His approach is positively deconstructive. First, he applies Adler’s theory of inferiority complex adequately to scrutinize the character of Subbaiah, comes out with new insights, and thus helps the reader to comprehend the character better. But later, he seeks to prove that even Adler’s theory is limited in dealing with the complex nature of Subbaiah and concludes that the aesthetic value of the novel emerges better when it is analysed in its own terms rather than giving undue importance to Adler’s theory. Quite an interesting article, indeed!
C.S.Rao అభిప్రాయం:
July 15, 2007 8:25 am
A story or a novel results from the creative imagination and craftsmanship of the writer.In the crucible of his artistic sensibility,the interplay of the inborn nature of characters ,and the events and circumstances to which they are subject fashions out their future developement ,and ,finally ,their denouement ,slowly moving coursed through artistic determinism.
The interpretation of novel by the author of the article is very heavily burdened with Adler’s Theory of Inferiority .An obsession is always disproportionate just as a reaction always tends to be extreme.The domain of art is not to be colonized by an extraneous theory.
The taste of the pudding is in the eating.This is how a story or novel is to be judged :Is it readable with intense interest again and again?
Do its characters elevate our understanding of life and its problems and challenges?Do they seem real,as real as people in flesh and blood,with a character and personality of their own?Does the book leave us with better taste and better accomodative spirit after reading it?Does it give artistic delight as we read it every time we read?
I do not understand when the writer of the article says,”There is thus certainly innate,and something very”Indian” in him that had subjected him to inferiority complex and made the man he is…….” and the sentence runs to great length with all the contemptible qualifiers that come handy. What does it mean,”something very “Indian”in him”?Don’t we find such people any where else in the world?
I am very shocked and pleased at the same time by Ra.Vi.Sastry’s honest confession :he says,”while writting the final parts of the novel I felt only disgust for Subbaiah.”A novelist never hates any one of his characters if they are very well drawn ,whether they are good or bad.Suppose a novelist has to draw a meanest character ,and if he draws him well in convincing terms ,there is an artistic beauty about him.We like the character.
Why should and how could a writer,the creator ,hate his own character unless he has drawn him incompetently,incoherently,
irrationally and inartistically?
Dr Sonba M Salve అభిప్రాయం:
July 17, 2007 2:10 am
This article is quite interesting as it shows one of the significant aspects of the bourgeois society of India. The style is simple and abundandantly clear. Dr Rajeshwar takes care of the international readesrship. Indeed, this article is creditable addition in his scholarly pursuits.
Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
July 17, 2007 9:47 am
This is in response to Mr. CS Rao. The Adlerian theory of ‘Inferiority Complex’ has been frequently referred to in the article only to prove that it is, in the end, inadequate to explain the complexity of the protagonist Subbaiah. It requires much more than a fashionable western psychological theory to make sense of this character. He begins to appear real to us only when he is viewed against the backdrop of his culture, one that seems to be governed by a set of values that are detrimental to hyper-sensitive individuals like himself. He falls far too short of the expectations of this culture, hence the intensity of his suffering. The phrase “something very ‘Indian’” has been used in the article in this context and primarily to mean the ‘discontents,’ such as they are, of this culture. Ra.Vi.Sastri should be complimented for bravely pointing out these shortcomings through Subbaiah, even if he has lost his sympathy for him halfway through. Writers are the conscience keepers of society and they very often provide the necessary corrective when things are not the way they should be. Alpajeevi would mean a lot more when looked at from this angle.
Dr. V. Rajasekhar అభిప్రాయం:
July 18, 2007 3:40 am
I find Dr. Rajeshwar’s analysis of Alpajeevi very interesting and enlightening. This article is perhaps the best in the entire Ra.Vi.Sastri critical corpus, among other things because of the detached perspective from which the novel has been studied.
Writers don’t always have to offer fictional ‘chicken soup’ to the troubled ‘souls.’ Being intellectuals who can see things which others can’t and professing a certain sense of social responsibility, they constitute the consciousness of society and constantly strive to improve it by fixing their creative focus on its dark spots. In the process they help the prevalence of a more equitable and egalitarian social order. Ra.Vi.Sastri wrote the way he did and shaped the ‘hero’ of Alpajeevi the way he did entirely because, as a writer, he was keenly aware of his responsibility to society. He was disenchanted with his character perhaps because he was annoyed with Subbaiah’s ready acquiesce to the cultural mores which sought to isolate and harass him, instead of fighting back.
Ra.Vi.Sastri can’t be faulted for being a critical insider and an eloquent commentator on issues affecting the society. A society which can’t criticize itself, through its writers and other spokespersons, and continually evolve into something better than it is at the moment, will cease to be dynamic, and worse still, it may even essentialize itself… Ra.Vi.Sastri did his bit to prevent this possibility for the Telugu society.
AMPASAYYA NAVEEN అభిప్రాయం:
July 19, 2007 3:56 am
MY OPINION ON RAJESHWAR’S ARTICLE
This is a very interesting and analytical article on Raavi Sastri’s novel – Alpajeevi.
Many critics including R.S.Sudershanam who have written article on Alpajeevi thought that this novel is a text book application of the theory of Inferiority Complex as put forward by Alfred Adler. But this article by Rajeshwar.M gives it a new dimension. He brings the cultural factors into focus which shaped the character of Subbaiah, the protagonist in Alpajeevi. Subbaiah’s wife Savithri, brother-in-law Venkat Rao are equally responsible for instilling inferiority complex in Subbaiah – that’s what Rajeshwar says in his article. He proves that this novel is not a text book application of Adler’s theory of Inferiority Complex.
Another interesting point realized by Rajeshwar is thought provoking. Many articles felt that at the end of the novel Subbaiah is got rid of inferiority complex because of Manorama’s love for him. Rajeshwar’s contention is that subbaiah will remain the same person in spite of Manorama falling in love with him, throws new light on the character of Subbaiah. I agree with Raeshwar when he says “He (Subbaiah) doomed to live the life of a coward, in utter ignominy, Manorama or no Manorama”. May be this is the reason why the author of the novel, Raavi Sastri said that he wanted to reserve some sympathy for the clerk ( Subbaiah ) when he started writing the novel. But by the time he reached its end he lost much of his sympathy for him. While writing the final parts of the novel, he felt only disgust for Subbaiah.
Thus Rajeshwar’s in depth article throws new light on the novel ‘Alpajeevi’.
- Ampasayya Naveen
కొడవళ్ళ హనుమంతరావు అభిప్రాయం:
July 21, 2007 12:09 am
Indian Complex – ఆధారం లేని సిద్ధాంతం
ఆసక్తి కలిగించిన వ్యాసమే కాని రాజేశ్వర్ గారితో నేను అంగీకరించే వాటికన్నా అంగికరించని విషయాలే ఎక్కువ వున్నాయి. సాహితీ విమర్శ కానీ, మానసిక విశ్లేషణ కానీ నా సబ్జక్ట్స్ కావు - నేను రాసేదానికి ఆధారం ఓ శనివారపు సాయంకాలపు చదువు వలన కలిగిన అవగాహన మాత్రమే. ముందుగా రాజేశ్వర్ గారన్న రెండు మూడు స్వల్ప విషయాలు:
“Alpajeevi, together with Buchibabu’s Chivaraku Migiledi (That Which Remains at the End), heralded modernism in Telugu fiction by lending it a new psychological depth. Prior to their publication Telugu novels tended to be patently romantic in orientation and thus hardly served the purpose of truth—psychological or social.”
“చివరకు మిగిలేది” 1946లో, “అల్పజీవి” 1956లో వచ్చాయి. వీటికి ముందర తెలుగు నవలోద్యానవనం మూడుఫువ్వులూ ఆరు కాయలుగా వికసించిందని ఎవరూ అనరు కాని అది బీటలు బారిన బీడు నేల మాత్రం కాదు. చలం రచనల్ని (మైదానం, 1926) వట్టి రోమాన్స్ అని కొట్టిపారేసినా, ఉన్నవ “మాలపల్లి” (1926), విశ్వనాథ “వేయిపడగలు” (1939), గోపీచంద్ “అసమర్థుని జీవయాత్ర” (1945), కొడవటిగంటి చదువు (1946), ఉప్పల “అతడు-ఆమె” (1950) – ఇవన్నీ “అల్పజీవి” కన్నా ముందర వచ్చినవే! అవేవీ “ఆధునికత”ని ఆవిష్కరించలేదనడం వాస్తవం కాదు. దాదాపు అదే కాలంలో వచ్చిన శ్రీదేవి “కాలాతీత వ్యక్తులు” (1958) కూడా చెప్పుకోదగ్గ నవల.
“The term [Inferiority Complex] was originated by Alfred Adler, the onetime disciple of Sigmund Freud and the founder of Individual Psychology.”
మనం “వేలు చీకడం లో సెక్స్ ఉందన్న” ఫ్రాయిడ్ సిద్ధాంతానికీ ప్రతి ఒక్కరి జీవితమూ ఆత్మన్యూనతతోనే మొదలవుతుందన్న ఆడ్లర్ సిద్ధాంతానికీ చాలా తేడా ఉంది. గత శతాబ్దపు మొదట్లో ప్రాచుర్యంలోకొచ్చిన “Psycho Analysis” శాస్త్రానికి ఆద్యుడైన Freudకి ఆడ్లర్ సహచరుడు కావచ్చు కాని అనుచరుడు మాత్రం కాదు. అలా అన్నవాళ్ళ పట్ల ఆడ్లర్ చాలా చిరాకుపడ్డాడు [1].
రాజేశ్వర్ గారు చెప్పే ముఖ్య విషయానికొద్దాం:
”[Subbayya’s] inferiority complex is however not the same as propounded by Adler. Society as a whole, and his own wife as well, regard Subbaiah as a feckless fellow. But in reality he is a law-abiding and god-fearing man, even if unabashedly pusillanimous.”
సుబ్బయకున్న ఆత్మన్యూనతకీ ఆడ్లర్ ప్రతిపాదించినదానికీ తేడా ఏమిటో వివరించలేదు. చుట్టూ వున్నవాళ్ళు అతన్ని తేలికగా చూసిన మాట నిజమేకాని, వాళ్ళలా చూడటానికి కారణం కేవలం అతని స్వభావం - వ్యక్తిత్వం లేని స్వభావం. ఆ స్వభావాన్ని మార్చడానికి వాళ్ళు ప్రయత్నించకపోగా దానిని మరింత తీవ్రం చేశారంటే ఒప్పుకోవచ్చుకాని, వాళ్ళ ప్రవర్తన అతని ఆత్మన్యూనతకి మూలకారణం గానీ ముఖ్యకారణం గానీ కాదు.
సుబ్బయ్య “ఒట్టి చచ్చు దద్దమ్మ” కావడానికి కారణం అతని జీవితంలో మాతృప్రేమ మృగ్యం కావడమే. తల్లి మరణం, సవతి తల్లి క్రూరత్వం అతన్ని తండ్రి ప్రేమించినా అతనూ సుబ్బయ్య సరిగా పెరిగి పెద్దయేలోగానే చనిపోవడం. వీటికితోడు, తండ్రిని కొట్టిన సంఘటన సుబ్బయ్య మనసులో చెరగని ముద్రవేసి, భయానికి కారణమయింది. ఇలా చూస్తే, సుబ్బయ్యకున్న ఆత్మన్యూనత ఆడ్లర్ చెప్పినదానికి చాలా దగ్గరగా ఉంది.
కోస్తా ప్రాంతాల్లో అగ్రకులాల్లో ఆడవాళ్ళకున్న ఆధిక్యత కి, అది నిజంగా ఉన్నా లేకపోయినా, ఈ వ్యాసంలో రాజేశ్వర్ అనవసరమైన ప్రాముఖ్యత కల్పించారు.
”Like Subbaiah, the other important male characters of the novel too had gone through traumatic experiences early in their lives. For example, Venkat Rao was robbed of whatever material wealth he could have inherited from his spendthrift father by his own maternal uncle and a long-standing employee of his zamindari household, and Gavaraiah suffered the ignominy of his wife cheating on him. These experiences, devastating as they are, instead of psychologically destabilizing these two men, only transformed them into hardened individuals. Subbaiah’s experiences, naïve by comparison, have made him only a weakling and psychological wreck. There is thus certainly something innate, and something very ‘Indian’ in him that has subjected him to inferiority complex and made him the man he is”
వెంకటరావు, గవరయ్య, సుబ్బయ్య – వీళ్ళ ముగ్గురి బాల్యం ఒకే విధంగా లేదు. చిన్నతనంలో పెరిగిన వాతావరణం ముఖ్యమైన పాత్ర వహిస్తుందన్నాడు ఆడ్లర్. గవరయ్య పేదవాడయినా, తండ్రి చిన్నతనంలో రంగూన్ పోయి తిరిగిరాకపోయినా, తల్లి గంగమ్మ కష్టపడి పోషించింది, చదివించింది. ప్రేమతో పెంచింది. ఇది మనిషి వ్యక్తిత్వం పెరగడానికి చాలా ముఖ్యమని ఆడ్లర్ చెప్పాడు. నవలలో వీళ్ళిదరి బాల్యంలో తేడా స్పష్టంగానే ఉంది. సుబ్బయ్య స్వభావానికి ప్రత్యేకంగా “భారతీయ”మైన సహజ కారణాలేమీ నాకు కనిపించడం లేదు.
“Critics, including the perceptive R.S. Sudarshanam, have famously misread the novel and hastily concluded that Subbaiah finally overcomes his inferiority complex due primarily to Manorama’s love for him.”
విమర్శకుల [3] గురించి అన్నది వాస్తవమే కాని, అది రాజేశ్వర్ గారి తీర్మానానికి గూడా వర్తిస్తుంది:
“In all probability Subbaiah will continue with his vacillation, indecisiveness and unfounded fears because, among other things, he is a moral coward, and has been so all his life.”
నాకు మాత్రం నవల ముగించేటప్పటికి సుబ్బయ్య ఏ దారిన వెళ్తాడో స్పష్టంగా తెలియలేదు. రావిశాస్త్రి కావాలనే అలా ముగించాడు. తన “ఆఖర్నో మాట”లో:
“ఈ నవల చివరి భాగాలు రాస్తున్నప్పుడు నాకు సుబ్బయ్యంటే అసహ్యం వేసింది. … అయితే, దేముళ్ళూ, రాజులూ, రచయితలూ మంచిగా ఉండాలనీ, సంతానానికి సన్మార్గం చూపించాలనీ విన్నాను. అందుచేత పత్రిక లోంచి పుస్తకంలోకి వచ్చినప్పుడు సుబ్బయ్యకీ ఆత్మ విమర్శనాజ్ఞానం కలిగింది. తన దుస్థితినీ దుర్బుద్ధినీ కొంతగా గుర్తుంచుకుని, మంచి మార్గాన వెళ్ళేవాళ్ళా కనిపిస్తాడు., నవల చివర్న. ఛివరకి అతనా దారంట వెళ్ళొచ్చు. మానొచ్చు. అతని యిష్టం.”
“In the final analysis it would be better not to accord undue importance to this theory and its operation in the novel. Much of aesthetic value would emerge if the novel is studied on its own terms, as a work of art, and without elaborate reference to Adler and his theories.”
లేని ప్రాధాన్యత ఇవ్వనవసరం లేదు కాని ఆడ్లర్ మన జీవితంలో ముఖ్యమైన సమస్యలన్నీ సమాజం, మనం చేసే పని, ప్రేమ - ఈ మూటితో ముడిపడి వున్నాయన్నాడు [2]. అది గుర్తుంచుకుంటే “అల్పజీవి” లో మరికొన్ని లోతులు కనిపించవచ్చు.
కొడవళ్ళ హనుమంతరావు
నోట్స్:
[1] “Although individual psychology had obviously diverged from psycho‐ analysis since Adler’s break in 1911, Adler continued to be incensed by popular references to his having once been a “disciple of Freud.” In 1928, when “The Neurotic Constitution” went into a fourth German edition, Adler took the occasion to publish his most explicit denial to date about their nine-year relationship as recounted by Freud in his 1914 monograph, “The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement.”
“Mr. Freud has bad luck with [the interpretation of] my spoken word…. My mild rejection, ‘it was no pleasure to stand in his shadow’—i.e., to be made an accomplice to all the absurdities of Freudianism, because I was a co-worker in the psychology of the neuroses—he at once interprets as a confession of my revolting vanity to put before unsuspecting readers. Since to date none of those who know wanted to admit this bad luck of their teacher—not mine, as is often erroneously maintained—I see myself forced to destroy the formation of a legend.”
From, “The Drive for Self: Alfred Adler and the Founding of Individual Psychology,” by Edward Hoffman, 1996. Page 214.
[2] “For a long time now I have been convinced that all the questions of life can be subordinated to the three major problems—the problems of communal life, of work, and of love. These three arise from the inseparable bond that of necessity links men together for association, for the provision of livelihood, and for the care of offspring.” From “The Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler: A Systematic Presentation in Selections from His Writings,” Book by Heinz L. Ansbacher, Rowena R. Ansbacher; Harper & Row, 1967. Page 131.
[3] కోడూరి శ్రీరామమూర్తి “తెలుగు నవలా సాహిత్యంలో మనో విశ్లేషణ” అనే మంచి పుస్తకం రాశారు. దాంట్లో “అల్పజీవి”ని ఆడ్లర్ సిద్ధాంత దృష్టితో పరిశిలించారు. “శత వసంత సాహితీ మంజీరాలు: వంద పుస్తకాలపై విశ్లేషణ,” లో అన్నపరెడ్డి వెంకటేశ్వరరెడ్డి గారు “అల్పజీవి” పై రాసిన వ్యాసం కూడా చదవదగ్గది.
Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
July 21, 2007 4:46 am
Let me respond to a few points raised by Sri Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao. The phrase “Indian Complex” was deliberately coined because I felt that Adler’s theory of “Inferiority Complex” did not fully explain the nature and the extent of Subbaiah’s suffering. As I suggest in my post of July 17, 2007 Subbaiah is better understood when his cultural context is objectively considered. His inferiority stems from his innate debilities and it is worsened by the unkind treatment meted out to him by the people around him. Yes, the ill-treatment of his stepmother and the cruelty his father suffered during his boyhood days too contribute to this scenario. I have never said they don’t. It is just that there are other reasons as well and that they are equally important.
I want Sri Hanumantha Rao to particularly note my wording — Telugu novels ‘tended to be’ patently romantic – and I am sure my caveat there is unmistakable. Yes, there had been very few isolated exceptions prior 1946 (the year of publication of Chivaraku Migiledi) and they too, in my opinion, do not fully qualify as novels dealing with the complex social and psychological reality of the Telugu people without an attempt at romanticizing and idealizing.
“The term [Inferiority Complex] was originated by Alfred Adler, the onetime disciple of Sigmund Freud and the founder of Individual Psychology.”
Adler was described this way in my article only to introduce him to the readers who might find it difficulty to relate to him. I think there is absolutely no need to go into how Adler viewed himself vis-à-vis Freud. In the popular psychological parlance he is always described as a renegade disciple of Freud.
Towards the end of his post Sri Hanumantha Rao seems to endorse the earlier critics’ reading of the novel by emphasizing the relevance of Adler’s theories to the analysis of Alpajeevi. No quarrel there, but let other factors, especially the cultural factors specific to India – more correctly to the Telugu society – be taken into account.
Lyla Yerneni అభిప్రాయం:
July 22, 2007 7:26 am
Rajeswar:
Since you are the one who coined the term ‘Indian Complex’
can you now define and explain it to us please.
So we can clearly understand what ‘Indian Complex’ primarily
signifies. Thank You.
Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
July 23, 2007 2:36 am
Lyla:
If you read this passage again, and again if necessary, you will understand what “Indian Complex” is.
He [Subbaiah] has been, as adumbrated earlier, thoroughly inferiorized and marginalized by all concerned, even by the unidentifiable cultural forces, and consequently his personality and self-esteem have never properly developed. His suffering is therefore infinitely greater than that of a typical victim of inferiority complex in the West where the trauma one suffers is usually of a personal nature and not culturally determined. And most definitely this trauma does not visit one for being honest and law abiding, even if incompetent. Sadly for Subbaiah, he is slighted, humiliated, demeaned and judged as inefficient by almost everyone for no more ‘objectionable’ behaviour on his part than hesitating to do things that are potentially disturbing to him.
Dr. V. Rajasekhar అభిప్రాయం:
July 23, 2007 8:36 am
Literary works are either established as classics or consigned to obscurity not by saying ‘goodie, goodie’ things about them year after year but by subjecting them to critical scrutiny — objective analysis and honest assessment of its merits and shortcomings — in the light of the ever accumulating knowledge in various fields. That way literary criticism becomes a scientific pursuit for all practical purposes. Dr. Rajeshwar is a very careful scholar and his scholarship is in evidence in this article. By putting Alpajeevi under the critical microscope afresh and by opening new avenues of analyzing and appreciating it he has helped consolidate its position as a literary classic.
This being the situation, I must admit I don’t find the tone and sweeping nature of Mr. Hanumantha Rao’s comments palatable at all. He seems to have formed his opinions on Dr. Rajeshwar’s article without giving it a serious reading. Had he taken the care to go through the piece, fully applying his mind, and stopped to ponder at every step, most of his doubts would have either not arisen at all, or would have been answered instantaneously.
Literary criticism should aim at clarifying things, not confusing them. In his short dissertation Mr. Hanumantha Rao has driven the discussion off course by nitpicking and by dwelling for the most part on minor points of detail and then by passing it off as literary criticism. In my considered opinion those who have not had the advantage of formal training in critical analysis of literary texts should try and desist the temptation of passing facile judgements on literary works, and even more importantly on the critical output of initiated and well established scholars; otherwise they would do a disservice to both literature and criticism. Literary criticism is best left to its practitioners, to those who have the credentials for it, just as medical practice is best left to those who have graduated in medicine.
Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
July 23, 2007 9:17 am
Lyla:
If that hasn’t helped, here is a brief explanation.
We don’t have political dictators in India but often enough society itself doubles as a dictator. If you deviate from the established social norms even in insignificant ways, you can be sure of having it pointed out to you day in and day out and that not just by those who mean something to you but sometimes even by perfect strangers. Curiously, these so-called norms are frequently detrimental to the long-term interests of society itself. For example, what sense do you make of a man who is considered inefficient for not becoming rich by corrupt means?
Initially one might resist this unwarranted inference but over time one learns to find peace by falling in line. Now apply this principle to Subbaiah. He already suffers, rather intensely, because of his inborn debilities, and the memory of disturbing childhood experiences. Call this ‘Inferiority Complex’ if you will. He is now matched with a nagging wife who seems to derive vicarious pleasure in insulting him, an exploitative brother-in-law who compels him to commit a white-collar crime and colleagues at the office who have only contempt for him. All these people are not in the least aware of what psychological injury they are inflicting on an honest citizen. On top of it they fault him for not upholding the established norms – of making money and providing for his family by corrupt means! Venkat Rao, Gavaraiah and his colleagues have taken advantage of these ‘permissive’ norms and provided for themselves and so they are considered efficient and even worthy of emulation; Subbaiah has not done it and so he is inefficient and unworthy of note.
The additional suffering that Subbaiah goes through as a result — the complex he has to contend with – don’t you think there is something specifically Indian about it? What’s wrong in calling it “Indian Complex” when it is so inalienably Indian, and when it helps us to understand a literary character better than we would otherwise?
viplav అభిప్రాయం:
July 24, 2007 1:56 pm
Dear Dr. Rajeshwar:
I too have trouble with this new term ‘Indian Complex’. I am afraid it can be cited (if developed further) as one of those that fall into a prejudicial terminology without substance or reason.
There were a few that used words on campus, all in jest(sometimes, not), such as ‘all gults are such and such’ or ‘all those who consume Idli & Sambar …(about tamils)’ which reminded me of those similar phrases denoting one or the caste in many cases in India. Later I heard a term that denoted ‘poor white trash’ complex describing people in rural white ‘mobile homes (that do not move) only’ neighborhoods; Klu Klux Klan had a similar bearing on those who might have felt morally otherwise but were compelled to go along with the rest of the socieity (there perhaps are more Subbaiah’s in any society or for that matter, there is a Subbaiah in every person; one duty of fiction might be to accentuate such character and alienate the traits to show the distinction). Subbaiah can be imagined in the deep south (Mississipi) who ‘knows’ the right and wrong and yet can be coaxed into following the weakness (social and self).
All these complex(es) apparantly can be attributed to a person first and then extrapolated to denote a group, to stereotype further. I think there is no place for such stereotypical, derogatory imagery or verbage to describe any cultural or otherwise reasons that cause a particular person to behave the way he/she does. These theories (about any higher level denomination that seeks to ascribe to others based on a single example, even in fiction) do not survive the test of time. Just as ‘Poor White Trash’ is a term detained to yesterday as the society gained more insight into it, and at a time such terms are going out of fashion, a stereotypical ‘Indian Complex’ can not have much credibility.
Adler theorized that the influence of the environment, especially one’s family environment during the childhood years, plays a crucial role in moulding human behaviour. He suggested that in course of one’s later life if a traumatic event takes place, it brings back to memory the childhood experience and enables one to fight inferiority complex by bringing about a clear understanding.
If that is what Adler theorized, that is happens perhaps not just with individual complex, but also with such terms as ‘Indian Complex’. Just as ‘hindoo rate of growth’ is debunked, and the same applies to such new terms; Interestingly, ‘Islamists’ and the way the West is portraying the religion to some extent would also follow the same path, may be at a much later day.
The author does have an important message in the end how ever and I would stick with the authors final words on this:
“In the final analysis it would be better not to accord undue importance to this theory and its operation in the novel. Much of aesthetic value would emerge if the novel is studied on its own terms, as a work of art, and without elaborate reference to Adler and his theories.”
Beyond this & unconnected to all of this, I also have trouble with Ra. Vi. Shastri’s disappointment.
I was ashamed of and irritated with the idea of the novel appearing under my own name, and not pseudonymously. I don’t use a pseudonym any more. The shame too is gone. But the irritation remained.
Can this be interpreted as Shastri’s inferiory complex falling into Adler’s definition where it can be fought back after some clear understanding?
Was Shastri a victim of the same Subbaiah sentiments, authors unlike Gods and Kings can not be that far out from their protagonists? I know many people who come to this site know Shastri well enough to say ‘No’ perhaps, but I question how well do they know him? Is there a ‘progressive writer complex’ where a writer who defines himself thusly feels and knows all too well about right from wrong about certain things but is utterly incapacitated with what they can do about it owing to societal norms/personal situations (any situation going back to the roaring 30s or the 70’s).
viplav
Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
July 26, 2007 9:01 pm
Viplav:
I am sure my comment dated July 23, 2007 already answers some of your doubts. There are just a couple of points I wish to go into here. The phrase “Indian Complex” was meant to describe a particular social phenomenon rather than to suggest anything sinister. I guess it hasn’t been understood in the spirit in which it has been used. But then shouldn’t we, the Telugu people, be critical of ourselves so that we are continually progressing? Shouldn’t we free ourselves from our sentiments and prejudices so that truth prevails and a better understanding of ourselves comes about?
Re stereotyping (I prefer the term ‘generalizing’ rather) is not acceptable where individualism prevails, where each individual is allowed to be what (s)he likes to be. But in India society has no respect for individual freedom. Sad but true. And then go back in time to the 1950s (i.e., the fictional time of Alpajeevi) when society was even more rigidly organized and by implication even more oppressive. Those of us who had the chance to escape this oppression for extended periods are in a way fortunate, but imagine the fate of the poor blokes who continue to be ground down by the social machine. Interestingly most of these ‘victims,’ like Subbaiah himself, are not even aware of their victimhood – they have learnt to accept it as something very natural.
Psychological theories depend on generalizing, for that matter theories in all branches of knowledge, even the ones in the sciences (for ex. There is greater incidence of prostrate cancer among European men than among Indian men) do so — and theories are meant to help us understand men and matter better. You can’t possibly study every Indian individually (not collectively) to make sense of what as a people they are, right? If a commonly observed behaviour pattern helps us understand a people in a better light, I don’t see anything wrong in making a fruitful use of it.
In saying what I have said above my intention was certainly not to initiate a new debate.
విప్లవ్ అభిప్రాయం:
July 27, 2007 3:10 pm
Dr Rajeshwar gaaru:
“The phrase “Indian Complex” was meant to describe a particular social phenomenon rather than to suggest anything sinister. I guess it hasn’t been understood in the spirit in which it has been used.”
Your addendum certainly helped. Thank you.
I accept it to the extent that a phrase “argumentative indian” is coined & used. Nothing more. Psychological connotations can be a bit more pronounced (and seen as sinister/derogatory), need better definitions, and more importantly careful interpretation, even if there is something to be understood.
There are many societies that evolve to a level of respecting ‘the Individual’ that can prematurely have many subbaiah-like characters (or the way he is seen by others). Anyway, in a narrow way - I accept your explanation; within the scope and time, I defer this to your call as a critic.
“But then shouldn’t we, the Telugu people, be critical of ourselves so that we are continually progressing?”
How come you did not call it a Telugu Complex?? which would have brought many other crabs out of their shells.
Thanks for the discussion -some people on Raccabanda are wondering if you can join them there. Folks over there might be interested further in your perspectives on other telugu fiction as well, apart from this topic.
Regards, Viplav
Bh Kameswara Rao అభిప్రాయం:
July 27, 2007 11:24 pm
Rajeswar garu,
“But in India society has no respect for individual freedom. Sad but true.”
Statements like these are not very scientific and are unnecessary in this kind of discussion. You have already made your point clear through your article and subsequent posts. I do agree with it. In India, individual has more bonding with society and thus has more social influence (both good and bad) compared to western culture. So naturally it took sometime for the western psychologists to understand and accept the social influence on a person. Alder’s theory falls short in explaining this very influence on Subbiah in the novel.
Actually Alder did a little better than Freud wrt the social influence by recognizing that the Masculine Protest has social origin.
Interestingly (rather ironically wrt Subbiah’s character ) , social responsibility becomes an important part of Alderian therapy for Inferiority complex!
C.S.Rao అభిప్రాయం:
October 25, 2007 6:41 pm
I felt bad as I read Dr.Rajasekhar’s comment on Sri.K.Hanumantha Rao’s opinion on Dr.Rajeswar’ article on Ra.vi.Sastry’s “A Man of No
Consequence.”
Is it not presumptious on anybody’s part to dismiss readers who have not devoted considerable time to study principles of literary criticism as part of their academic curriculum as an unqualified lot to form and express opinions on literary works?
Literary works are not written for trained critics ;they are essentially written for ordinary readers.So readers can read,form and express their opinions on what they read.Their opinions are not only relevant ,but important that way.No less a writer than Virginia Woolfe acknowledges ,with sincere and endearing humility and with no air of obnoxious condescension,the importance of the opinion of ordinary readers on works of literature in her article”How Should One Read a Book.” Readers’ opinions will slowly and imperceptibly leave their effect on writers and critics.Readers’ responses to literary works are by and large quite valid.Readers feel and express their opinions ,and critics give intellectual reasons for their critical evaluations.To deny ordinary readers a right to express their opinions on literary works they read is nothing short of unacceptable literary autocratism and disagreeable feudal exclusiveness.A critic will only systematize a human experience in intellectual terms,but the experience is well within the parameters of the natural competence of all people,including illeterate people. You read out two different pieces having literary quality ,even the illiterate man will tell you which is the better of the two. Saying that only trained critics should express opinions on works of literature is like saying that to decide whether a dish is delicious or not is best left to culinary experts,and not at all to eaters.
Lastly,I may ask Dr.Rajasekhar whether he has forgotten the title of the column in “eemaata” in which he is writting: it is “Readers’ Opinions” and not “critics opinions”.
C.S.Rao
కొడవళ్ళ హనుమంతరావు అభిప్రాయం:
November 8, 2007 5:36 pm
Literary Criticism and Scientific Pursuit
Thanks to CS Rao గారు for bringing my attention to Dr. V. Rajasekhar’s considered opinion which I had missed. I’ll not respond to Dr. Rajasekhar’s derisive comments on my opinion, but will counter his assumptions about literary criticism.
He said literary criticism is like a scientific pursuit. However, the scientific tradition I’m quite familiar with encourages anyone to question, irrespective of their academic qualifications.
Dr. Rajasekhar compares literary criticism to medicine arguing that just as we want only trained physicians to practice medicine, so shall only certified literary critics pass judgments on literature. I disagree.
I contend there’s a fundamental difference between science and literature. In principle, anyone can understand and enjoy a literary work, but the same cannot be said about papers in “The New England Journal of Medicine.” It’s because of this egalitarian nature, even ordinary readers with no special training have some opinions on literature. Just because they are not learned does not make them irrelevant.
The professional literary critic should not bemoan such a democratic impulse, as such participation is not only praise-worthy in the readers but also healthy for the critic’s discipline. A competent scholar will answer even a layman’s questions while only a condescending scholar will frown and question the layman’s credentials.
Kodavalla Hanumantha Rao
విప్లవ్ అభిప్రాయం:
November 9, 2007 11:55 am
“However, the scientific tradition I’m quite familiar with encourages anyone to question, irrespective of their academic qualifications.”
Socrates may have planned his own death to prove his point about this question.
to borrow some quotes!
case begin.
“What could Socrates have said or done than prompted a jury of 500 Athenians to send him to his death?”
“Growing to adulthood in this bastion of liberalism and democracy, Socrates somehow developed a set of values and beliefs that would put him at odds with most of his fellow Athenians. Socrates was not a democrat or an egalitarian. To him, the people should not be selfgoverning; they were like a herd of sheep that needed the direction of a wise shepherd. He denied that citizens had basic virtue necessary to nurture a good society, instead equating virtue with a knowledge unattainable by ordinary people. Striking at the heart of Athenian democracy, he contemptuously criticized the right of every citizen to speak in the Athenian assembly.”
end of case.
That may be why most of our surviving nation states are Republics rather than Democracies.
Well everyone! Reading Sri Kodavalla’s writing about Jim Gray is a waste of your time (for those who already read it, my sympathies). You would know more about Gray just by reading comments from self professed morons (who also happen to be people): “The “ET” took Lt Felix Moncla into custody in 1953 and still are holding him. If the “ET” took Grey into custody, we may not see him again until we get the nuclear war machine shut down.” (that is a direct quote from some fella on the web.).
I don’t have a single academic qualification to declare that Gray’s work is a basic waste of human mind. But I think I am right about that. See, the proof is there: did his work help him while he was lost? It had to be useless. And, you can’t convince me otherwise. Let us see if there is a “competant scholar” who will answer my question (how is Gray’s work useful when he found himself lost at sea!), because I am going to declare such a scholar as another wasteful existence, who should just take off after Gray and see it for himself (if Gray’s work will be useful in reaching a shore).
విప్లవ్