“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!
“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.
తెలుగు కథ అనగానే నాకు చదవాలంటే భయం. ఎందుకంటే, ఎంతసేపు బరువయిన పాత్రలు, సంభాషణలు పలికిద్దామనే తాపత్రయమే తప్ప, అసలు ఈ కథని ఒక సామన్యుడు (నేననుకునే సామాన్యుడికి తెలుగు బాగ చదవటం, వ్రాయటం మరియు అర్థం చేసుకోవటం మాత్రమే వచ్చు సుమండీ, వాడికి తెలుగులో ఎమ్మేలు, పీహెచ్డీలు ఉండవు) చదువుతాడా లేదా అన్న ఆలోచనలు కనపడవు.
క్షమించాలి, దయచేసి కథా రచయితలు కథ, వస్తువు, కథనం, విశ్లేషణ, భావుకత లాంటి బరువయిన పదాల ఊబి లోంచి బయట పడ్డట్టయితే, సామాన్యుల నుంచి అసామాన్యుల వరకు చదవగలుగుతారు.
నేను కథ లోతు పాతులకు వెళ్ళ దలచుకోలేదు. ఎంచేతంటే, ఈ కథ పైన ఉదహరించిన వాటికి అతీతమేమీ కాదు. బహుశ రచయిత కూడా అదే ఊబిలో కొట్టుకుపోతున్నాడేమో అనిపిస్తోంది.
ఈ సామాన్యుడి అభిప్రాయం తప్పనిపిస్తే, దులిపేసుకోండి. విషయముందనిపిస్తే, గ్రహించగలరు!
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.
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).
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?
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.
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Bh Kameswara Rao అభిప్రాయం:
07/27/2007 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!
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి విప్లవ్ అభిప్రాయం:
07/27/2007 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
ఇద్దరు దుర్మార్గులు గురించి శ్రీనివాస్ అభిప్రాయం:
07/27/2007 5:51 am
తెలుగు కథ అనగానే నాకు చదవాలంటే భయం. ఎందుకంటే, ఎంతసేపు బరువయిన పాత్రలు, సంభాషణలు పలికిద్దామనే తాపత్రయమే తప్ప, అసలు ఈ కథని ఒక సామన్యుడు (నేననుకునే సామాన్యుడికి తెలుగు బాగ చదవటం, వ్రాయటం మరియు అర్థం చేసుకోవటం మాత్రమే వచ్చు సుమండీ, వాడికి తెలుగులో ఎమ్మేలు, పీహెచ్డీలు ఉండవు) చదువుతాడా లేదా అన్న ఆలోచనలు కనపడవు.
క్షమించాలి, దయచేసి కథా రచయితలు కథ, వస్తువు, కథనం, విశ్లేషణ, భావుకత లాంటి బరువయిన పదాల ఊబి లోంచి బయట పడ్డట్టయితే, సామాన్యుల నుంచి అసామాన్యుల వరకు చదవగలుగుతారు.
నేను కథ లోతు పాతులకు వెళ్ళ దలచుకోలేదు. ఎంచేతంటే, ఈ కథ పైన ఉదహరించిన వాటికి అతీతమేమీ కాదు. బహుశ రచయిత కూడా అదే ఊబిలో కొట్టుకుపోతున్నాడేమో అనిపిస్తోంది.
ఈ సామాన్యుడి అభిప్రాయం తప్పనిపిస్తే, దులిపేసుకోండి. విషయముందనిపిస్తే, గ్రహించగలరు!
–వికటకవి
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
07/26/2007 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.
రెండు కవితలు గురించి Prasuna అభిప్రాయం:
07/25/2007 4:49 pm
ఎగురుతూ ఎగురుతూ ఉంటే వాన మబ్బు మీదకొచ్చినట్టుంది.
చాలా బాగున్నాయి.
రెండు మౌనాల మధ్య గురించి Murthy Akella అభిప్రాయం:
07/25/2007 3:36 am
సరదాగా చదువుకోడానికి బాగుంది, ఇంట్లో గొడవలు ఇలా ముగిస్తేనే బాగుంటుంది. కథ చదివేక చిన్న చిర్నవ్వు.
త్రిల్ గురించి Sunitha అభిప్రాయం:
07/24/2007 4:53 pm
I couldn’t understand what the author wanted to convey.
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి viplav అభిప్రాయం:
07/24/2007 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
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Dr. Rajeshwar Mittapalli అభిప్రాయం:
07/23/2007 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?
Ra.Vi.Sastri’s ‘A Man of No Consequence’ (alpajIvi) గురించి Dr. V. Rajasekhar అభిప్రాయం:
07/23/2007 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.