Op-ed
Since my political leaning has always tilted to the right I have always advocated, by default, "family values" and its critical role in society. However now I'm quite convinced actually the moral degeneration of society is nothing more than fretting on the part of uber-conservative hypocrites. First off I think that the "ideal" of the happy couply with 2.1 children in the suburbs is too dull to wish it on everybody. I personally believe that diversity of living arrangements and family types actually makes for a healthier society in that the freedom of choice makes for a more dynamic life.
However the nuclear family is a failed archetype in that the intense parental-child bond as expected from that relationship is an anamoly from historical precedent. The parent is meant not only to serve the offspring but fufill all functions, which would otherwise have been ameliorated by the extended family. However despite this intensive investment there is no visible payoof since in old age, when one needs to rely more than ever on one's family, parents are expected to live alone and enjoy their "independence" as arthritic 60 year olds. There is no apparent logic in the family ideal being propagated by arch-conservatives and if anything the Asian model of several generations under one roof is more apt for our time.
This is a traditional value worth preserving and encouraging throughout society since it is compassionate, logical and has the unintended consequence of efficiently strengthening communal ties & individual liberties since families serve as the primary care provider as opposed to the state.
What I think people have to learn is that the nationstate only serves as the preserver, guardian and arbiter since other wise diseconomies of scale starts to set in. A centralised state that regulates every function stifles individualism and gradually elimiinates the chaos factor that leads to human dynamism. A certain leeway and control has to be returned to the local communities and ultimately for the individual in order for the latter to once again feel that "he is governing instead of being governed".
On my daily commute I took up reading Bertrand Russel's treatise "Authority and the Individual" and I was surprised the extent to which my ideas were in accord with his own. I believe that federalism alone is the only political force which can serve as an effective counteragent to steeping bureacracy and state control in that a democracy of twenty million citizens will always fail to clearly represent anyone save for an entrenched elite.
India is a very good example of how far the local village panchyat (council) has gone to empower villagers in shaping their own lives. The only hindrance is that these panchyat are notoriously caste-ridden and rural India needs external intervention to dissolve these barriers. Thus the Indian state can serve a critical role not by governing the villagers but by ensuring that their political interaction proceeds along the basis as determined by Indian values and the constitution.
Furthermore the preservation of the rural communities is critical in preserving national culture in a globalising world. The cultural trend in urban regions is for mutual acculturalisation, immigration, pigdinism (whereby different dialects are used and words borrowed from all languages) and for cosmopolitanism. However time the indigenous culture will have been suffused with foreign influences so as to be removed entirely from its national landscape. It is only the rural communities that can offer the stalwart purity of language, culture and people thereby preserving, and gradually modernising, the traditional national values which will strengthen global cultural diversity. I may not have followed Gandhi and indeed actively resent his opposition towards industrialisation however I do agree with his firm stance on preventing mass urbanisation. Suburbs, the "gated communities" responsible for sprawl and most of the population concentration in urban regions, in effect wastefully simulate the very environment and condition of the villages that our ancestors had migrated from. Continuity of historic settlements and ancestral affiliations are just as important in this modern era as in ages past and labour mobility should only be encouraged to ameliorate shortages whereas capital flows will be able to take advantage of the differing regional profiles to optimise national production and consumption.
Zachary Latif 09:45 |
