Debunking the 'community mindset'

I’m sure it’s been said many a time before, but it struck me today, while watching an episode of the American sitcom Girlfriends, how damaging and hypocritical the ‘community’ mindset is for the protection of women (among other issues). Advocates for this mindset (such as my father) essentially consider ‘the group’ and ‘being part of the group’ (whichever group that might be) as much preferable to an ‘individualistic’ outlook or society. The ‘community’ mindset is apparently better because when you’re part of a group, you all support each other, and it’s a huge, selfless love-in.

This is, of course, so breathtakingly deluded I don’t even know where to start. I couldn’t help thinking to myself that the kind of people who are communitarians often tend to be Indians, Africans, Arabs, Chinese etc... The list goes on (I’m focussing on Indians myself, whether Indian Indian or British Indian, because that’s where my experience lies). In many cases, one will often find that the defenders of this sort of mentality are also usually men. The ‘older generation’ in general, tend to be vocal supporters of it (I’m thinking of those sections of Indian families that are usually in the 40+ group, though there are exceptions).

Now, I feel it necessary to run through the positive aspects of being in a group. To avoid the ‘racialising’ of this, I’m not talking about being in any one group in particular; this is a one-list-fits-all deal. So:

1) You have a strong and established support network.

2) An overarching sense of identity is established (you are not just yourself, but you also become yourself as part of something bigger, which is of course irresistible to us humans, as social animals).

3) Er... that’s it.

It seems rather unfair to list only two positive things, but looking closely at them shows that they encapsulate everything good about being part of a group. I’m not going to break those points down, because I don’t think there’s any real need for anyone with half a brain.

So now let’s consider how and why those two things might fail, or turn out to be a load of old tripe.

1) Society is neither equal, nor fair (a lot of the time). Cordoning yourself off in a little section of it, screaming ‘THIS IS WHERE I BELONG!’ sadly does not change that fact.

2) Er... that’s it.

In just about every country in the world, a small and powerful assortment of people is in charge. The reasons for their being in charge will vary from place to place, (wealth/popularity/skill/knowledge/ancestry). Nonetheless, the overall list of reasons will always be applicable, and more often than not, it will involve the first two and/or the very last, reasons. This is the way it is the world over – wealth, popularity (usually beautified as ‘social standing’ or, more honestly, ‘contacts’) and ancestry are what rule the world. THE WORLD.

So what in hell makes you think that your ‘group’ is going to be immune to this? In every group too, there is a particular ‘elite’ of people who look out for the reputation of the group above all else, and when individuals show themselves to be human, they will be sorry. It’s dark, but it’s true, and it’s one of the things humankind routinely tries to ignore about itself wherever possible. What comes to mind in particular here is France’s myth of nationhood, developed after World War II. De Gaulle is a national hero even today, viewed as a father of the country almost.

Yet in reality, the support for the Resistance was scant and the collaborationist Vichy regime was not the hated oppression that people like to imagine today. Apparently, many regular French people adopted a ‘wait and see’ attitude during wartime, which didn’t really surprise me that much. Though we try to reduce history to individuals (thereby exonerating ourselves completely), ‘the group’ is much more responsible than anybody likes to admit.

To finally make my point about the protection of women, I’ll use a famous ‘historical’ example from India – that of Draupadi, the wife of the 5 Pandavas, who was gambled away in a game of dice. The man who ‘won’ her, their cousin Duryodhana, claimed the right to disrobe her in public. By a convenient religious miracle, he didn’t succeed; however, all those seated in the gambling hall were guilty of looking on and doing nothing, as Bhishma Pitama (a prominent elder of the clan) would regretfully observe later.

Not much has changed. We continue to ignore the fact that ‘the group’ wants to have its cake, and eat it too. It wants to benefit from the advantage of having a collective of individuals, without actually making them equal. When ugly issues arise – child abuse, domestic violence, incest – more often than not, people will be rejected instead of receiving the support they might expect, because at the end of the day, individuals’ problems are a PR disaster. Quarantine off the infection, and leave the infected part to moulder!