Skip to main content

Hegelian Dialectic as an instrument of social engineering

After long I return to western philosophers (staple of my early works), for I accidentally stumbled upon a hitherto unexplored interpretation of philosopher Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s famous dialectic philosophy. The man is long dead, but his philosophical ground sprouted thoughts that stormed the world.  Karl Marx, the most influential thinker of modern times, was inspired by Hegel. 

Hegelian Dialectic Explained

So, the Hegel’s dialectic philosophy is about three stages of development:

Thesis + Anti-thesis = Synthesis

This leads to diametrically-opposite interpretations,
  1. Sanction of status-quo (present being considered as synthesis)
  2. Revolution against status-quo (present being interpreted as thesis, to which anti-thesis is legitimate reaction).

On the surface this appears to be a discovery tool: trying to make sense of history using these categories.

For example: Capitalism (thesis) + Communism (anti-thesis) = Mixed economy (synthesis)

Not so with Karl Marx who famously quipped: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” Hegel supported the German monarchy as the culmination of all past, thus forming the synthesis. Marx, however, arrived at a radically different position wherein Monarchy (status-quo) represents thesis and thus an anti-thesis (revolution) is in order for reaching the end-state of classless society (termed dictatorship of the proletariat).

Sample the image that served as the springboard to my thoughts that follow:


A tool of Social Engineering

The thinking mind writes without the slightest clue as to how those thoughts will be used by future thinkers. Hegelian Dialectic – in the hands of social engineers – wasn’t just a lens to understand history; it transformed into a formula to shape future!

To achieve a desired societal goal (synthesis), all that social engineers need to do is to forcefully implant a suitable anti-thesis on the society that accomplishes the required change. To increase governmental reach, it is imperative that citizen-to-citizen bonds are weakened, so that all citizens depend on the state out of necessity.
Inter-caste amity is a check to government influence, for people will try to resolve disputes between themselves without involving government. How can it be broken?

Casteist people (thesis) + Overenthusiastic reservation policies (anti-thesis) = Decrease in intra-caste amity (synthesis)

The deception above is in that not all people are casteist, and not all casteist people have power to dominate those below them. And that many people from so-called lower castes are powerful in their own right. But the blanket application of law which places all people from certain upper castes as discriminators while privileging certain lower castes as victims irrespective of their individual position in the spectrum of power. Many castes now fight aggressively to be considered “lower caste” to extract reservation benefits, instead of uplifting themselves by their social capital. Result: increased dependency on government as final arbiter of their problems, instead of resolving them between themselves.

Family has been the favorite punching bag of Marxists (and thus feminists who are its branch), many of whom scoff at it as a patriarchal construct. Feminists think marriage is the fountainhead of all female oppression, and thus women must refuse to get married. That’s not so easy, so what do they do:

Abusive husbands (thesis) + Draconian laws against men (anti-thesis) = Breakdown of families (synthesis)

The loophole here is that while not all husbands are abusive, the draconian laws always default to presumption of men’s guilt and their innocence is of little consequence in saving them from harassment by government machinery. Harassing women was never outside the ambit of legal retribution, though sometimes, due to inadequate incriminating evidence some men had to be acquitted. But the blatant inversion has made it legally-safe for wives to abuse their husbands. Why, Domestic Violence against men is not even legally recognized in India today! So much for the show of achieving gender equality through laws! Result: in a land where divorce was once considered a taboo, divorce rates are rising in huge numbers.

Glimpses of Future: Trends in US

Let’s shine the spotlight on US now.

The tech industry prefers to minimize governmental interference in their daily operations; something had to be done to overcome their resistance without betraying a high-handed intention. Enter the diversity laws.

Merit-based white hegemony (thesis) + Powerful Diversity Laws (anti-thesis) = Erosion of intra-industry trust (synthesis)

Companies are in a constant state of fear over the possibility of some disgruntled employee suing for them discrimination. Former Reddit CEO Ellen Pao had sued her ex-employer for gender discrimination, though unsuccessful, it really is a cause of concern that any slight felt by an employee (whether real or perceived) can potentially make the company run around courts. They key note here is that anyone opposing the overreach of diversity laws, is cowed down by allegations of misogyny, racism and white-supremacism.

While Indian laws have only partially succeeded in destroying the institution of family, partly due to cultural inertia, US, the feminist paradise, has made feminism the central organizing force of every initiative.

Libertine men (thesis) + imposition of child-support outside marriage (anti-thesis) = record rise of illegitimate children (synthesis)

The deception here, of course, is in that all women want to get married to the men with whom they have a child. What’s the use of marriage to women, when the social stigma on single-mother has been removed and the resources needed for child can forcibly be extracted from the man, irrespective of whether he conceded to having a child? Another straw-man is that since the man was involved too, he too must be held accountable; this misses the fact that whether or not to have child is unilaterally decided by woman and man has no say in it (especially since woman have unrestricted legal, safe access to abortion clinics). If 10% of women want to have babies outside of marriage, while 90% of men decide the same, 10% of women will have babies outside of marriage; correspondingly, if 90% of women and 10% of men want so, 90% of women will have babies outside marriage. At a public policy level, removing the stigma indirectly causes proliferation of problem and normalizes abnormality. Not convinced? One final example:

Homosexuals are targeted (thesis) + Propaganda, laws to overcome aversion (anti-thesis) = Subversion of normal behavior (synthesis)

To the extent that homosexual partnership has now been accorded the legal status of marriage! The deception here is that while it is wrong to discriminate against anybody based purely on their sexual-orientation, one cannot redefine the age-old institution of marriage to accommodate their fantasies. When two same-sex people can very well live together without any social stigma, where’s the need to push for their relationship to be legally recognized as marriage, particularly when marriage is considered a distinctly sacred bond and the proper place for raising children?

Notice that in all cases, there is a lightening rod (casteism, racism, misogyny) that quickly grounds any resistance successfully, without allowing the space for nuanced debate. A toxic element is thrown into the mix, which churns the desired outcome and nullifies resistance. George Orwell's 1984 wasn't a work of fiction, it was a blueprint of future!  


Popular posts from this blog

The concept of Dharma in Ramayana

The concept of Dharma is not adequately understood by Hindus themselves, not to mention others. Dharma is not a set of do’s and don’t’s or a simplistic evaluation of good and bad. It requires considerable intellectual exertion to even begin understanding Dharma, let alone mastering its use.

Is Dharma Translatable?
Few words of a language cannot be faithfully translated into another without injuring its meaning, context & spirit. English translations of Dharma are blurred and yield words like religion, sense of righteousness, discrimination between good and bad, morals and ethics or that which is lawful. All these fall short of fully grasping the essence of Dharma.
Every language has an ecosystem of words, categories and grammar which allow a user to stitch words together to maximum effect such that meaning permeates the text without necessarily being explicitly explained at each point. Sanskrit words such dharma, karma, sloka, mantra, guru etc., now incorporated in English, lose thei…

How Linguistic States strengthened Indian Unity

Be like a garland maker, O king; not like a charcoal burner.” --Mahabharata
[It asks the king to preserve and protect diversity, in a coherent way. The metaphor used is that of a garland, in which flowers of many colors and forms are strung together for a pleasing effect. The contrast is given against charcoal, which is the result of burning all kinds of wood and reducing diversity to homogeneous dead matter. The charcoal burner is reductionist and destroys diversity, whereas the garland maker celebrates diversity.]
Unification of Germany and Italy populated by similar people was achieved by huge armies spanning across decades. In sharp contrast, India under Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel managed to unite a much larger area divided by culture & languages within few years.
The European experience where new nations were carved over little differences in identity, made the Indian experiment appear poised for a breakup sooner than later. Yet, India managed to stay united though the journey wa…

Chetan Bhagat : His Literary Style and Criticism

Chetan Bhagat’s (CB) recent column created a furore, chiefly because of his audacity to speak for Muslim community and what many people conflate with his support for Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial ambitions.  
But what interested me most - and what this post would focus on - is questioning of his literary merit (or lack of it). Many journalists ridicule CB’s style of writing and his oversimplistic portrayals of characters sans nuance or sophistication. But I suspect this has more to do with the fact that his readers alone far outnumber the combined readers of many journalists - a point that many don’t appear capable of digesting.
No takers for layman’s language!
When Tulsidas rewrote Ramayana in Avadhi (a local contemporary dialect then), many conservative sections of society came down heavily upon him for defiling the sanctity of a much revered epic (originally written in Sanskrit). When Quran was first translated in Urdu (by Shah Abdul Qadir in 1798), it faced intense opposition by …