PHLOSOPHY OF COMMONISM

SOME IMPLICATIONS

 

Prof. Dr. G. C. NAYAK

 

            I advocate what I call philosophy of “Common-ism”. I must make it clear at the outset that Common-ism, of which I write here; has nothing to do with Communism propagated by Marx, Lenin and others. Common­ism, as envisaged by me, has evidently no connection with dialectical materialism, nor does it subscribe to Marxist ontology or any other form. Common-ism is a simple and a very straightforward doctrine which highlights the unique significance of the commonplace, the common man, the common articles of the world, the ordinary, the secular, and even the so-called unholy. It is anti-essentialist and anti-absolutist in its outlook, whereas communism has its origin and basis in the absolutist metaphysics of Hegel. Common-ism, therefore, needs to be clearly distinguished from Communism with which it may get confused.

 

            Whether one agrees with this philosophy or not, let us see what is being done, what is at issue, here. The distinction between the common and the un-common, the ordinary and extra-ordinary, the ignorant and the knowledgeable is acknowledged to be significant and useful at one level, in our ordinary parlance, while it is challenged at another level of thought. It is pointed out that the distinction as it is known to us is practically useful perhaps, but it does not hold good in all possible circumstances. A conceptual remapping is suggested where “uncom­mon” gets its requisite value in and through the “common”, the “extra­ordinary” gets its due recognition only in and through the “ordinary”.

 

            The distinction which has appeared or has been made to appear for some particular purpose to be a distinction in kind or even perhaps an absolute one is now seen to be simply pragmatic in its import, having no higher authenticity. Does it mean that this typical philosophical experi­mentation with ideas will make our ordinary distinctions vanish out of existence by a fiat or make the distinction somewhat blurred? Certainly not. It is meant to bring certain features to relief that were not prominent beforehand and to point out that these distinctions have only a limited use and are not sacrosanct in another plane of thought. It is a case of conceptual experiment, a conceptual exercise carried out with a pur­pose. The point which I drive at is as follows.

 

            Difference will persist between great and small, wise and ignorant, but this will be seen to be simply a functional difference without any rigidity or absolutistic bias. Viewed from this perspective we have to reassess the well-known distinctions such as “ignorant - wise”, “great - small”, “respectable - despicable”, etc. Once it is seen that there are no immutably fixed characteristics because of which one is to be honoured or dishonoured, importance attached to some as against others will be seen to be simply functional. This philosophy, if taken seriously, will bring about certain fundamental and revolutionary change in our outlook, in our thought-process as well as in the evaluation of persons and social institutions.

 

            It is likely to impel us to search for new values in the so-called insignificant things, the outcastes, the outmoded, the downtrodden and the neglected. Consequently we are likely to search for and develop a sense of respect for the so-called useless things or persons for some of their inherent qualities. The responsibility will lie on us, the so-called enlightened, for unfolding these inherent qualities in the ordinary objects or the unenlightened laity for the good of mankind. Nothing is absolutely useless or despicable.

 

            This, according to me, could also be regarded as the inherent import of the famous Vedantic statement, “Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma”. Importance can be attached to everything considering our practical needs as well as capacity which differ from man to man and are likely to change according to circumstances. Here is a proposal for the replacement of a static, photographic, view of things based on an essentialist metaphysics by a non-essentialist and dynamic view of things and values.

 

            The situation, however, in almost all the countries of the world, even now, is not very much different from that which obtained at the time of Antisthenes or Alexander. Antisthenes, when people told him that one Ismenias was an excellent piper, said, “It may be so, but he is but a wretched human being, otherwise he would not have been an excellent piper”, and King Phillip hold his son Alexander, who once at a merry-­meeting played a piece of music charmingly and skilfully, “Are you not ashamed, son, to play so well? (Plutarch’s Lives, Translated by John Dryden)

 

            Negligence of the commonplace and the ordinary, and an ex­aggerated infatuation for the uncommon and extraordinary is an age-old disease of humanity. An all-round development of the society includ­ing the common mass will remain a day-dream unless this disease is properly diagnosed and brought under control by propagation of the common-istic philosophy. That is why I consider this philosophy to be the bedrock of democracy in the true sense of the term, of a democracy which is really meant for the people. Monopolistic outlook with an essentialist bias is deep-rooted in the human mind and society, and is consequently reflected also in our administrative set-up. Its reflection is no less evident in our educational system, daily life and practice.

 

            Our educational system is not well-equipped to provide ade­quate opportunity for unfolding the inherent potentialities of the ordinary, the so-called backward students. Thousands of innocent children un­dergo mental torture. They are continuously humiliated as well as neglected in the so-called age of science simply because they cannot fit into the procrustian bed of our educational curriculum which is meant only to take care of a handful of students endowed with a specific talent and aptitude. Educational curriculum envisaged under the common-istic scheme should be able to provide opportunity for the manifestation of the potential capacity of even the so-called third-rate student. No rating is absolutely sacrosanct after all, and rating, evaluation, assessment, etc., are done only with a particular end in view.

 

            It has become customary, for example, to underestimate stu­dents who have proved themselves failures, say, in Literature or Mathematics. But neither Literature nor Mathematics is the be-all and the end-all of human existence. Other openings, say in painting, fine arts, dancing, music, etc., need to be explored for those so-called third-rate students who have been stamped to be third-rate simply because they are not good at Mathematics or Literature. But this is possible only when ordinary and backward students get their due recognition in our educa­tional set-up, and it can materialise only when the stronghold of intellec­tual aristocracy tumbles under the pressure of a common-istic concern for every so-called Tom, Dick, and Harry, This is only one of the possible applications of Common-istic thought in our educational set-up. There could be other applications too which cannot be discussed here on account of want of space.

 

            What is important is to realise that most of our evils in the society are due to an inherent absolutist and essentialist bias which has created a mental blockade even in the case of the best of our men throughout the ages. This most dangerous bias needs to be eradicated, step by step, if not suddenly, by a conscious and continuous propagation of what I have designated as common-istic philosophy.

 

Back