LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
Socialising Characters in Fiction Writing: A Multitruth Value Project Dr Simon Gautham Associate Professor of Comparative Literature, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
Abstract: The article postulates that socialising protagonists and other characters in fiction writing is a shift from single-truth value (S-TV) process to multitruth value (MV) process. All through the history of Nepali novel writing, with some exceptions, the protagonists both female and male, have been groomed differentially. The female protagonists have been denied their human rights. In the entire process of their grooming, the power of patriarchy has remained predominant. The agents of socialisation, in the name of presenting the protagonists’ social reality, have nonetheless committed violence against them. They have victimised and revictimised them. While in the process of socialisation, the male protagonists have been allowed to demolish the structures which they thought did pull them backward, but the female protagonists have rarely been allowed to do such act. They have continuously been socialised into not doing self-examination, self-organisation, and not going for joint action engaging women-friendly men and/or male feminists. There is need to initiate meaningful dialogue on ideology, ontology, metaphysics, methodology, applications and findings between writers/scholars across cultures and human expressions. The findings, conclusions and recommendations reiterate the writer’s argument for the introduction of Comparative Literature in Nepalese education system. Keywords: Socialisation, agents, single-truth value, multitruth value, condition, position, violence, self- organisation, joint action, comparative literature.
The paper seeks to build upon the postulate that socialising characters in fiction writing is a multitruth value (MV) projecti accepting the possibility of its properties differing from culture to culture and country to country. Therefore, character socialisation cannot go the way of single-truth value (S- TV).ii The scope of collection of information, here, is crosscultural and cross human expressions both within and beyond the boundary of Nepali literature and expression.
i The tool of multitruth value (MV) refers to giving space to multiple, multidimensional and multicultural experiences, truths, eye lenses and values at a time. It takes a plural approach to life and society and their problems, and rejects the dominance of any single value or ideology over others assuming them to be alien, weaker, minority, or inferior which largely happens in the practice of single-truth value (S-TV) around the globe. So, the tool of MV stands against the tool of S-TV. I propose these tools and have used them more in my book Practising Comparatism (2013) and the article “Nepal’s Multitruth Value, Inherent Vulnerability and Challenge.” Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1, 29-44:2013 primarily based on experiences from Nepal. ii Ibid.
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
The reason why the postulate of MV has been put forward here in the socialisation process of characters including the protagonists from all caste, class, ethnic, gender, age and professional groups is that violence against them particularly the female, child, old age, labour, those in the lowest rung in the stratified societies, and those differently abled persons is never off the scene whether in literary writing, more so in fiction writing, or in real life situations. But, why does this happen? Where lies the problem? And how can it be approached for remedy? The study much holds the agents of socialisation responsible for wide spread occurrence of violence against the people in life and people (characters) in fictions. The literature records ten major agents of socialisation and classifies them into primary—“family, peer group, school and workplace” and secondary—“mass media, religion, government, cultural factors, marriage and parenthood” (http://www.ask.com/question/major-agents-of-socialization). Which agents are comparatively more active and where may differ from culture to culture and country to country. There is no doubt the “Agents of socialization help a person become socially involved and gain acceptance into the society they live in” (Ibid.). Nevertheless, there is always equal chance of the agents going the opposite, in case the imposed value is broken by any member, or they are not in a condition to help themselves. Take the case of vulnerable category both in real and fictional life situations. Other members in both situations are likely to take advantage of their vulnerability. A study Unveiling Justice: Rape Survivors Speak Out (2011) done by a native feminist activist Bindu P. Gautam on Nepalese rape survivors brings out enough of cases from across the country and across caste, class, ethnic, gender, age and professional groups. Rape violence has occurred across all family and social relations. Both in real and fictional life situations, out of the ten, four agents—“family, school, peers and mass media” (Ibid.)—are taken as crucial ones in literature. However, in Nepalese case, the informal social institutions of family and marriage, ethnic group-specific custom/ritual and religion, and “samaaj” ‘the larger society’ are seen to play the crucial role in the act of socialisation. Here, the agents seem to question only superficially the occurrence of violence against the categories of characters in real life situations. So much so, the writers, artists, movie producers and media persons, in the name of projecting social reality to their select audiences, catering to consumers’ interest, consciously or unconsciously do revictimise the victim, and that way do give continuation to the processes of violence against those categories of characters, in real life situations and fictional situations. Knowingly or unknowingly, violence is given space as if it were an important part in human socialisation. This is a great challenge for the agents of socialisation. So, a time has come that in humility, the agents should accept their failure and begin to question all their thought processes and behavioural demonstrations. Such thought processes and behavioural demonstrations down the history, which I call S- TV, are not helping us at all. Rather, much of the world stands to define it as process of constructing and institutionalising different and unique identities. If we like to think ourselves of becoming one inch
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
wiser, then we better approach our unique identification not as perennial source of human violence and destruction, but as perennial source of building peaceful, acceptable and productive human relations and societies. Why cannot we seek our uniqueness in our acceptance of the world, and the fellow beings in it with all their diversity well knowing that diversity exists within every unit of creation, every human individual? Why do we take diversity as the other name of violence? Why do not we take diversity as source of generating a variety of eye lenses to view ourselves in different ways, in different dimensions, producing more knowledge and more wisdom for richer and fuller lives in coexistence? This brings us to the need to make a total shift from all our S-TV processes to MV processes of thinking and behaviour inter- and intra-culture and expression all across the globe. Our human diversities need space, as do the diversities in nature. The aesthetic of MV process is that it works on diversity. It does not remain satiated with simply projecting the bitter reality assuming that the solution will come automatically. No, thousands of years’ human experiences particularly those of the vulnerable categories’ have shown that violence does not stop just because it has been exposed, brought to media or has been put to government’s attention.iii Simply to leave the problem of violence with its exposition is rather the S-TV process, which has been the usual practice across the globe leaving aside some exceptions. There are experiences that still a large number of cases of violence are just kept suppressed, are not allowed to come to media, leave alone to the attention of the government, Nepal or elsewhere. Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones’ study “Domestic Abuse and Violence against Women in Ancient Greece” reveals the European mindset and its varied behavioural manifestations, which indicates that East or West, behind violence there is the same violent mindset and the corresponding violent behavioural manifestation.iv So, to go beyond that, on to the solution, shift to MV process is inevitable. Theoretically, socialisation is perceived as Human beings are the only species that have to learn what to do. What is right and what is wrong? We know that we go through a process of socialisation and that we learn what is expected of us. We know that we learn, but not everyone agrees on what is occurring as we learn. How do individuals learn the appropriate behaviours, values, and norms that are expected by society? (http://www.ee.oulu.fi) As members of family, other agencies, and larger society, we develop our persona and receive our identification—father, mother, child, husband, wife, sister, brother, political leader, social leader, religious leader, teacher, writer, doctor, engineer, police, army, and many more. The agencies will make our identification the basis of their perception of us as players of different social roles. If this means
iii See writer’s chapter twelve “Reading Novels across National Literatures: Use of Violence against Female Characters” in Practising Comparatism (166-195:2013). iv See a recent study Unveiling Justice: Rape Survivors Speak Out (2011) by Gautam, Bindu P. et al. that brings out the Nepalese case. Also see ch. Twelve of Practising Comparatism referred to above.
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
someone is to be treated superior or inferior, or someone is to play this role or that role, then, consequently, this turns out to be a standard, a moral, a value for that agency and/or society. Sigmund Freud, building upon the classical theory of psychoanalysis of human behaviours, put forward a model of the id, the ego and the super-ego. The id is defined as “...the completely unconscious, impulsive, child-like portion of the psyche that operates on the "pleasure principle" and is the source of basic impulses and drives; it seeks immediate pleasure and gratification” (https://www.boundless.com/sociology). In the study of the character’s behaviour, the id factor is taken as the remote control device. The repressed desires or the experiences of happiness, sorrow, failure, and success made earlier are said to generate, or influence the present day behaviours. This involves the education a child receives at the informal institution of family or a formal institution—school, college, university, training centres or clubs, whether as an individual or as a protagonist or general character in fiction. Unlike the id, the ego is said to act relative to “the reality principle (i.e., it seeks to please the id’s drive in realistic ways that will benefit in the long term rather than bringing grief)” (Ibid.). Nonetheless, the ego factor too is influenced by the id factor. Consequently, the super-ego is said to aim at “perfection” of “that organized part of the personality structure, mainly but not entirely unconscious, that includes the individual's ego, ideals, spiritual goals, and the psychic agency that criticizes and prohibits his or her drives, fantasies, feelings, and actions” (Ibid.). What this interactive relationship between these three factors of human behaviours suggests is the id is the invisible prime factor. This raises a fundamental question in the present context about our own behaviours whether as individuals or as various agents of socialization process. The tradition of violence must have a stop somewhere, at some point. So why not now? George Herbert Mead, one of the founders of social psychology, developed the theory of social behaviourism as discussed in his book Mind, Self and Society. Social behaviourism is said to refer to “the emergence of mind and self from the communication process between organisms” and behaviourism is perceived as “an approach to psychology focusing on behavior, denying any independent significance for mind, and assuming that behavior is determined by the environment” (http://en.wikipedia.org.). He perceives the significance of human mind relative to the social interaction process between organisms and this in his philosophical language is called the theory of social behaviourism. This communicates that the emergence of mind is dependent on “the social act of communication,” and this is said to be …relevant, not only to his theory of mind, but also to all facets of his social philosophy. His theory of “mind, self, and society” is, in effect, a philosophy of the act from the standpoint of a social process involving the interaction of many individuals, just as his theory of knowledge and value is a philosophy of the act from the standpoint of the experiencing individual in interaction with an environment. (http://en.wikipedia.org.)
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
Mead’s theory of social act, social interaction emphasises the society, because it influences the individual’s views on various social issues and social problems, and social dynamics. The social influence determines the construction or reconstruction of social values and social norms. However, it is also maintained that the socialisation process alone is not responsible for the entire “explanation for human beliefs and behaviours, maintaining that agents are not 'blank slates' predetermined by their environment” (Ibid.). The reason put forward for this revision is today “Scientific research provides some evidence that people might be shaped by both social influences and genes. Genetic studies have shown that a person's environment interacts with his or her genotype to influence behavioral outcomes” (Ibid.). In real life situations, socialisation is defined as a “life long process of inheriting and disseminating norms, customs and ideologies providing an individual with the skills and habits necessary for participating within his or her own society. Socialisation is thus ‘the means by which social and cultural continuity are attained’” (http://en.wikipedia.org). However, the question remains does the “samaj” really care for the experience, the truth of its particular vulnerable member? Does it care at all for the very vulnerable particular member’s right to social justice? The voice today, across the globe, is every individual has the right to social identification, social dignity, social justice and coexistence irrespective of differences and diversities. With no confusion, a comparatist finds, Comparative Literature (CL) nearer the particular individual’s voice for right to social identification, social dignity, social justice and coexistence standing on the very foundation of diversity and differences. The comparatist works on two given foundations of diversity and humanness across the globe. Humanness is a common value to educate ourselves about how to cope with the diversity factor of life across the multicultural globe. Our globes are multicultural, both natural and human and this implicates for multiple experiences with an underlying multitruth value running across. So, to elaborate this point further, an attempt is underway to explore patterns of socialisation across some novels from national literatures of Nepal as well as English literature. Since the Khas Arya Nepali language is also the lingua franca of Nepal, the Nepali texts referred to here also consist of those written by the speakers of Nepali as second language. In fact, there is great contribution to the development of lingua franca Nepali by those writers who speak it as second language. Perhaps, now with constitutional guarantee of right to one’s mother tongue use, the concerned speakers are rightfully expecting significant contribution to the development of their mother tongue by the State as well as the speakers of lingua franca as first language. Now there is strong voice for redefinition of the
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
expression—Nepal literature—to include the literatures in the rest of all national languages as defined by the Interim Constitution of Nepal (2007).v In the socialisation process of protagonists and other characters in Nepali novels, there is negative discrimination between females and males, differing only in degree. Rupmati (1934) by Rudra Raj Pande is said to herald modernism in Nepali fiction writing, but it comes only to the male protagonist, because only he is socialised into a first division English educated graduate from Benaras Hindu University (BHU), while in contrast, the female protagonist, his wife, is denied even vernacular education in Kathmandu.vi Rather she is socialised into the patriarchy given classical Sita-image of an ideal wife in Brahmanic marriage and family institutions. He is socialised into breaking the tradition—a Brahman Sanskrit Pandit’s son receiving English education in a foreign land, something unusual for a commoner, during 1930s under autocratic Rana family regime in Nepal. But, she is not let break the said Brahmanic/patriarchal gender discriminatory tradition by letting her join formal school, and do marriage at a later age to a boy of her choice. In fact, she is a case of child marriage. However, in a period of just two years after, in Bhramar (1936) from Darjeeling by Indian Nepali writer Rupnarayan Singh, the female protagonist is let exercise “...her freedom to choose her lover and husband” (Female, Gautam14
v Chapter nine “Resistance to Single-truth Value and Multitruth Value Perspectives” and ten “Multicultural Comparatism” in Practising Comparatism (2013) by Simon Gautam also raise this point in view of the development of Comparative National Literature (CNL) in Nepal as part of the people’s peaceful multicultural coexistence. vi This point of gender differential socialization has been raised in several of Simon Gautam’s writing: chapter twelve in Practising Comparatism referred to above; “Centring the Margins in Nepali Fiction: The Comparatist’s Tension” (in process of publication as CL journal article); “Female Persona at Issue with Malecentric Structures across Cultures” in vol. 1, no. 1, September, 2013, Indian Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies (IJCLTS).
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
truth value (S-TV) lens. H. S. Pradhan brought in the wave of feminism into Nepali literature, but the following generations of writers, both female and male, remained rather sceptic about it. The later protagonists, until recent days, are shown aware of gender discrimination, but they are not led to become organised for joint action. Letting the marginalised, vulnerable and victimised protagonists become organised for joint action is a process of letting space for the other category’s experiences, truths and values—the rightful process of socialisation. Even Parijat’s female protagonists are shown fighting for their liberation, their point of view, the truth of their experiences rather alone, though in her writing in other genres she is seen opting for joint action. However, in one of her poems “Manusi,” she calls upon both women and men folks to work together. She writes, “Come let us exchange our suppressions//Become androgynous in mindset//For in segregation we’re creatures unable to survive//Firmly I hold your hand//You take me where you’re//There, where I took you//In the beginning of civilisation” (Ibid.). “She [Parijat] wants all the suppressed ones from both categories to join hands together for greater struggle and joint liberation” (Nation, Gautam 19). This is something very beautiful guideline for later generation writers both female and male to make a shift from the culture of S-TV to that of MV. She calls upon both the writers and readers to inculcate MV culture in them. Gautam observes, “Nevertheless, when viewed from women’s liberation perspective, it is Parijat who through class perspective gives women protagonists at least an opportunity to speak out their mind openly, to put their likes and dislikes without being submissive and hesitant about what others would say” (Female, Gautam 14.). Her female protagonists are outspoken irrespective of any class, caste, creed, education, age or social status. “Her women protagonists, for example Sakambari in Shirisko Phool (1965) is one such great example in days when there was no political freedom, and no woman voice could be raised against patriarchy” (Female, Gautam 14.). The female protagonists in the margin and vulnerable condition can experience meaningful change only when they are allowed space to organise themselves and join hands with men. Men too need to be allowed to join hands with women to address mutual concerns. Gautam’s comparative study of female identity and androgyny in Virginia Woolf and Parijat’s novels makes, among others, two very important universal findings. One, both writers, barring one each of their exceptional female protagonists—Subani in Parijat and Mary Datchet in Virginia Woolf—do not allow their female protagonists become “organised in groups for joint action against women’s subordinate condition” (Female, Gautam 382). Nonetheless, Gautam observes, different from Parijat’s class analysis model, Woolf’s protagonists get into the “individual’s frame of self-examination” and in the process, “...they explore, describe, and analyse what their condition is like and what their problems are. They get into a situation where they and their male counterparts come to a point of realisation of the women’s subordinate condition. With that they get into the practice of androgyny” (Ibid.). This process of Woolf’s
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
protagonists’ self-examination leads to the process of second universal finding of the entire study, which is a voice for “nation persona of the new generation” woman (Ibid.). This process of self-examination to the extent of creating an image, a metaphor of inherent nation persona reaches its climax in Parijat in the expression of “I am nation” (qtd. in Female, Gautam 362) and in Virginia Woolf in the expression of “England am I”(qtd. in Female Gautam 241). Further, going through the female protagonists’ experiences of the effect of differential socialisation on their life in the institutions of family and marriage, work, and larger society in Ganki (1956) by Dhooswan Saymi, Rebus (1995) by Sanjog Laphaa Magar, and Samanantar Akas (2005) by Padmawati Singh and in Anabrita (2010) by Prabha Kaini only shows that they have been denied their right to equal sky. So much so, a recent prestigious literary award accorded novel Seto Dharti (2012) by a young generation male writer Amar Neupane too is kept limited to simply projecting the female protagonist’s condition. It is silent about her position. What once female protagonist Pavitra’s mother (Anabrita), in response to her revolting attitude, said, “...what you did was right, but women can’t go doing what they see is right. If you do that there will be an upheaval, and remember this makes us unacceptable both in the parents’ home and the husband’s home” (qtd. in Practising, Gautam 174) is a common eye lens running across all the caste and ethnic groups in Nepali society. For a feminist character, to come to the point of effecting the desired change in her existing condition and raise her position, she needs to realise why she/he is in that particular situation and become ready to design activities and implement them accordingly. The sense of realization of how women pass through the process of patriarchy beginning from the family, community, work place and to the society is weak in the woman protagonist. She is shown not so eager to know how in the process she and other women lose their right to labour, fertility and sexuality in their own family. While taking up human issues, a broad base thinking is necessary, otherwise, one cannot get to the roots and unless one gets to the roots, no effective action can be taken and the problem remains unsolved, which may aggravate the situation. The observations made so far relative to the differential socialisation process of female protagonists in Nepali fiction written by both female and male writers from Nepal communicate three important messages. First, the female protagonists are socialised into not doing self-examination; second, they are socialised into not doing self-organisation—except in case of H. S. Pradhan’s Swasnimanchhe (1954)—and third, they are socialised into not going for joint action engaging women-friendly men and/or male feminists. This has shown the overriding capacity of single-truth value over multitruth value still very powerful in the Nepali society. The conclusion indicates the need to initiate meaningful dialogues particularly focused on ideology, ontology, metaphysics, methodology, applications and findings between writers/scholars within and beyond literary and nonliterary human expressions. The literary festivals organised in Nepal are seen innovative in this matter, but perhaps out of ignorance, they
Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014
LIRJELL ISSN: 2348-1617
too lack the philosophy of comparatism. All these findings, conclusions and recommendations reiterate the writer’s argument for the introduction of Comparative Literature in Nepalese education system.
References Cited Gautam, Simon. Nation Persona in Parijat. KTM: B.P. Gautam, 2011. -----Practising Comparatism. KTM: Highland Publications, 2013. -----“Nepal’s Multitruth Value, Inherent Vulnerability and Challenge.” Contributions to Nepalese Studies, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2013. ------“Female Identity and Androgyny in the Novels of Virginia Woolf and Parijat: A Comparative Study.” Ph.D. Dissertation. Kathmandu: Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, TU, 2010. -----“Female Persona at Issue with Malecentric Structures across Cultures.” IJCLTS, Vol.1, No. 1 Sept. 2013. < https://sites.google.com/site/indjournalofclts/> Gautam, Bindu P and Shaileshwori Sharma. Unveiling Justice: Rape Survivors Speak Out. Kathmandu: WOREC Nepal and Isis-Wicce, 2011. Kaini, Prabha. Anabrit. Kathmandu: Oriental Publication, 2010. Magar, Sanjog Lafa. Rebus. KTM: Lafa Pariwar for Social Justice & Cultural Heritage, 1995. Pande, Rudraraj. Rupmati. Lalitpur: Sajha Prakashan, 1934. Parijat. “Bainsko Manchhe.” Parijatka Sankalit Rachanaharu. Vol. 1. South Sikkim: Nirman Prakashan 1997:153- 222. Saymi, Dhooswan. Gonki. Kathmandu: Mrs. Vasudha Saymi, 1956. Saymi, Dhooswan. The Eclipse. Trans. T. R. Kansakar. Kathmandu: Mrs. Vasudha Saymi, 1967. Singh, Padmawati. Samanantar Akas. Lalitpur: Sajha Prakashan, 2005. Woolf, Virginia. Between the Acts. London: The Hogarth Press, 1941. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization 9/12/2013 http://www.ee.oulu.fi/~vassilis/courses/socialweb10F/reading_material/3/Levine94-GroupSocializat... Levine, John M. and Richard L. “Chapter 10. Group Socialization: Theory and. Research.” Moreland. University of Pittsburgh. -----Abstract. Moreland and Levine ... 9/12/2013 Freud -Theories of Socialization - Boundless Issue I: General Theme January-February 2014