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.