The triumph of the symbolic
[A blog in progress...]
A realisation
In India, the symbolic seems to have greater resonance than the material. By this I mean that the power and potency of symbolic markers, gestures, signage and 'acts', inter alia, is greater than that of material markers, conditions and 'acts'. This is not to suggest that material conditions can be ignored or that they are generally de-prioritised in relation to the symbolic. Certainly not - and it'd be remiss of me to downplay the importance of material conditions as well as the primacy of (what used to be called, with a modicum of dismissive-ness) 'materialism' (essentially commercialism) in contemporary Indian culture. But on a subterranean and more fundamental level, questions of a symbolic nature and significance resonate in a way that questions of a material nature do not.
This is definitely not a contemporary phenomenon but a longstanding one. What does it mean exactly? Well, that is difficult to spell out explicitly. Put simply, for the most part, names, images, icons, representations, films, designations, signage, conspicuous demonstration of both symbolic (even abstract and magical) power (e.g., a temple) and material power (e.g., a home), symbolic markers of primordial belonging, symbolic markers of social and economic status, among various other symbolic entities - as well as issues relating to these - have a resonance and inspire a level of emotive investment that material questions and issues simply do not.
The symbolic is certainly not a standalone category; it is undergirded by the material. However, in every visible manifestation of the palpable tension between the symbolic and the material, the symbolic tends to triumph.
It is hard to describe this tension but it can be seen, for instance, in this visual: an impressive, utterly glorious temple - with a soaring steeple, and magnificent arches and sculpture, in the midst of a crumbling, dilapidated streetscape; the soaring genius of the sculptor juxtaposed against the failure of the engineer/urban bureaucrat.
Indisputably, the construction of a temple is a patently material process - involving more engineering than iconography. But the temple overall is a symbolic entity (in terms of its conception and the purpose it serves), and, as such, the material investment that goes into it assumes a symbolic valence. This investment can be juxtaposed with investment in less symbolically-charged material processes (such as the construction of a road, for example), and found to be far more significant - on every conceivable level. The manifest disjuncture between the gloriousness of the temple and poor state of the infrastructure surrounding it exemplifies the triumph of the symbolic.
Art is more beautiful than infrastructure. The genius of the symbolic worker (an arguably contentious category that may include all those who produce works that draw on symbolic modes - such as words and images [both religious and secular] - the content creator, essentially; as well as those who invest in symbolic entities) is outstanding and distinguishable, whereas the genius of the material worker is shrouded in a dense fog. I am not sure whether this can be rephrased using a more agentic/agential frame - the genius of the symbolic worker flourishes while the genius of the material worker is stifled and constrained (because of economic and social conditions, etc.).
Somehow, this tension between the symbolic and the material tends to reveal itself to you as a philosophical issue (chasm even) when you step back and deliberately adopt a more distant perspective. Otherwise, it is among those things that you take for granted. How does it affect everyday life? That is the difficult question.
A realisation
In India, the symbolic seems to have greater resonance than the material. By this I mean that the power and potency of symbolic markers, gestures, signage and 'acts', inter alia, is greater than that of material markers, conditions and 'acts'. This is not to suggest that material conditions can be ignored or that they are generally de-prioritised in relation to the symbolic. Certainly not - and it'd be remiss of me to downplay the importance of material conditions as well as the primacy of (what used to be called, with a modicum of dismissive-ness) 'materialism' (essentially commercialism) in contemporary Indian culture. But on a subterranean and more fundamental level, questions of a symbolic nature and significance resonate in a way that questions of a material nature do not.
This is definitely not a contemporary phenomenon but a longstanding one. What does it mean exactly? Well, that is difficult to spell out explicitly. Put simply, for the most part, names, images, icons, representations, films, designations, signage, conspicuous demonstration of both symbolic (even abstract and magical) power (e.g., a temple) and material power (e.g., a home), symbolic markers of primordial belonging, symbolic markers of social and economic status, among various other symbolic entities - as well as issues relating to these - have a resonance and inspire a level of emotive investment that material questions and issues simply do not.
The symbolic is certainly not a standalone category; it is undergirded by the material. However, in every visible manifestation of the palpable tension between the symbolic and the material, the symbolic tends to triumph.
It is hard to describe this tension but it can be seen, for instance, in this visual: an impressive, utterly glorious temple - with a soaring steeple, and magnificent arches and sculpture, in the midst of a crumbling, dilapidated streetscape; the soaring genius of the sculptor juxtaposed against the failure of the engineer/urban bureaucrat.
Indisputably, the construction of a temple is a patently material process - involving more engineering than iconography. But the temple overall is a symbolic entity (in terms of its conception and the purpose it serves), and, as such, the material investment that goes into it assumes a symbolic valence. This investment can be juxtaposed with investment in less symbolically-charged material processes (such as the construction of a road, for example), and found to be far more significant - on every conceivable level. The manifest disjuncture between the gloriousness of the temple and poor state of the infrastructure surrounding it exemplifies the triumph of the symbolic.
Art is more beautiful than infrastructure. The genius of the symbolic worker (an arguably contentious category that may include all those who produce works that draw on symbolic modes - such as words and images [both religious and secular] - the content creator, essentially; as well as those who invest in symbolic entities) is outstanding and distinguishable, whereas the genius of the material worker is shrouded in a dense fog. I am not sure whether this can be rephrased using a more agentic/agential frame - the genius of the symbolic worker flourishes while the genius of the material worker is stifled and constrained (because of economic and social conditions, etc.).
Somehow, this tension between the symbolic and the material tends to reveal itself to you as a philosophical issue (chasm even) when you step back and deliberately adopt a more distant perspective. Otherwise, it is among those things that you take for granted. How does it affect everyday life? That is the difficult question.
Comments